Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[zugzwang]

JaysonR

I don't recall anyone saying that Q is an infallible idea. In fact, I just mentioned that it had fallen out of favour, when the discovery of Thomas rekindled interest in it, since Thomas is a sayings collection, which Q was postulated as, with little narrative.

Your points about geographical variation are very interesting; of course, the common elements in M and L can be explained in a variety of ways, for example, one copied from the other!

I do remember also that historically, Matthew was given priority, so I'm not sure when Mark took over, probably in the 19th century. There is of course, a theory of Markan posteriority! I say, 'of course', since there are so many possible permutations of all the sub-texts. Thus, a stylistic argument is that Mark is written in an unpolished way, whereas M and L are more polished, hence Mark came first. However, you can reverse this, and argue that the Mark editor(s) didn't like all the polish and got rid of it. So it goes.

Another interesting point is that Mark has many of the hard sayings, often removed in M and L (e.g. Jesus is mad); therefore, the argument goes, Mark told it like it is, whereas M and L soften things. But again, you can reverse this.

 

[proudfootz]

I will be jumping back in more properly later, but just a comment about embarrasment: Consider for a moment, Samson and Moses.

Are we, too, to assume that Samson was real because of his embarrassing folly, and are we to assume that Moses was real because he embarrassingly did not have faith and struck the rock not as his God commanded?

These are just quick examples, from where there are several.

The issue here is in ignoring a cultural style.
Hebrew culture, for one, only wrote of heroes with accounts of folly.
David is one of today's Judaism's primary heroes, and he is a figure of gross folly.

It is a form of literary art; you won't find a pure hero in their culture as a normality.

As such, embarrassment is not a good gauge in my opinion because we then assume we know what their embarrassment is and how it is shunned, and yet we clearly have evidence that even non-historical figures are given embarrassing conditions to humanize their strength of character.

Even their god errors and is argued against by Moses.

Yes, humanizing a one-dimensional literary figure is a tool of the literary art.

It may be that bible scholars are not always necessarily aware of the sophistication of the literati of the times in which these tales were composed (indeed it's not always clear when they were composed, by whom, and to what purposes).

 

[proudfootz]

I hate it when those who poke fun at the CoE are openly compared to Creationists.
"I hate it when people make a strawman version of the Criterion of Embarrassment. Fair enough to criticize it, but at least criticize it for what it is, not for some strawman version of it. It's like arguing "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" Creationists misunderstanding evolution is not a problem for evolution."

I had no idea I'd reap such vehement defenses of the CoE when I ridiculed it recently.
Are proponents of an HJ really quite so unwilling to acknowledge its uselessness in discussing the evidence for an HJ?

The irony of posters defending the integrity of bible scholars by comparing themselves to scientists and charging their critics as being 'like Creationists' is sardonically humorous.

The criterion in question is controversial even among scholars.

Maybe early christians were embarrassed by the lack of evidence of their Jesus having an earthly ministry, and that explains why more and more details about this supposed career are added over time...

 

[proudfootz]

I think what appears to many to be the weakness with all those criteria, is that they are too subjective and too open to religious scholars in particular (i.e. as distinct from historians investigating other non-religious history) trying to justify their pre-conceived Jesus beliefs by counting all sorts of highly debatable “evidence” under any of those criteria.

For example, apart from the rather obvious fact that it is by no means clear what would have been embarrassing to 1st century Jewish religious belief within what was originally (apparently) only quite a small group of people preaching Jesus as a messiah risen from death, in his book Did Jesus Exist, Bart Ehrman says that out of all figures in ancient history, Jesus is supported by an exceptional level of “independent attestation”, and he says that such a large degree of independent attestation is very strong evidence of his existence.

But what Ehrman then describes as this exceptional level of “independent attestation”, is nothing other that the four canonical gospels! And for those 4 gospels, Ehrman claims they add up to no less than SEVEN independent attestations to Jesus!

Now any reasonable reader might wonder how on earth Ehrman can get the number 7 from the 4 gospels. And how on earth he can count any of the gospels as “independent”?

And Ehrman’s explanation is to claim that because each of the 4 gospels has elements that are not included in the other three gospels, that means they are all independent sources! And how did he turn 4 into 7? He says that g-Mark must have been using some earlier lost “written” source called Q, and he says that similarly g-Mathew must have been using some other also lost but different/independent “written” source called M, and further that the same applies to g-Luke which he says must have come from a lost written work called “L” (for some reason draws the line at claiming the same for g-John). So that now adds up to what Bart Ehrman claims is an exceptionally good level of attestation of no less than seven independent written sources all attesting to a real Jesus.

