Paul�s basket escape from Damascus (Robert Eisenman)

[robrecht]

So, Doug, why is it implusible that the sunhedrion, the local governing authority set up in Jerusalem by the Romans, might have been involved in Jesus' execution?

[OingoBoingo]

There's a difference if he meant I want these four reviewers or if he merely said, hey, this is a controversial book so I would like to have four reviewers instead of two without specifying that he wanted these particular four reviewers and no others.

What he said is very clear. I don't understand why you're quibbling about it.

Personally, I think Luther adding the word 'alone' to produce 'faith alone', sola fide, is an extremely important issue. Destoys sola fide and sola scriptura in one fell swoop! Much more important than an ahistoricist who thinks he can prove that Jesus did not exist. So what. Are you going to loose sleep over it? It can be a very good thing to challenge the consensus, make people think a little more, shake the boat. It's the way academics have fun. If the book has any merit, it may succeed in doing that. Won't get any scholars to change their minds. That hardly ever happens. If it doesn't have any merit, he also won't convince anyone of anything except how silly he is. The fact that he's a classicist is a good thing. Two of the best books on the gospel of Mark were written from a classicist perspective. One of the more profound recent insights into the letters of Paul came from a Hebrew scholar who was sent anonymously a bootleg copy of an unpublished fragment from Qumran. Scholarship can quickly become so specialized with people working in silos and echochambers. It's good to have an outsider come in and throw open the windows and let the wind blow our notes around. When I've accidentally deleted an unsaved paragraph, it's always better the second time I rewrite it. It's good to think things through a few different times.

No, I'm not losing sleep over it, but the apathy you're projecting is representative of a larger disconnect between academia and the guy on the street. While most scholars are keeping their heads down doing their own thing, not concerned much about what lay people are reading and thinking. Sensationalists and popularists are going straight to that guy on the street through the internet and TV and telling them that Jesus got married (and maybe moved to France), that there were books of the Bible that were nefariously excluded from the canon by corrupt church officials, that Gnosticism was closer to original Christian teaching than the prevailing sects, that Jesus (and possibly Paul) never historically existed, etc.. And people are gobbling this up like you wouldn't believe. Fringe and pseudo-scholarship is so popular, that its hard to talk to anyone without them regurgitating something that's either plain wrong, or so outside the mainstream that there's no way of walking them back to a rational discussion. I just read a serious post by someone on a different forum that claimed "Some historians have hypothesized that Christianity might have been the result of the collision of Buddhism and Judaism." He was serious, and people gave him props for that comment. Go to Larry Hurtado's blog. That poor man set up his blog just to discuss issues that he found interesting in his own work and in contemporary scholarship, and instead, he spends large portions of his time debating people who think that Jesus didn't exist, or that believe that mainstream scholarship is built on some secret organization of illuminati-like apologists (of which, he's a member) hell-bent on keeping the public from knowing the real truth about the Bible. In the last year he's addressed this issue in the comments of just about every blog post, and directly in blog posts on more than one occasion. Ehrman had to write a book, just to get the record straight that he does believe Jesus existed, and that its the overwhelming consensus view. And then he got flak for it! Was told that he was holding to the mainstream view because he never shook off his Christian indoctrination (Carrier was one of his more vocal opponents in this). I don't know. Maybe you don't think this is as big of an issue as I do, or maybe you just don't care.

We simply do not know whom he suggested and who the journal invited and who responded. I didn't read the whole link, but didn't he say the final process was blinded? He may have found out subsequently who the reviewers were. It is not always difficult to figure it out or sometimes a reviewer will tell the author, or they may present together on a panel discussing the topic at the next meeting of their section or seminar at SBL. If you see a really detailed review very soon after a book is published, that could be one of the peer reviewers.

Why didn't you read the whole link? You spend a number of long posts debating me about...nothing, really, and instead you could have read the link. Wierd. And no, he didn't state that the final process was blind, he stated:



In other words, he knows who his reviewers are, but he's not naming names. Or do you want to quibble about that too?

[robrecht]

What he said is very clear. I don't understand why you're quibbling about it.

I was just asking what exactly he meant because it was not entirely clear to me. You asked me what was not clear to me so I answered you. I was not quibbling, just trying to answer your question. You may be right; I did not read the whole link.

