I'm a little curious about what Dr. Witherington has in mind at the 12:30 mark where he asks about "conservatives" who think we just need the broad idea that Jesus died and rose again, not the parables and all these other passages. Is he thinking of scholars, laymen, or both? And what is the motivation he's envisaging for that statement? I don't *think* this is meant to allude to scholars who think the Gospel authors changed the facts sometimes but that it doesn't matter due to their getting the (very broad) "gist" of salvation history right. That *could* be it, and that is what I would mean if I asked a question like that. But somehow I don't think that is what is in view. Or could it be a very different picture of a fideist or presuppositional Christian who says we don't need to look for signs of historicity in the Gospels because all we need is to believe on Jesus? But if so I doubt that such a person would say anything negative about our need for the parables and other sayings. So I just found the question a little curious and wasn't sure what context was in view.
Very interesting discussion !! Just a bit disappointed by "Palestine" in the 1st centura at the time of Jesus (by a historian) ... when "Palestine" was "invented" by the Romans in the 2nd century, just to cancel "Israel" and "Judea" from the maps.
The term "Palestine" first appeared in the 5th century BCE when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt in The Histories.[7] Herodotus provides the first historical reference clearly denoting a wider region than biblical Philistia, as he applied the term to both the coastal and the inland regions such as the Judean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.[8][9][10][11] Later Greek writers such as Aristotle, Polemon and Pausanias also used the word, which was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.[12] There is not currently evidence of the name on any Hellenistic coin or inscription.[13]
So, He had a conversation with the Pharisees, and then another separate conversation with his followers, but never the two shall meet? That is absurd. If a topis is relevant to One, it is surely relevant to everyone, ala "corban," or so-called "early Jewish topics such as leverite marriage." But then, these men seem to want to begin the Scriptures with the book of Matthew and leave out Genesis onward.
Okay, some history (the Gospels in particular are essential and, maybe, some of of the OT and Josephus are profitable), but most history is a waste of time. Paul said "...one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil 3:13-14) In other words, for the most part, there are a lot better things the faithful follower of Christ can give their attention to than the past.
It was good to hear two very mature historical scholars reassuring us of the foundation historical facts supporting the Bible
I'm a little curious about what Dr. Witherington has in mind at the 12:30 mark where he asks about "conservatives" who think we just need the broad idea that Jesus died and rose again, not the parables and all these other passages. Is he thinking of scholars, laymen, or both? And what is the motivation he's envisaging for that statement? I don't *think* this is meant to allude to scholars who think the Gospel authors changed the facts sometimes but that it doesn't matter due to their getting the (very broad) "gist" of salvation history right. That *could* be it, and that is what I would mean if I asked a question like that. But somehow I don't think that is what is in view. Or could it be a very different picture of a fideist or presuppositional Christian who says we don't need to look for signs of historicity in the Gospels because all we need is to believe on Jesus? But if so I doubt that such a person would say anything negative about our need for the parables and other sayings. So I just found the question a little curious and wasn't sure what context was in view.
Very interesting discussion !!
Just a bit disappointed by "Palestine" in the 1st centura at the time of Jesus (by a historian) ... when "Palestine" was "invented" by the Romans in the 2nd century, just to cancel "Israel" and "Judea" from the maps.
Agree #sandrori . These men, erudite though they be, miss so much that should be said.
The term "Palestine" first appeared in the 5th century BCE when the ancient Greek historian Herodotus wrote of a "district of Syria, called Palaistinê" between Phoenicia and Egypt in The Histories.[7] Herodotus provides the first historical reference clearly denoting a wider region than biblical Philistia, as he applied the term to both the coastal and the inland regions such as the Judean Mountains and the Jordan Rift Valley.[8][9][10][11] Later Greek writers such as Aristotle, Polemon and Pausanias also used the word, which was followed by Roman writers such as Ovid, Tibullus, Pomponius Mela, Pliny the Elder, Dio Chrysostom, Statius, Plutarch as well as Roman Judean writers Philo of Alexandria and Josephus.[12] There is not currently evidence of the name on any Hellenistic coin or inscription.[13]
So, He had a conversation with the Pharisees, and then another separate conversation with his followers, but never the two shall meet? That is absurd. If a topis is relevant to One, it is surely relevant to everyone, ala "corban," or so-called "early Jewish topics such as leverite marriage." But then, these men seem to want to begin the Scriptures with the book of Matthew and leave out Genesis onward.
Okay, some history (the Gospels in particular are essential and, maybe, some of of the OT and Josephus are profitable), but most history is a waste of time. Paul said "...one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus." (Phil 3:13-14) In other words, for the most part, there are a lot better things the faithful follower of Christ can give their attention to than the past.