Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

You're positing Jesus as a deluded nutter?
Why not?
I daresay it's as good an explanation as any and, coupled with Paul's vision and literary talent, explains a great deal.

Deluded, but not necessarily nuts. Consider all the people in Europe who for centuries managed their lives competently and sanely - and at the same time believed in witchcraft, that the Jews had caused the black plague and who supported such bizarre actions as the Children's Crusade.

There seems to be a certain splitting that occurs in religious belief. During the time I was monitoring KKLA, our local fundamentalist radio station, they would have people on such as Hal Lindsey, telling listeners, who ate up what he had to say, that we were on the edge of the Tribulation - the last seven years before the end. Then they'd cut to a commercial - for such things as degree completion programs, living trusts, refinancing, low interest loans for putting your kids through college and other long term stuff. Then they'd go back to foaming at the mouth over the Tribulation.

 

[Stone]

In spite of Ehrman's book lacking an index, I did finally find his argument that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was historical. It's close to the end of the book, pp. 328 - 330. Ehrman theorizes that what Judas betrayed to the authorities was that Jesus was calling himself king of the Jews, God's anointed, the Messiah or Christ. Ehrman says that Jesus didn't state this publicly, so it was a secret among the Twelve that Judas betrayed to the authorities.

What Jesus did say about himself, according to the gospels, was that he called himself the "Son of man" and the "Son of God." Somehow, calling oneself the son of God seems to me tantamount to claiming to be the Christ and as such the King of the Jews. In Mark, the earliest of the gospels, we have this exchange between Jesus and the high priest (Mk. 14:61b, 62):

Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

Here, it would seem that the "Son of the Blessed," i.e. the "Son of God," is equated with being the Christ. Thus, it seems to me that Ehrman is splitting hairs to make calling himself the Christ / Messiah / King of the Jews as being a different claim from that of being the Son of God. After all, the Messiah (Gr. Christos) was supposed to be God's anointed, which means a king. So, claiming to be the Son of God was the same as claiming to be the Christ, which is the same as being the king of the Jews.

Of course, if one takes the gospel accounts to any degree seriously, Jesus has indeed made a very public claim to being king on Palm Sunday, when he enters Jerusalem in a way that fulfills a messianic prophecy in Zechariah and is hailed by multitudes crying "Hosannah!" This means "Save us," and, by extension, "Free us." Of course, this episode is most likely fiction. However, if we take this as fiction, how can we then turn around and say that the gospels are authoritative if they say that Jesus never openly claimed to be the king of the Jews?

Ehrman also says that Jesus, once arrested couldn't deny the charge. Why? A denial would be a renunciation of such a claim. If it's just Judas accusing him and only Jesus is arrested, Jesus' word should carry well against that of Judas. That brings up another problem I have with this whole scenario. According to Josephus, when the Romans attacked Theudas, they killed or captured most of his followers. Yet, we are supposed to believe that only Jesus is taken, leaving Peter and the others free. Yet, they would have been Jesus' co-conspirators.

It's hard for me to believe that the following has not been submitted here before now. But I can't find it. While it is very apparent that the latest professional scholarship is viewed here in the same know-nothing way that climate scientists are viewed by Tea-Party denialists, it is barely possible that a few here may still be interested in the latest _implications_ stemming from modern scholarship on what Jesus most probably did _not_ say about himself, versus what he most likely _did_ say. Of course, this final admonition with respect to scholarship's most recent findings is a waste of time, since the mythers derive no cheap rhetorical advantage from it, but: The following summation is strictly a summation of what seems more probable than not, rather than a summation reflecting certainty. If you want certainty, don't bother with ancient history. It's a waste of your time -- and ours. Go study math, or botany, or war munitions, or.............

In the humongous thread at RatSkep, you'll find a discussion of what Jesus more likely said:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post896754.html?hilit=Gthomas#p896754

Stone

 

[pakeha]

While it is very apparent that the latest professional scholarship is viewed here in the same know-nothing way that climate scientists are viewed by Tea-Party denialists, it is barely possible that a few here may still be interested in the latest _implications_ stemming from modern scholarship on what Jesus most probably did _not_ say about himself, versus what he most likely _did_ say.

