Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Well, as soon as we come up with texts that pre-date Paul this can be settled.

As it is you're asking the impossible.

I'm not necessarily asking for textual evidence. Just a myth scenario that fits with whatever evidence we have.

We don't have a scintilla of evidence that the authority of the others is any different than Paul's.

I'm not talking about real authority, but authority perceived by Paul.

Messianism was invented before Paul, and before the people Paul knew were even born.

And ?

There's no evidence that Paul or his predecessors had any interest in or believed in a Jesus as a living person.

They talk about him as though he were.

 

[proudfootz]

The earliest Pauline manuscripts are from the 2nd century or later.

There is no claim in the NT itself that the Pauline Corpus was written pre 70 CE.

It is virtually impossible to argue that the Pauline writings were early when multiple Apologetics up to the 3rd century show ZERO awareness and influence by the supposed Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection].

I'm just showing how - even with the assumption that Paul is the earliest writing - it does not do much to help an HJ hypothesis.

 

[proudfootz]

I'm not necessarily asking for textual evidence. Just a myth scenario that fits with whatever evidence we have.

The evidence we have is that the earliest writings about Jesus are based on scripture and visions. Period.

I'm not talking about real authority, but authority perceived by Paul.

No evidence Paul thought anyone met any Jesus on Earth. He does mention some had visions before he did. So?

And ?

Therefore your demands for all the transitional fossils steps in the development of the messianic movement is rather pointless.

They talk about him as though he were.

We have no clue what Paul's predecessors talked about, other than their visions of a cosmic christ Paul mentions.

No need to postulate anything more.

 

[dejudge]

Fact 2. If Paul’s writing pre-dates the gospels, as all bible scholars seem to agree, and as all pro HJ people in this thread agree, then Paul is first person ever known to have said that the messiah was called “Jesus”...

An "agreement" without evidence is worthless and must be exposed as a failure of logic and facts.


In the Pauline Corpus itself Pauline writers claimed they Persecuted the Faith and NOW preached the same FAITH they attempted to destroy. See Galatians and 1 Corinthians.

In the Pauline Corpus itself it is admitted that there were written Scriptures that Jesus died for OUR Sins, was buried and Resurrected on the THIRD Day. See 1 Corinthians.

Only NT Scriptures contain such a teaching.

The Pauline writings claim the Resurrected Jesus appeared to the disciples and Apostles.

The Pauline writer claimed he was the LAST to be seen of the Resurrected Jesus.


The Post resurrection appearances are found in NT Scriptures.

Apologetic writers up to the 3rd century show no awareness of the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus.

The Pauline writers were using written stories of Jesus in order to fabricate the Epistles which were never ever sent to Churches pre 70 CE.

There is no evidence of an historical Paul and no evidence of Pauline letters in the 1st century.

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

The evidence we have is that the earliest writings about Jesus are based on scripture and visions. Period.

Well, not quite period. There's also repeated confrontation or consultation with earlier-adopters of the cult(s). So, scripture, personal visions and church meetings... the earliest writings about Jesus are religious works. That's not really a surprise when I think about it.

There's no evidence that Paul or his predecessors had any interest in or believed in a Jesus as a living person.

Paul taught that Jesus died and Paul had some interest in how Jesus' corpse was handled: first gibbeted and later buried. Thus, Paul taught Jesus had been a living person, because that's where corpses come from, the death of living people. Paul taught there was a corpse.

 

[Belz...]

The evidence we have is that the earliest writings about Jesus are based on scripture and visions. Period.

That STILL leaves the question of the "James gang" open.

No evidence Paul thought anyone met any Jesus on Earth.

Actually, there is evidence that could be interpreted either way.

Therefore your demands for all the transitional fossils steps in the development of the messianic movement is rather pointless.

Nice reference to creationists, there. But that's not what I'm asking for. Your scenario seems to be "Paul made it up" or "someone before him did", which is not a very credible theory, nor does it constitute anything ressembling a historical conclusion.

 

[IanS]

And yet Paul tells us that the cult precedes him. What's the likeliest explanation for that ?.

Messianism was invented before Paul, and before the people Paul knew were even born.

There's no evidence that the cult he joined used any methods other than what Paul uses - he even lists a bunch of folks who experienced visions before he did. .

It’s amazing isn’t it, that people think it’s impossible that any earlier cult could not have obtained their messiah beliefs in the same way that Paul did. I.e. by believing they had been blessed with insightful visions from God.

