Less well-known is the historical fact that a Roman imperial procession was also entering Jerusalem for Passover from the other side of the city. It happened every year: the Roman governor of Judea, whose residence was in Caesarea on the coast, rode up to Jerusalem in order to be present in the city in case there were riots at Passover, the most politically volatile of the annual Jewish festivals. With him came soldiers and cavalry to reinforce the imperial garrison in Jerusalem.
I’ve heard this before, though I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone identify the actual historical basis for the assertion that Pilate’s entry was happening at the same time or on the same day as Jesus’s.
It seems odd to me to lay quite so much importance on the two-parade motif when none of the four gospel writers saw fit to mention it. I suspect some preachers just latch onto the idea as a way of having something “new” or “fresh” to say on Palm Sunday.
Meanwhile, what @Lamb Chopped” said about categories like “hypocritical” and “bad” Christians. I think that hits the nail on the head.
From the appendices of Borg and Crossan's The Last Week, two possible references: Ann Wroe Pontius Pilate (1999) and Martin Goodman The Ruling Class of Judea (1987).
We know that Pilate was present in Jerusalem for Passover. And, we know the garrison was reinforced at that time to deter, and if necessary deal with, trouble. It makes sense that the extra troops entered the city with a certain amount of pomp - it reinforces the "we're here, be good" message. And, it makes sense for that to be several days before the festival so the troops are there before the majority of those coming to the city for Passover (if nothing else it means they're not having to march through crowds to get to the garrison buildings). My guess is that the Roman troops would have already arrived by the time of the Triumphal Entry, already been manning the gates and being very visible in lots of public spaces. Pilate could have come at the same time as the troops, or separately - the troops would have needed to be there for a few weeks, Pilate presumably wouldn't want to move his whole government infrastructure to Jerusalem for that time, but could be away from Caesarea with minimal staff for a few days.
It's a nice story that provides an interesting preaching option, but I find it very unlikely to have happened with both events at the same time. I don't see anything wrong with such stories used in those contexts even if they're not historically accurate, after all Jesus told stories all the time and very few demand that there actually was a man on the Jericho road beaten near to death by thieves and helped by a Samaritan.
I think perhaps some of the problem is that complex groups with a lot of internal variation sometimes defy even a bare minimum definition, and that a different approach than a minimum definition is needed.
Wittgenstein proposed "family resemblances" as a different methodology. Let's for instance say you have a family of five members - two parents and three children. Child A and B might have inherited their father's nose, child B and C their mother's hair, child A and C their father's jawline, and so on. There is not a single trait however that all three children possess. If one were to define a child in that family as a person having a specific trait, for instance the same nose, hair, etc - it would always fall short. However, the many different overlapping similarities, still indicate that all are related to a single group. Membership therefore isn't a question of fitting some minimum definition, but by having considerable overlapping similarities with other members of the same group.
I think a similar approach can be made towards "Christian", as well as a number of other religions. Ahmadiyya for instance, is often perceived by other Muslims as being non-Muslim, but the family resemblances are far too many (belief in Muhammed as a prophet, five pillars of Islam, etc.) to accept that as fact.
Of course, the concept of "family resemblances" is more difficult to use than a definition. With the latter, you usually either fit the definition, or you don't. Yes or no. The former however usually encounters the difficulty of determining which and how many overlapping similarities need to be present. At what point are similarities "proof" of membership, and when are they merely coincidental? The difficulty in answering that is why a minimum definition usually is the right way to go when trying to determine who is part of a group, and who is not. However, when a belief system gets too many variations then that might no longer be a viable route, and "family resemblances" becomes the best remaining approach to deciding on membership.
From the appendices of Borg and Crossan's The Last Week, two possible references: Ann Wroe Pontius Pilate (1999) and Martin Goodman The Ruling Class of Judea (1987).
Pp76-77 of the Wroe and pp55-58 of the Goodman. The notes are numbered but I can't find any footnote numbering in my edition of the book in the text (frustratingly, I usually check them as I read). Those are notes 6 & 7 out of 27 and Palm Sunday is the first chapter of the book.
Pilate entered Jerusalem with his legion at the time of the Passover to monitor the events of the Passover and control any insurrection that could happen during the time.
Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan made this connection in their book, The Last Week; A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus's Final Week in Jerusalem (San Francisco: Harper, 2006),
Thank you, @Curiosity killed. There is something very odd going on here. There is not a single word about Passover or the trial of Jesus or any other event in Holy Week in either of those two passages you have listed. In Wroe’s book, pp. 76-77 come towards the end of a chapter entitled ‘Governing Judea’, which is largely devoted to what Romans in general might have known about Judea and Judaism, and consequently what Pilate might conjecturally have seen as his priorities when he first landed in Caesarea to take up his new appointment. The passage in Goodman’s book is part of a chapter entitled ‘Problems facing the ruling class: economic and social’. In these four pages, specifically, Goodman describes the houses of wealthy Jerusalemites as they have been revealed by archaeologists, and discusses the sources of income that would have enabled their owners to maintain their luxurious lifestyle.
Do you think it’s possible that Borg and Crossan may be quoting from different editions of both books? My copy of Goodman’s book is the first edition, published by Cambridge University Press in 1987. Similarly, Wroe’s book is the first edition, published by Jonathan Cape in 1999. Hardback editions in both cases.
I’ve seen Borg and Crossan’s claim that Jesus and Pilate entered Jerusalem in the same day, but what is their source? @Curiosity killed has suggested two possibilities. I’ve checked the Wroe, and it isn’t her. They’ve used her for a description of Herod’s palace (they use endnotes, and the numbering in the body of the text isn’t easy to read but the reference is on p.14 of the text).
The reference to Goodman comes on p.17 of the text, and is a reference to land acquisition through confiscation for debt.
Neither is a source for their assertion that Jesus and Pilate entered Jerusalem in the same day.
I was not even sure that was the reference. As I said above, I couldn't link the footnote numbers to areas of the text. There's a Notes section with references, all neatly numbered and I was guessing references. Now you've told me what 6 discusses, the Wroe reference, I can find it in a description of Herod's palace which is on page 14 of the book. The two processions are described on page 2 and there are no footnotes to that section that I can see.
What Borg and Crossan say in explanation, on page 3, is that:
the mission of the troops with Pilate was to reinforce the Roman garrison permanently stationed in the Fortress Antonia, overlooking the Jewish Temple and courts.
Like the Roman and governors of Judea and Samaria before and after him, Pilate lived in the new and splendid city on the coast*. For them, it was much more pleasant than Jerusalem, the traditional capital of the Jewish people, which was inland and insular, provincial and partisan and often hostile. But for the major Jewish festivals, Pilate, like his predecessors and successors, went to Jerusalem.
* Caesarea Maritima, about sixty miles to the west
but there is no linked reference. The references that refer to earlier in the chapter are
George Caird - professor of New Testament at Oxford;
a chat about Matthew's reference to prophecy of the colt and ass and possible Bible links;
defining "the nations" as gentile nations;
Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination (1978) Chapter 1
I found the references in the text very hard to see - almost invisible, in fact. I ended up reading the endnotes, locating the relevant portion of text in the chapter, and scanning it carefully to find the reference number.
To return to the OP a minute, there is a dilemma. On the one hand, judging is not a good look. On the other hand, I am sick and tired of wearing the same label as people who have nothing in common with me beyond that label, and the only way of protesting at this which does not involve my reliquishing it is to question the validity of their claim. I am thinking of conservative evangelicals, who seem to believe in their own reading of the bible rather than God, and all others who think God is mostly their to defend their institutional and economic privilege and their right to hate groups of people based on certain specific characteristics. Does their bible skip the beatitudes?
So what is the conclusion? From what sources, if any, did Borg & Crossan derive their assertion that Pilate's detachment from Caesarea arrived in Jerusalem on the exact day of the Triumphal Entry?
You know, that's making me squirm. I'm aware that con-evos are the whipping boys of choice nowadays, and I'm not at all sure that's a good thing on the Ship--for the same reason I squirm while other groups get vilified en masse. Is that fair? is that right? Are they ALL that way, every single one of them? And to be honest, I'm squirming because while not evangelical-in-the-sense-you-mean-it, I'm about as high up on the Bible-reading-candle as they come. Does that make me a hater, then? Am I an idolater?
I didn't think I was nasty to other groups and people, particularly based on specific characteristics. Are the Shipboard evangelicals (a shrinking number) like this, then?
Let me present the direct corollary. Looking at the Spong thread, you wouldn't think that Spong-ites (or people close to Spong in many respects, while disageeing in other respects) really count themselves as Christians would you? Yes, we do. Absolutely we do.
