Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

How strange.
The link works perfectly for me.
How about this link?
http://books.google.es/books?id=zEd...908#v=onepage&q=Paul epistle Herodion&f=false

The sense of the page is that the people of those households were slaves and that Herodion was the name of a Jewish slave of Aristabulos.
The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8-16 by R. H. C. Lenki, 2008 was the ninth hit when I typed Paul epistle Herodion into Google.

Apparently it's a reprint of a text published in 1938.
Good luck finding a workable link as I'd be interested in your take on Lenski's view the epistle doesn't refer to influential people, but rather slaves.

That worked. I see he asserts that these must be slaves, but I don't see what he is basing that on other than tradition or dogma.

The idea that Aristobulus had a Jewish slave named after his Grandfather Herod The Great is absurd to me. Herod, Herodion, Herodias etc were family names of the Royal Family (Idumean Arabs BTW, not Jews). What makes this guy think that a Slave would be given a Royal Family name?

It's ridiculous.

Are there any other more recent Scholars who agree with Lenski? A lot of stuff has come to light since 1938.

ETA: I just read the intro to this Lenski book and it appears to be more a work of Theology, than of Historical research. It highlights why I prefer Eisenman to religiously trained apologists like Lenski. Eisenman started his career studying Maths and Physics and drifted into Middle East History via study of Islamic Law. His books are logical and refreshingly free of dogma.

 

[maximara]

No, you have. 8bits' question asks where there's any indication in Origen that Celsus questions the historical existence of Jesus the human teacher at all.

And as I have pointed out that is NOT the issue...never has been. If you go back to the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread you run into issue of what do you mean when you refer to "Jesus".

The question has and always been even if you assume that the Gospel Jesus is a historical myth you still run in to the issue of "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false".

Let me spell it out since Stone and Eight are having a hard time understanding.

If the Gospel narrative is essentially false then it describes a Jesus who never existed much as Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn describes a Davy Crockett who never existed.

If the Gospel Jesus is a composite character then again it describes a Jesus who never existed.

If as some claim Jesus actually lived c 100 BCE then again the Gospels describes a Jesus who never existed.

If ala John Frum Paul inspired one or more believers to take up the name Jesus and start preaching you yet again have the Gospels describing a Jesus who never existed because that Jesus was not the founder of Christianity...someone else was.

 

[Brainache]

And as I have pointed out that is NOT the issue...never has been. If you go back to the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread you run into issue of what do you mean when you refer to "Jesus".

The question has and always been even if you assume that the Gospel Jesus is a historical myth you still run in to the issue of "a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false".

Let me spell it out since Stone and Eight are having a hard time understanding.

If the Gospel narrative is essentially false then it describes a Jesus who never existed much as Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn describes a Davy Crockett who never existed.

If the Gospel Jesus is a composite character then again it describes a Jesus who never existed.

If as some claim Jesus actually lived c 100 BCE then again the Gospels describes a Jesus who never existed.

If "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer" (and a few variations) were the only record of Abe Lincoln, would you say that the "Historical Lincoln" didn't exist?

Ooh look, I assumed a consequence.

Sorry.

 

[eight bits]

max

That's all very interesting, but you were asked a simple question.

It now appears that we all agree that Celsus didn't argue the non-existence of Jesus, contrary to your earlier assertion. It follows that the TF, in any form, is unresponsive as rebuttal to what Celsus did argue. That fully explains one aspect of what you had asked about, why Origen didn't cite the TF against Celsus.

...if you assume that the Gospel Jesus is a historical myth ...

I don't assume that. As for Davy Crockett, I don't believe that he's a "historical myth" either. Like every historical character I've read about or witnessed in action, many things have come to be said about him, a necessarily non-decreasing accumulation of assrtions. Not everything people have said about Mr Crockett, his life and his times, is factually accurate

Much the same can be said of Sherlock Holmes, whose life I believe to be a fictional creation, originally of Arthur Conan Doyle, and subsequently retold with advantages by many authors. Since the phenomenon fails to distinguish well-attested historical figures from confidently fictional characters, I conclude that it is of limited usefulness to Professor Ehrman's inquiries, or our own.