Also of course it’s completely untrue for anyone to say this earlier “cult” had believed in Jesus before Paul did. Nowhere in any NT writing does anyone ever claim that. And Paul specifically says the opposite - he says that he obtained his Jesus messiah belief direct from God and according to scripture, and he absolutely insists (repeatedly) that no such other human people told him that.

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz


Well, not quite period. There's also repeated confrontation or consultation with earlier-adopters of the cult(s). So, scripture, personal visions and church meetings...

Yes, Paul says he met other people who have visions. Period.

Nothing that indicates these people started the cult, or that they ever met the persons who did either.

the earliest writings about Jesus are religious works. That's not really a surprise when I think about it.

No surprise at all.

Paul taught that Jesus died and Paul had some interest in how Jesus' corpse was handled: first gibbeted and later buried. Thus, Paul taught Jesus had been a living person, because that's where corpses come from, the death of living people. Paul taught there was a corpse.

Yes, Paul teaches that this cosmic being took on the form of a human at some unknown place and time to fool some demons into killing him.

If Paul could get up to the Third Heaven surely God's Own Son could get down there too. Inanna went down to some level of Hell to get corpsed.

Paul evidently does not have the binary vision of just one Heaven and one Earth common among christians today.

 

[proudfootz]

That STILL leaves the question of the "James gang" open.

Indeed it does.

Until we can find out what they might have believed we've reached a dead end with how Jesus stories are manufactured.

Paul tells us his methodology, and we have no reason to suppose his was any different than theirs was. Do we?

Actually, there is evidence that could be interpreted either way.

Yes, even the best evidence for the sort of 'historical Jesus' cited is ambiguous.

Your scenario seems to be "Paul made it up" or "someone before him did", which is not a very credible theory, nor does it constitute anything ressembling a historical conclusion.

Why is it not a 'credible theory' when Paul blatantly boasts he gets his 'facts' about Jesus by interpreting scriptures and experiencing visions?

What sort of 'historical conclusion' do you expect to get from the ravings of a religious fanatic like Paul?

Maybe the correct answer from an historical perspective is like that we get for a Moses, or an Abraham, or a Jonah, or a Job, or a Noah?

Would an historian concluding these figures were 'made up' be incredible in your estimation?

 

[maximara]

I was checking Richard Carrier's blog as to when On the Historicity of Jesus was coming out and rand into this comment from Carrier himself (the lead in is regards to the ever popular 'There is more evidence for Jesus than for (insert famous ancient person or event here)' argument):


"So you really don’t get anywhere with an argument like this. Especially since no good case for the non-existence of Jesus rests on our merely not having records of him.

And though Tiberius was a ruler, Jesus was the Most Important Man in Human History, the One True Agent of God and Savior of the Whole Universe. That kind of outranks “ruler” in importance. Perhaps this guy is forgetting that not even the Christians themselves preserved any reliable historical documentation of Jesus. And that’s weird.

It is also problematic to claim Jesus was a nobody. I grant that’s an out. But it comes with consequences. Because if it’s so, you are conceding the Gospels are lying (egregiously…and evidently, successfully) and that Jesus never said or did anything in life that would inspire fanatical worshipers or warrant anyone considering him worth dying for–because nothing Jesus ever said or did in life is ever relevant to the gospel preached anywhere in the authentic letters of Paul…which begs the question how he convinced anyone he was the Messiah and Savior who would soon return on clouds of glory if he never said or did anything anyone thought impressive enough to ever discuss until a lifetime later.
In any event, these kinds of arguments are addressed in the book."

It will be a welcome change to have something other then Marshall and Remsburg to point to as how the HJ argument is for the most part off the walls.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian, sorry, I somehow did not see your response.

OK, good. And thanks for that (still a bit too convoluted for my taste, but of course I can live with that). And I also apologise to you if my last few posts seemed to be getting ever more tetchy, to the point of the last one ending up sounding exasperatedly rude.

The point is - I think we should be making this whole issue of a HJ simpler, not more complicated and opaque with increasingly obscure linguistics and increasingly vague suggestions that all sorts of things might be true. Because once it’s descended to that stage then frankly it shows there really is no worthwhile discussion to be had on anything remotely resembling credible evidence.

Unfortunately, when it comes to the sub-field, it is anything but simple.
I think it is incredibly easy, however, to draw a personal conclusion regardless of what the sub-field's state is.