No, I'm not losing sleep over it, but the apathy you're projecting is representative of a larger disconnect between academia and the guy on the street. While most scholars are keeping their heads down doing their own thing, not concerned much about what lay people are reading and thinking. Sensationalists and popularists are going straight to that guy on the street through the internet and TV and telling them that Jesus got married (and maybe moved to France), that there were books of the Bible that were nefariously excluded from the canon by corrupt church officials, that Gnosticism was closer to original Christian teaching than the prevailing sects, that Jesus (and possibly Paul) never historically existed, etc.. And people are gobbling this up like you wouldn't believe. Fringe and pseudo-scholarship is so popular, that its hard to talk to anyone without them regurgitating something that's either plain wrong, or so outside the mainstream that there's no way of walking them back to a rational discussion. I just read a serious post by someone on a different forum that claimed "Some historians have hypothesized that Christianity might have been the result of the collision of Buddhism and Judaism." He was serious, and people gave him props for that comment. Go to Larry Hurtado's blog. That poor man set up his blog just to discuss issues that he found interesting in his own work and in contemporary scholarship, and instead, he spends large portions of his time debating people who think that Jesus didn't exist, or that believe that mainstream scholarship is built on some secret organization of illuminati-like apologists (of which, he's a member) hell-bent on keeping the public from knowing the real truth about the Bible. In the last year he's addressed this issue in the comments of just about every blog post, and directly in blog posts on more than one occasion. Ehrman had to write a book, just to get the record straight that he does believe Jesus existed, and that its the overwhelming consensus view. And then he got flak for it! Was told that he was holding to the mainstream view because he never shook off his Christian indoctrination (Carrier was one of his more vocal opponents in this). I don't know. Maybe you don't think this is as big of an issue as I do, or maybe you just don't care.

It's not apathy; I've just become accustomed to a nearly infinite number of opinions being defended in academia. You can't let it upset you. Just focus on God, your own work, and discuss it with anyone who's interested. What more can you do? Go out into the street and start yelling and jumping up and down? People will just think you're crazy. I used to be an academic, but now I am the man in the street, but I'm not yelling and jumping up and down. I just try to be a good, loving husband and father, with friends and colleagues

Why didn't you read the whole link? You spend a number of long posts debating me about...nothing, really, and instead you could have read the link. Wierd. And no, he didn't state that the final process was blind, he stated:



In other words, he knows who his reviewers are, but he's not naming names. Or do you want to quibble about that too?

I was just trying to answer your question about what was not clear to me. I did not know you were debating with me. I didn't read the whole link because I don't have time to read every mildly interesting thing that people link to on the Internet. I won't bother going back into the article and showing you the parts that seemed a little confusing to me, 'cause it just isn't that big of a deal. Let me know if I understand you correctly, Carrier chose four specific reviewers and the journal invited exactly those four and he knew all along that they would only invite those four. Is that what you're saying? I thought I read something in the link about the process being blinded. Maybe I misunderstood. Relax.

[Doug Shaver]

So, Doug, why is it implusible that the sunhedrion, the local governing authority set up in Jerusalem by the Romans, might have been involved in Jesus' execution?

You've given me a lot to think about. I'm still processing it.

[robrecht]

You've given me a lot to think about. I'm still processing it.

Oh, OK, thinking is good. I think about this stuff all the time. And every once in a while I read something that really makes sense in a new way. Most of the time people just repeat the same old stuff. It's like they are afraid to think for themselves. Then I remember what's really important in life, love and respect for others, honesty, not just with others but with oneself. You've always struck me as a decent guy, polite, not just smart, but also honest. That is so important.

[Doug Shaver]

Well, I would expect you find my opposition irrational. You hold a view that's even more far out than his.

He and I at least admit the possibility that a rational argument can be made against our positions. But, "Your position is far out, therefore it can't be right" isn't one of them.

[Doug Shaver]

You've always struck me as a decent guy, polite, not just smart, but also honest.

Thanks very much. I see the same in you.

[OingoBoingo]

He and I at least admit the possibility that a rational argument can be made against our positions. But, "Your position is far out, therefore it can't be right" isn't one of them.

Good. Then maybe there's hope yet.

