Scriptural literacy

[Radrook]

As promised I went over some of your posts in order to see where I might have ignored some crucial statements. I found that your statements of assumptions were pretty well addressed but that some comments were not addressed perhaps as extensively as they should have been. But I also find that some of my questions and statements were treated the same by you because you deemed them of lesser importance or else might have simply overlooked in the heat of discussion, Which happens.

One reason that I might have overlooked certain comments is due to the, insinuations of stupidity, insanity, and usage of the convenient WTF, which stands for a well known profanity is not conducive to a calm discussion and induces a tendency in the target to discard what comes attached to it. I tend to ignore whole posts if they involve that sort of thing. In any case let me try to address some of the comments which you might feel were not adequately responded to.


First, I noticed that initiated the assumption theme and that I then proceeded on that tack whereupon you claimed that it is irrelevant to the assumption theme. So, I concluded that perhaps what you really are referring to is the details you outline as assumptions. So let me briefly respond to them as I should have done when they were first posted.

Let's take them one by one but replace them with atheist assumptions instead:


1. God doesn't exists
2. God isn't a person, and doesn't have personhood -- including desires, intelligence, etc.
3. God is incapable of communicating with human beings
4. God doesn't want to communicate with human beings
5. God has never communicated with human beings
6. The Bible is not an example of one of those types of communication
7. The Bible is not unique among the world's religious writings does not accurately reflects the desires and thought processes of God....

Now, those assumptions are the very ones which are substituted for what you claim are theistic assumptions. In short, you replace one group of assumptions with which you disagree and replace them with assumptions with which you do agree and proclaim those assumptions justifiable.

Now let's evaluate those assumptions:

God doesn't exist?

Really? And who the hell are we puny earth-bound-sensory crippled creatures to say?
Have we been to every nook and cranny of existence? Of course not. Since we haven't
then we can't prove such a statement and it remains a mere unsubstantiated convenient
assumption-and since it's just and assumption then our whole house of cards based on it as represented by our following claims from one to five aren't necessarily true.

Which leaves only the last two assumptions for analyses. Number seven, which claims that the Bible isn't unique which is ridiculous since no other religious books have prophesies announced and fulfilled.

And Number six which we can't prove.

 

[Madalch]

Let's take them one by one but replace them with atheist assumptions instead:

1. God doesn't exists
2. God isn't a person, and doesn't have personhood -- including desires, intelligence, etc.
3. God is incapable of communicating with human beings
4. God doesn't want to communicate with human beings
5. God has never communicated with human beings
6. The Bible is not an example of one of those types of communication
7. The Bible is not unique among the world's religious writings does not accurately reflects the desires and thought processes of God....

Now, those assumptions are the very ones which are substituted for what you claim are theistic assumptions. In short, you replace one group of assumptions with which you disagree and replace them with assumptions with which you do agree and proclaim those assumptions justifiable.

That's only one assumption. If you assume that God doesn't exist (at least until some small scrap of evidence shows up), then it's irrelevant whether God can communicate, wants to communicate, or has written a best-seller. Because a non-existant deity can, by definition, not do anything.

Now let's evaluate those assumptions:
God doesn't exist?
Really? And who the hell are we puny earth-bound-sensory crippled creatures to say?
Have we been to every nook and cranny of existence? Of course not. Since we haven't
then we can't prove such a statement and it remains a mere unsubstantiated convenient assumption-and since it's just and assumption then our whole house of cards based on it as represented by our following claims from one to five aren't necessarily true.

Why shouldn't we assume that beings with no evidence for their existence don't actually exist? We don't assume that there's such a thing as a unicorn, or caloric, or luminiferous ether, since there's no basis for such an assumption. We can't say that they do not possibly exist, since we haven't searched every part of the universe, but without a reason to -suspect- they exist, there's no point in assuming otherwise.

Number seven, which claims that the Bible isn't unique which is ridiculous since no other religious books have prophesies announced and fulfilled.