Well there lays a significant difference then. Because I certainly do care whether or not Jesus existed. And I would not be wasting my time looking into the matter and disputing any of it with people here if I did not think ity was important. I certainly do not take the view, seemingly held by some here & from far back in various HJ threads, that they are only arguing about it because they find the subject interesting (why?), or because they like arguing on the internet!

As I have said several times (which for some absurd reason always results in a chorus of incredulity if not abuse), the reason I think the issue is important is because I think it is absolutely crucial as the basis of current day Christianity and a Christian Church which exercises worldwide influence within all manner of government policy as well as directly upon the lives of so many millions of people living today.

However, I do care about the anthropological enigma that is the development of the early following, and indeed the texts and cultural ownership.

I do not think the texts can be treated as a single unit, but instead should each be approached as potentially representing a different cultural background and a different motivated reason for their creations and alterations.

As an example, Mark is remarkably different from John.
The ideas explored in both are quite different, and the nature of John's text is at once remarkable and yet bafflingly atrocious.
Mark, in its own fascination, has an internal riddle of who would write a perfectly Hebrew grammatical syntax and prose wrapped in Koine Greek text.
It's not just a matter of this being translated into Greek from Hebrew, as that is highly (in my opinion) unlikely for the Septuagint did not do this.
It is more like someone intentionally wrote in Koine Greek with Hebrew form - like someone writing a Japanese Haiku in English, but formatted in grammar and prose that would be rendered better in Japanese on purpose just to give their English Haiku a Japanese tonality.

Well that is presumably why you are studying the subject at an academic level. And the fact that I have zero interest in that aspect, and why it’s probably obvious that I have little time for the academic value of the subject of biblical studies, is similarly one reason why I decided to spend my academic years studying and then lecturing solid-state and theoretical physics, and not biblical studies. I.e., because I think science has demonstrated that it genuinely does provide real discoveries and real answers to the most fundamental and most complex questions concerning all aspects of human life and the universe around us … whilst subjects like bible studies most certainly do not; and if anything they do the exact opposite by supporting religious belief and wilfully maintaining anti-scientific superstitious ignorance throughout the world.

Hence my previous remarks about what I would do in your position vis-a-vie what course of studies to follow. Though as it happened, an unexpected twist in my life, led me drop the science after 20 years, and take up music full time instead (but that story is a whole different can-of-worms, and not really relevant here).

OK, well your entire post was quite lengthy, so I will stop there for now and take a look at the remainder of your reply tomorrow. But thanks for the whole reply anyway.

I'm not so much into Biblical studies as simply ancient peoples of the region's anthropology.
This particular tangent is a side-tangent into one little interesting riddle at the edge of the era of my interest.

I actually spend quite a bit more time researching the Gauls of Anatolia currently (if you think about it; it is a vey strange place for a group of Gauls to end up; which prompts several questions).
I previously spent a considerable time learning the Canaanite civilization, the Hittite civilization (which, honestly, I personally am in shear awe of their culture for their time), and before this (and because I was raised in a Christian household) I studied the Hebrew culture (for I found the "Hebrews" being taught by my required religious adherence to be senseless and wanted to know who these peoples really were).

I suppose my interest in ancient culture began with questioning the accuracy of my religious raising's attributions towards their ancient prized Israelites, but it quickly developed into simply a love for ancient anthropology in general.

 

[JaysonR]

Please, get familiar with the writings of antiquity about the Jesus story.

These are the fundamental facts.

1. In writings attributed to Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius up to c 115 CE it is admitted that the Jews BELIEVED their Prophesied Jewish Messiah was ALIVE c 66-70 CE and was fighting AGAINST the Romans and would become RULER of the habitable earth.

2. From the 2nd century or later in writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Lactantius, Eusebius, the author of Acts, Pauline writers, Chrysostom and others it is claimed that the JEWS KILLED the Son of their OWN God and that was the reason for the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.

3. The claim that the JEWS KILLED the Son of God MUST be a known LIE to the inventor. Humans beings cannot kill Gods--they never existed.

4. Apologetic writers like Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Tertullian and Irenaeus mentioned by NAME Egyptian CULTS with stories of Jesus like the Basilidians, Cerinthians and Valentinians.

5. The authors of the Canonised Gospels are all Fakes.

6. The Pauline Corpus is a compilation of up to seven FAKE authors.

7. No recovered manuscripts of the story of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus have been found and dated to the 1st century.