While the link is, of course, most interesting, was it necessary to present it with a comparison of the JREF forum members to Tea-Party denialists?
Keep in mind you yourself wrote

The following summation is strictly a summation of what seems more probable than not , rather than a summation reflecting certainty.

Are insults really the best way to present Stein's pet theory as being accurate?
Curiously enough, that linked post of Stein's was widely ignored in the following discussion, wasn't it? Could that have been due to Stein's abusive treatment of the posters there?

What does Ehrman have to say about Allison's ideas?

 

[pakeha]

I thought I'd look into Allison, a distinguished scholar, a bit and found this review of a book of his

...In The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, Allison takes on a task of a different sort: He attempts to show how scholarship about the historical Jesus should be related to a personal faith in Christ as Lord and Savior.
A number of excellent insights emerge over the course of the book. Allison warns us to be wary of “truths” that the guild of New Testament scholars claims to have established. “The biblical guild,” Allison writes, “is not a group-mind thinking the same thoughts. Nor are experts a single company producing a single product.” The results of Jesus research are extraordinarily varied whether we consider them across the centuries or even in our present day. The bon mot of Chesterton applies quite well: “There is no history: There are only historians.”

At the end of his book, he returns to a theme that has been a focal point for much of his career, the eschatological preaching of Jesus. Scholars have long worried about the nature of Jesus’ expectations about the kingdom of God. Did he expect it to break in within his own lifetime? As Allison notes, the Church has worked around this tension by claiming that the events of Easter and Pentecost mark the onset of the kingdom that would come into full fruition at his second advent. But some scholars, such as Schweitzer, have argued that Jesus had a much more immanent eschatology. If this is true, there can be no question that Jesus was wrong—neither his death nor resurrection brought the kingdom into full view (cf. Acts 1:6–7). Allison remains a follower of Schweitzer in this regard and concludes that “we must go our own way, without Jesus in the lead.”

I was surprised at Allison’s confidence in this historical judgment, given that the Kingdom preaching of Jesus is so multifaceted and complex (on this, see the work of J. Meier). Though I believe that one can make a case for the limits of Jesus’ knowledge as an earthly creature (as conditioned by his self-emptying, or kenosis), it seems ill advised to assert that we must go our own way apart from Jesus. If it is true that Jesus did not know the day or the hour of the kingdom’s consummation, that would be because in his full assumption of our fallen state he has assumed the limits of human knowledge that go along with it. We need not go our own way, I would claim; rather, like Jesus, we should put our wholehearted trust in the Father and order our lives in the expectation that Jesus will return tomorrow.

I am not sure that Allison would disagree with me on that sort of formulation. Perhaps he went to such an extreme to make the rhetorical point that he would follow the historical evidence no matter the theological consequences. Such honesty is commendable, but better that such honesty be wed to a more profound Christology.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/10/the-quest-for-the-confessional-jesus

I've put the book on my Amazon wish list.
Off to find Ehrman's take on Allison.

ETA
Another analysis of another of Allison's books
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/phil_christi/habermas_phil_christi_dale_allisons_res_skept.htm

I found Allison's conclusions about the empty tomb were interesting

...Allison's chief point on the historicity of Jesus's resurrection, in a nutshell, seems to be that there are some good historical reasons for believing that Jesus's burial tomb was later found empty and that Jesus's resurrection appearances occurred, but that the possibility of alternative explanations keeps the issue in some amount of tension (334, 340). After all, Allison clearly concludes, "I am sure that the disciples saw Jesus after his death" (346).

...Allison confesses his personal desire that Jesus's resurrection would provide some sort of "postmortem endorsement" of Jesus's teachings, and especially the afterlife (214–219).

 

[Bad vibe]

It's hard for me to believe that the following has not been submitted here before now. But I can't find it. While it is very apparent that the latest professional scholarship is viewed here in the same know-nothing way that climate scientists are viewed by Tea-Party denialists, it is barely possible that a few here may still be interested in the latest _implications_ stemming from modern scholarship on what Jesus most probably did _not_ say about himself, versus what he most likely _did_ say. Of course, this final admonition with respect to scholarship's most recent findings is a waste of time, since the mythers derive no cheap rhetorical advantage from it, but: The following summation is strictly a summation of what seems more probable than not, rather than a summation reflecting certainty. If you want certainty, don't bother with ancient history. It's a waste of your time -- and ours. Go study math, or botany, or war munitions, or.............

