Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

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 in the entire planet, , etc would have to disappear.

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.

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.

Well, OK, but for this analogy to make any sense you would have to imagine he was President of a country the size of Ancient Judea which was conquered and all records destroyed (there might be some scrolls hidden in Dakota somewhere: The Deadwood Scrolls, written in code) and the population scattered and sold into slavery...

But don't bother, I was just being silly because I already know Lincoln existed, the reasoning is circular.

 

[eight bits]

max

Eight, you are taking the sentence out of context and giving it a meaning it never had.

My statement stands as written. Celsus did not dispute the actual existence of Jesus. That is a possible "logical reason" for Origen not to have used the TF passage in his reply to Celsus. It is a different reason than one which was mentioned earlier in this thread. That earlier reason, then, isn't the "only logical reason" for Origen's choice, contrary to a claim which was made about it.

 

[pakeha]

I'm back from sifting what seemed to be endless commentaries and articles on Romans 16:11 and with findings I didn't expect.
Good times!

I'll post my take on all that all bit by bit, in response to your posts, Brainache.

...Herodion? A slave named after the King?

Not a slave, but a freedman. And yes, it was customary for a freedman to take the name of a former owner or of their family in gratitude or respect, so there's nothing implausible about Herodion being a freedman of Aristobulos.
At least, as far as I can see.

Paul's encounter with Agrippa and his wife/sister in Acts depicts these Tyrants as being on friendly terms with him. Remember Paul is the hero of Acts, and this book depicts him as hobnobbing with the very people who were oppressing the Jewish people and executing all those early Martyrs. ...

Ah, yes.
Acts. Hardly my idea of a go-to text on an accurate rendering of Paul's story. Do you have any reason that incident is based on anything approaching reality?

... 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.

Up to a point, you're quite right, Brainache. However, it's no secret freedmen would take on a variant of their patron's family name.

...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.

Oh, yes.
Lots and lots.
http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Herodion

he-ro'-di-on (Herodion; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Hrodion): A Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Romans 16:11). The name seems to imply that he was a freedman of the Herods, or a member of the household of Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great (Romans 16:10). Paul calls him "my kinsman," i.e. "a Jew" (see JUNIAS, 1).

http://biblehub.com/romans/16-11.htm

- Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them of the household of Narcissus that are in the Lord. This Narcissus may possibly have been the powerful freedman of Claudius, mentioned by Tacitus, 'Ann.,' 11:29, seq.; 12:57; and by Suetonius, 'Claud.,' 28. The fact that he appears from 'Ann.,' 13:1, to have been put to death on the accession of Nero, A.D. 54, is not inconsistent with the supposition. For his human chattels would be likely to pass into the possession of Nero, and so become part of Caeasar's household, and might still be called by their late master's name. This may also have been the case with the household of Aristobulus above referred to. It is observable that, at a later period, the apostle, writing from Rome to the Philippians, sends special greetings from them "that are of Caesar's household" (Philippians 4:23).

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Salute Herodion my kinsman,.... According to the flesh, being of the same nation, a Jew; or of the same tribe, the tribe of Benjamin; or of the same family, and nearly allied in blood to him: though the name is of Attic, or Parthic original, and seems to be a derivative of Herod; this man is reckoned among the seventy disciples, and said to be bishop of Tarsus: See Gill on Luke 10:1.

http://www.awmi.net/bible/rom_16_11

Note 16 at Ro 16:11: The name Herodion came from the Greek word "HERODES" meaning "heroic" (Strong's Concordance). This was the name of a number of kings of Palestine (see note 3 at Lu 3:1), and it is possible that Herodion was named after one of the kings named Herod. If so, that would most likely make Herodion a Gentile, since it would be very unusual for a Jew to name a child in honor of Herod.

Herodion was the third person Paul mentioned in this chapter as being his kinsman (see note 9 at Ro 16:7). If Herodion was a Gentile, as his name could imply, then Paul would have been referring to him as a brother in the Lord and not a natural blood relative.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/romans/romans16.htm

Lightfoot suggests that Narcissus could have been a rich and powerful freedman who was closely connected to the Emperor Claudius, serving as his secretary, and who was later put to death shortly after Nero assumed the throne. If Aristobulus was related to the Herods (see v.10), then he would have been a close ally of Claudius. These two possibilities may give us some help in understanding Philippians 4:22 ("[the saints] that are of Caesar’s household"), because there would have been at least two households within the palace that had believers in them.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/essays/paulromanswhy.htm

Lampe claims that the only names which occur both in Rm 16 and on the Jewish inscriptions of Rome are Rufus, Julia and Maria [not necessarily 'Miriam'; it could also designate a freed slave of the Marius family]; a fourth, Apelles (v. 10), occurs in Horace. Paul calls sugge,neij, perhaps representing all Jews as cousins in his attempt to conciliate the Romans, Andronicus, Junia and Herodion (16. 6, 11).