In saying that, I am not trying to take a “cheap shot” at Ehrman or to be unkind or unfair to him, and as a matter of fact I agree with a remark just made by Paheka about the quality and clarity of much of Ehrman’s earlier writing on this subject - his book Did Jesus Exist is at least, in my opinion, far better written than any of Richard Carriers books.

But when a bible scholar as prominent and highly regarded as Bart Ehrman writes to claim that he, and presumably therefore other bible scholars, count the 4 canonical gospels as "seven independent very early written attestations" to a real Jesus (see footnote), it should cause readers of his book, inc. posters in threads like this, to register serious concerns over the validity and objectivity of his and his colleagues methods.



Footnote - “very early independent written attestations” because Ehrman says that Q, M, and L must have pre-dated g-Mark and g-Mathew which according to Ehrman and other bible scholars were themselves first written around 70AD-90AD. On which basis he concludes that Q, M, and L would have been written earlier than 70AD and hence not long at all after the death of Jesus. Why he says that Q, M and L must have been "written" sources I don't know, but iirc he does actually say that.

In the order of the arguments Ehrman presents in DJE? the author had just finished trashing the secular or non-christian sources as being useful 'attestations' to an historical Jesus.

Having thinned the ranks of some of the usual go-to references (Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Jewish records) it is certainly a good move to emphasize there are still plenty of 'sources' to be had.

 

[tsig]

First of all, you were parodying posters here. Second, again, what Wiki is saying isn't what you claimed.

At this point you are totally out of arguments, I know, but ridiculing your opposition should require you to actually understand what they are saying.



It's meant to direct your attention to important words. Of course you're going to "misinterpret" that. I know you're doing it on purpose, but at least try to make it appear like you don't understand stuff in a believable way, ok ?

"Oh, look. He bolded a word. Now I can focus on the act of bolding the word rather than address the substance of his post. Yay !"

My point is that your post was hyperbolic, and deliberately misrepresented what people are saying. Mind you, I don't really buy the embarrassment argument, so it's not as if I'm defending it.

You weren't defending the CoE, you were ridiculing me, got it.

 

[dejudge]

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the canonized gospels are of a singular and directly connected tradition, and that the paleographic dating is perfectly verified and fixed.

The problem with your approach is that you don't know which culture produced the NT since virtually all the authors were faked and nothing at all is known of the actual authors.

We actually have recovered early manuscripts and Codices dated by paleography and virtually all found in Egypt.

You are essentially doing exactly what you accuse others of . You are merely speculating once you ignore the recovered dated manuscripts.

The fact that virtually all early manuscripts and that the earliest Church were found in Egypt must have some significance about the origin of the Jesus story and cult.

Around the middle of April 1963, after only one day of work, I was convinced that the Greek text of Mark could not have been redacted directly in Greek and that it was in reality only the Greek translation of an original Hebrew." - Jean Carmignac (former Dead Sea Scroll editor)

If the condition is that Mark was indeed originally in Hebrew, then that would change the authoring culture considerably.

May I remind you that Jean Carmignac was a Catholic Priest who argued that the Gospels are actual historical accounts written after the Resurrection of Jesus.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Carmignac

It is well established that the author of gMark was most likely NOT a Jew and was NOT familiar with the region and Jewish tradition.

It is also well known that the author of gMark used the Septuagint [a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible] which was translated from Hebrew to Greek which explains precisely why gMark may appear to have originated in a Hebrew language.

The statement in gMark 16.1 that women went to anoint the body of the dead Jesus about three days AFTER he was buried is completely CONTRARY to Jewish tradition in the 1st century.

Mark 16:1 KJV

And when the sabbath was past , Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

The author of gMark had NO idea that the Decapolis Ten Cities were NOT on the coast.

Mark 7:31 KJV

And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.

 

[Belz...]

You weren't defending the CoE, you were ridiculing me, got it.

Oh, please, tsig. If the worst I was doing was ridiculing your attempt at ridicule, I think you can take it.

Besides, that's not what I was doing. You know this, since I've told you more than once that I was correcting you on your hyperbole. In fact, it's in the post you just quoted. How you can, presumably with a straight face, claim that I was in fact ridiculing you, is a mystery to me, but there's no way I can now believe that this is an honest belief on your part.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, humanizing a one-dimensional literary figure is a tool of the literary art.