In the humongous thread at RatSkep, you'll find a discussion of what Jesus more likely said:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post896754.html?hilit=Gthomas#p896754

Stone

I'm sure you can demonstrate how that probability was arrived at? why they can be confident that the sayings are early AND different enough to discount common sayings simply attributed to an HJ.

That being the case you can then demonstrate a sufficient difference from standard apocalyptic tradition to show a unique source that cannot be accounted for by later gentile or greek influence attributed again post mortem?

I thought Q was pretty much a discredited idea now?

 

[TimCallahan]

It's hard for me to believe that the following has not been submitted here before now. But I can't find it. While it is very apparent that the latest professional scholarship is viewed here in the same know-nothing way that climate scientists are viewed by Tea-Party denialists, it is barely possible that a few here may still be interested in the latest _implications_ stemming from modern scholarship on what Jesus most probably did _not_ say about himself, versus what he most likely _did_ say. Of course, this final admonition with respect to scholarship's most recent findings is a waste of time, since the mythers derive no cheap rhetorical advantage from it, but: The following summation is strictly a summation of what seems more probable than not, rather than a summation reflecting certainty. If you want certainty, don't bother with ancient history. It's a waste of your time -- and ours. Go study math, or botany, or war munitions, or.............

In the humongous thread at RatSkep, you'll find a discussion of what Jesus more likely said:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post896754.html?hilit=Gthomas#p896754

Stone

I believe it's generally accepted that Jesus taught a philosophy likely influenced by the Cynic philosophers of Greece. Owing to the spread of Greek culture in the Hellenistic period, there was a considerable Greek cultural impact on the Jews. The aspects of Jesus' philosophy that mesh with Cynic philosophy are non-retaliation, pacifism, renunciation of the world (family wealth etc.), living a simple, non-materialistic life, etc. I don't see anything in any of this that is unique enough that someone else might have said it. Of course such a philosophy also meshes well with an apocalyptic view. The Jesus presented in the gospels is certainly apocalyptic in outlook.

As to Ehrman's view that Jesus secretly stated that he saw himself as the king of the Jews, and that Judas' betrayal was that he told the Jewish priesthood that Jesus was secretly saying this; I find it hard to believe. First of all, they really didn't need a betrayer if they wanted to be rid of him. All they would have needed were some stooge witnesses to fabricate a story that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews.

Again, claiming to be the Christ, i.e. the 'anointed one," was tantamount to saying one was the king of the Jews, ordained by God.

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm sure you can demonstrate how that probability was arrived at? why they can be confident that the sayings are early AND different enough to discount common sayings simply attributed to an HJ.

That being the case you can then demonstrate a sufficient difference from standard apocalyptic tradition to show a unique source that cannot be accounted for by later gentile or greek influence attributed again post mortem?

I thought Q was pretty much a discredited idea now?[/QUOTE]

As far as I know, Q is still a credible idea. However, an alternate to the idea of Q is the Farrar - Goulder hypothesis, which dispenses with Q and assigns the material common to Matthew and Luke as originating in Matthew.

 

[Bad vibe]

As far as I know, Q is still a credible idea. However, an alternate to the idea of Q is the Farrar - Goulder hypothesis, which dispenses with Q and assigns the material common to Matthew and Luke as originating in Matthew.

Thanks Tim, think it was JaysonR that said nobody really takes Q seriously now so maybe that was a little overstated.

 

[Stone]

Are insults really the best way to present Stein's pet theory

It is NOT "Stein's pet theory". That's just a rhetorically convenient way of obfuscating the plain fact that Stein is strictly offering a "Digest"/summation of just where current mainstream secular scholarship as a whole stands at present. So this does NOT come from Stein. It comes from 21st-century academe. Get your facts straight.

I've seen this before in similar web discussions between educated readers and creationists. A common debating tactic is for the creationist to pretend that the summation of evolution findings immediately in front of him comes solely from whatever poster happens to be opposing him at the time rather than from two or three generations' worth of uphill battles by many researchers who were only interested in evaluating which hypotheses could stand up to rigorous field-testing of all kinds and which ones couldn't. To suggest instead that the shoulders on which the conclusions for all that research rest do not even exist, that the conclusions instead are solely the "copyright" of the opposing poster at hand, is a sleazy tactic of creationists, and it's a sleazy tactic here.