I have many more references, if you're interested in seeing them.
For comic relief, go to this one
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/daily-weblogs/2011/01-2011/romans-16-part-2/



Now about Eisenman's ideas.
Here's his paper on the subject
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html

But where Paul is concerned, one can go even further. Paul speaks in an unguarded moment in Rom 16:11 of his "kinsman Herodion." Though the name could refer to any person by this name anywhere, still names like Herod and its derivatives (n.b. the parallel with the name of Caesar's son "Caesarion") are not common. Nor is there any indication that the passage is an interpolation. If it were indicative of actual familial relationships with Herodians, which in my view it is, then by itself it explains the hint of Herodian membership and/or activity in the early Christian community in Antioch. It also very easily explains the matter of Paul's Roman citizenship, which is such an important element in these escapes. In turn, it helps explain why Paul is always so convinced of his own Jewishness, while others seem to have misgivings concerning it, and it throws much light on the peculiar manner in which he chooses to exercise this Judaism.

I couldn't find many writers who support his line of thinking.

Jesus' Words Only, Douglas John del Tondo
http://books.google.es/books?id=3VF...&q=Paul Romans Herodion Romans 16:11&f=false


The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible
By Norm Phelps
http://books.google.es/books?id=Lfn...&q=Paul Romans Herodion Romans 16:11&f=false


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception16.htm
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?noframes;read=2302

Not a nice place, but it shows just how far some people have gone with Eisenman's ideas
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/gnosticism#.UlUbK1Pef_d

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

And even more translate the phrase, "Herodion my fellow countryman"
Here's the word in the original:
συγγενής
suggenes
{soong-ghen-ace'}From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman.

Another thing struck me forcibly in this little Google search.
It's entirely possible the whole Herodion identification is a tempest in a teapot, as the Greek Orthodox Church translates the name as Rodion, not Herodion.

Brainache, I thank you again for inspiring my Google safari. If I've provided you with some food for thought, that's fabulous.
At the very worst, I had a great excuse to 'visit' the Herodion in Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodium

 

[Brainache]

I'm back from sifting what seemed to be endless commentaries and articles on Romans 16:11 and with findings I didn't expect.
Good times!

I'll post my take on all that all bit by bit, in response to your posts, Brainache.
...
{snip}
Brainache, I thank you again for inspiring my Google safari. If I've provided you with some food for thought, that's fabulous.
At the very worst, I had a great excuse to 'visit' the Herodion in Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodium

Thanks for that. I'll leave the bulk of it alone for the moment and just reply to this:

...
Now about Eisenman's ideas.
Here's his paper on the subject
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html



I couldn't find many writers who support his line of thinking.
...

Eisenman is not mainstream, because the mainstream is dominated by Christian Apologists. Most of whom have not studied the DSS, or History. His theories are new and face a lot of resistance.

One of those quotes I just have to look at:

http://www.awmi.net/bible/rom_16_11
Quote:
Note 16 at Ro 16:11: The name Herodion came from the Greek word "HERODES" meaning "heroic" (Strong's Concordance). This was the name of a number of kings of Palestine (see note 3 at Lu 3:1), and it is possible that Herodion was named after one of the kings named Herod. If so, that would most likely make Herodion a Gentile, since it would be very unusual for a Jew to name a child in honor of Herod.

Unless he was a member of that Family (and not really Jewish). Don't ya think?

Herodion was the third person Paul mentioned in this chapter as being his kinsman (see note 9 at Ro 16:7). If Herodion was a Gentile, as his name could imply, then Paul would have been referring to him as a brother in the Lord and not a natural blood relative.

Let me fix that for him:
If Herodion was a member of the royal family of Aristobulus, as his name obviously indicates, then Paul might have been referring to him as a natural blood relative, as the most common definition implies... If so, Paul is a Herodion.

As Eisenman says, it explains so much, so simply. It is, of course, not a popular theory with the Christians. It kind of makes Paul and Peter look like a couple of swindlers whose Roman operation got out of control. I love it.

I know I sound like a Truther sometimes, but it still makes sense to me.

 

[pakeha]

I'm back from sifting what seemed to be endless commentaries and articles on Romans 16:11 and with findings I didn't expect. ...

Thanks for that. I'll leave the bulk of it alone for the moment and just reply to this:

...
Now about Eisenman's ideas.
Here's his paper on the subject
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html



I couldn't find many writers who support his line of thinking.
...

Eisenman is not mainstream, because the mainstream is dominated by Christian Apologists. Most of whom have not studied the DSS, or History. His theories are new and face a lot of resistance.

Not so new, correct me if I'm wrong.
I think some of that resistance may be due to certain interpretations even I, the least of the skeptics, can see are not entirely supported by what we have on hand.