You've never read any other religious book, have you? Never heard of the oracle of Delphi, or anything like that?

 

[bokonon]

God doesn't exist?

Really? And who the hell are we puny earth-bound-sensory crippled creatures to say?
Have we been to every nook and cranny of existence? Of course not. Since we haven't
then we can't prove such a statement and it remains a mere unsubstantiated convenient
assumption-and since it's just and assumption then our whole house of cards based on it as represented by our following claims from one to five aren't necessarily true.

If he's omnipresent, you're soaking in him.

 

[Radrook]

The reason that the Bible appears to have contradictions is because it contains contradictions. No big deal there.

All of which have logical explanations you just happen to conveniently choose to reject

I'm sure you could. There are also may contradictions that have the merest patina of apologetics that do not touch the actual contradiction, but that is for another thread.

I find all the contradiction claims have a thin patina.

My skepticism is not limited to religious issues. As long as you recognize that fact we have no quibble as my skepticism is often applied to evolution and other areas of science (particularly medicine, which is my field). Again, there is a reason why we know the information that supports evolutionary theory -- because we have questioned it....

There is a reason why I believe in God, because I have questioned and examined my belief meticulously from both a logical and scientific perspective.

OK, so let me reiterate -- I did not mean it that way. I meant it as 'highly unlikely" because there are several factors that argue against that possibility. Highly unlikely does not mean impossible to me.

And your likelihoods just happen to be ones which depict Bible as full of lies and its authors as liars.


Quaint!

No, that is not what I mean. Again, what I am saying is that the character of the work would be highly different from what an illiterate fisherman would be expected to create, so it would be more proper to speak of this as the work of the scribe.

Others who have examined the available evidence disagree.

Textual Structue of John
http://www.world-destiny.org/jhntxt.htm

Maybe your difficulty is that you subscribe to the once illiterate always illiterate philosophy.

Whatever the explanation, as a literary production, it is not an eyewitness account.

A conclusion that is based on your faulty modus operandi.

But the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus was between a Galilean preacher and a rabbi where Aramaic would have been the language used.

I have read the Gospel as have millions of others and we see nothing suspicious about the conversation between Jesus and Noicodemus. Why do you?

Well, this is one of your misrepresentations. I have not dismissed possibilities. I have assigned likelihoods to possibilities only. I have provided arguments why I consider those possibilities unlikely and others likely. I can't do any more than that.

That's wanting to have cake and eat it too.

3. I have argued that it is impossible for John to have been the author of the gospel assigned to him.

What happened to the likely unlikely shpiel?

 

[Radrook]

Irrational Assumptions

There are serious flaws in the two following reasons given for casting doubt on John's authorship. The following excerpts explain them in more detail.

Excerpt

Another criticism of Johannine authorship turns the very sophistication of the Gospel against it. Some declare that John bar-Zebedee, a mere fisherman, could not have been an educated, Greek-speaking theological genius and therefore could not have written such a theologically sophisticated work. Here's the problem: The assumption that a Jewish fisherman living two thousand years ago couldn't be multilingual, or educated, or a genius, or a contemplative—or all four—is a fine illustration of what C.S. Lewis used to refer to as "chronological snobbery." This is, roughly speaking, the notion that we are, by virtue of our blenders and hi-def TVs, 2,000 years smarter than people who lived in Jesus' time; we are therefore comfortably ensconced on the final and permanent platform from which to look down on all human history. It is to forget something a reader of mine puckishly pointed out:
How could John have had time to take these courses, much less pay for them? I mean, Hebrew and Bar-Ilan wouldn't even be founded for nearly 2,000 years! And where'd he pick up all that theology, if it was John? After all, John was spending all his free time running around with Jesus, so he wouldn't have had time to study theology.
In other words, in the zeal to argue John was "just" a fisherman, the critic forgets that Paul was "just" a tentmaker, yet still had plenty of time to get educated. He forgets that native Aramaic speaker John lived in "Galilee of the Gentiles" and that the normal lingua franca of a tradesman at this crossroads of various civilizations was Koine Greek.http://www.world-destiny.org/jhntxt.htm