Edited by Locknar: 

Please ensure quoted material is properly attributed/referenced/

 

[pakeha]

That worked. I see he asserts that these must be slaves, but I don't see what he is basing that on other than tradition or dogma.

The idea that Aristobulus had a Jewish slave named after his Grandfather Herod The Great is absurd to me. Herod, Herodion, Herodias etc were family names of the Royal Family (Idumean Arabs BTW, not Jews). What makes this guy think that a Slave would be given a Royal Family name?

It's ridiculous.

Are there any other more recent Scholars who agree with Lenski? A lot of stuff has come to light since 1938.

ETA: I just read the intro to this Lenski book and it appears to be more a work of Theology, than of Historical research. It highlights why I prefer Eisenman to religiously trained apologists like Lenski. Eisenman started his career studying Maths and Physics and drifted into Middle East History via study of Islamic Law. His books are logical and refreshingly free of dogma.

I'm glad the link worked, Brainache! Uncooperative links vex me, as do paywalls.

I'd understood the phrase 'people of the household' translated as 'slaves' and that Herodion simply referred to a particular slave, one who'd been a part of Aristabulos' estate. Since Aristabulos was a member of the Herodian family, it seemed as simple as calling a slave Claudian, Julia or Antonia. I thought Lenski was making a rational commentary on the text, nothing more.
Of course I see your point about trusting apologetic authors, especially one writing before WWII and I can respect your trust in Eisenman's take on the meaning of that Pauline greeting.

I admit my interest has been piqued, so I'll be looking up references to how that phrase is understood and post up what I find.

 

[Brainache]

I'm glad the link worked, Brainache! Uncooperative links vex me, as do paywalls.

I'd understood the phrase 'people of the household' translated as 'slaves' and that Herodion simply referred to a particular slave, one who'd been a part of Aristabulos' estate. Since Aristabulos was a member of the Herodian family, it seemed as simple as calling a slave Claudian, Julia or Antonia. I thought Lenski was making a rational commentary on the text, nothing more.
Of course I see your point about trusting apologetic authors, especially one writing before WWII and I can respect your trust in Eisenman's take on the meaning of that Pauline greeting.

I admit my interest has been piqued, so I'll be looking up references to how that phrase is understood and post up what I find.

I'd be interested to learn why some translations have it : "Herodion my kinsman", and others have it: "Herodion my fellow Jew".

I don't think Paul calls himself Jewish anywhere else. He says he is Hebrew, a descendent of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, but he really seems to avoid actually identifying as Jewish per se.

 

[barehl]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist, but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus." - Bart D. Ehrman, December 2007. (http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/)

I heard Bart make the above statement on a recorded radio show and wondered what people thought of it. It seemed to me pretty strong.

It doesn't seem strong to me. I would say that there was such a person, that he did have a cousin, John the baptist, and that he did drive out the money changers at the temple. And, he apparently had followers. Crucifixion seems accurate since this was a common method of Roman execution. Nothing about these accounts seem far-fetched at all. Some of the statements attributed to him were not made by him. The miracles attributed to him are not accurate; most of these go along with Old Testament traditions (such as casting out unclean spirits and bringing someone back to life). Other claims are obvious inventions to make his life match prophesy from the OT including virgin birth and being born at Bethlehem.

 

[barehl]

I don't think Paul calls himself Jewish anywhere else. He says he is Hebrew, a descendent of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin, but he really seems to avoid actually identifying as Jewish per se.

This is not true. Paul claimed that the Hebrew traditions (circumcision, only eating kosher foods, etc.) were not required, that this new religion essentially replaced Judaism. However, Paul continued to observe all of the Hebrew traditions. For this, he was called a hypocrite. In the end, he was unable to choose between the traditions that he had always observed and his claim of faith in a new religion.

 

[maximara]

max

That's all very interesting, but you were asked a simple question.

It now appears that we all agree that Celsus didn't argue the non-existence of Jesus, contrary to your earlier assertion.