I think the identification of Paul as a member of the Herodian family requires very fine spinning of the actual texts.

One of those quotes I just have to look at:

http://www.awmi.net/bible/rom_16_11
Quote:
Note 16 at Ro 16:11: The name Herodion came from the Greek word "HERODES" meaning "heroic" (Strong's Concordance). This was the name of a number of kings of Palestine (see note 3 at Lu 3:1), and it is possible that Herodion was named after one of the kings named Herod. If so, that would most likely make Herodion a Gentile, since it would be very unusual for a Jew to name a child in honor of Herod.

Unless he was a member of that Family (and not really Jewish). Don't ya think?

I put that citation in to give you an idea of the range of thought on the subject of Romans 16:11. Notice the author doesn't take into consideration the status of Herodion as a freedman.

Herodion was the third person Paul mentioned in this chapter as being his kinsman (see note 9 at Ro 16:7). If Herodion was a Gentile, as his name could imply, then Paul would have been referring to him as a brother in the Lord and not a natural blood relative.

Let me fix that for him:
If Herodion was a member of the royal family of Aristobulus, as his name obviously indicates, then Paul might have been referring to him as a natural blood relative, as the most common definition implies... If so, Paul is a Herodion.

And the other people Paul refers to as kinsmen? Were they Herodians, too?
In any case, countryman or fellow Jew is a translation that's accepted in the academic world.
Still, even if we limit ourselves to thinking Herodion as a kinsman of Paul, there's nothing to indicate Paul is claiming kinship to anyone but a freedman.

As Eisenman says, it explains so much, so simply. It is, of course, not a popular theory with the Christians. It kind of makes Paul and Peter look like a couple of swindlers whose Roman operation got out of control. I love it. ...

Paul a swindler?
Oh, yes, a swindler, yes; but a writer of fantastic prose, as far as I can judge from the translations.

 

[maximara]

max

My statement stands as written. Celsus did not dispute the actual existence of Jesus.

Actually Celsus disputed the existence of the Gospel Jesus ie the story of Jesus which as International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states is the very definition Christ myth theory which we have been told again and again by apologists is the antithesis of the Historical Jesus Position.
You may not like it but that is the definition you are stuck with.

 

[maximara]

Well, OK, but for this analogy to make any sense you would have to imagine he was President of a country the size of Ancient Judea which was conquered and all records destroyed (there might be some scrolls hidden in Dakota somewhere: The Deadwood Scrolls, written in code) and the population scattered and sold into slavery...

But don't bother, I was just being silly because I already know Lincoln existed, the reasoning is circular.

The sad thing is there are some apologists who make such comparisons in all seriousness. I have personally seen apologists compare doubting Jesus existence on par with doubting the existence of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. But where it gets really stupid, disgusting, and IMHO morally bankrupt is when apologists try to make comparison to Holocaust denial.

The Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page at rationalwiki tackles this topic head on in a section appropriately titled "Holocaust comparison or how to scrape the bottom of a barrel in the stupidest way possible". The guts of the arguments is as follows--


To put this in perspective, comparing the existence of Jesus to the Holocaust is essentially claiming:

1 there would have to be 3,000 tons of written records dating from 6 BCE to 36 CE showing Jesus existed

2 the most powerful government of the world (ie Rome) collected said evidence no later then 36 CE

3 the evidence was presented no later then 37 CE; AND

4 there was a 62 volume index of this evidence dating no later than 44 CE and a 92 volume index of this evidence dating from no later then 92 CE.


That apologists blunder into this and equally goofy logicals pitfall shows that many of them don't think about the consequence of the parallel they dream up and give the impression of the Wizard of Oz begging us not to look behind the curtain rather then having any real support for their claims.

 

[Brainache]

I'm back from sifting what seemed to be endless commentaries and articles on Romans 16:11 and with findings I didn't expect.
Good times!

I'll post my take on all that all bit by bit, in response to your posts, Brainache.



Not a slave, but a freedman. And yes, it was customary for a freedman to take the name of a former owner or of their family in gratitude or respect, so there's nothing implausible about Herodion being a freedman of Aristobulos.
At least, as far as I can see.

OK. I accept that. Still, being a family member would also explain the name. So, possibly being a freedman doesn't rule out the other possibility.

Ah, yes.
Acts. Hardly my idea of a go-to text on an accurate rendering of Paul's story. Do you have any reason that incident is based on anything approaching reality?

Not really, but the writer, some Paul Fan-Boy, wants to think Paul made a good impression on this oppressive Roman puppet.

Up to a point, you're quite right, Brainache. However, it's no secret freedmen would take on a variant of their patron's family name.



Oh, yes.
Lots and lots.
http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Herodion

Quote:
he-ro'-di-on (Herodion; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Hrodion): A Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Romans 16:11). The name seems to imply that he was a freedman of the Herods, or a member of the household of Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great (Romans 16:10). Paul calls him "my kinsman," i.e. "a Jew" (see JUNIAS, 1).