Stone

 

[tsig]

It is NOT "Stein's pet theory". That's just a rhetorically convenient way of obfuscating the plain fact that Stein is strictly offering a "Digest"/summation of just where current mainstream secular scholarship as a whole stands at present. So this does NOT come from Stein. It comes from 21st-century academe. Get your facts straight.

I've seen this before in similar web discussions between educated readers and creationists. A common debating tactic is for the creationist to pretend that the summation of evolution findings immediately in front of him comes solely from whatever poster happens to be opposing him at the time rather than from two or three generations' worth of uphill battles by many researchers who were only interested in evaluating which hypotheses could stand up to rigorous field-testing of all kinds and which ones couldn't. To suggest instead that the shoulders on which the conclusions for all that research rest do not even exist, that the conclusions instead are solely the "copyright" of the opposing poster at hand, is a sleazy tactic of creationists, and it's a sleazy tactic here.

Stone

Whoever this dishonest debater is that's using all these sleazy tactics on you, I'd suggest you quit debating him/her.

 

[Bad vibe]

It is NOT "Stein's pet theory". That's just a rhetorically convenient way of obfuscating the plain fact that Stein is strictly offering a "Digest"/summation of just where current mainstream secular scholarship as a whole stands at present. So this does NOT come from Stein. It comes from 21st-century academe. Get your facts straight.

No its saying this is just an assertion if you have a few relevant links it would be awesome to read about? I'm not seeing any facts.

(*snip irrelevant bit)
Stone

Rants are also a common tactic to avoid backing up your assertions round here so best to avoid doing that and stick to the topic.

 

[pakeha]

It is NOT "Stein's pet theory". That's just a rhetorically convenient way of obfuscating the plain fact that Stein is strictly offering a "Digest"/summation of just where current mainstream secular scholarship as a whole stands at present. So this does NOT come from Stein. It comes from 21st-century academe. Get your facts straight.

I've seen this before in similar web discussions between educated readers and creationists. ...[rant snipped]...

"...just where current mainstream secular scholarship as a whole stands at present".
That's an interesting claim. Could you explain why you think that's the case, please?
I understood Stein's summary was from Dale Allison. Does Dale Allison represent the 21st century academe?

...Allison confesses his personal desire that Jesus's resurrection would provide some sort of "postmortem endorsement" of Jesus's teachings, and especially the afterlife (214–219).

 

[TimCallahan]

It is NOT "Stein's pet theory". That's just a rhetorically convenient way of obfuscating the plain fact that Stein is strictly offering a "Digest"/summation of just where current mainstream secular scholarship as a whole stands at present. So this does NOT come from Stein. It comes from 21st-century academe. Get your facts straight.

I've seen this before in similar web discussions between educated readers and creationists. A common debating tactic is for the creationist to pretend that the summation of evolution findings immediately in front of him comes solely from whatever poster happens to be opposing him at the time rather than from two or three generations' worth of uphill battles by many researchers who were only interested in evaluating which hypotheses could stand up to rigorous field-testing of all kinds and which ones couldn't. To suggest instead that the shoulders on which the conclusions for all that research rest do not even exist, that the conclusions instead are solely the "copyright" of the opposing poster at hand, is a sleazy tactic of creationists, and it's a sleazy tactic here.

Stone

You are still not addressing the issue of your bad behavior, which is quite independent from your arguments:

1) It is not necessary for you to insult those with whom you disagree. Further, it's childish, petty behavior.

2) Further, it contributes to a disruption in rational discourse, since it invites personal attacks in return, and this clouds the issue of the merits of your arguements. Refrain from getting personal yourself, and you remove any justification for any such attacks on yourself or your arguments.

3) Your refusal to disclose your own personal position lends itself to dishonesty. When I asked you to clarify your position you claimed that you couldn't trust me not to use this against you. However, all I asked for was honest disclosure. I believe I've already disclosed my views on the subject of this thread. However, in case I haven't done so sufficiently, here is my position:

I believe there really was a guy named Jesus who taught a particular philosophy. I further believe that he had an apocalyptic mindset, that he was a messianic pretender and that he had the deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead. Thus, I suspect he had complicity in his own arrest, i.e. he deliberately provoked the authorities to get them to arrest him, so he could be condemned to death and be raised from the dead.