8. No recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus have been found in the Hebrew language.

9. Multiple 2nd century or later Apologetic authors do not show any influence by the Pauline Corpus, and the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection].

10. It is from the 2nd century or later that non-Apologetic mentioned Christians who worshiped a crucified man as a God.

11. Non-Apologetics in the 2nd century do NOT mention Paul but know stories of Jesus.

12. Non-Apologetics mention Jesus and Paul starting around the 4th century.

13. Virtually all Apologetics mention Jesus and Paul starting around the 4th century.

The Jesus story, the Gospel, was developed BEFORE the Pauline Corpus and the Pauline Revealed Gospel.

The Jesus story was NOT written by Jews--they are all Fake.

It was the Egyptians WHO TAUGHT the early stories of Jesus.


Hippolytus "Refutation of All Heresies"

Hippolytus Refutation of All Heresies

I don't understand what Paul had to do with the question; it's as if you were answering some question about Pauline origin - which I have no concern over.

We have already donned the axiom of the texts being created in Egypt in a likely place such as Alexandria, so the question of where is not so much a problem.

But the above still does not indicate how you are determining that out of all of the cultures that wrote in Alexandria, that the Egyptian citizens themselves were the ones who wrote these texts.

You seem to be, unless I am mistaken, suggesting that because the Egyptians were teaching people that they therefore created the content.
That is a possibility, but I don't know how we rush to that conclusion so quickly when we know the Egyptians of Alexandria taught on a very wide range of subjects which they themselves did not write, and that Egyptians were seen as the go-to trusted source for anything to do with Middle Eastern history, since they were closer to the regions around them (Middle East) than anyone else was in the Mediterranean (and also had an established culture of academics; other cultures were closer perhaps, but lacked established cultures of academia and cataloging).

Your citations of early groups is interesting.
You stated:
"Egyptian CULTS with stories of Jesus like the Basilidians, Cerinthians and Valentinians"
Basiliadians can be granted as an Egyptian cult (meaning; beginning in Egypt), but the latter two are an interesting count.

Carinthus' following starts in Anatolia, and Valentinus' following starts in Rome.

Also, and this I have been letting go, but being educated by the Egyptians does not mean "taught the Jesus story by Egyptians".
It means he was educated by the Egyptian academia; a scholar.
Several, several individuals were "educated by the Egyptians" during the tenure of Alexandria and yet they were not receiving instructions on religion.

Notice the following line about being taught of the Egyptians: "Cerinthus, again, a man who was educated in the wisdom of the Egyptians, taught that the world was not made by the primary God, but by a certain Power far separated from him..."

The blame in this is stating that since he was taught by Egyptian academic ways, that he had an heretical standing regarding the origin of the universe, as opposed to the indoctrinated origin of a God-creator.


Regardless, however, I still have not at hand a reason to assign the creation of the texts to Egyptians, nor do I yet have a reason to assign the story as Egyptian mythology, nor that it was an Egyptian mythological hoax (a hoax is a very specific type of deceit), nor that all of this was done by Egyptians for the purpose of rationalizing the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

Yes, Paul says he met other people who have visions. Period.

Paul reports that they had what Paul described as Jesus "seen by" them a few times apiece shortly after Jesus died. Surely it isn't news to anybody here that that kind of experience is a common feature of healthy human grief.

The first long conversation Paul reports having had with any of them was three years afterwards. Paul says nothing about them having or not having visionary experiences at that time.

So, you and I seem to be in agreement that Paul's letters cite reliance on three sources of ideas and information: the two you mentoned, his own visonary expereince (extent and quality unspecified), the scriptures and his interpretation of them (self-assessed as expert), and one that you neglected to include earlier, contacts with other members of the Jesus-following community.

Now period.

Yes, Paul teaches that this cosmic being took on the form of a human at some unknown place and time to fool some demons into killing him.

As you and I have discussed, I don't find that reading supported by the text. With luck, you will someday engage the other guy who posts on that passage sometimes. He thinks it's about the Roman Empire. You two should make beautiful music together.

The rest of the post has that "to whom is this directed?" quality. So, I'll just leave it there.

maximara

I read this with some interest

(From Carrier?)

It is also problematic to claim Jesus was a nobody. I grant that’s an out. But it comes with consequences. Because if it’s so, you are conceding the Gospels are lying (egregiously…and evidently, successfully) and that Jesus never said or did anything in life that would inspire fanatical worshipers or warrant anyone considering him worth dying for–because nothing Jesus ever said or did in life is ever relevant to the gospel preached anywhere in the authentic letters of Paul…which begs the question how he convinced anyone he was the Messiah and Savior who would soon return on clouds of glory if he never said or did anything anyone thought impressive enough to ever discuss until a lifetime later.