How many other Jews does Paul call "kinsman"?

http://biblehub.com/romans/16-11.htm

Quote:
- Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them of the household of Narcissus that are in the Lord. This Narcissus may possibly have been the powerful freedman of Claudius, mentioned by Tacitus, 'Ann.,' 11:29, seq.; 12:57; and by Suetonius, 'Claud.,' 28. The fact that he appears from 'Ann.,' 13:1, to have been put to death on the accession of Nero, A.D. 54, is not inconsistent with the supposition. For his human chattels would be likely to pass into the possession of Nero, and so become part of Caeasar's household, and might still be called by their late master's name. This may also have been the case with the household of Aristobulus above referred to. It is observable that, at a later period, the apostle, writing from Rome to the Philippians, sends special greetings from them "that are of Caesar's household" (Philippians 4:23).
Quote:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Salute Herodion my kinsman,.... According to the flesh, being of the same nation, a Jew; or of the same tribe, the tribe of Benjamin; or of the same family, and nearly allied in blood to him: though the name is of Attic, or Parthic original, and seems to be a derivative of Herod; this man is reckoned among the seventy disciples, and said to be bishop of Tarsus: See Gill on Luke 10:1.

Who is Gill?

Slaves in the Palace? Didn't one of them kill an Emperor or something?


...

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/romans/romans16.htm

Lightfoot suggests that Narcissus could have been a rich and powerful freedman who was closely connected to the Emperor Claudius, serving as his secretary, and who was later put to death shortly after Nero assumed the throne. If Aristobulus was related to the Herods (see v.10), then he would have been a close ally of Claudius. These two possibilities may give us some help in understanding Philippians 4:22 ("[the saints] that are of Caesar’s household"), because there would have been at least two households within the palace that had believers in them.

Lightfoot seems to agree with Eisenman.

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sben0056/essays/paulromanswhy.htm
Lampe claims that the only names which occur both in Rm 16 and on the Jewish inscriptions of Rome are Rufus, Julia and Maria [not necessarily 'Miriam'; it could also designate a freed slave of the Marius family]; a fourth, Apelles (v. 10), occurs in Horace. Paul calls sugge,neij, perhaps representing all Jews as cousins in his attempt to conciliate the Romans, Andronicus, Junia and Herodion (16. 6, 11).

For the bolded bit: What? I need to learn the frigging language now? What am I? Jewish?

I have many more references, if you're interested in seeing them.
For comic relief, go to this one
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/daily-weblogs/2011/01-2011/romans-16-part-2/

I'll give it a miss, it's getting late.

Now about Eisenman's ideas.
...
Here's his paper on the subject
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html



I couldn't find many writers who support his line of thinking.

Jesus' Words Only, Douglas John del Tondo
http://books.google.es/books?id=3VF...&q=Paul Romans Herodion Romans 16:11&f=false


The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible
By Norm Phelps
http://books.google.es/books?id=Lfn...&q=Paul Romans Herodion Romans 16:11&f=false


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception16.htm
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?noframes;read=2302

Not a nice place, but it shows just how far some people have gone with Eisenman's ideas
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/gnosticism#.UlUbK1Pef_d

Brainache, I thank you again for inspiring my Google safari. If I've provided you with some food for thought, that's fabulous.
At the very worst, I had a great excuse to 'visit' the Herodion in Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodium

I might give some of those other writers a go after I finish reading Eisenman.

 

[eight bits]

max

Actually Celsus disputed the existence of the Gospel Jesus ...

And that would explain why the Gospels did come up in Origen's discussions of Celsus' disputes. However, the concern expressed in an earlier post was that Origen didn't mention Josephus' TF in rebuttal to Celsus. Josephus makes no remark at all about the Gospels or about how they depict Jesus. It is unsurprising, then, that the TF did not come up in Origen's rebuttal.

the very definition Christ myth theory which we have been told again and again by apologists is the antithesis of the Historical Jesus Position.

That's all very interesting, but I was discussing why Origen didn't cite (received) Josephus against Celsus. None of the three wrote about "Christ myth theory" or "the Historical Jesus Position," and so, no definition of those terms would explain Origen's choices.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

STICK TO THE SCENARIO!!!

If sticking to the scenario, all you had was Abe Lincoln the Vampire Slayer, would you seriously consider Abe Lincoln a "historical person"?

You would be mental to do so. The correct answer is, "Come on, you're making that up"

The only reason you use it as an example is because you have other records.

Let's make it more real:

The only record we have for Harry Potter is JK Rowlings books. Would you say Harry Potter doesn't exist because that is the only source you have?

 

[maximara]

If sticking to the scenario, all you had was Abe Lincoln the Vampire Slayer, would you seriously consider Abe Lincoln a "historical person"?