It may be that bible scholars are not always necessarily aware of the sophistication of the literati of the times in which these tales were composed (indeed it's not always clear when they were composed, by whom, and to what purposes).

Very true, but it's a tool not only of literature, but of rhetoric as well.

The irony of posters defending the integrity of bible scholars by comparing themselves to scientists and charging their critics as being 'like Creationists' is sardonically humorous.

The criterion in question is controversial even among scholars.[ . . . ]

Indeed, I provided links pointing to that controversy. Not even that was even to stop an HJ proponent trying on the 'like Creationists' ploy.

 

[IanS]

Ian,

"apart from the rather obvious fact that it is by no means clear what would have been embarrassing to 1st century Jewish religious belief"

Why assume the embarrassment is from the perspective of the Jewish culture in every text?

Are other cultures unable to write of other cultures and when doing so value their own interest over that of the culture they are pulling a figure from?

I’m not sure who is supposed to be embarrassed by any of it!

I was just saying that we probably cannot really know at this late juncture what the “Christian” authors of the NT would have regarded as too embarrassing to record (unless it were actually true).

For example, afaik the death of Jesus as a crucified “criminal” is supposed to be one such embarrassment. But I think it’s obvious that the death is supposed to be symbolic as a lesson to be understood by the faithful … where even the messiah suffers the most unjust & painful death for the faith, but in the end defies that earthly mortal death and is duly raised up to heaven … so that they too, if they keep the faith no matter what injustices befall them, will be raised up to heaven just like Jesus. That’s not really an embarrassment to them, is it. Quite the contrary I should have thought; i.e. it’s a message of God and Christ guaranteeing them the everlasting glory of heaven.

 

[JaysonR]

The problem with your approach is that you don't know which culture produced the NT since virtually all the authors were faked and nothing at all is known of the actual authors.

We actually have recovered early manuscripts and Codices dated by paleography and virtually all found in Egypt.

You are essentially doing exactly what you accuse others of . You are merely speculating once you ignore the recovered dated manuscripts.

The fact that virtually all early manuscripts and that the earliest Church were found in Egypt must have some significance about the origin of the Jesus story and cult.

I don't negate the discovered location; neither do I isolate this to indicate that Egyptians being the authors.
The location of Egypt is itself not very informative of which culture wrote each various text (and I include non-canonical texts in this as well).

What it informs us is that the texts, at some point, ended up there at the very least with some possibility that they were created in Egypt.
However, even if they were created in Egypt, this in itself does not inform us of the cultural authorship for Egypt is an academic hub during this time period so multiple cultures wrote texts in Egypt yet were not Egyptian.

A Greek, Roman, Anatolian, or Hebrew could have written any given text in Egypt quite easily considering the hub that Alexandria had become.

Also, I do not currently propose a culture for the authorship of any given text, nor was I offering one in that post.
That post outlined examples of counter possibilities to highlight the problem of the unspoken axioms in some of the positions commonly used; specifically I was pointing out that we cannot guarantee that there was a clean and unbroken line between the four later selected texts to consider approved for a given sectarian growth of Christianity.

May I remind you that Jean Carmignac was a Catholic Priest who argued that the Gospels are actual historical accounts written after the Resurrection of Jesus.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Carmignac

I needn't any reminder, but I wasn't resting nor proposing that position.
I wrote "if" because I was using an example of how there are approaches that can be argued that do not begin with the axiom the idea I commented upon in caution uses (Jean Carmignac is hardly the only individual to have stated this idea; I only cited his comments on the matter because he was a Dead Sea Scroll editor for a considerable time so the versed nature of familiarity with Hebraic textual and literary forms is very good caliber by proxy of his daily work as a DSS editor).

It is well established that the author of gMark was most likely NOT a Jew and was NOT familiar with the region and Jewish tradition.

It is well accepted, but not established in any more meaningful manner than to claim that Jesus' historicity is 'well established'.
It is a constant debate; not nearly settled for multiple reasons.
The majority of Biblical Scholars accept the proposition of Markan priority and some accept the position of non-Hebrew origin while others propose the opposite.

I was offering neither position, but instead providing an example of an alternative proposal which would cause issue to the axiom in point of showing that an axiom does exist and should be kept in mind when reviewing the information.

It is also well known that the author of gMark used the Septuagint [a Greek version of the Hebrew Bible] which was translated from Hebrew to Greek which explains precisely why gMark may appear to have originated in a Hebrew language.

I'm not really certain how to address this for the nature of this comment shows (and I mean no insult in this at all) a lack of education on the subject for which it remarks upon; I will try to explain as best as I can accomplish.

