Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

In that case I don't see why you put words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

My point was simply that it's been said before, many times, and that I don't feel like repeating myself at this time. I've changed my mind on this issue over the course of this thread, and in recent years. In fact I explained that a couple of months ago, in this thread or the other. I therefore take issue with your accusation that I have not done so.

No worries.
No one's accusing you of anything.

Yes,we do want to do the best we can to verify the claims with outside and independent sources - especially with sources like the ones under discussion here. It's not enough to throw out the scientifically impossible (miracles) but we must also be wary the stuff that remains that sounds 'plausible'.

Wary indeed, as I found when I went to Selby Abbey and saw the Washington family crest.
Otoh, plausibility's part of literature on any level, even (or especially) if it's propaganda or hagiography.
Plausibility's why we know the passion story is utter fiction, after all.

[ . . . ]
It probably varies according to who you ask. There are a ton of characters, but even a main character such as Judas can be doubted.

[Maurice] Casey laments that some scholars (he singles out Hyam Maccoby) reject the historicity of all of this betrayal story. One reason they do so is the name of Judah being, of course, related to “Jew” itself. The anti-semitism in the choice of name is scarcely subtle.

http://vridar.org/2010/11/29/historical-judas-iscariot-casey/

Since Judas seems to exist only to betray his Saviour, I reckon it's reasonable to doubt his existence.
Thanks for the link!

[ . . . ]Probably the most important element in the origin of christianity is the invention of the dying-and-rising god and the religious syncretism of the post-Alexandrian world. These are things that cannot be attributed to any single person - there is no 'patient zero'.

I'm almost entirely in agreement with you, but it seems to me Jesus corresponds more closely to the dying-and-rising hero rather than the dying-and-rising god. I see more similarities between Jesus and Theseus or Aesculapius or Hercules or even Hippolytus than with Dionysius, for example.

 

[proudfootz]

Otoh, plausibility's part of literature on any level, even (or especially) if it's propaganda or hagiography.

Plausibility's why we know the passion story is utter fiction, after all.

Plausibility is a concern for fiction, because if you simply tell the truth you have no need to be concerned over whether it fits people's expectations.

Carrier does a masterful job of showing why the gospel tales are sophisticated works of literature rather than simply the record of oral histories in this video already linked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MclBbZUFSag

Interesting that about 14:30 Carrier describes how we can see the process of a 'gospel narrative' being fashioned from an earlier text from the Nag Hammadi library - how the words of Eugnostos are transformed into a narrative about Jesus in the Sophia of Jesus Christ. It's like finding a transitional species preserved in amber.


The Sophia of Jesus Christ is clearly dependent on Eugnostos the Blessed, both of which were unearthed at Nag Hammadi (in two differing copies for each). The Sophia of Jesus Christ transforms Eugnostos into a dialogue with Jesus. Douglas M. Parrott places the two side by side in his translation for the book The Nag Hammadi Library in English edited by Robinson.

...

Egyptian religious thought also appears to have influenced its picture of the supercelestial realm. The probable place of origin for Eugnostos, then, is Egypt. A very early date is suggested by the fact that Stoics, Epicureans and astrologers are called "all the philosophers." That characterization would have been appropriate in the first century B.C.E., but not later.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/sophia.html

This fits rather well with hypotheses that christians cannibalized all sorts of texts when creating their syncretic religion, being like Paul 'all things to all men'. Thus the philosophic musings of Eugnostos suddenly become the reported words of Jesus to His Disciples. All with the flourish of a pen.

Since Judas seems to exist only to betray his Saviour, I reckon it's reasonable to doubt his existence.
Thanks for the link!

Much the same way that for Paul, Jesus seems to have taken human form only to defeat Death through dying-and-rising. It's like watching a film or other drama and being able to predict what will happen - some characters only exist to serve certain plot functions.