[Doug Shaver]

So, Doug, why is it implusible that the sunhedrion, the local governing authority set up in Jerusalem by the Romans, might have been involved in Jesus' execution?

[robrecht]

The hypothesis you are proposing is that the Sanhedrin had some involvement in Jesus' execution. I'll respond to that in a moment.
The hypothesis that I submitted to Bayesian analysis was more specific than that. It posited particular concerns that the Sanhedrin had about Jesus and particular actions that they took in order to deal with those concerns. I will admit now that my assessment of the prior probability for that hypothesis was probably excessively skeptical. I still think it's less than 0.5, though, and I don't think the evidence in question raises it by much because of the high probability that the same evidence would exist if the hypothesis, as stated, were false.

I think we can leave aside for the moment some of the particular concerns and actions, while we consider possible motivation for the sunhedrion and Pilate.

Josephus gives us sufficient background 'knowledge' about other 'messianic' figures and movements and the libertarian zealot philosophy of violent rejection of all governmental authority other than God, and this has been very well corroborated and fleshed out by earlier and contemporary Dead Sea scrolls. Both the sunhedrion of Jerusalem and Pilate would have seen these figures, movements, and pilosophy as directly opposed to their very existence and power structure. If Jesus, in public or private, declared himself (and/or another proclaimed him or accused him or his followers of proclaiming him) to be the annointed 'messiah', king of Judea, both the sunhedrion and Pilate would have seen this as obvious sedition, a capital offense. That is a bit less noncommittal but certainly plausible, is it not?

[Doug Shaver]

Josephus gives us sufficient background 'knowledge' about other 'messianic' figures and movements and the libertarian zealot philosophy of violent rejection of all governmental authority other than God, and this has been very well corroborated and fleshed out by earlier and contemporary Dead Sea scrolls.

Agreed.

Both the sunhedrion of Jerusalem and Pilate would have seen these figures, movements, and pilosophy as directly opposed to their very existence and power structure.

In general? That's probably a reasonable assumption.

If Jesus, in public or private, declared himself (and/or another proclaimed him or accused him or his followers of proclaiming him) to be the annointed 'messiah', king of Judea, both the sunhedrion and Pilate would have seen this as obvious sedition, a capital offense.

Sure, keeping in mind that I can affirm "If A then B" without affirming A.

That is a bit less noncommittal but certainly plausible, is it not?

I agree it is plausible as I defined plausibility earlier in this thread. But as you add specifics to any hypothesis, you reduce its prior probability with each addition. The hypothesis becomes a conjunction of propositions, and the probability of any conjunction can never be greater than that of its least probable conjunct.

If I were in your position, I would make the following argument to someone like me. "You have stipulated Jesus' execution by Pilate. I think it reasonable to accept the authenticity of Josephus's report that the Sanhedrin -- the probable referent of 'principal men' -- put him up to it. At the very least, a Bayesian analysis supports the proposition that the Sanhedrin had some involvement. Our undisputed background knowledge also gives us good reason to believe that, whoever brought the accusation, the crime of which Jesus was accused was sedition. We don't really know why the Sanhedrin would have regarded Jesus as a seditionist, but it is at least a reasonable speculation that Jesus was regarded by some of his followers as a messiah, whether or not he himself encouraged them to think so. The Sanhedrin was justifiably sensitive about any messianic movements, as Pilate would have been as well, and so they decided that he had to be eliminated. The only alternative that is even barely credible is that he actually was a seditionist, but there is zero evidence for that, and so we should dismiss it out of hand. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to think that the Sanhedrin collaborated with Pilate to have Jesus crucified out of fear that his movement was, or was likely to become, seditionist."

In other words, I would not argue, "They thought he was a seditionist, therefore they had him executed." I would argue instead, "They had him executed, therefore they must have thought he was a seditionist."

[robrecht]

Agreed.

In general? That's probably a reasonable assumption.

Sure, keeping in mind that I can affirm "If A then B" without affirming A.

I agree it is plausible as I defined plausibility earlier in this thread. But as you add specifics to any hypothesis, you reduce its prior probability with each addition. The hypothesis becomes a conjunction of propositions, and the probability of any conjunction can never be greater than that of its least probable conjunct.