Excerpt

What lies behind all this criticism is a scenario like this: Long ago, sometime between Jesus (whoever he really was) and the rise of the "organized Church," some unknown editors just cooked up a story about Jesus, attributed it to, say, John, and sent it off to random communities of gullible people. These people naturally believed without question both that the book was from John and that John was telling the truth, so they started a Church based on this book. They never bothered to check up on any of this, because they were 2,000 years more gullible than we Brights. Nor did anybody from the community where John lived ever say, "Hey! John didn't write that!" Nor did John himself ever protest that he'd written or said nothing of the kind. Fortunately, Brights are smarter, so these elementary questions occur to them.http://www.world-destiny.org/jhntxt.htm

In short, one assumes the almost certain impossibility of John getting an education. The other assumes a gullible virtually brain-dead community which enthusiastically accepts anything it's told. Not very convincing from where I stand. In fact, it smacks of mischievous charlatanry.

BTW

When are bibical suspicionists who claim that Jesus never existed going to respond to my questions?

 

[Greediguts]

I think that's very likely. I would even go so far as to say that it is more likely that some person or group wrote this gospel entirely (not merely appending that bit on at the end) and not John (not even through Papius, who is sometimes suggested as a scribe of his).

It is very possible that there was an account that John left (we don't know that John is the beloved apostle anyway) and that this account may have served as background for what we have in our current gospel of John -- hence the, "and has written them" notation. But his possible writings are not what we have now, in my opinion.

Who would write himself into a gospel and refer to himself as 'the disciple that Jesus loved'? I think it is much more likely that someone else wrote this account based on earlier writings that may well go back to John, or one of the disciples. There seems to be some evidence of splintering of disciple groups -- Peter's camp, John's camp, Mary Magdalene's camp -- and this was probably written in John's group.

There is clear evidence of different folks following other leaders even in Paul's letters -- I follow Apollos, I follow Paul, etc.

I agree. There are a few passages that point to the author not being an eyewitness to the events, or knowing the names of everyone involved. If John was dictating to a scribe, then John's recollection of names must have been rather poor. The author (or authors) did not appear to know the name of Jesus' mother.

"On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." (John 2:1-5)

These verses when Jesus has just been arrested:

"Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus. Since that disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest, but Peter was standing outside at the gate. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out, spoke to the woman who guarded the gate, and brought Peter in. " (John 18:15-16)

The beloved disciple is elevated in status at the crucifixion (no names given).

"...Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." Then he said to the disciple, "Here is your mother." And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. "(John 19:25-27)

These verses stand out as well:

"But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out. (He who saw this has testified so that you also may believe. His testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth.)" (John 19:33-35)

Also, the verses I quoted from Chapt. 21 are part of an entire chapter that would appear to be tacked on at a later time. The Gospel of John ends with chapter 20.

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31)

A greater overview of the argument about the authorship of John can be viewed at a Wikipedia entry found here.

Reading John and his description of Pontius Pilate made me go back to the works of Jospheus as he talks of how Pontius treated those he ruled.

"But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition."
(Jospheus Antiquities of the Jews -Book XVIII Chapt.3)

John's Pilate almost comes across as unable to decide if he should punish Jesus or not, as he is quoted saying several times in John "I find no case against him". The historical Pilate seems more than willing to use whatever force he deems necessary. Could Pilate have been trying to appease the Jewish religious leaders? Maybe, but the author clearly seems intent on placing Jesus' condemnation and death on the decisions and actions of the religious authorities. I know charges of anti-Semitism have been leveled at the Gospel of John, but I don't see John as a blanket condemnation of Jews. It seems to me that when the author uses "the Jews" in the text, it denotes class (the Jewish religious leaders) rather than the people as a whole.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