Stop wringing your hands and look at the way your whole conceptual framework excludes many. I can't post in Kerygmania because its whole approach to the biblical text makes zero, nada no sense to me whatsoever. This doesn't matter, for this purpose at least, expect that those who share the Christian label should be able to talk to each other, and, in this respect at least, that seems to me to be impossible on a meaningful level. Should we continue to share that label?
those who share the Christian label should be able to talk to each other,
Agreed, 100 percent. Talking to others who share the Christian label is something I do all the time, on several websites including this one. That's what I come here for.
I can't post in Kerygmania because its whole approach to the biblical text makes zero, nada no sense to me whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but you have me baffled. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying here. I see Kerygmania as a place to go to ask questions about the Bible. Kerygmania doesn't have "an approach to the Biblical text" of its own, does it? Different posters have their own different approaches, but as far as I can see, Kerygmania is simply a place where they meet.
those who share the Christian label should be able to talk to each other,
Agreed, 100 percent. Talking to others who share the Christian label is something I do all the time, on several websites including this one. That's what I come here for.
I can't post in Kerygmania because its whole approach to the biblical text makes zero, nada no sense to me whatsoever.
I'm sorry, but you have me baffled. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying here. I see Kerygmania as a place to go to ask questions about the Bible. Kerygmania doesn't have "an approach to the Biblical text" of its own, does it? Different posters have their own different approaches, but as far as I can see, Kerygmania is simply a place where they meet.
I think I understand where @ThunderBunk is coming from with this. I've been to Bible studies in the past that have started from the assumption that the Hebrew scriptures record history (up to the point of repeating speculation that Adam had written the creation story on clay tablets), something with which I not only don't agree but can't even get myself into a position where I can imagine agreeing with it, because it's so obviously bonkers. If you have such wildly different understandings of the type of writing you're dealing with you end up either listening to a discussion to which you can't contribute or spend so long rehashing the meta-argument that you never actually get to the text itself. If you find yourself outside the Overton window (to borrow an idea from politics) of a particular group when it comes to the Bible then it can feel pretty pointless to engage.
"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another."
Who cares if you, or I, or anyone else thinks someone is a Christian or not. Or anything, religious, not religious, or whatever. Just love one another.
I think it who's asking, and why, and in what context matters. To a sociologist, "Christian" means something very different than it does to a theologian, or to a person in the pews, or for that matter, to Pew researchers.
Personally, I tend to take people at their word. If they say they're a Christian, they are. As someone said earlier in the thread, there are good Christians and bad Christians and everything in between. In the 21st century, though, we can't really do a litmus test like you might've been able to do in the first or even the 10th century.
You know, that's making me squirm. I'm aware that con-evos are the whipping boys of choice nowadays, and I'm not at all sure that's a good thing on the Ship--for the same reason I squirm while other groups get vilified en masse. Is that fair? is that right? Are they ALL that way, every single one of them? And to be honest, I'm squirming because while not evangelical-in-the-sense-you-mean-it, I'm about as high up on the Bible-reading-candle as they come. Does that make me a hater, then? Am I an idolater?
I didn't think I was nasty to other groups and people, particularly based on specific characteristics. Are the Shipboard evangelicals (a shrinking number) like this, then?
Thank you for saying that, @Lamb Chopped . There are lots of different kinds of Evangelicals and it's wrong to paint all with the same brush. Especially when this is an international forum, and Evangelicalism also varies in different countries (as any religion or denomination would).
If asked, I'm a practising Christian; I'm not very good so I have to keep practising.
(Does this quip cross the pond?)
Yes, it does.
Actually, a material culture scholar, Colleen McDannel, says that Christians practice their faith for the same reason pianists play scales - to get better. So your joke is also just true!
We know that Pilate was present in Jerusalem for Passover. And, we know the garrison was reinforced at that time to deter, and if necessary deal with, trouble. It makes sense that the extra troops entered the city with a certain amount of pomp - it reinforces the "we're here, be good" message. And, it makes sense for that to be several days before the festival so the troops are there before the majority of those coming to the city for Passover (if nothing else it means they're not having to march through crowds to get to the garrison buildings). My guess is that the Roman troops would have already arrived by the time of the Triumphal Entry, already been manning the gates and being very visible in lots of public spaces. Pilate could have come at the same time as the troops, or separately - the troops would have needed to be there for a few weeks, Pilate presumably wouldn't want to move his whole government infrastructure to Jerusalem for that time, but could be away from Caesarea with minimal staff for a few days.