I'm almost entirely in agreement with you, but it seems to me Jesus corresponds more closely to the dying-and-rising hero rather than the dying-and-rising god. I see more similarities between Jesus and Theseus or Aesculapius or Hercules or even Hippolytus than with Dionysius, for example.

Well, there's no fun in being in complete agreement!

There's much to be learned and I hope to learn much from fruitful discussions with curious and intelligent posters such as yourself.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Since Judas seems to exist only to betray his Saviour, I reckon it's reasonable to doubt his existence.

They all "betray" him in the synoptics. John introduces one, count him, one unnamed male disciple, who may or may not be one of the Twelve, who stays the course. The Fourth Gospel gives some prominence to the substantive discipleship of the women who are always nearby at the Passions (although Mark may have ended with the women, too, seeming to let down the side).

I put betray in quotes, because that is the construction Paul seems to suggest (a connotation of his "handing over" remark), and what Celsus' Jewish character, with the benefit of Gospels, rams home.

As to Judas personally, ironically, in John, Judas has an articulate and in my view exemplary reason to cooperate with authorities in their civic improvement project, Jesus' "the poor will always be with you" butt-pull, which is in other Gospels as well, but Judas doesn't call Jesus out for it except in John. Judas has a point. Also, Judas doesn't kill Jesus, he helps law enforcement do its job. If Jesus couldn't talk his way out of the charges, then that's not Judas' probelm, in my view.

John is a good writer, and knew better than to have an unnecessary functional character. He seems to dislike Judas, but his Judas has some three-dimensionality, and not just villainy. (Although villains can be the best characters in a piece, even if you never like them.)

It is a literary flaw to have too many functional characters, but I don't see that the skill-level of the storyteller has any relevance to historical reality of the characters. If Judas became a scapegoat for what all of his colleagues did, then I would sooner suspect that a historical person missed a post-game team meeting before I would believe the character was fictional, unless all the rest of them are fictions, too. That's about 40% for me. I don't see anything that actually distinguishes Judas from anybody else who is not mentioned by name or nickname(s) in Paul's letters but who shows up in the later Gospels.

 

[DougW]

It is NOT a fact that Marcion published ten of Paul's Epistles in 144 AD.

Even Scholars argue that there were MULTIPLE authors of letters under the name of Paul.

Scholars argue that at least the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians were not written by the same authors who composed the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians.

Essentially, it is virtually impossible that Marcion wrote 10 Epistles if the 10 Epistles had MULTIPLE authors.

Plus, it is not logical at all that Marcion would have written 10 Epistles which completely contradicts his own doctrine of Dualism.

You also ignore writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Arnobius and Ephraem the Syrian which show NO mention of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

You forget that Hippolytus specifically claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles. See Refutation of All Heresies.

Your speculation has been UTTERLY destroyed.

1. The Pauline Epistles have been deduced to have Multiple authors.

2. Marcion preached Dualism.

3. Marcion Taught people to DENY that the God of the Jews was the Creator and to DENY that Jesus was God's Son.

4. Hippolytus admitted Marcion used the writings of Empedocles.

5. Origen admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul.

6. Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

7. Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

8. Minucius Felix did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

9. Celsus did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

10. Ephraem the Syrian did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus when he wrote Against Marcion and admitted Marcionites did NOT accept God as the Maker or that Jesus was God's Son.

Perish the thought that my ‘speculation’ has been utterly destroyed. I’d also pay your theory more heed if you didn’t misrepresent my words. I did not claim that Marcion wrote Paul’s ten epistles, merely that he ‘published’ them. Insofar you assert that this is not a proven fact, I challenge you to cite one historian or other scholar who asserts otherwise.

As first noted by Loman and more recently by others the like of Robert Price and Detering, and after discounting mentions by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Marcion remains as our first witness. You furthermore expediently ignored the use made of Paul’s letters, well before 180, by the Valentinians, Tatian, and Apelles.

I’m further nonplussed as to the significance attributed to the year 180. Why not 160, 175, or 190? Why 180 in particular?