You would be mental to do so. The correct answer is, "Come on, you're making that up"

The only reason you use it as an example is because you have other records.

Let's make it more real:

The only record we have for Harry Potter is JK Rowlings books. Would you say Harry Potter doesn't exist because that is the only source you have?

The flip side of this is of course Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes.

Fact 1: John H. Watson existed: A John H. Watson can be found among the list of soldiers that served in the First Boer War (1880-1881) which fits Watson's often refered to war wound.

Fact 2: Baker Street existed: Maps of 1881-1914 London show that Baker Street really existed.

Fact 3: Preserving confidentiality: Since Holmes depended on confidentiality in many of his cases one would expect Watson to disguise the names of the people involved and even dates to preserve this confidentiality which he does to the point of having Holmes visit public places on Sunday (impossible for the time period). This same confidentiality may have required Watson to disguise where he had really been stationed.

Fact 4: Every "genuine" case has a date: William S. Baring-Gould's 1968 Annotated Sherlock Holmes shows that if you do enough research a real date for every "genuine" (there are a few that are said to be fiction) case can be found.

Fact 5: The correspondence: In 1932 the Abbey National Building Society moved to 219–229 Baker Street... and had to employ a full time secretary whose only job was to answer letters addressed to Sherlock Holmes.

People wouldn't send letters to a fictional character, we have proof John H. Watson and Baker Street existed, and we can explain any discrepancies in the cases...therefore Sherlock Holmes must have really existed.

This is basically the argument the historical Jesus supporters give us.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yeah, I guess I don't understand the point of Brainache's challenge. IF Abe Lincoln the Vampire Slayer was the only record we had for Lincoln, then how could you claim he is a historical figure? I get Brainache's point that Lincoln was a historical person, even if that is the only record we had, but the problem with this argument is that the only reason we know Lincoln was a historical person is because we have other sources of information that tell us so.

So in the end, if the point is that a single story does not preclude the possibility of a historical character, the answer is, of course not, but no one has said so. However, that doesn't mean that we should go around assuming that there is a historical character behind every story out there. Thus, it gets us nowhere.

 

[pakeha]

...Not a slave, but a freedman. And yes, it was customary for a freedman to take the name of a former owner or of their family in gratitude or respect, so there's nothing implausible about Herodion being a freedman of Aristobulos.
At least, as far as I can see.

OK. I accept that. Still, being a family member would also explain the name. So, possibly being a freedman doesn't rule out the other possibility.

I don't follow you, Brainache. If Herodion (or Rodion) is a freedman of Aristobulos, how can he be of royal blood?

Ah, yes.
Acts. Hardly my idea of a go-to text on an accurate rendering of Paul's story. Do you have any reason that incident is based on anything approaching reality?

Not really, but the writer, some Paul Fan-Boy, wants to think Paul made a good impression on this oppressive Roman puppet.

I agree with you there, Brainache.
Still, you have to wonder why anyone would consider that incident as evidence of Paul's royal connections.

http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Herodion

Quote:
he-ro'-di-on (Herodion; Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in Greek Hrodion): A Roman Christian to whom Paul sent greetings (Romans 16:11). The name seems to imply that he was a freedman of the Herods, or a member of the household of Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod the Great (Romans 16:10). Paul calls him "my kinsman," i.e. "a Jew" (see JUNIAS, 1).

How many other Jews does Paul call "kinsman"?

That's a good question, Brainache.
The answer is, all of them.

Romans 9:3
1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

http://biblehub.com/romans/16-11.htm

Quote:
- Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them of the household of Narcissus that are in the Lord. This Narcissus may possibly have been the powerful freedman of Claudius, mentioned by Tacitus, 'Ann.,' 11:29, seq.; 12:57; and by Suetonius, 'Claud.,' 28. The fact that he appears from 'Ann.,' 13:1, to have been put to death on the accession of Nero, A.D. 54, is not inconsistent with the supposition. For his human chattels would be likely to pass into the possession of Nero, and so become part of Caeasar's household, and might still be called by their late master's name. This may also have been the case with the household of Aristobulus above referred to. It is observable that, at a later period, the apostle, writing from Rome to the Philippians, sends special greetings from them "that are of Caesar's household" (Philippians 4:23).
Quote:
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Salute Herodion my kinsman,.... According to the flesh, being of the same nation, a Jew; or of the same tribe, the tribe of Benjamin; or of the same family, and nearly allied in blood to him: though the name is of Attic, or Parthic original, and seems to be a derivative of Herod; this man is reckoned among the seventy disciples, and said to be bishop of Tarsus: See Gill on Luke 10:1.

Who is Gill?

Slaves in the Palace? Didn't one of them kill an Emperor or something?

John Gill (theologian)^WP?
Slaves in the palace killed any number of rulers throughout history, Brainache.
Hardly reason to imagine Paul was of the Herodian family.