If I were in your position, I would make the following argument to someone like me. "You have stipulated Jesus' execution by Pilate. I think it reasonable to accept the authenticity of Josephus's report that the Sanhedrin -- the probable referent of 'principal men' -- put him up to it. At the very least, a Bayesian analysis supports the proposition that the Sanhedrin had some involvement. Our undisputed background knowledge also gives us good reason to believe that, whoever brought the accusation, the crime of which Jesus was accused was sedition. We don't really know why the Sanhedrin would have regarded Jesus as a seditionist, but it is at least a reasonable speculation that Jesus was regarded by some of his followers as a messiah, whether or not he himself encouraged them to think so. The Sanhedrin was justifiably sensitive about any messianic movements, as Pilate would have been as well, and so they decided that he had to be eliminated. The only alternative that is even barely credible is that he actually was a seditionist, but there is zero evidence for that, and so we should dismiss it out of hand. Therefore, it is reasonable for me to think that the Sanhedrin collaborated with Pilate to have Jesus crucified out of fear that his movement was, or was likely to become, seditionist."

In other words, I would not argue, "They thought he was a seditionist, therefore they had him executed." I would argue instead, "They had him executed, therefore they must have thought he was a seditionist."

circa 40 CE is reasonable for Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians, including the authenticity of the variously conjectured theories of interpolations in Chapter two. The majority consensus is about a decade later.

[firstfloor]

Eisenman talking about Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991. All very interesting but especially at about 1:16 to 1:25.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3A3CJkUmH8

[robrecht]

Eisenman talking about Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1991. All very interesting but especially at about 1:16 to 1:25.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3A3CJkUmH8

There's a wealth of material that can elucidate some things in the New Testament, and I think Eisenman oftentimes puts his finger on some of the dynamics that may well have occured in the very earliest church without accepting that James was the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Qumran texts, which almost everyone date to an earlier period. But as I said earlier, even when ('if' in German), one can still learn a lot from his immersion in the Qumran texts and his brilliance. This quote of his is characteristic: "Just because I make a wild statement doesn't mean there's no substance to it."

[firstfloor]

There's a wealth of material that can elucidate some things in the New Testament, and I think Eisenman oftentimes puts his finger on some of the dynamics that may well have occured in the very earliest church without accepting that James was the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Qumran texts, which almost everyone date to an earlier period. But as I said earlier, even when ('if' in German), one can still learn a lot from his immersion in the Qumran texts and his brilliance. This quote of his is characteristic: "Just because I make a wild statement doesn't mean there's no substance to it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFTGW...vD_lYW6CibCtCw

A slightly different translation is here:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm
It says:-
Of those who are to be excluded.
Anyone who refuses to enter the (ideal) society of God and persists in walking in the stubbornness of his heart shall not be admitted to this community of God's truth. For inasmuch as his soul has revolted at the discipline entailed in a knowledge of God's righteous judgments, he has shown no real strength in amending his way of life, and therefore cannot be reckoned with the upright. The mental, physical and material resources of such a man are not to be introduced into the stock of the community, for such a man 'plows in the slime of wickedness' and 'there are stains on his repentance'. He is not honest in resolving the stubbornness of his heat. On paths of light he sees but darkness/ Such a man cannot be reckoned as among those essentially blameless. He cannot be cleared by mere ceremonies of atonement, nor cleansed by any waters of ablution, nor sanctified by immersion in lakes of rivers, nor purified by any bath. Unclean, unclean he remains so long as he rejects the government of God and refuses the discipline of communion with Him. For it is only through the spiritual apprehension of God's truth that man's ways can be properly directed. Only thus can all his iniquities be shriven so that he can gaze upon the true light of life. Only through the holy spirit can he achieve union with God's truth and be purged of all his iniquities. Only by a spirit of uprightness and humility can his sin be atoned. Only by the submission of his soul to all the ordinances of God can his flesh be made clean. Only thus can it really be sprinkled with waters of ablution. Only thus can it really be sanctified by waters of purification. And only thus can he really direct his steps to walk blamelessly through all the vicissitudes of his destiny in all the way of God in the manner which He has commanded, without turning either to the right or to the left and without overstepping any of God's words. Then indeed will he be acceptable before God like an atonement-offering which meets with His pleasure, and then indeed will he be admitted to the covenant of the community for ever.