You and I have just recently discussed the "nobodiness" issue. The required standard of performance is to leave two or three dedicated workers (not necessarily fanatical, nor worshippers, and I am unsure who died for him on the first generation; maybe nobody). The real magic is compound growth, at 1.2% per annum for about 2000 years so far.

It is an interesting point whether, even as late as Mark, Jesus' Daniel-esque comments are supposed to apply to himself or to someone still to come. Dunker John asks in Mark, but he never gets a yes-or-no answer. Marcan Jesus himself doesn't seem to be on the hook for yes until the Temple trial, and to all appearances, he didn't convince anybody in his audience.

BTW, Carrier's Ph.D. is from Columbia, and from the late Morton Smith's department, I think. Smith had an idea how Jesus might have inspired his most devoted adherents. Based on Secret Mark (which I believe to be inauthentic, but not forged by Smith), Jesus did it the old fashioned way. I can't say what that is on a family-friendly forum. Preaching isn't the way.

And finally, the Gospels contain untruths? That's an admission? Maybe at CARM. As I recall, however, Bart Ehrman concedes that up front, and around here, it's pretty much a given.

 

[Belz...]

It’s amazing isn’t it, that people think it’s impossible that any earlier cult could not have obtained their messiah beliefs in the same way that Paul did.

What's even more amazing is that no one is saying that.

 

[Belz...]

Until we can find out what they might have believed we've reached a dead end with how Jesus stories are manufactured.

[...]

Yes, even the best evidence for the sort of 'historical Jesus' cited is ambiguous.

I guess we can leave it at that for now, then.

Why is it not a 'credible theory' when Paul blatantly boasts he gets his 'facts' about Jesus by interpreting scriptures and experiencing visions?

What I mean is that it's not a historical explanation. It's a personal opinion. It's like saying "stars shine". It doesn't tell us much about stars, although it's true.

What sort of 'historical conclusion' do you expect to get from the ravings of a religious fanatic like Paul?

We must be careful not to confuse truth gleaned from the message, with truth gleaned from the text itself.

 

[IanS]

Ian, sorry, I somehow did not see your response.


Unfortunately, when it comes to the sub-field, it is anything but simple.
I think it is incredibly easy, however, to draw a personal conclusion regardless of what the sub-field's state is.



However, I do care about the anthropological enigma that is the development of the early following, and indeed the texts and cultural ownership.

I do not think the texts can be treated as a single unit, but instead should each be approached as potentially representing a different cultural background and a different motivated reason for their creations and alterations.

As an example, Mark is remarkably different from John.
The ideas explored in both are quite different, and the nature of John's text is at once remarkable and yet bafflingly atrocious.
Mark, in its own fascination, has an internal riddle of who would write a perfectly Hebrew grammatical syntax and prose wrapped in Koine Greek text.
It's not just a matter of this being translated into Greek from Hebrew, as that is highly (in my opinion) unlikely for the Septuagint did not do this.
It is more like someone intentionally wrote in Koine Greek with Hebrew form - like someone writing a Japanese Haiku in English, but formatted in grammar and prose that would be rendered better in Japanese on purpose just to give their English Haiku a Japanese tonality.


I'm not so much into Biblical studies as simply ancient peoples of the region's anthropology.
This particular tangent is a side-tangent into one little interesting riddle at the edge of the era of my interest.

I actually spend quite a bit more time researching the Gauls of Anatolia currently (if you think about it; it is a vey strange place for a group of Gauls to end up; which prompts several questions).
I previously spent a considerable time learning the Canaanite civilization, the Hittite civilization (which, honestly, I personally am in shear awe of their culture for their time), and before this (and because I was raised in a Christian household) I studied the Hebrew culture (for I found the "Hebrews" being taught by my required religious adherence to be senseless and wanted to know who these peoples really were).

I suppose my interest in ancient culture began with questioning the accuracy of my religious raising's attributions towards their ancient prized Israelites, but it quickly developed into simply a love for ancient anthropology in general.

When you say that you do care about it - why do you care about it?

What is it about the study of Jesus historicity/reality, that you care about? And/or why do you think it's important for anyone today to know if Jesus was a real figure or just a myth? (in this thread we are just discussing Jesus, not the much wider field of ancient history in general).