Using the Septuagint as a resource to write a new text does not cause the new text to have Hebraic prose and literary structure in the manner of poetics, such as palindrome, double entendre, alliteration, rhyming, or meter.

The writing of the new text has to specifically write those stylings into the text specifically for them to exist.
What is not truly understood is whether someone wrote Mark in Greek originally using Hebrew prose and grammar understanding that the poetics would be lost in the Greek unless someone knew both languages, or whether the text was Hebrew and then Greek.

What we are talking about is akin to a Haiku poem originally in Japanese being translated to English without consideration for preservation of the Japanese prose and style (such as syllables and phonetical structure), and then at some later time looking at this English text and regressing into Japanese and noticing that there is a poetry in this text that was not present in the English.

Using some other text as textual influence of content to the Haiku would not excuse the alignment to the language that renders it poetically, a feature which is, at length, unreasonable to assume was accidental.

The statement in gMark 16.1 that women went to anoint the body of the dead Jesus about three days AFTER he was buried is completely CONTRARY to Jewish tradition in the 1st century.

In which way does the account strike you as noticeably non-Hebrew?

The author of gMark had NO idea that the Decapolis Ten Cities were NOT on the coast.

Possibly.
Also possible is that the coast is referring to the River Jordan's West and East division, for if you left Tyre and Sidon and headed to Galilee by way of the River Jordan, then it could also be said that you had traveled in the midst of the coast of the Decapolis.

It would be rather remarkable for anyone in the Mediterranean to not be aware that a Sea was not on the Mediterranean Ocean's direct coastline with the very well known port city of Tyre.
I would be very remarked to read a hand of a Hellen absent basic and crude geographic understanding of the Decapolis' position in relation to the Jordan, as the Decapolis were the Decapolis by name due to their popularity as a geographical Grecian and Roman cluster in a region otherwise non-Grecian and non-Roman.

The only region that would be ignorant of this location inherently would be the Northern European regions with nearly no contact to the Mediterranean culture.

Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and Anatolians very well knew this geography.

If we are to suggest that the author thought the Decapolis were on the coastline of the Levant region and not the coast of the Jordan, then who are we thinking is unaware of the Hellenistic cultural safe-haven of Decapolis geography?

Also, just as a side note, Decapolis means Ten Cities literally, so there is no need to write, "Decapolis Ten Cities".

 

[JaysonR]

zugzwang,

I wasn't intending to convey that you personally offered the position; only that the position as a concept is often thought of in the zeitgeist of the subject without reminder of the axiom involved, and all too often it is granted without any notation and as such then becomes repeated into implicit state of "obvious".
It's not intentional (usually), but consequential that such happens.

As to the rest, I agree; those are also good examples of our concerned point.

Proudfootz,
Yes.

Ian,
Quite so; for it would not be the first time some humans have bragged about a horrid criminal execution of the one they admire.
Championing a taboo is common human social behavior for a social standard opposition.

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, and Anatolians very well knew this geography.

If we are to suggest that the author thought the Decapolis were on the coastline of the Levant region and not the coast of the Jordan, then who are we thinking is unaware of the Hellenistic cultural safe-haven of Decapolis geography?

Actually, it was King James' committee that was shaky on the geography, or else they were using an older sense of the English word. The Greek word in question is horiōn, and to many other translators' satisfaction it means district, area or region, but not especially coast in the sense of seashore.

http://biblehub.com/mark/7-31.htm

The other poster is very taken with the KJV, to which he brings a thoroughly modern sensibility. Thus, one of the persons of the Nicene trilogy is a randy ghost. Only on the internetz.

Anyway, there's nothing in this passage that reflects poorly on MarK's geography skills.

 

[maximara]

I agree GDon and zugzwang.

And for the same reason as outlined in this issue, I don't accept the proposal of 2nd through 4th c CE hoax authorship: it doesn't supply us with any information of context and cultural authorship to check against.

This doesn't mean I'm pro-HJ, however; it means that I'm anti-2nd/4th c CE hoax hypothesis (at least as it stands presented).

I think culture is really quite important to determine, and I find it truly remarkable that such consideration and investigation has not only been undervalued, but strikingly almost entirely absent from the field's discussion...except after the fact of an already granted axiom of cultural authorship (X account has Y meaning to Z culture; wait...why do you think Z culture to begin with?).