It's a nice story that provides an interesting preaching option, but I find it very unlikely to have happened with both events at the same time. I don't see anything wrong with such stories used in those contexts even if they're not historically accurate, after all Jesus told stories all the time and very few demand that there actually was a man on the Jericho road beaten near to death by thieves and helped by a Samaritan.
[tangent:
Another story version:
Dorothy Sayers in "The Man born to be King" has Pilate's procession temporarily impeded by a "fellow on a donkey and a rabble of peasants, waving palms and things". Pilate's wife, travelling in his carriage, has heard about Jesus and wants to catch a glimpse of him. The obstruction to Pilate's progress is minor, and they quickly move on. ]
Let me present the direct corollary. Looking at the Spong thread, you wouldn't think that Spong-ites (or people close to Spong in many respects, while disageeing in other respects) really count themselves as Christians would you? Yes, we do. Absolutely we do.
Have I said you are not Christians? Has anybody on the Ship who identifies as evangelical, or Bible-esteeming, said so?
Stop wringing your hands and look at the way your whole conceptual framework excludes many. I can't post in Kerygmania because its whole approach to the biblical text makes zero, nada no sense to me whatsoever. This doesn't matter, for this purpose at least, expect that those who share the Christian label should be able to talk to each other, and, in this respect at least, that seems to me to be impossible on a meaningful level. Should we continue to share that label?
Well, I don't know. If you choose to exclude me, there's basically nothing I can do about it. I hear you saying that you're experiencing a lot of hurt, and that you blame the evangelicals/Bible esteemers for that, and therefore that you think I should pay for it--to the extent, if I understand you correctly, that you think I should no longer be called a Christian. Well, if you want to say that of me, go ahead. I'm not stopping you.
You seem particularly angry at the existence of a board (Kerygmania) which does not operate on assumptions you find appropriate or meaningful, and that also makes you feel excluded and angry. I confess that I haven't got the foggiest what is going on in Ecclesiantics most of the time, and it seems to me a foreign country. But I see no reason myself why I should find every board congenial or even comprehensible to me, and I do not want either to shut down Ecclesiantics or to name its denizens "Not Christians" simply because their way of being is foreign to mine.
"Stop wringing my hands," you say. I take that to mean either that you think I am playacting (and I'm not, this actually hurts) or that you think I should stop wasting time and change my conceptual framework to be one that you find comprehensible and comfortable. In short, I ought to give up the bits of my life you don't feel welcomed by. Is that a correct understanding?
If you find yourself outside the Overton window (to borrow an idea from politics) of a particular group when it comes to the Bible then it can feel pretty pointless to engage.
But is the Overton window at Kerygmania so very narrow? @Curiosity killed says, verbatim, “I can’t post in Kerygmania.” That suggests to me something that goes beyond a mere lack of interest.
I have only been involved in this conversation as far as it went discussing The Last Week by Borg and Crossan and whether were any references. And have posted in Kergymania for similar discussions.
So what is the conclusion? From what sources, if any, did Borg & Crossan derive their assertion that Pilate's detachment from Caesarea arrived in Jerusalem on the exact day of the Triumphal Entry?
Hmm. The first page, which is shown in the link, refers to Pilate’s arrival “a few days prior” to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. Si doent look as though it will support Borg and Crossan’s same day assertion.
My impression of that article was that it was going to suggest that Jesus' entry to Jerusalem was successful as it happened at the same time as that of Pontius Pilate, which does sound evidenced as part of his ruling of Jerusalem. And that the distraction of the Pilate entry occupied the soldiers allowing that of Jesus.
I think you'd have to ask those who hate JRM why they think it's OK to hate him.
Living where and as I do, I don't know much about him. But from the little I've seen he is confident and self-assured in his view of the world. So to those who think he's wrong, he's unrepentantly wrong.
Is that the challenge for those who seek to love their neighbour as themselves ?
On the other hand, I am sick and tired of wearing the same label as people who have nothing in common with me beyond that label, and the only way of protesting at this which does not involve my reliquishing it is to question the validity of their claim.
How do you feel about it when people use this exact same line of reasoning to say other people aren’t really citizens of their country? Nationality is, after all, just another label is it not?
I think you'd have to ask those who hate JRM why they think it's OK to hate him.