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/romans/romans16.htm

Lightfoot suggests that Narcissus could have been a rich and powerful freedman who was closely connected to the Emperor Claudius, serving as his secretary, and who was later put to death shortly after Nero assumed the throne. If Aristobulus was related to the Herods (see v.10), then he would have been a close ally of Claudius. These two possibilities may give us some help in understanding Philippians 4:22 ("[the saints] that are of Caesar’s household"), because there would have been at least two households within the palace that had believers in them.

Lightfoot seems to agree with Eisenman.

About Paul being a member of the Herodian family? How do you read that?

..Paul calls sugge,neij, perhaps representing all Jews as cousins in his attempt to conciliate the Romans, Andronicus, Junia and Herodion [/b](16. 6, 11).

For the bolded bit: What? I need to learn the frigging language now? What am I? Jewish?

I think you'll find Paul wrote in Greek, though I could be wrong on that.

Now about Eisenman's ideas.
...
Here's his paper on the subject
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html



I couldn't find many writers who support his line of thinking.

Jesus' Words Only, Douglas John del Tondo
http://books.google.es/books?id=3VF...&q=Paul Romans Herodion Romans 16:11&f=false


The Dominion of Love: Animal Rights According to the Bible
By Norm Phelps
http://books.google.es/books?id=Lfn...&q=Paul Romans Herodion Romans 16:11&f=false


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/scrolls_deadsea/deadsea_scrollsdeception/scrollsdeception16.htm
http://www.domainofman.com/forum/index.cgi?noframes;read=2302

Not a nice place, but it shows just how far some people have gone with Eisenman's ideas
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/gnosticism#.UlUbK1Pef_d

Brainache, I thank you again for inspiring my Google safari. If I've provided you with some food for thought, that's fabulous.
At the very worst, I had a great excuse to 'visit' the Herodion in Palestine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodium

I might give some of those other writers a go after I finish reading Eisenman.

At the links I've given, you'll find the pages of the books where Paul's greeting to Herodion is discussed. No need to read the entire work.
Anyway, all the best!

 

[TimCallahan]

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.

. . . (snip) . . .

Concerning the tribe of Benjamin, yes the tribes as political or territorial entities had long ceased to exist. However. genealogical traditions would have continued. Benjamin, along with Judah and Simeon (essentially a territory within Judah) was part of the southern kingdom. I suspect the Jews maintained strong genealogical claims.

As to the rest of your post, I find your reasoning a bit odd. How could Paul (or Saul) advance in Judaism without being a Jew?

The traditions of his people could hardly have referred to the Herodians. were Idumeans heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture. The Idumeans were the descendants of the Edomites, whose land was taken over by the Nabatean Arabs during the Chaldean period. The Edomites / Idumeans then invaded the Negev region of Judah, from which they could not be dislodged. As the Maccabean kingdom expanded, the Jews forcibly converted those living in territories they conquered to the worship of Yahweh. So, as recent forced converts, heavily Hellenized and allied with the Romans, they didn't have a whole lot in the way of traditions.

Again, all this matters little. Remember that while the city of Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans in the year 70, various factions of Jews within the city were fighting and killing each other. Thus one person could be quite Jewish in his own eyes and be a heretic deserving death in the eyes of another.

Paul seems to have had a conversion experience of the sort William Sargeant described in The Mind Possessed, which would have explained his total abandonment of his former beliefs. That alone might have been enough to estrange him from James and his company.

 

[maximara]

John Gill (theologian)^WP?
Slaves in the palace killed any number of rulers throughout history, Brainache.
Hardly reason to imagine Paul was of the Herodian family.

Hmmm the 'uh perhaps recreating Nazi German to reunite the planet was not a good idea' in Star Trek's "Patterns of Force" is named John Gill. I wonder if somebody was over there was making a subtle comment or it is just one of those weird coincidences...

 

[Stone]

max


And that would explain why the Gospels did come up in Origen's discussions of Celsus' disputes. However, the concern expressed in an earlier post was that Origen didn't mention Josephus' TF in rebuttal to Celsus. Josephus makes no remark at all about the Gospels or about how they depict Jesus. It is unsurprising, then, that the TF did not come up in Origen's rebuttal.


That's all very interesting, but I was discussing why Origen didn't cite (received) Josephus against Celsus. None of the three wrote about "Christ myth theory" or "the Historical Jesus Position," and so, no definition of those terms would explain Origen's choices.

Pithily and succinctly stated. Bravo! It's evident you now start to realize -- in case you didn't waaaay earlier! -- just how slippery the myther arguments get to be in practice! This posting shows that you're really watching all this like a hawk. Not too savory, is it?

Stone

 

[TimCallahan]

Pithily and succinctly stated. Bravo! It's evident you now start to realize -- in case you didn't waaaay earlier! -- just how slippery the myther arguments get to be in practice! This posting shows that you're really watching all this like a hawk. Not too savory, is it?