I likewise fail to see the significance of your claim that ‘all apologetics of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus’ affirmed that the Jews killed Jesus. You mention church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian and Chrysostom, and others like Origen, Lactantius and Optatus, as well as the Gospel of the Apostles. In that the Gospel of Matthew, inspired by the Holy Spirit since Irenaeus, as well as earlier Christian writings, already attributed the death of Jesus to the Jews, why would you expect any apologist worth his salt claim otherwise?

There is little doubt that the writings labeled Paul comprise the works of many authors. Along with van Manen, Price, Detering and others, I’d go as far as to suggest that these compositions, for the larger part, embrace numerous stitched-together pericopes, a mosaic, parts of which may well have originated in the first century. And as first put to good use by the Marcionites and the Gentile-Gnostic Christians as from toward the middle of the second century, before being eventually appropriated by the orthodoxy, again only after suitable modification.

“Many scholars attempt ‘chronologies’ of the life of Paul, yet Acts of the Apostles is a naive fantasy and the Pauline letters of themselves provide few clues in time or place. Bringing Paul's epistles seamlessly into the story of the church proves to be an impossible task, for collectively the letters offer no continuous narrative and no one has any real idea of the sequence of their composition. Hence the enduring ‘uncertainty’ in the origin of the letters and their stark incompatibility with the ‘authorised’ early history of the faith.” (jesusneverexisted)

Certain elements negate a first century origin, but this is only valid if we exclude the possibility of Catholic interpolation, hardly a realistic proposition.

Paul, formerly the proponent of Christ as mere spiritual agent and spiritual resurrection, so becomes the mouthpiece of Catholic doctrine and dogma, the mind of the orthodox fathers, their lucidity in stark contrast to his obscurity.

The writings attributed to Aristides, Felix, Hippolytus, Arnobius, and Ephraem, for various reasons, including insofar much of their writings have been lost, are of no consequence where those of Paul’s are concerned. Such citations are also an inappropriate application of the Argument from Silence. Justin Martyr not only mentions Marcion but also seems to have relied on Paul’s letters in his own musings, although without expressly acknowledging their existence.

Celsus obviously wrote before Paul’s epistles came into general circulation. Otherwise I think he would have relished using Paul’s writings as ammunition against the orthodox Christians. Origen himself certainly mentions Paul is his reply.

Irrespective of what the Epistles may claim about Paul being a Jew, many elements display a distinctly non-Jewish, Gentile-Hellenic outlook.

To close, I’d like quote the words of G. A. Wells:

"These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth.

They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth').

They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence.

They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution.

They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master …

These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many ...

Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher ... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "

To which I’d add that Paul does not seem to exist for the authors of the four gospels, or vice versa, which seems to eliminate the likelihood of Paul’s Epistles having been composed after the Gospels.

I’d rather have avoided such a lengthy post, and beg the indulgence of fellow posters. Hopefully we won’t have to go through it again.

Well appreciated, eight bits.

 

[David Mo]

Rhett Butler's Corollary.

Why the puzzlement?

Because you don't draw the consequences of your own statement.

If we don't know the original content of the Pauline epistles and an unknown writer could have modified them at any time between the First and the Second Centuries, if the subject of this forum is the historical Jesus, then the content of the Pauline epistles is absolutely irrelevant for this forum.

You can discuss with me about the mention to the "Lord's brother", with eight bits about Paul's visions or with the Holy Spirit about Roland Garros, but all this would be wasting our time.

The sole question important at this moment is: Is it possible to establish some original content of the Pauline epistles and to date it? Meanwhile this question remains unanswered, for the other questions: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" (Rhett Butler).

 

[DougW]

I largely agree David, and I’d much rather have addressed this page’s first couple of posts instead.

“The sole question important at this moment is: Is it possible to establish some original content of the Pauline epistles and to date it?”

Many have tried, with Marcion’s version as their starting point, but even this hardly accounts for the pre-Marcion material.

