...and thus potential primary-source usefulness of the New Testament is *really* out of step with the scholarship. The synoptic gospels all probably date from the first century (the only real first century authorship question is John). And of the Pauline epistles...
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
...seven are generally accepted as written *by Paul* (or more correctly, written by a single author who, Occam's razor, ought to be identified as Paul). To be clear, I'm not saying this is the religious tradition, but rather the secular scholarly position.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
So as a matter of just simple Roman history, you're dealing with primary sources to the Roman Empire. Of course, all sources to be read critically, but in terms of the question "what is it like to live in the Roman Empire" the New Testament is fairly reliable...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
...as the accounts of people who did, in fact, live in the Roman Empire, relating their experiences (or recent accounts of the experiences of others) of living in the Roman Empire. Historians use them as such - there is little hesitation in using daily-life facts from the NT...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
...If the New Testament narratives about Roman rule and Roman power differ from other accounts, it is more because the NT represents a narrative from the perspective of the imperial subjects, rather than the imperial rulers (and unlike figures like Josephus....
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
...ones that have no particular need or reason to flatter the Roman authorities). The British India of the G-G and Viceroy's dispatches was probably rather different than the one that Indians wrote about. Both were quite real (although the latter certainly effected more people)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
I'm not claiming that the source material is fake. I'm claiming that Biblical Rome is to Rome as Joyce's Dublin is to Dublin. We can't rely only on knowledge of the latter to explain the central event of the former. (If we could, we would have figured out the Wake by now.)
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @zoe_squonk, @BretDevereaux ja
When you're referring to the Crucifixion especially (as here), and asking any sort of why question, the source material isn't particularly helpful. The specific political reasons the real Christ was executed for simply don't map to the spiritual/literary reasons.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @zoe_squonk, @grizwald87 ja
Speaking as a Roman historian, the purely political circumstances of the crucifixion of Jesus don't really raise my eyebrows. That Pilate existed, was procurator of Judaea and ordered the execution are independently corroborated by Tacitus, who is reliable in this regard.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
From a political standpoint - you have a faith-healer with a potentially anti-Roman message (all that talk about a kingdom to come, cf. Josephus, there was quite a lot of this going around at the time) who offends the local authorities, who then go to the procurator...
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
...and the procurator, looking to avoid a stink and potentially worried about riots or other disturbances, obliged. That's pretty standard Roman operating procedure - use local authorities to provide the local knowledge governors lack. We even know that Pilate...
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux, @grizwald87 ja
...overreacts to effectively the same concern in 36/7 when he freaks out about a religious gathering at Gerizim (Josephus, Antiquities 18.4). Gotta say...that checks out.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
And we know, for what little it's worth, that Jesus was very aware of the political risks he was running. The line "render to God what is God's, and Caesar what is Caesar's" is hard not to read as an attempt to avoid appearing to infringe on Roman authority with his message.
0 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.