Stone

Understand that there are varying levels of acceptance or rejection of Jesus as a real, historical person:

1) An extreme mythicist view would be that Jesus is entirely made up, a construct of Jewish apocalypticism and pagan dying and rising gods.

2) A somewhat less extreme view might argue that there was a person or number of persons serving as a template for the Christ myth.

3) On the other side, that of the historical Jesus, there are, likewise, differing views. One is that the gospels, if stripped of the miracle stories and (possibly) of the Resurrection, are historically reliable.

4) The extreme historical Jesus view is that the Jesus of the gospels is real and that the gospels, including the miracles and the Resurrection are literally true.

Of course, there are many other shades of opinion, forming a continuum from positions 1) and 4). My own position fits somewhere between 2) and 3). I'm inclined to believe there was a historic person, an apocalyptic rabbi and messianic pretender named Jesus, about whom we have only two non-Christian references, both of which are passing allusions. These are the material on the execution of James by Josephus in the Antiquites and the mention of Christ by Tacitus in the Annals. We've brought up a number of reasons in this thread why the first is somewhat suspect.

As to the gospels and the TF, the latter is an obvious forgery. There is also nothing in the gospels, even in the material that is not miraculous in nature, that is historical. This is particularly true of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, particularly as told in the Gospel of Matthew.

I believe also that, besides basing the Jesus of the gospels on the material from the Jewish scriptures, a mythic Christ was created from the bare bones of a very minor historic Jesus.

So, what is your position vis a vis the historicity of Jesus?

 

[pakeha]

Hmmm the 'uh perhaps recreating Nazi German to reunite the planet was not a good idea' in Star Trek's "Patterns of Force" is named John Gill. I wonder if somebody was over there was making a subtle comment or it is just one of those weird coincidences...

Star Trek.
There's simply nothing that compares to Star Trek.
As for your speculation, hmmm.
From what I understood of the constant problems the series faced at every turn, I can't imagine they'd try to sneak in such a subtle comment.
Still, it's a pleasing idea. One I can savour at work tonight.

Pithily and succinctly stated. Bravo! It's evident you now start to realize -- in case you didn't waaaay earlier! -- just how slippery the myther arguments get to be in practice! This posting shows that you're really watching all this like a hawk. Not too savory, is it?

Stone

Myther arguments?

 

[Stone]

Understand that there are varying levels of acceptance or rejection of Jesus as a real, historical person:

1) An extreme mythicist view would be that Jesus is entirely made up, a construct of Jewish apocalypticism and pagan dying and rising gods.

2) A somewhat less extreme view might argue that there was a person or number of persons serving as a template for the Christ myth.

3) On the other side, that of the historical Jesus, there are, likewise, differing views. One is that the gospels, if stripped of the miracle stories and (possibly) of the Resurrection, are historically reliable.

4) The extreme historical Jesus view is that the Jesus of the gospels is real and that the gospels, including the miracles and the Resurrection are literally true.

Of course, there are many other shades of opinion, forming a continuum from positions 1) and 4). My own position fits somewhere between 2) and 3). I'm inclined to believe there was a historic person, an apocalyptic rabbi and messianic pretender named Jesus, about whom we have only two non-Christian references, both of which are passing allusions. These are the material on the execution of James by Josephus in the Antiquites and the mention of Christ by Tacitus in the Annals. We've brought up a number of reasons in this thread why the first is somewhat suspect.

As to the gospels and the TF, the latter is an obvious forgery. There is also nothing in the gospels, even in the material that is not miraculous in nature, that is historical. This is particularly true of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot, particularly as told in the Gospel of Matthew.

I believe also that, besides basing the Jesus of the gospels on the material from the Jewish scriptures, a mythic Christ was created from the bare bones of a very minor historic Jesus.

So, what is your position vis a vis the historicity of Jesus?

The extremely colloquial stratum of sayings paralleled in Matthew/Luke is too distinctive, too original, too idiosyncratic, too consistent and too counter-cultural, for its time, to have been generated "by committee" or by random rumor. That stratum obviously stems from one highly eccentric individual with one distinctive voice. It is this stratum that erstwhile myther Wells had to concede as having an historical core. I start with that stratum, not with the fanciful narratives woven around it.

It is precisely because we have such distinctive sayings found only in this stratum that James-in-Josephus and crucifixion-in-Tacitus passages take on scholarly significance in context. They wouldn't assume such significance without this sayings stratum from a thoroughly distinctive non-typical rabbi. It is strictly in the light of such a sayings stratum that all three of these components, the earliest sayings, brother James and a crucifixion, become strong indicators of historicity together as a cross-referenced package. It would be one component only if all three were solely in one source and less strong an indicator of historicity. But there isn't one component here. They form three because of separation of sources: At least two of them are confirmed separately, one of them, even, in an overtly hostile writing. They would hardly be so indicative were they one lone datum, which they aren't.