As an atheist I obviously don't believe in any of the miracles claimed by the gospels and the Book of Acts. Further, I don't believe that any of the gospel narratives were historically accurate. This includes the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. About the only thing historically accurate in the Christian scriptures is that the Romans put Jesus to death for sedition.

In fact, the only real historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is the passage in Tacitus' Annals on Nero blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome. We might add to that the passage in Josephus' Antiquities about the execution of James, although there are some problems, which I've mentioned already, about the clause, "who was called Christ."

I have just disclosed my position to you and others on this thread. I invite you to do likewise.

 

[Brainache]

Where did you get the 40 BCE to 120 CE dating, Brainache?
The sources I've consulted gave a very different account.
The most amazing source I found was this one
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/historical-timeline
...
ETA
Ehrman has this to say about the DDS
http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

Not sure where my brain was that day...

I'm confused.
Judas betrayed Jesus for claiming to be a Messiah, the same charge Theudas and others faced, and that until the betrayal, Jesus' claim was a secret amongst the twelve disciples.

Yet only Jesus is arrested, not his co-conspirators?
I haven't quite understood how this betrayal can be considered historical.

There is a recurring theme throughout Mark, of the "Secret Messiah"- Jesus keeps telling his followers not to tell anyone about him. I think this is interesting when compared with the DSS Community Rule, which says not to tell any outsiders about the Law Giver or The Way. (they also had a central council of Twelve and three "Pillars to hold up the world")

If the DSS community isn't the Early Church in Palestine, maybe this secrecy idea was common amongst such groups. (probably still is)

I still think Iscariot is a corruption of "Sicarii". If so, any historicity could be allegorical in the sense that these "Sicarii" or Zealot followers of Judas the Galilean caused the trouble that got Jesus arrested.

I suspect Ehrman would consider the whole betrayal by a kiss, etc. fictional. He seems to think that Judas betrayed Jesus' secret claim to the high priest. I imagine he would assume that at least some of Jesus' followers would have been arrested as well. Of course, I'm guessing here. However, one thing remains unexplained: How did his sect survive after his death, while the followers of Theudas and others did not?

Re the bold: I would argue that the sect in question wasn't exactly all about Jesus at the time. It was a general Messianic movement. A counter-culture to the Roman imposed rulers, like Hippies with swords. They had lots of leaders, Jesus was just one of many. He only became super important retrospectively when Paul singled him out.

Maybe.

Here's a possible scenario: Jesus came to Jerusalem with the deluded belief that he was the Son of God and the Son of man character from the Book of Daniel. I suspect that he set himself up to be put to death in the belief that God would raise him from the dead, i.e. he had complicity in his own arrest. If he actually created a disruption in the temple, overturning the tables of the money-changers, I suspect the temple guards would have arrested him on the spot: no need for a betrayal, no need for any of his followers to be taken. If this hypothetical scenario is true, he would have claimed then and there to be the Christ, the king of the Jews. The priests would have happily handed him over to the Romans for a swift sentence and an excruciating death.

That might have been an end to everything, leaving nothing behind but yet another (minor) faction of Jews. Then Paul had a conversion experience while persecuting them and created his own Christ Jesus out of his hallucination. The new belief system was wildly syncretistic and had no barriers to membership, as did the mystery religions. Hence, it rapidly out-populated them.

I think that "(minor) faction of Jews" went on to become the driving force behind the revolt against Rome. They lost. Their last stand was on Masada, where they buried scrolls under the floor about the resurrection, identical to the DSS.

I'm not saying that they were followers of Jesus, but that they were followers of the same form of Judaism that Jesus was. Jesus wasn't a Christian and neither were his companions and followers in Palestine.

Christianity was for Gentiles and was anti-Jewish from the start.