John's Pilate almost comes across as unable to decide if he should punish Jesus or not, as he is quoted saying several times in John "I find no case against him". The historical Pilate seems more than willing to use whatever force he deems necessary. Could Pilate have been trying to appease the Jewish religious leaders? Maybe, but the author clearly seems intent on placing Jesus' condemnation and death on the decisions and actions of the religious authorities. I know charges of anti-Semitism have been leveled at the Gospel of John, but I don't see John as a blanket condemnation of Jews. It seems to me that when the author uses "the Jews" in the text, it denotes class (the Jewish religious leaders) rather than the people as a whole.

Dang it, not only do you have me re-reading Ezekiel (very slowly I'm afraid) but now I've got to go back and look at John again. My impression, but mind it's just an impression, is that I thought the use of "the Jews" was much more overdone in John than say in Matthew where "the Jews" accept the burden of Jesus' death. I have the general impression that Matthew critiqued the Jewish leaders and not the people -- it was the leaders that advised the people to accept the curse (at least they were expressly responsible for talking the crowd in to releasing Barabbas instead of Jesus). The same may be the case in John, though. I guess I got the stronger impression of anti-semitism from John because he invokes "the Jews" so much more often. The emphasis near the trial and crucifixion is certainly on the high priest.


ETA: For the most part I agree after reading through it again, though there are a few places where the same phrase (granted this is in translation) is used for the Jewish people as a whole. I also have to wonder two things: in chapter 8, when the unbelieving Jews are warned, does this truly refer only to the Jewish leaders? And why say "the Jews" when the Jewish leaders are meant? Was this early code?

I am surprised again, on re-reading it, as I generally always am at just how little happens in that gospel. It is primarily teaching and the teaching amounts to only one message -- that Jesus is divine. Though it is beautifully written and couched as a long Eucharist service.

 

[Greediguts]

Dang it, not only do you have me re-reading Ezekiel (very slowly I'm afraid) but now I've got to go back and look at John again. My impression, but mind it's just an impression, is that I thought the use of "the Jews" was much more overdone in John than say in Matthew where "the Jews" accept the burden of Jesus' death. I have the general impression that Matthew critiqued the Jewish leaders and not the people -- it was the leaders that advised the people to accept the curse (at least they were expressly responsible for talking the crowd in to releasing Barabbas instead of Jesus). The same may be the case in John, though. I guess I got the stronger impression of anti-semitism from John because he invokes "the Jews" so much more often. The emphasis near the trial and crucifixion is certainly on the high priest.


ETA: For the most part I agree after reading through it again, though there are a few places where the same phrase (granted this is in translation) is used for the Jewish people as a whole. I also have to wonder two things: in chapter 8, when the unbelieving Jews are warned, does this truly refer only to the Jewish leaders? And why say "the Jews" when the Jewish leaders are meant? Was this early code?

Yeah, Ezekiel took me quite awhile to read. That is one WILD ride!!! I still feel liked I just barely scratched the surface in understanding it...

In regards to John, chpt. 8, I think when the author writes "the Jews", he means the temple leaders and probably any who follow them. The discussion would be happening at the temple in front of the scribes, the Pharisees, and their followers.

"He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come." (John 8:20)

---

One thing that stood out for me was the author making the point of stating that Judas was a thief and stole money from the disciples' common purse.

"But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?" (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)" (John 12:4-6)

For one thing, I never even thought about the disciples' financial situation, let alone them having a common purse. Plus, this has got to be the most detail written about Judas in any of the gospels. It just struck me as odd...

---

BTW The book Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman points out that most scholars believe that the story of the woman guilty of adultery and brought before Jesus was not part of the original gospel and was probably added later by scribes (basically verses 7:53-8:12). Some of the reasons being: the story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of John, the writing style is different compared to the rest of John, and it includes large numbers of words and phrases that are alien to the Gospel. The theory is it was oral tradition, then a scribe added it in the margin of a manuscript, and later, another scribe added it to the Gospel immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. Other manuscripts show that other scribes inserted the story in different locations in the NT. The author mentions finding it after John 21:25, and also after Luke 21:38!