On the other hand, Bart Erhman’s claims, this topic’s real concern, are mainly based on fallacious circular reasoning, which I’m sure he realizes himself.

 

[IanS]

Because you don't draw the consequences of your own statement.

If we don't know the original content of the Pauline epistles and an unknown writer could have modified them at any time between the First and the Second Centuries, if the subject of this forum is the historical Jesus, then the content of the Pauline epistles is absolutely irrelevant for this forum.

You can discuss with me about the mention to the "Lord's brother", with eight bits about Paul's visions or with the Holy Spirit about Roland Garros, but all this would be wasting our time.
The sole question important at this moment is: Is it possible to establish some original content of the Pauline epistles and to date it? Meanwhile this question remains unanswered, for the other questions: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" (Rhett Butler).

Re the highlight, which is the central issue you are disputing - I think we discussed exactly that point before, when I said to you and/or CraigB that if you want to chuck out Paul’s letters entirely on the basis that the copies we have are unreliable, then that’s fine by me. Do you want rule out the extant translations of Paul’s letters as evidence of Jesus?

However, assuming you don’t want to rule them out (since that would leave only the completely unreliable miracle writing of the gospels) - I made the point to you repeatedly before, that not only is the term “the Lords brother” ambiguous as one single never again repeated remark in any of Paul’s letters, where it is more likely than not that it meant only a brother in belief (because that is what Paul almost always seems to mean when he writes about any “brother”, “brothers”, “brethren”, “sister”, or sisters” …. he means brothers and sisters in religious belief). But also, those three simple words “the lords brother” appear at the end of an otherwise completed sentence. So they are in a position where they have been included in the form of an “afterthought”, either by the original writer ("Paul"), or as we know often happened (apparently), added afterwards by the later Christian copyists who produced such examples as P46.

So I am not saying its entirely worthless to discuss the words found in those translations of mss such as P46. But what I am saying about specific claims made in respect of those three words “the Lords brother”, is that (a)there are numerous reasons to doubt that they were meant to mean a family brother, and (b) there are in any case reasons to think those last 3 words may have been a later addition anyway.

 

[Belz...]

No one's accusing you of anything.

Sure aren't, right ?

I believe I have answered this question many times before, and I don't think answering again at this point would be useful.

Are you saying nothing that's been discussed here has influenced your point of view whatsoever?

No, this is not at all what I am saying, and I don't understand how you can possibly understand this from my post above.

You say you've answered this question many times and you 'don't think answering again at this point would be useful.'
Aren't we all to understand your opinion hasn't changed so you'd be simply repeating it?

No, we are not. I would appreciate if you didn't add content to my posts that I didn't write. I am simply saying that I have answered this question several times, and that therefore you should know the answer by now.

That would be a 'yes', then.

I retract my earlier statement about our conversation being pleasant. You are deliberately misrepresenting me, and then denying even doing it. Around here we call that lying.

 

[tkmikkelsen]

That might have been true before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Also the material from Nag Hammadi has given us a much greater insight into early Christianity and second Temple Judaism.

When all of these things are viewed together along with an understanding of the Historical context provided by Josephus and others, it is difficult to imagine Christianity starting without a Historical Jesus as "patient Zero" as Eight Bits puts it.

Here is an interesting Blog that you might find informative:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/

Or you might like to read my perspective in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

Very nice links you send there interesting reading. I haven't gotten around to reading any of Eisenman's books yet, but they have been on my list for some time.

As I mentioned in my original post I am also leaning to the side that thinks that there where some historical person behind Jesus and the start of Christianity. I am sceptical on if he real name was Jesus, as it is a bit convenient that the saviors name translates to "he who saves" or "he will save".

 

[dejudge]

Perish the thought that my ‘speculation’ has been utterly destroyed. I’d also pay your theory more heed if you didn’t misrepresent my words. I did not claim that Marcion wrote Paul’s ten epistles, merely that he ‘published’ them.