I have issues with the 2nd/4th c CE hoax hypothesis too as it just adds a unneeded level of complexity to what is an already messy situation. In fact, if you take the dating of Paul as proper it actually raises more questions--like why he gives so few real details regarding Jesus as a person. John Frum shows that oral tradition can total eradicate any possible leader history records and replace him with a more desired leader.

Similarly, we have a lot of tap dancing around the issue but at the end of the day we still don't have an real explanation as to why no Church Father quotes anything out of our Gospels until c130 CE and those are one sentence blurbs as it is. By c180 if Against Heresies is any guide there were dozens of Gospels of which Irenaeus claimed four and only four were "real".

 

[dejudge]

I don't negate the discovered location; neither do I isolate this to indicate that Egyptians being the authors.
The location of Egypt is itself not very informative of which culture wrote each various text (and I include non-canonical texts in this as well).

What it informs us is that the texts, at some point, ended up there at the very least with some possibility that they were created in Egypt.
However, even if they were created in Egypt, this in itself does not inform us of the cultural authorship for Egypt is an academic hub during this time period so multiple cultures wrote texts in Egypt yet were not Egyptian.

Your statement does not negate my argument at all.


In "Against Heresies" there was a story of Jesus that was taught by Egyptians.

"Against Heresies" 1.

Cerinthus......who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians.......He represented Jesus as having not been born of a virgin, but as being the son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation, while he nevertheless was more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.

Moreover, after his baptism, Christ descended upon him in the form of a dove from the Supreme Ruler, and that then he proclaimed the unknown Father, and performed miracles.

But at last Christ departed from Jesus, and that then Jesus suffered and rose again, while Christ remained impassible, inasmuch as he was a spiritual being.

Hippolytus made a similar claim. Cerinthus was TRAINED in Egypt.

The EGYPTIANS knew of a story of Jesus that appears similar to gMark.

Hipolytus' Refutation of All Heresies"

Cerinthus, however, himself having been trained in Egypt.......And he says that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind.

And Cerinthus maintains that, after Jesus' baptism, Christ came down in the form of a dove upon Him from the sovereignty that is above the whole circle of existence, and that then He proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and to work miracles.

And he asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from Jesus, but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.

The story of Jesus was being TAUGHT in Egypt in the 2nd century and virtually all the earliest manuscripts of the Jesus were found in Egypt from the 2nd century or later.

My argument cannot be overturned. The Jesus story and cult most likely originated in Egypt in the 2nd century or later.

 

[GDon]

Similarly, we have a lot of tap dancing around the issue but at the end of the day we still don't have an real explanation as to why no Church Father quotes anything out of our Gospels until c130 CE and those are one sentence blurbs as it is. By c180 if Against Heresies is any guide there were dozens of Gospels of which Irenaeus claimed four and only four were "real".

Possibly because the Gospels weren't considered authoritative in the First Century, and communities had their own oral tradition. From this article by Richard Carrier:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

The first Christian text that did not become canonized but was respected as authentic is the first epistle of Clement of Rome, reasonably dated to 95 A.D. (M 40), and contained in many ancient Bibles and frequently read and regarded as scripture in many churches (M 187-8). This is relevant because even at this late date two things are observed: Clement never refers to any Gospel, but frequently refers to various epistles of Paul. Yet he calls them wise counsel, not scripture--he reserves this authority for the OT ("Old Testament"), which he cites over a hundred times (M 41-3). On a few occasions he quotes Jesus, without referring to any written source. But his quotations do not correspond to anything in any known written text, although they resemble sayings in the Gospels close enough to have derived from the same oral tradition.​

You can see something similar in Acts of the Apostles, where proof of the apostles' mission was provided by examining the contents of the OT, and not by referring to the teachings and events in the life of Jesus.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge,

Alexandria was an academic hub. Why would not the Egyptian center hold the information on any various set of information, including religious sectarian information (this is to say nothing of proximity post-diaspora and that lacking someone from the Levant region with proper education to articulate the story and trust; the Egyptians were the relied upon source for information regarding the Levant region due to their partial ownership and long-term familiarity with the region and cultures)?


Now, if you propose that Egyptians wrote a hoax in the 2nd c CE that is the Gospel texts, can you demonstrate Egyptian cultural writing style, prose, and values in the Gospel texts matching other known Egyptian texts from the 2nd c CE era?

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson


Actually, it was King James' committee that was shaky on the geography, or else they were using an older sense of the English word. The Greek word in question is horiōn, and to many other translators' satisfaction it means district, area or region, but not especially coast in the sense of seashore.

http://biblehub.com/mark/7-31.htm

The other poster is very taken with the KJV, to which he brings a thoroughly modern sensibility. Thus, one of the persons of the Nicene trilogy is a randy ghost. Only on the internetz.