 

[Radrook]

Funny, first they claimed Pilate never existed. Once they ate crow on that one now they lattch on to Pilate not acting like Pilate-as if they knew Pilate personally. But this is nothing new. They once claimed the Hittites didn't exist and that the author of Genesis was making the whole Hittite thing up. Then the biblical record was confirmed and having finished eating crow on that one they hunkered down and claimed the Bible was lying about Babylonian king Belchazar. Then when a non biblical source confirmed his existence they ate crow and the hunkered down again. Began chortling about Jericho's walls not falling down. Again archeology proved them wrong. So after eating crow they hunkered down and claimed that Moses couldn't have written the Pentauech because writing had not, ummm, a Heh! Heh! been invented yet. Then archeology again forced then to eat crow so they hunkered down and said that Sargon II mentioned in Isaiah never existed. Unfortunately his palace along with inscriptions mentioning him were found so they ate crow and suspiciously targeted the biblical description of how king Senacherib had died. Again inscriptions were found confirming the biblical account and eating of crow was followed by hunkering down for the next inane accusation ad nauseum! That's not skeptisism my friends, that's eating crow and hunkering.

Which brings us back to Pilate-doesn't it?

Excerpr
The Archeological Evidence For Pontius Pilate Versus The Argument From Silence

More specifically, consider the case of Pontius Pilate as bearing on the New Testament's trustworthiness. Some have doubted whether Pontius Pilate even lived, the Roman Empire's Procurator of Judea who had Jesus of Nazareth crucified in 31 A.D. (Matthew 27; John 18-19). But then in 1961 an archeological expedition from Italy overturned a stone used as a stairway for a Roman theater in ancient Caesarea (in modern Israel). The Latin inscription on it said (here put in English): "To the people of Caesarea Tiberium Pontius Pilate Prefect of Judea." As Michael J. Howard remarks: "It was a fatal blow to the doubts about Pilate's existence. . . . For the first time there was contemporary epigraphic [writing in stone] evidence of the life of the man who ordered the crucifixion of Christ.43 http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geun...turart/is-bible-the-word-of-god/chapter4.html

BTW
A student of one of John's students repeatedly acknowledged that John had been the author of John's Gospel.

Historicity of Jesus
http://av.rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geul....thedevineevidence.com/jesus_historicity.html


1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

 

[Hokulele]

BTW The book Misquoting Jesus by Ehrman points out that most scholars believe that the story of the woman guilty of adultery and brought before Jesus was not part of the original gospel and was probably added later by scribes (basically verses 7:53-8:12). Some of the reasons being: the story is not found in the oldest and best manuscripts of John, the writing style is different compared to the rest of John, and it includes large numbers of words and phrases that are alien to the Gospel. The theory is it was oral tradition, then a scribe added it in the margin of a manuscript, and later, another scribe added it to the Gospel immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. Other manuscripts show that other scribes inserted the story in different locations in the NT. The author mentions finding it after John 21:25, and also after Luke 21:38!

I recall reading that Paul's letters also contain a number of later inclusions. Does anyone know if this is documented somewhere?

 

[Greediguts]

I recall reading that Paul's letters also contain a number of later inclusions. Does anyone know if this is documented somewhere?