Please, please!! You have exposed your problem. You are putting forward an absurd notion that Marcion published what he did NOT write and is inadvertently admitting the Pauline Corpus was NOT composed by Marcion.

Your argument is exposed as a failure of logic and facts.

The writings attributed to Aristides, Felix, Hippolytus, Arnobius, and Ephraem, for various reasons, including insofar much of their writings have been lost, are of no consequence where those of Paul’s are concerned. Such citations are also an inappropriate application of the Argument from Silence. Justin Martyr not only mentions Marcion but also seems to have relied on Paul’s letters in his own musings, although without expressly acknowledging their existence.

I am extremely happy that you say that writings which have been lost are of NO consequence where those of Paul's are concerned.

Marcion's writings are LOST and are therefore of NO consequence for your argument concerning the Pauline Corpus.

Again, you confirm that your arguments are a failure of logic and facts--Arguments from utter Silence.

 

[IanS]

Why do you continue your absurdities? Why can't you even repeat what I am saying? I have already stated my position.



I am also showing that the PAULINE writers did claim that people OF Galatia SAW Jesus crucified before their EYES and that the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God made of a woman.

See 1 Thessalonians and Galatians.

1-Thessalonians and Galatians are complete extensive letters. If you say they contain credible examples of Paul saying he knew of witnesses who had actually seen the crucifixion of a human Jesus, can you quote those particular passages please, so that we can see what words you are actually referring to?

Plus, I am showing that Pauline writers claimed God's Own Son Jesus BODILY resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER he Died.

See 1 Corinthians 15.

A Pauline writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee.

In Josephus, Pharisees believed ONLY the Body could die.

See Wars of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews 18.

1-Corinthians 15 is a lengthy section that we have already discussed and had quoted here at length, several times. Much of it is ambiguous to say the least, and iirc almost all of it consists of Paul's preaching in theological terms about the promise of resurrection. But I don’t recall in our previous examinations of that passage, any clear unambiguous example of Paul saying that Jesus was known to be a human who died and was resurrected with the same human body. In fact, iirc, in that letter Paul stresses the entire opposite - he stresses there that Jesus was, according to his theology, raised as a spiritual form. So instead of just saying it’s somewhere in 1-Corinthians 15, can you please quote the actual sentence you are referring to?

 

[proudfootz]

Perish the thought that my ‘speculation’ has been utterly destroyed. I’d also pay your theory more heed if you didn’t misrepresent my words. I did not claim that Marcion wrote Paul’s ten epistles, merely that he ‘published’ them. Insofar you assert that this is not a proven fact, I challenge you to cite one historian or other scholar who asserts otherwise.

As first noted by Loman and more recently by others the like of Robert Price and Detering, and after discounting mentions by Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, Marcion remains as our first witness. You furthermore expediently ignored the use made of Paul’s letters, well before 180, by the Valentinians, Tatian, and Apelles.

It is interesting that AFAICT the Paulines turn up first in the hands of Marcion and the first thing anyone has to say about them is that they have been manipulated.

The following article discusses some aspects of this:

To me, accepting at face value Marcion’s assessment of the Pauline letters is the best way to make sense of their contents. To explain Paul’s zigzagging we don’t have to resort to strained psychological or tactical explanations. Anyone who has read mainstream Pauline commentaries knows what I am talking about. They contain seemingly endless psychological reasons why Paul shifts back and forth on the contentious issues that separated the proto-orthodox from the early gnostics. If he speaks dismissively of the Law in one passage but praises it in another, it is because he was impulsive by nature. Or he was not a clear or systematic thinker. Or he was so passionate about his beliefs that he failed to notice the contradictions in what he wrote. He wrote things when he was angry that he surely later regretted. Etc… Etc.

...