HOLD IT RIGHT THERE, EIGHT. I NEVER ASSERTED THAT CELSUS ARGUED FOR THE NON EXISTENCE OF JESUS AS A FLESH AND BLOOD MAN AS YOU CLAIM. <SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

Font changed, breach of rule 6; Forum moderation comment SNIPed breach of rule 11 - if you wish to discuss Forum moderation please do so in Forum Management vs in thread.

 

[maximara]

No, you have. 8bits' question asks where there's any indication in Origen that Celsus questions the historical existence of Jesus the human teacher at all.

Show where I expressly stated that "Celsus questions the historical existence of Jesus the human teacher". I expressly stated the criteria I was using:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Note that the term used is the stories of and NOT man himself.

As I jokingly said before a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 would still be "Non historical" if you used Marshall's second definition and it falls under Robertson's and Bromiley definition of the Christ Myth theory.

Per this definition supported by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia itself the first challenge to the historical Jesus would be Celsus c180 CE who Origen wrote a reply to and yet did not use the Testimonium Flavianum. The only logical reason is the passage didn't exist for Origen to use.


To which I add I. Howard Marshall's two ways Jesus would be considered non-historical:

1: The Gospels stripped of supernatural elements are not an accurate description of Jesus in terms of actual historical events (The Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn example). Marshall uses King Arthur as an example of this kind of non-Historicity

2) Jesus as a flesh and blood man didn't not exist. The examples Marshall gives for this kind of non-historicity are King Lear and Doctor Who.

Celsus was clearly arguing for point 1 NOT point 2. Trying to divert attention by falsely claiming point 2 is being argued when it has been stated point 1 is being argued shows a lack of a real solid position.

 

[maximara]

Maximara:
The range of the conversion is generally given as 31-37 CE and if you think about John Frum you have yet another possibility.

We know that from 1940-1947 there were three inspired natives that took up the name John Frum.

So we have Paul converting in 31 CE inspiring one or more followers to become Jesus. This "Jesus" gets in trouble with the Romans and is crucified.

So you have Paul talking about a mythical (doesn't mater which type) Jesus that inspires someone to become Jesus who is later crucified and whose exploits along with other would be messiahs form the Gospel Jesus.

(you need the context)

That's an amusing speculation and would have a cut-off date of 36, when Pilate was removed from his governorship of Judaea. Could Paul have been creepy enough to do such a thing?

I don't think Paul consciously inspired anyone to become Jesus anymore then any one person inspired Manehivi, Neloaig, and Iokaeye to become John Frum in 1940, 1943, and 1947 respectively.

We know from Josephus there were many would be "Messiahs" before and after the supposed time of Jesus preaching.

Also based on what happened with John Frum the cut off date need not be 36 CE...Pontius Pilate may have been chosen for the same reason King John was for Robin Hood (The earliest ballads have him dealing with "King Edward") in that they were not well liked and were well known.

By contrast Marcellus lasted perhaps year and anything Marullus did could be blamed on the mad Caligula. Herod Agrippa had challenged Caligula before becoming ruler of the region and according to the Jewish Encyclopedia "ruled his subjects with compassion and friendliness".

For a fledgling religion that is trying to appeal to the non-Jewish population and knows making Rome looking bad is not a way to stay healthy in the 70-130 CE period Pontius Pilate is nearly tailor made.

He ruled for nearly a decade and so was reasonably well known in the region. He was disliked by the Jewish population which was just recently fighting Rome. He was likely running things when Paul converted. So you write him as a sympathetic though ineffectual ruler who washes his hand of the whole affair putting Rome in a positive light. Doesn't matter if he was really the guy running things when Jesus was crucified you use him because he has better press appeal to the (Roman) masses.

 

[eight bits]

max

My statement was, at post 264

It now appears that we all agree that Celsus didn't argue the non-existence of Jesus, contrary to your earlier assertion.