Living where and as I do, I don't know much about him. But from the little I've seen he is confident and self-assured in his view of the world. So to those who think he's wrong, he's unrepentantly wrong.
Is that the challenge for those who seek to love their neighbour as themselves ?
Just to clarify - my theology is broadly evengelical. I am not an evo any more, because they are not my group. And the intent of the OP was not to argue that "those people" are not Christians - quite the opposite in fact.
I am quite prepared to accept that Westboro and co do have Christianity right. What I am saying is that if they are right, I am not a Christian, becasue I reject that understanding of it.
If the religious right are correct in their interpretation of the faith, then I want nothing to do with it.
I have only been involved in this conversation as far as it went discussing The Last Week by Borg and Crossan and whether were any references. And have posted in Kergymania for similar discussions.
Yes, of course. Apologies for my careless mistake.
Kinman, Brent, 1995. Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem: In the Context of Lucan Theology & the Politics of His Day (Leiden, E. J. Brill) (same guy as above)
Borg, Marcus J., 1987. Jesus. A New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and The Life of Discipleship (New York, Harper & Row
But the article only says
The arrival of Pilate would have taken place at approximately the same time as Jesus’ arrival into the city (Kinman 1995: 159–72; Borg 1987: 173–4).
I agree that is highly likely. I can’t access Borg or Kinman to see if they assert and/or offer a source which might support Borg and Crossan’s ‘same day’ claim.
For some reason some people confuse a strong disgust or even disapproval of someone's views with hatred.
And I know exactly how somebody or other is going to respond to that but I can wait.
I think your point is a worthwhile one, but should be directed at the people who confuse disgust and disapproval of certain specific activities we're not mentioning with hatred.
Hint:
I am thinking of conservative evangelicals, who seem to believe in their own reading of the bible rather than God and all others who think God is mostly their to defend... ...their right to hate groups of people based on certain specific characteristics.
Aaaaand there it is. The false equivalence I knew someone would draw.
Thing is, we don't assume certain conservatives hate gay people because they express disapproval of homosexuality. It's when they go out of their way to make gay people's lives unpleasant by slandering them from the pulpit, opposing their rights to marry or adopt, by refusing them services or employment (and/or legally supporting the "right" of other people to act in a bigoted manner), disowning their gay and trans children or subjecting them to hideous and abusive "conversion" therapies. That's when we suspect a hateful motive.
The Jerusalem garrison would probably be the size of a cohort ( About 500 men) For passover Pilate would probably have used another cohort or part of a cohort. He would not have been in charge of a legion as they would be in Syria, facing the Partians.
It was the absence of a legion in Judea that allowed the Jewish revolt in 66AD to be initially successful.
Let me present the direct corollary. Looking at the Spong thread, you wouldn't think that Spong-ites (or people close to Spong in many respects, while disageeing in other respects) really count themselves as Christians would you? Yes, we do. Absolutely we do.
I consider it unfortunate (to use a mild term) that Spong was labeled on that thread as a heretic as that would seem to imply that those of us who find a lot of Spong to agree with are also considered to be heretics. Not that I am personally perturbed by that as I have been called heretic or apostate so many times it is water off a duck's back.
I try not to divide people into Christian and non-Christian. Exclusivity is a barrier to communication IMHO.
Let me present the direct corollary. Looking at the Spong thread, you wouldn't think that Spong-ites (or people close to Spong in many respects, while disageeing in other respects) really count themselves as Christians would you? Yes, we do. Absolutely we do.
I consider it unfortunate (to use a mild term) that Spong was labeled on that thread as a heretic as that would seem to imply that those of us who find a lot of Spong to agree with are also considered to be heretics. Not that I am personally perturbed by that as I have been called heretic or apostate so many times it is water off a duck's back.
I try not to divide people into Christian and non-Christian. Exclusivity is a barrier to communication IMHO.
Would it be reassuring to note that a charge of heresy pre-supposes that the target is Christian? We do, after all, talk about Arian Christianity, even if we consider Arius' Christology to be heretical. Apostasy is, of course, a different kettle of fish. With regard to Spong (and Richard Holloway on this side of the pond) I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than that they have renounced the Christian faith. If you deny God, the incarnation, any theory of atonement whatsoever, the resurrection and the ascension then your house of cards is not just missing one at the bottom, there are no cards at all. That's not to say there is nothing in Spong's work that one could agree with and still be Christian, but one needs to arrive by a different route than he did.