Instead of submitting the author of the Paulines to psychological or tactical analysis to explain his contradictions, I think consideration should be given first to the earliest explanation, that of Marcion: someone has tampered with the letters; they were originally gnostic but were subsequently Judaized. I know that playing the interpolation card looks like an “easy-out.” But surely it counts for something that from the first moment the Pauline collection of letters turns up in the early record a prominent Christian, Marcion, was already screaming: “Interpolated!”

http://vridar.org/2012/01/23/was-marcion-right-about-pauls-letters/

I’m further nonplussed as to the significance attributed to the year 180. Why not 160, 175, or 190? Why 180 in particular?

I likewise fail to see the significance of your claim that ‘all apologetics of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus’ affirmed that the Jews killed Jesus. You mention church fathers Irenaeus, Tertullian and Chrysostom, and others like Origen, Lactantius and Optatus, as well as the Gospel of the Apostles. In that the Gospel of Matthew, inspired by the Holy Spirit since Irenaeus, as well as earlier Christian writings, already attributed the death of Jesus to the Jews, why would you expect any apologist worth his salt claim otherwise?

There is little doubt that the writings labeled Paul comprise the works of many authors. Along with van Manen, Price, Detering and others, I’d go as far as to suggest that these compositions, for the larger part, embrace numerous stitched-together pericopes, a mosaic, parts of which may well have originated in the first century. And as first put to good use by the Marcionites and the Gentile-Gnostic Christians as from toward the middle of the second century, before being eventually appropriated by the orthodoxy, again only after suitable modification.

“Many scholars attempt ‘chronologies’ of the life of Paul, yet Acts of the Apostles is a naive fantasy and the Pauline letters of themselves provide few clues in time or place. Bringing Paul's epistles seamlessly into the story of the church proves to be an impossible task, for collectively the letters offer no continuous narrative and no one has any real idea of the sequence of their composition. Hence the enduring ‘uncertainty’ in the origin of the letters and their stark incompatibility with the ‘authorised’ early history of the faith.” (jesusneverexisted)

Certain elements negate a first century origin, but this is only valid if we exclude the possibility of Catholic interpolation, hardly a realistic proposition.

Paul, formerly the proponent of Christ as mere spiritual agent and spiritual resurrection, so becomes the mouthpiece of Catholic doctrine and dogma, the mind of the orthodox fathers, their lucidity in stark contrast to his obscurity.

The writings attributed to Aristides, Felix, Hippolytus, Arnobius, and Ephraem, for various reasons, including insofar much of their writings have been lost, are of no consequence where those of Paul’s are concerned. Such citations are also an inappropriate application of the Argument from Silence. Justin Martyr not only mentions Marcion but also seems to have relied on Paul’s letters in his own musings, although without expressly acknowledging their existence.

Celsus obviously wrote before Paul’s epistles came into general circulation. Otherwise I think he would have relished using Paul’s writings as ammunition against the orthodox Christians. Origen himself certainly mentions Paul is his reply.

Irrespective of what the Epistles may claim about Paul being a Jew, many elements display a distinctly non-Jewish, Gentile-Hellenic outlook.

To close, I’d like quote the words of G. A. Wells:

"These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth.

They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth').

They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence.

They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution.

They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master …

These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many ...

Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher ... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered. "

To which I’d add that Paul does not seem to exist for the authors of the four gospels, or vice versa, which seems to eliminate the likelihood of Paul’s Epistles having been composed after the Gospels.

I’d rather have avoided such a lengthy post, and beg the indulgence of fellow posters. Hopefully we won’t have to go through it again.

Well appreciated, eight bits.

This last bolded part is striking to me as well - it's as if the two 'streams' are completely ignorant of one another. This argues, in my opinion, to the possibility that there were many different communities or cults churning out faith literature that could be in complete ignorance of one another - even if they were contemporaries. Such groups speculating about a savior could spring up anywhere there was a copy of the Septuagint and need not have its origin in the story of one man in Palestine.