So far I haven't come across any scholars saying there were inclusions, but Erhman did make some interesting points about Paul's letter to the Galatians. Galatia was not a single town with one church; it was a region in Asia Minor where Paul had established many churches. If he sent a letter it would have to be copied many times and distributed to each congregation. This much copying by different scribes increases the chances of mistakes being made, and then those mistakes (which might be intentional) get copied and passed on to other congregations. The first reasonably complete copy we have of his letter to the Galatians dates to right around 200 C.E. That is about 150 years after Paul wrote the letter. It becomes almost impossible to determine the original text. The best they hope for with his letter is what they have reconstructed reasonably reflects what Paul wrote.....or what his scribe wrote if he was dictating....and then the question arises, did he dictate word for word, or did he spell out the basic points he wanted covered and allowed the scribe to fill in the rest? Both methods were used by writers at that time...

I just picked up another book by Erhman called Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. I haven't had a chance to start it yet, but I'll pass on any interesting bits that will contribute to our discussion here.

 

[Hokulele]

So far I haven't come across any scholars saying there were inclusions, but Erhman did make some interesting points about Paul's letter to the Galatians.

<snipped the interesting stuff I agree with>

I have read in several sources that the more misogynist lines by Paul were later inclusions. 1 Corinthians 14 tends to be one of the lightning rods for this type of thing.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1192

I will have to reread Galatians in light of what Erhman is saying.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Funny, first they claimed Pilate never existed.

An oft repeated, yet never backed-up claim. Sort of like an urban legend. (Likewise for pretty much the rest of the post)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yeah, Ezekiel took me quite awhile to read. That is one WILD ride!!! I still feel liked I just barely scratched the surface in understanding it...

Not being a part of their symbol system or cultural setting makes it very difficult indeed.......

In regards to John, chpt. 8, I think when the author writes "the Jews", he means the temple leaders and probably any who follow them. The discussion would be happening at the temple in front of the scribes, the Pharisees, and their followers.

"He spoke these words while he was teaching in the treasury of the temple, but no one arrested him, because his hour had not yet come." (John 8:20)

But that's part of the issue, though, since we suspect that it refers to the Temple priests and their followers. So, this includes the general public to some extent? I suppose it could have been an indictment of certain forms of Judaism practiced at the time -- as Jesus in the synoptics specifically railed at the Pharisees, Sadducces and scribes. For the most part that includes the Jewish leadership, but not everyone who was a scribe or Pharisee was a leader.

One thing that stood out for me was the author making the point of stating that Judas was a thief and stole money from the disciples' common purse.

"But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, "Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?" (He said this not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)" (John 12:4-6)

For one thing, I never even thought about the disciples' financial situation, let alone them having a common purse. Plus, this has got to be the most detail written about Judas in any of the gospels. It just struck me as odd...

Yeah, it does stick out.


Here's another one that bothers me..........it seems like everyone is picking up a rock to throw at Jesus in this gospel. More than once he gains followers, and then he loses followers based on what he says. I think this probably recalls a memory of the early church and conversions/deconversions but could be wrong about that.

 

[Greediguts]

I have read in several sources that the more misogynist lines by Paul were later inclusions. 1 Corinthians 14 tends to be one of the lightning rods for this type of thing.

http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1192

I will have to reread Galatians in light of what Erhman is saying.

And I'm going to have to delve deeper into the NT. Thank you for the link!

But that's part of the issue, though, since we suspect that it refers to the Temple priests and their followers. So, this includes the general public to some extent? I suppose it could have been an indictment of certain forms of Judaism practiced at the time -- as Jesus in the synoptics specifically railed at the Pharisees, Sadducces and scribes. For the most part that includes the Jewish leadership, but not everyone who was a scribe or Pharisee was a leader.

Chapter 7 helps to show the usage of "the Jews" as a class rather than as a religious group. I think the only part of the general public that would be included would be followers that agree and accept the class interests and dogma of the religious elite.

"After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." (For not even his brothers believed in him.) Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil. Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come." After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it werein secret. The Jews were looking for him at the festival and saying, "Where is he?" And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowds. While some were saying, "He is a good man," others were saying, "No, he is deceiving the crowd." Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews." (John 7:1-13)

If he is at a Jewish festival, surrounded by other Jews, then why would no one speak openly about him for fear of "the Jews"?