Let me present the direct corollary. Looking at the Spong thread, you wouldn't think that Spong-ites (or people close to Spong in many respects, while disageeing in other respects) really count themselves as Christians would you? Yes, we do. Absolutely we do.
I consider it unfortunate (to use a mild term) that Spong was labeled on that thread as a heretic as that would seem to imply that those of us who find a lot of Spong to agree with are also considered to be heretics. Not that I am personally perturbed by that as I have been called heretic or apostate so many times it is water off a duck's back.
I try not to divide people into Christian and non-Christian. Exclusivity is a barrier to communication IMHO.
Would it be reassuring to note that a charge of heresy pre-supposes that the target is Christian? We do, after all, talk about Arian Christianity, even if we consider Arius' Christology to be heretical. Apostasy is, of course, a different kettle of fish. With regard to Spong (and Richard Holloway on this side of the pond) I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than that they have renounced the Christian faith. If you deny God, the incarnation, any theory of atonement whatsoever, the resurrection and the ascension then your house of cards is not just missing one at the bottom, there are no cards at all. That's not to say there is nothing in Spong's work that one could agree with and still be Christian, but one needs to arrive by a different route than he did.
Thanks, but I don't need reassurance.
As I said, exclusivity is a barrier to communication, or it at least provides an unhelpful framework for people to have constructive discussions about spiritual life.
If someone claims or disclaims for themselves the label Christian then I am happy to go with that, rather than ticking off a list of conditions for me to judge them on.
I don't think Spong denies God; he just reinterpret the concept of God in a way that most Christians think amounts to a denial of God's most important attributes.
What he does is treat the bible as structurally myth, not history. Which was pretty mainstream for much of the 20th century. Conservative forces have been gaslighting him for the last thirty years or so, such that the nonsense spouted all over him looks like common sense.
What he does is treat the bible as structurally myth, not history. Which was pretty mainstream for much of the 20th century. Conservative forces have been gaslighting him for the last thirty years or so, such that the nonsense spouted all over him looks like common sense.
Comments
It seems odd to me to lay quite so much importance on the two-parade motif when none of the four gospel writers saw fit to mention it. I suspect some preachers just latch onto the idea as a way of having something “new” or “fresh” to say on Palm Sunday.
Meanwhile, what @Lamb Chopped” said about categories like “hypocritical” and “bad” Christians. I think that hits the nail on the head.
It's a nice story that provides an interesting preaching option, but I find it very unlikely to have happened with both events at the same time. I don't see anything wrong with such stories used in those contexts even if they're not historically accurate, after all Jesus told stories all the time and very few demand that there actually was a man on the Jericho road beaten near to death by thieves and helped by a Samaritan.
I think perhaps some of the problem is that complex groups with a lot of internal variation sometimes defy even a bare minimum definition, and that a different approach than a minimum definition is needed.
Wittgenstein proposed "family resemblances" as a different methodology. Let's for instance say you have a family of five members - two parents and three children. Child A and B might have inherited their father's nose, child B and C their mother's hair, child A and C their father's jawline, and so on. There is not a single trait however that all three children possess. If one were to define a child in that family as a person having a specific trait, for instance the same nose, hair, etc - it would always fall short. However, the many different overlapping similarities, still indicate that all are related to a single group. Membership therefore isn't a question of fitting some minimum definition, but by having considerable overlapping similarities with other members of the same group.
I think a similar approach can be made towards "Christian", as well as a number of other religions. Ahmadiyya for instance, is often perceived by other Muslims as being non-Muslim, but the family resemblances are far too many (belief in Muhammed as a prophet, five pillars of Islam, etc.) to accept that as fact.
Of course, the concept of "family resemblances" is more difficult to use than a definition. With the latter, you usually either fit the definition, or you don't. Yes or no. The former however usually encounters the difficulty of determining which and how many overlapping similarities need to be present. At what point are similarities "proof" of membership, and when are they merely coincidental? The difficulty in answering that is why a minimum definition usually is the right way to go when trying to determine who is part of a group, and who is not. However, when a belief system gets too many variations then that might no longer be a viable route, and "family resemblances" becomes the best remaining approach to deciding on membership.
Do they give page numbers for those references ?
Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan made this connection in their book, The Last Week; A Day-by-Day Account of Jesus's Final Week in Jerusalem (San Francisco: Harper, 2006),
Do you think it’s possible that Borg and Crossan may be quoting from different editions of both books? My copy of Goodman’s book is the first edition, published by Cambridge University Press in 1987. Similarly, Wroe’s book is the first edition, published by Jonathan Cape in 1999. Hardback editions in both cases.
The reference to Goodman comes on p.17 of the text, and is a reference to land acquisition through confiscation for debt.
Neither is a source for their assertion that Jesus and Pilate entered Jerusalem in the same day.
What Borg and Crossan say in explanation, on page 3, is that:
* Caesarea Maritima, about sixty miles to the west
but there is no linked reference. The references that refer to earlier in the chapter are
.
I didn't think I was nasty to other groups and people, particularly based on specific characteristics. Are the Shipboard evangelicals (a shrinking number) like this, then?
Stop wringing your hands and look at the way your whole conceptual framework excludes many. I can't post in Kerygmania because its whole approach to the biblical text makes zero, nada no sense to me whatsoever. This doesn't matter, for this purpose at least, expect that those who share the Christian label should be able to talk to each other, and, in this respect at least, that seems to me to be impossible on a meaningful level. Should we continue to share that label?
Agreed, 100 percent. Talking to others who share the Christian label is something I do all the time, on several websites including this one. That's what I come here for.
I'm sorry, but you have me baffled. I can't make head or tail of what you're saying here. I see Kerygmania as a place to go to ask questions about the Bible. Kerygmania doesn't have "an approach to the Biblical text" of its own, does it? Different posters have their own different approaches, but as far as I can see, Kerygmania is simply a place where they meet.
I think I understand where @ThunderBunk is coming from with this. I've been to Bible studies in the past that have started from the assumption that the Hebrew scriptures record history (up to the point of repeating speculation that Adam had written the creation story on clay tablets), something with which I not only don't agree but can't even get myself into a position where I can imagine agreeing with it, because it's so obviously bonkers. If you have such wildly different understandings of the type of writing you're dealing with you end up either listening to a discussion to which you can't contribute or spend so long rehashing the meta-argument that you never actually get to the text itself. If you find yourself outside the Overton window (to borrow an idea from politics) of a particular group when it comes to the Bible then it can feel pretty pointless to engage.
(Does this quip cross the pond?)
Who cares if you, or I, or anyone else thinks someone is a Christian or not. Or anything, religious, not religious, or whatever. Just love one another.
Personally, I tend to take people at their word. If they say they're a Christian, they are. As someone said earlier in the thread, there are good Christians and bad Christians and everything in between. In the 21st century, though, we can't really do a litmus test like you might've been able to do in the first or even the 10th century.
Thank you for saying that, @Lamb Chopped . There are lots of different kinds of Evangelicals and it's wrong to paint all with the same brush. Especially when this is an international forum, and Evangelicalism also varies in different countries (as any religion or denomination would).
Yes, it does.
Actually, a material culture scholar, Colleen McDannel, says that Christians practice their faith for the same reason pianists play scales - to get better. So your joke is also just true!
[tangent:
Another story version:
Dorothy Sayers in "The Man born to be King" has Pilate's procession temporarily impeded by a "fellow on a donkey and a rabble of peasants, waving palms and things". Pilate's wife, travelling in his carriage, has heard about Jesus and wants to catch a glimpse of him. The obstruction to Pilate's progress is minor, and they quickly move on. ]
Have I said you are not Christians? Has anybody on the Ship who identifies as evangelical, or Bible-esteeming, said so?
Well, I don't know. If you choose to exclude me, there's basically nothing I can do about it. I hear you saying that you're experiencing a lot of hurt, and that you blame the evangelicals/Bible esteemers for that, and therefore that you think I should pay for it--to the extent, if I understand you correctly, that you think I should no longer be called a Christian. Well, if you want to say that of me, go ahead. I'm not stopping you.
You seem particularly angry at the existence of a board (Kerygmania) which does not operate on assumptions you find appropriate or meaningful, and that also makes you feel excluded and angry. I confess that I haven't got the foggiest what is going on in Ecclesiantics most of the time, and it seems to me a foreign country. But I see no reason myself why I should find every board congenial or even comprehensible to me, and I do not want either to shut down Ecclesiantics or to name its denizens "Not Christians" simply because their way of being is foreign to mine.