 

[dejudge]

So far we have seen many un-evidenced Crackpot theories like Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history, that he was killed by the Romans after he cause a disturbance at the Jewish Temple , that he was a Rabbi and Jesus was a cosmic Christ who was never believed to be earth in the Pauline Corpus.

There is simply no evidence at all from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin in non-Apologetic writings until the 2nd century or later.

The EXISTING evidence from antiquity shows that after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE stories were INVENTED that the JEWS Killed the Son of their OWN God and that was the reason for the Fall of the Temple.

Please, No more Crackpot theories.

The evidence from antiquity has been EXHIBITED.

Exhibit 1.

Aristides' Apology-

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.


This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

Exhibit 2.

Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?

Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf?

Was it on account of the idolatry of the people?

Was it for the blood of the prophets?

Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel?

By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

Please, no more Crackpot theories.

There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity which clearly shows that 2nd century or later Christians did believe that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

No manuscript of Jesus and Paul has ever been found and dated to anytime before c 70 CE.

 

[Brainache]

So far we have seen many un-evidenced Crackpot theories like Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history, that he was killed by the Romans after he cause a disturbance at the Jewish Temple , that he was a Rabbi and Jesus was a cosmic Christ who was never believed to be earth in the Pauline Corpus.

There is simply no evidence at all from antiquity for Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee of the Tribe of Benjamin in non-Apologetic writings until the 2nd century or later.

The EXISTING evidence from antiquity shows that after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE stories were INVENTED that the JEWS Killed the Son of their OWN God and that was the reason for the Fall of the Temple.

Please, No more Crackpot theories.

The evidence from antiquity has been EXHIBITED.

Exhibit 1.

Aristides' Apology-

Exhibit 2.

Hippolytus' Treatise Against the Jews

Please, no more Crackpot theories.

There is an abundance of evidence from antiquity which clearly shows that 2nd century or later Christians did believe that the Jews Killed the Son of God.

No manuscript of Jesus and Paul has ever been found and dated to anytime before c 70 CE.

Is it your opinion that for Jesus to be a "figure of History" that he must appear in an ancient book written by a Historian?

Do you suppose that the events and people depicted in ancient texts are the only things we can know about the ancient world?

Do you believe that everything written by ancient scribes is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Have you ever heard of the concept of critical analysis of texts?

Do you understand the historical context of 1st century Palestine?

Have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Do you know that every educated person on this subject views your ideas as "Crackpot"?

 

[dejudge]

Is it your opinion that for Jesus to be a "figure of History" that he must appear in an ancient book written by a Historian?

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi is found in ancient books--Jesus called Rabbi is God Creator in manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

Do you suppose that the events and people depicted in ancient texts are the only things we can know about the ancient world?

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi [the Logos--God Creator] is ONLY found in the NT and Apologetics.

Do you believe that everything written by ancient scribes is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

You believe Galatians 1.19 is nothing but the truth even though you admit Paul was a Liar.

Have you ever heard of the concept of critical analysis of texts?

Have you ever heard of the Apocritus attributed to Macarius Magnes?

Please, analyse it.

It is claimed Paul was a Liar and grew up in an atmosphere of Lying.

Have you ever heard of Chrysostom?

He admitted that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of the Lord.

Do you understand the historical context of 1st century Palestine?

I understand the evidence from antiquity that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin were unknown in apologetic writings pre 70 CE.

Have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

You cannot read the Dead Sea Scrolls. You only repeat what others write about them.

Do you know that every educated person on this subject views your ideas as "Crackpot"?

What a Big Lie.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You make stuff up. You are not credible.

Please, no more Crackpot claims and ideas.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Rabbi, is Crackpot idea.

Who told you Jesus of Nazareth was a Rabbi?

Somebody in the 21st century or you made it up.

 

[Brainache]

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi is found in ancient books--Jesus called Rabbi is God Creator in manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

Not all of them.

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi [the Logos--God Creator] is ONLY found in the NT and Apologetics.

What about the Apocrypha?