In your post 246, you had written

Per this definition supported by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia itself the first challenge to the historical Jesus would be Celsus c180 CE who Origen wrote a reply to and yet did not use the Testimonium Flavianum. The only logical reason is the passage didn't exist for Origen to use.

That is, on its face, contrary to the proposition "that Celsus didn't argue the non-existence of Jesus."

 

[Locknar]

Before it gets out hand...please keep the discussion civil/polite, on topic and address the argument vs attack the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

 

[Brainache]

This is not true. Paul claimed that the Hebrew traditions (circumcision, only eating kosher foods, etc.) were not required, that this new religion essentially replaced Judaism. However, Paul continued to observe all of the Hebrew traditions. For this, he was called a hypocrite. In the end, he was unable to choose between the traditions that he had always observed and his claim of faith in a new religion.

OK then, show me where in the Bible Paul calls himself Jewish. Not "Of the tribe of Benjamin", or "Hebrew" or whatever, Jewish.

He boasts about how good he is at lying to manipulate people. He says he acts like a Jew to the Jews, like a Greek to the Greeks, etc. That is not how a sincerely religious person behaves, that's a cynical lying scumbag.

He also says that nothing is unclean for him, which is not observing Jewish tradition at all.

If Paul isn't the "Spouter Of Lies" mentioned in the DSS, he is doing a pretty good job impersonating him.

 

[TimCallahan]

OK then, show me where in the Bible Paul calls himself Jewish. Not "Of the tribe of Benjamin", or "Hebrew" or whatever, Jewish.

He boasts about how good he is at lying to manipulate people. He says he acts like a Jew to the Jews, like a Greek to the Greeks, etc. That is not how a sincerely religious person behaves, that's a cynical lying scumbag.

He also says that nothing is unclean for him, which is not observing Jewish tradition at all.

If Paul isn't the "Spouter Of Lies" mentioned in the DSS, he is doing a pretty good job impersonating him.

In Galatians, specifically Gal. 1:13, 14. Paul says:

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people , so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my people.

In any case, in Rom. 11:1 he says he's an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, which would be hard to be if he's not Jewish.

However, i don't see that this has a whole lot of bearing on his being the "spouter of lies."

 

[Brainache]

In Galatians, specifically Gal. 1:13, 14. Paul says:

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it; and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people , so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my people.

In any case, in Rom. 11:1 he says he's an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, which would be hard to be if he's not Jewish.

It's my understanding that when Paul wrote that, there was no extant "tribe of Benjamin". King David's father (Saul) was a Benjaminite, but by the time of the second temple "the tribe of Benjamin" was a term used for semitic people who weren't Jewish. Of course I could be wrong, but why doesn't he just say Jewish, instead of this convoluted obscurity?

Advancing in Judaism could just mean being given authority by the Priesthood to persecute their opponents.

The "traditions of his people" could mean the traditions of the Herodians, if he was a member of that family as Eisenman argues. Still not Jewish.

However, i don't see that this has a whole lot of bearing on his being the "spouter of lies."

Except for the part where he boasts about how good he is at lying to people to get them to convert to his new religion.

 

[maximara]

max

My statement was, at post 264


In your post 246, you had written


That is, on its face, contrary to the proposition "that Celsus didn't argue the non-existence of Jesus."

No it isn't as

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Note that the term used is the stories of and NOT man himself.

As I jokingly said before a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 would still be "Non historical" if you used Marshall's second definition and it falls under Robertson's and Bromiley definition of the Christ Myth theory.

Per this definition supported by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia itself the first challenge to the historical Jesus would be Celsus c180 CE who Origen wrote a reply to and yet did not use the Testimonium Flavianum. The only logical reason is the passage didn't exist for Origen to use.


Eight, you are taking the sentence out of context and giving it a meaning it never had. In context it is clear the "challenge to the historical Jesus" is using the definition of the Christ Myth theory (the antithesis of the historical Jesus position) provided by the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia where the story of Jesus (and NOT the man himself) is challenged.