"Stop wringing my hands," you say. I take that to mean either that you think I am playacting (and I'm not, this actually hurts) or that you think I should stop wasting time and change my conceptual framework to be one that you find comprehensible and comfortable. In short, I ought to give up the bits of my life you don't feel welcomed by. Is that a correct understanding?
But is the Overton window at Kerygmania so very narrow? @Curiosity killed says, verbatim, “I can’t post in Kerygmania.” That suggests to me something that goes beyond a mere lack of interest.
Actually all people should be able to talk to each other whatever their beliefs.
I have only been involved in this conversation as far as it went discussing The Last Week by Borg and Crossan and whether were any references. And have posted in Kergymania for similar discussions.
But I wonder if the same quip can be applied to (cricket) Test Matches ... What are they being tested for?
@Ray Sunshine - I wonder if this is the answer, this link to this New Testament article? I can only see the sample and I'm not paying £20 to buy the full article.
which predates the Borg and Crossan by a decade or more.
{and as noted above, I have not said I can't post in Kerygmania - that's Thunderbunk)
I can evidence the other information on Roman Imperialism in Borg and Crossan here, from a chapter of a book entitled Pontius Pilate and the Imperial Cult in Roman Judea by J E Taylor. It's a pdf.
I think you'd have to ask those who hate JRM why they think it's OK to hate him.
Living where and as I do, I don't know much about him. But from the little I've seen he is confident and self-assured in his view of the world. So to those who think he's wrong, he's unrepentantly wrong.
Is that the challenge for those who seek to love their neighbour as themselves ?
How do you feel about it when people use this exact same line of reasoning to say other people aren’t really citizens of their country? Nationality is, after all, just another label is it not?
I have no idea who you’re talking about.
I am quite prepared to accept that Westboro and co do have Christianity right. What I am saying is that if they are right, I am not a Christian, becasue I reject that understanding of it.
If the religious right are correct in their interpretation of the faith, then I want nothing to do with it.
Yes, of course. Apologies for my careless mistake.
For some reason some people confuse a strong disgust or even disapproval of someone's views with hatred.
And I know exactly how somebody or other is going to respond to that but I can wait.
But the article only says I agree that is highly likely. I can’t access Borg or Kinman to see if they assert and/or offer a source which might support Borg and Crossan’s ‘same day’ claim.
Sorry - Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was mentioned in the initial post of this thread.
I think your point is a worthwhile one, but should be directed at the people who confuse disgust and disapproval of certain specific activities we're not mentioning with hatred.
Hint:
Thing is, we don't assume certain conservatives hate gay people because they express disapproval of homosexuality. It's when they go out of their way to make gay people's lives unpleasant by slandering them from the pulpit, opposing their rights to marry or adopt, by refusing them services or employment (and/or legally supporting the "right" of other people to act in a bigoted manner), disowning their gay and trans children or subjecting them to hideous and abusive "conversion" therapies. That's when we suspect a hateful motive.
It was the absence of a legion in Judea that allowed the Jewish revolt in 66AD to be initially successful.
Oh, right. Well, you know what they say — the people who protest too much, and all that.
I consider it unfortunate (to use a mild term) that Spong was labeled on that thread as a heretic as that would seem to imply that those of us who find a lot of Spong to agree with are also considered to be heretics. Not that I am personally perturbed by that as I have been called heretic or apostate so many times it is water off a duck's back.
I try not to divide people into Christian and non-Christian. Exclusivity is a barrier to communication IMHO.
Would it be reassuring to note that a charge of heresy pre-supposes that the target is Christian? We do, after all, talk about Arian Christianity, even if we consider Arius' Christology to be heretical. Apostasy is, of course, a different kettle of fish. With regard to Spong (and Richard Holloway on this side of the pond) I find it hard to reach any other conclusion than that they have renounced the Christian faith. If you deny God, the incarnation, any theory of atonement whatsoever, the resurrection and the ascension then your house of cards is not just missing one at the bottom, there are no cards at all. That's not to say there is nothing in Spong's work that one could agree with and still be Christian, but one needs to arrive by a different route than he did.
Thanks, but I don't need reassurance.
As I said, exclusivity is a barrier to communication, or it at least provides an unhelpful framework for people to have constructive discussions about spiritual life.
If someone claims or disclaims for themselves the label Christian then I am happy to go with that, rather than ticking off a list of conditions for me to judge them on.
I don't think the first two of his Twelve Points for Reform (link) could ever have been described as mainstream ...