However, it is typical for the mythers to do this: They pretend that only one datum at a time is relevant to any web-board exchange and disallow looking at the bigger picture, moving goal-posts continually to avoid that bigger picture. That's one way that they're so like creationists, because creationists use the same slippery tactic of fixating on one datum at a time to avoid the cross-referenced data that evolutionary biologists now have galore.

Of course, I have no idea if this inquiry as to my position is lodged in good faith or not. But my experience on previous boards suggests it's really been lodged for some agenda-serving rhetorical advantage at someone's expense. That too is common practice from creationists. And perish the thought that any creat -- excuse me, myther -- is going to honestly address the degree of consilience described in my second paragraph.

No cheers,

Stone

 

[Brainache]

I don't follow you, Brainache. If Herodion (or Rodion) is a freedman of Aristobulos, how can he be of royal blood?

One thing I noticed in all those quotes was that they said "perhaps" a lot. And "it's possible that". Well, it's also possible that the name "Herodion" is attached to a member of the Herodian family.

I agree with you there, Brainache.
Still, you have to wonder why anyone would consider that incident as evidence of Paul's royal connections.

Maybe not, but how do we explain Paul's Roman Citizenship "from birth"?

That's a good question, Brainache.
The answer is, all of them.

Romans 9:3
1I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, 2That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. 3For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh: 4Who are Israelites; to whom pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; 5Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

You got me there. That'll teach me for shooting from the wrist.

John Gill (theologian)^WP?
Slaves in the palace killed any number of rulers throughout history, Brainache.
Hardly reason to imagine Paul was of the Herodian family.

It's a long story involving some guy called Epaphroditus or something... (maybe).

About Paul being a member of the Herodian family? How do you read that?

Just that Paul's connections were in the Palace, regardless of their station.

I think you'll find Paul wrote in Greek, though I could be wrong on that.






At the links I've given, you'll find the pages of the books where Paul's greeting to Herodion is discussed. No need to read the entire work.
Anyway, all the best!

It was late, I was tired. Eisenman disagrees with a lot of these people because he has gone back to the source documents, compared them to recent discoveries like the DSS and come up with a new narrative. He hasn't based his ideas on the 1500 years worth of Apologetics that they teach in Seminary School. They hate him for that.

Whether his new narrative is Historically accurate or not, I'm not sure, but it's an interesting theory.

Concerning the tribe of Benjamin, yes the tribes as political or territorial entities had long ceased to exist. However. genealogical traditions would have continued. Benjamin, along with Judah and Simeon (essentially a territory within Judah) was part of the southern kingdom. I suspect the Jews maintained strong genealogical claims.

As to the rest of your post, I find your reasoning a bit odd. How could Paul (or Saul) advance in Judaism without being a Jew?

By enforcing the Authority of an unpopular puppet Priesthood. They had secular power as well as religious power.

The traditions of his people could hardly have referred to the Herodians. were Idumeans heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture. The Idumeans were the descendants of the Edomites, whose land was taken over by the Nabatean Arabs during the Chaldean period. The Edomites / Idumeans then invaded the Negev region of Judah, from which they could not be dislodged. As the Maccabean kingdom expanded, the Jews forcibly converted those living in territories they conquered to the worship of Yahweh. So, as recent forced converts, heavily Hellenized and allied with the Romans, they didn't have a whole lot in the way of traditions.

Except for the tradition of supporting the Romans at the expense of the Jews. Paul is always on the Roman's side against "The Jews". It's always "The Jews" who want to kill Paul, not just the followers of Jesus.

And let's not forget Paul is apparently a Roman Citizen from birth. I don't think there were too many Jewish ones of those kicking around...

Again, all this matters little. Remember that while the city of Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans in the year 70, various factions of Jews within the city were fighting and killing each other. Thus one person could be quite Jewish in his own eyes and be a heretic deserving death in the eyes of another.

Especially when matters of "Purity" and the Temple were involved. Separating "clean" things from "unclean" things was central to the main rebellion. They built a wall to stop Aristobulus from even seeing what went on from his balcony.

Paul steps into the middle of that shouting the exact opposite (nothing is unclean) in the name of one of their Holy Teachers, of course the crowd go ape-**** bananas at this. I think he was deliberately stirring up trouble. He wanted the Romans to bring in the Legions.

Paul seems to have had a conversion experience of the sort William Sargeant described in The Mind Possessed, which would have explained his total abandonment of his former beliefs. That alone might have been enough to estrange him from James and his company.

It might also be fake. He is on record as a liar. Even the book of Acts depicts him as lying in front of the Sanhedrin to start the riot that makes the Romans come and save him. He lies a lot.