Any of us (e.g., you) might find all sorts of subjects fascinating, for all sorts of personal reasons. And we might pursue those as "hobbies" (many people devote their entire lives to a hobby interest, and become great experts). But that does not necessarily mean the interest or hobby is of any real importance in the practical sense of something we all need to know about in our lives today.

So what actual importance do you think Jesus historicity has? Or is the reason that you "care", just a sort of hobbyist fascination, as opposed to thinking that it has some real importance in the lives of people today?

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

I don't care about Jesus' historicity. As I've written before, take him out or leave him in - either way nets the same result of what happened because what happened occurred regardless of the figure.

Even if Jesus existed, clearly nothing that grew around the figure religiously had anything to do with that figure, but instead far more to do with cultural desires of ontological reasoning.

The entire corpus of Orthodoxy was derived, rather openly, through long periods of debate and feuds; none of which relied on Jesus being real (keeping in mind the individual's belief that he was real is not the same thing as stating that their tenets did not rely on the figure being real).

I have no interest in Jesus himself, but instead interest in the cultural evolution surrounding the figure and how that relates to the anthropological context of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures.

For this reason, I am found remarking on matters such as which peoples the texts are attributed to for their origin, what their purpose was, and how they were dispersed (my address to Dejudge, for instance, or my thread which explores an hypothesis regarding the so-called Ebionite demographic).

Jesus can be complete fabrication, and it would make no difference to how I approach the matter of the texts and their related cultures.
For, as I've written before, even if Jesus were extant, none of the written developments occurred in Judea, and nothing occurred in that form remarkably until after the destruction of Jerusalem - again, meaning the value of Jesus as extant even if he were is very, very little to anthropological pursuits.

 

[dejudge]

Also, and this I have been letting go, but being educated by the Egyptians does not mean "taught the Jesus story by Egyptians".
It means he was educated by the Egyptian academia; a scholar.
Several, several individuals were "educated by the Egyptians" during the tenure of Alexandria and yet they were not receiving instructions on religion.

You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

You are exposing your lack of familiarity with writings of antiquity about Heresies. You seem to have no idea that multiple Religious Doctrines were TAUGHT in Egypt including stories of Jesus.

You seem to have NO idea that "Refutation of All Heresies" attributed to Hippolytus is specifically about HERESIES--NON-ORTHODOX RELIGIONS and Doctrines--NOT Physics or Chemistry.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge,

I'm well aware that religious subjects were also taught in Alexandria.
That does not clearly point to an authorship by Egyptians.

The point being made wasn't that Alexandria did not teach such, but that Alexandria taught scores of subjects; not just religion.
Someone being taught by Egyptians doesn't indicate that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written by Egyptians.

As to the context of Heresies; again, I am well aware of the subject matter of the text. The point being raised was that the line in question does not inherently indicate religious teaching, as it could equally be accounting for general education where the individual was taught a very popular field of astronomy and origins. Then, by so listing their education, blaming their education for causing their "faulty" thinking of a non-God origin.

Even if we leave that one in, and the Egyptians did teach religious lessons to this individual at Alexandria; there are all of the other issues still left to address which have not been.
Further, even if such were the case, clearly whatever lesson that individual learned from the Egyptians does not align with the Gospel texts as that individual walked away claiming a non-God origin of the universe and not a God-creator origin of the universe as the Gospels hold.

Why would Egyptians author these texts and then teach lessons counter to these texts?

 

[dejudge]

I have no interest in Jesus himself, but instead interest in the cultural evolution surrounding the figure and how that relates to the anthropological context of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures.

For this reason, I am found remarking on matters such as which peoples the texts are attributed to for their origin, what their purpose was, and how they were dispersed (my address to Dejudge, for instance, or my thread which explores an hypothesis regarding the so-called Ebionite demographic).

Please, tell us about your hypothesis regarding the so-called Ebionite demographic? Do you have any actual evidence of Ebionites in Judea? How do you determine Ebionite demographic without evidence?

Jesus can be complete fabrication, and it would make no difference to how I approach the matter of the texts and their related cultures.
For, as I've written before, even if Jesus were extant, none of the written developments occurred in Judea, and nothing occurred in that form remarkably until after the destruction of Jerusalem - again, meaning the value of Jesus as extant even if he were is very, very little to anthropological pursuits.

Well, tell that to HJers. They may not know.