This is supported by Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's two ways Jesus would be considered non-historical:

1:The Gospels stripped of supernatural elements are not an accurate description of Jesus in terms of actual historical events (The Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn example). Marshall uses King Arthur as an example of this kind of non-Historicity
2) Jesus as a flesh and blood man didn't not exist. The examples Marshall gives for this kind of non-historicity are King Lear and Doctor Who.

Celsus was clearly arguing for point 1 NOT point 2. Trying to divert attention by claiming point 2 is being argued when it has been stated point 1 is being argued shows a lack of a real solid position and is a favorite strawman dodge of apologists.

The painful reality is there are two types of non-historicity here: story of and man himself. As Price stated "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." (Price, Robert (2012) The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems pg 387-8)

But that would mean that Gospels Jesus didn't exist because he is of the 1st century CE rather than 1st century BCE

 

[maximara]

If "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer" (and a few variations) were the only record of Abe Lincoln, would you say that the "Historical Lincoln" didn't exist?

Ooh look, I assumed a consequence.

Sorry.

The flaw with this comparison is that we have other records to bring to the table that can be used regarding the Gospels.

And one of these records is of the Emperors of Rome and when they reigned. Which would mean for your "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer" example we would have a list of US Presidents and when they were President.
Oh lookie there in our list of US Presidents: Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865. That was a quick trip.


For any comparison to Jesus be valid you would have someone for whom no truly contemporary records exist but some 25 years later you have a someone writing about him but in vague terms that don't give you anything to really work with, and then some 25 to 105 years after that you get a detailed stories regarding his teachings.


We do have someone who fits the first two points. I have mentioned him several times: John Frum.

In fact, in the 1952 report (Guiart, Jean (1952) "John Frum Movement in Tanna" Oceania Vol 22 No 3 pg 165-177) regarding John Frum shows three natives taking up the name John Frum and in 1942 there were people claiming to be sons of John Frum. More over as early as 1949 there were people saying the "origin of the movement or the cause started more than thirty years ago" ie putting "John Frum" in the 1910s

And yet "John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all." (Dawkins Richard (2006) The God Delusion pgs 202-203)

 

[Brainache]

The flaw with this comparison is that we have other records to bring to the table that can be used regarding the Gospels.

And one of these records is of the Emperors of Rome and when they reigned. Which would mean for your "Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer" example we would have a list of US Presidents and when they were President.
Oh lookie there in our list of US Presidents: Abraham Lincoln, March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865. That was a quick trip. ...

You wouldn't have a list of presidents, because Abe Lincoln Vampire Slayer is the only record of Lincoln.

STICK TO THE SCENARIO!!!

 

[maximara]

You wouldn't have a list of presidents, because Abe Lincoln Vampire Slayer is the only record of Lincoln.

STICK TO THE SCENARIO!!!

The Scenario is FLAWED. As I said we have other records to bring to the table that can be used regarding the Gospels.

For your scenario to work ALL records of the Civil War (including personal correspondence), the Lincoln–Douglas debates, Lincoln's personal writings, records of the Congress, records of every Governor in every state of the Union, campaign records in every state of the Union, campaign buttons and coins in every state of the Union, records in every country on the entire planet, , the archive inside Mount Rushmore (many people are not aware of this but there is an sealed archive of American History inside the monument), Lincoln's actual tomb, etc would have to disappear.

"Into this room the records of what our people aspired to and what they have accomplished should be collected and preserved, and on the walls of this room should be cut the literal records of the conception of our republic, its successful creation, the record of its westward movement to the Pacific, its presidents, how the memorial was built and, frankly. Why." -- Borglum regarding Mt Rushmore's “Hall of Records”

While not completed during his lifetime the Historical Society did put a sealed cache of records there.

Because he was President, Abe Lincoln is on par with the Caesars of Rome and we not only have a list of those guys but actual time when they reigned. More over we have contemporary records regarding many of these Caesars. Moreover thanks to the printing press where were more records regarding Lincoln at the time of his death then every existed for Jesus c 36 CE

In short your scenario requires the non existence of evidence equivalent to that which can and is used regarding Jesus and is therefore not a valid comparison.