What about the Gnostic Gospels?

What about the Gospel of Thomas?

You believe Galatians 1.19 is nothing but the truth even though you admit Paul was a Liar.

That is where critical thinking comes in. Paul is talking about someone who his congregation know of as "James The Brother of the Lord", why would he call James that? Why would he use that title if no one else was using it to describe James? Why would he mention James at all if James was unknown to his audience?

Have you ever heard of the Apocritus attributed to Macarius Magnes?

Please, analyse it.

Give me a reason.

It is claimed Paul was a Liar and grew up in an atmosphere of Lying.

Paul acknowledges that people were calling him a liar himself. The Ebionites called him a liar. That doesn't mean we can't glean information from his lies.

Have you ever heard of Chrysostom?

He admitted that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of the Lord.

He also said that Jews eat babies. A point which you constantly ignore. He believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin, of course it would suit his purposes to deny that Jesus had any natural brothers. gMark says otherwise.

I understand the evidence from antiquity that Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin were unknown in apologetic writings pre 70 CE.

What about Jesus the Nazorean?

What pre 70 CE Apologetic writings are you referring to?

Do you know what "Apologist" means?

You cannot read the Dead Sea Scrolls. You only repeat what others write about them.

True, but that doesn't mean they are irrelevant to any study of Second Temple Judaism.

What a Big Lie.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You make stuff up. You are not credible.

Thank you for that compliment. It makes me feel like I'm on the right track.

Please, no more Crackpot claims and ideas.

Jesus of Nazareth, the Rabbi, is Crackpot idea.

Who told you Jesus of Nazareth was a Rabbi?

Somebody in the 21st century or you made it up.

I've been reading the opinions of professional Academics, rather than spouting nonsense about incarnate gods.

Good luck with that.

 

[JaysonR]

Have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

You cannot read the Dead Sea Scrolls. You only repeat what others write about them.

This is a very strange approach to the subject, as last time this subject came up during a discourse on paleographic comparison between Justin Martyr and Pauline texts, Dejudge wasn't able to read the Greek directly for either the Apologetic texts he was citing, nor the Pauline texts that were in question at the time - instead (like most folks) referring to translated copies of both into English.

It doesn't really seem to be a relevant point to suggest that Brainache cannot read the DSS, when they are published in English; thereby making the only sensible meaning of the charge that Brainache is not able to read them in Hebrew...but then again, how is this any different from Dejudge not being able to read Apologetic, Pauline, and Gospel texts in their Greek form?

If that is somehow a limiting obfuscation being cited, then I don't see how it is a valid comparison since both parties are rather equal on that ability and using English translations by others just as equally as each other; for as far as I'm aware, Dedjuge cannot read either Hebrew nor Greek any more than Brainache...I'm not really sure what the value of this was supposed to be.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

..I'm not really sure what the value of this was supposed to be.

Hmm, agreed. It seems to have more or less degraded to a "street fight".
Not saying there isn't some entertainment value in that though.

But FWIW,... Ba, I'd throw in the towel, there doesn't seem any way to reach any type of common ground with Dj.

 

[Brainache]

Hmm, agreed. It seems to have more or less degraded to a "street fight".
Not saying there isn't some entertainment value in that though.

But FWIW,... Ba, I'd throw in the towel, there doesn't seem any way to reach any type of common ground with Dj.

I'm well past the point of trying to make dejudge see reason.

I'm just exposing his fallacies for the lurkers...

 

[DougW]

Please, please!! You have exposed your problem. You are putting forward an absurd notion that Marcion published what he did NOT write and is inadvertently admitting the Pauline Corpus was NOT composed by Marcion.

Your argument is exposed as a failure of logic and facts.

Unless you’re able to demonstrate that the Marcionites, Valentinians, Tatian and Apelles, did not make use of Paul’s epistles prior to the year 180, your theory not only does not fly, but doesn’t even make it off the ground, which seems to render further discussion thereof rather pointless.