Anyway, there's nothing in this passage that reflects poorly on MarK's geography skills.

Quite right, but I'm willing to go along with "coast" interpretation since any attempt in the past by myself to discuss definitions of the Greek have resulted in null-conversation interactions with Dejudge, so since he does not find value in such information, I can go along with his rendition preference and point out the reasoning why it could have been called a coast as a counter possibility to arriving at a singular possibility that the author was ignorant of the region.

By the way, Dejudge, how does an Egyptian author get the Decapolis geography incorrect?
That is their regular domain of ownership and travel.

The rough distance from Egypt to the Decapolis is 400 miles (as the crow flies).
That is a short distance in ancient periods; definitely not far enough to be confused over the geography.
In Egypt, everyone would know where Tyre (one of the most popular trading ports in the region) and the Decapolis (Hellenistic central in the Levant region) were.

I don't see how you can hold that Egyptians (who knew the geography of even Anatolia) wrote the texts, and at the same time hold that the author of Mark was unfamiliar with the geography of the Levant region.

 

[JaysonR]

I have issues with the 2nd/4th c CE hoax hypothesis too as it just adds a unneeded level of complexity to what is an already messy situation. In fact, if you take the dating of Paul as proper it actually raises more questions--like why he gives so few real details regarding Jesus as a person. John Frum shows that oral tradition can total eradicate any possible leader history records and replace him with a more desired leader.

Similarly, we have a lot of tap dancing around the issue but at the end of the day we still don't have an real explanation as to why no Church Father quotes anything out of our Gospels until c130 CE and those are one sentence blurbs as it is. By c180 if Against Heresies is any guide there were dozens of Gospels of which Irenaeus claimed four and only four were "real".

GDon covered this well enough, and I agree with the point about added complexity without resolving any of the already extant issues.

In general; it is unlikely that anything about the subject would have ever been written for posterity prior to the diaspora, and if anything was written it would most likely have been destroyed by the Romans along with all but a waft of the Hebrew culture of the time.
However, this does not restrict oral dispersions of tangent for a tradition.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge,

Alexandria was an academic hub. Why would not the Egyptian center hold the information on any various set of information, including religious sectarian information (this is to say nothing of proximity post-diaspora and that lacking someone from the Levant region with proper education to articulate the story and trust; the Egyptians were the relied upon source for information regarding the Levant region due to their partial ownership and long-term familiarity with the region and cultures)?

Your question has no effect on my argument. You are not familiar with evidence from antiquity. You have already explained that you have done very little inquiry into the HJ question.

A theory is developed from data not from questions.

There is enough data to support the argument that the Jesus story and cult orinated in the 2nd century and most likely in Egypt.

1. 2ND century stories of Jesus was TAUGHT in Egypt.

2. Virtually ALL 2nd century MANUSCRIPTS of the Jesus stories were found in Egypt.

3. The earliest Church was located in Egypt.

4. The Septuagint which is used in the 2nd century stories of Jesus was first in Egypt.

5. Apologetic writers claimed the earliest story of Jesus, gMark, was FIRST preached in Alexandria of Egypt.

Now, if you propose that Egyptians wrote a hoax in the 2nd c CE that is the Gospel texts, can you demonstrate Egyptian cultural writing style, prose, and values in the Gospel texts matching other known Egyptian texts from the 2nd c CE era?

You are incapable of demonstrating anything relating to the HJ question.

Asking rhetorical questions which you yourself cannot answer is of no real value to my theory.

 

[JaysonR]

Neither question was rhetorical, and if you cannot answer to anthropological context, then many will continue to pass on accepting your proposition, as several have mentioned issues with it.

Stating that I do not spend much time on the HJ issue, does not mean I am unversed on the subject, either.
It means that I have not yet spent enough time to soundly offer a full proposition.

That said, I lean more toward a compilation Jesus than an historical Jesus figure.
However, this neither means that I accept your proposition simply by your assertion of selected citations and an admitted obstacle of lacking familiarity with cultures involved in the discussion.

There have been several, but the most recent claim that Egyptian authors were unaware of Decapolis geography is worth noting.
Further, you really have not answered any of my questions about cultural issues, even those you first asserted...what Hebrew custom does annointing 3 days after death violate?

Does Egytian literature match Gospel literature?

Several others are pages behind us.

I'm sorry, I do not have a proposition, but I find your's inept and instead more confused than a solution.