The author does point out when Jesus refers to Jews who believed in him.

"Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, "You will be made free'?" Jesus answered them, "Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word. "(John 8:31-38)

(These verses also show that the author may not have been too familiar with Exodus since the crowd incorrectly claims descendants of Abraham have never been slaves...)

It does appear that more people attempt to stone Jesus in John's Gospel, but again I feel it highlights the distinction of class and the hold the Temple rulers had on the public. If I recall, the author usually points out it is "the Jews" who attempt to stone Jesus.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If he is at a Jewish festival, surrounded by other Jews, then why would no one speak openly about him for fear of "the Jews"?

Oh no, I fully agree that most of the usages of "the Jews" refer to Jewish leaders. I was simply thinking about other usages when it seemed to refer to a larger set.

For instance:

'And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who are you?" '

could be interpreted as meaning all the Jews, but could also be interpreted as "the Jewish leaders" who sent a subset of themselves to ask John who he is.

(These verses also show that the author may not have been too familiar with Exodus since the crowd incorrectly claims descendants of Abraham have never been slaves...)

I interpreted that to mean that they themselves had never been slaves since Jesus had just called them slaves, not that they were not descendants of slaves, but I could be wrong about that.

It does appear that more people attempt to stone Jesus in John's Gospel, but again I feel it highlights the distinction of class and the hold the Temple rulers had on the public. If I recall, the author usually points out it is "the Jews" who attempt to stone Jesus.

IIRC most of the time it is. I was a little more interested in the whole issue of people believing and then leaving him -- seems a weird thing to include unless it served some purpose.

 

[Radrook]

So all you have to do to claim biblical literacy is be extremely suspicious of every single minute detail that was written and then postulate an alternative one which indicates false authorship, collusion, or outright deception. Which in my book doesn't constitute biblical literacy at all but just simple suspiciousness applied systematically to a chosen target. Literacy demands not assuming guilt and a guilt assumption seems to be germane to this approach. Biblical writers are assumed liars until proven otherwise, Places and people do not exist until proven otherwise. Events did not happen until proven otherwise. So based on that assumption a mass of possibilities are put forth for the assumed deception. That's why we have al the 'seems to me" "I doubts" "very likelies" "seems weird" " in my view" "from my perspective" "it's very hard to believes" "seems improbables" "as not yet provens" "archeology has as yet nots!" "non biblical history does not corroborates" "possible motives probablies" "out or character authorsahip styles" "not the language spokens" "how could he or how could they haves." "looks to me likes" "taken with grains of saltsies" "probably an exaggerations" "probably
meants" "after the facts" "that's doubtfuls" "indicates that's" "indicates could haves" Couldn't have saids" ad infinitums.

Biblical Literacy? Not by a long shot!

BTW

The above if for those using the tchniques I describe. So if the shoe doesn't fit don't wear it.

 

[Radrook]

An oft repeated, yet never backed-up claim."

Agreed, The claim that Pilate nevervexisted couldn't be backed up. It could only tossed about like all the other suspicions in this off topic thread are being tossed about and which constitute nothing more than personal biased speculations.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5

"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God,....








snip! : )

 

[bokonon]

Agreed, The claim that Pilate nevervexisted couldn't be backed up. It could only tossed about like all the other suspicions in this off topic thread are being tossed about and which constitute nothing more than personal biased speculations.

Agreed, he said that nobody made the claim that Pilate never existed. He said that all you fundamentalists who've been parroting the claim that "People claimed for years that Pilate never existed" are either lying or deluded.

Historical references (Philo, Josephus) had provided evidence for the existence of Pilate long before archeological evidence was unearthed in the 1960s.

But hey, I could be wrong. Why don't you provide the names of one or two of these "they"s you say denied the existence of Pilate? Demonstrate your own literacy, for once in this thread.

 

[Paulhoff]

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/a_j_jacobs_year_of_living_biblically.html

Paul