I believe it's generally accepted that Jesus taught a philosophy likely influenced by the Cynic philosophers of Greece. Owing to the spread of Greek culture in the Hellenistic period, there was a considerable Greek cultural impact on the Jews. The aspects of Jesus' philosophy that mesh with Cynic philosophy are non-retaliation, pacifism, renunciation of the world (family wealth etc.), living a simple, non-materialistic life, etc. I don't see anything in any of this that is unique enough that someone else might have said it. Of course such a philosophy also meshes well with an apocalyptic view. The Jesus presented in the gospels is certainly apocalyptic in outlook.

Or there is also the Jewish "Rechabite" tradition of "Naziritism". Which was all about living in the wilderness only eating what grew naturally and wearing clothes made from plant fibre (ie linen), etc. These "Nazorean" priests were like John The Baptist.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Greeks got their Cynic ideas from the Jews.

As to Ehrman's view that Jesus secretly stated that he saw himself as the king of the Jews, and that Judas' betrayal was that he told the Jewish priesthood that Jesus was secretly saying this; I find it hard to believe. First of all, they really didn't need a betrayer if they wanted to be rid of him. All they would have needed were some stooge witnesses to fabricate a story that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews.

Again, claiming to be the Christ, i.e. the 'anointed one," was tantamount to saying one was the king of the Jews, ordained by God.

I still think the "Christ" thing was invented by Paul. The Jews were waiting and preparing for the Messiah to come and start a Holy War of independence, not save their souls. "Christ The Redeemer" would have been a foreign concept to a popular Jewish religious leader of the time. Literally foreign, as in Greco-Roman, not Jewish.

I can believe that Jesus might have claimed that he held the true "High Priesthood" of Israel, which was like claiming to be the King. If he tried to enter the "Holy of Holies" and pray, because he saw the Herodian appointed High Priest as illegitimate, or something, that would have been enough.

 

[Brainache]

...

ETA
Ehrman has this to say about the DDS
http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

I saw this bit:

I am not saying that the Dead Sea Scrolls are representative of what all or even most Jews thought at the time. They clearly are not. If the “Essene hypothesis” is right – and it is the view held by the vast majority of the experts (among whom I do not number myself) (and among whom they do not number me either! ) – then the Scrolls were produced by a Jewish sect that had very distinctive views of its own that were not, in many respects, shared by outsiders. In particular, this was a group of Jews who insisted that the coming apocalyptic judgment, soon to arrive, would bring destruction not only to the hated Romans and the “obvious” enemies of God, but to many Jews as well, including the priests who were in charge of the Temple cult in Jerusalem.

Depends on your definition of "Essene". They numbered themselves in the thousands, mostly young men.

He seems to forget that the Priests who were in charge of the Temple cult were puppets of the "hated Romans" and therefore also ""obvious" enemies of God".

He admits to not being an expert, and if he is relying on the work of the first group of people who published on the scrolls, he should try reading more recent work.

One example of how bad some of these early Scholars were: There are references throughout the scrolls to "The Cup of the Lord's Wrath" which would be "Poured Out" on the "Day Of Judgement". The lord would empty his cup of wrath and righteous judgment would pour down like a big rain and wash all the filth off the streets... And one scroll refers to the "Wicked Priest" who would "Drink his fill of the Lord's Cup" on Judgement Day - Obviously meaning he was going to get a lot of wrath from God. But some early scroll "Scholar" said they were calling this wicked priest a drunkard, and everyone agreed with him, because he was an "expert".

There are lots of similar examples.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (major snip . . . Or there is also the Jewish "Rechabite" tradition of "Naziritism". Which was all about living in the wilderness only eating what grew naturally and wearing clothes made from plant fibre (ie linen), etc. These "Nazorean" priests were like John The Baptist.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Greeks got their Cynic ideas from the Jews.

Forgive, Brainache, for such a huge snip from this excellent post. As to the Greeks possibly getting their Cynic views from the Jews, Diogenes, the founder of the Cynics, was a contemporary of Socrates, IIRC. I don't know if there was any cultural intercourse between the Greeks and Jews until after the death of Alexander the Great. In any case, the Greeks were a bit snotty about foreign ideas.

I still think the "Christ" thing was invented by Paul. The Jews were waiting and preparing for the Messiah to come and start a Holy War of independence, not save their souls. "Christ The Redeemer" would have been a foreign concept to a popular Jewish religious leader of the time. Literally foreign, as in Greco-Roman, not Jewish.

I agree that Paul largely created the Christ of his religion out of his own revelation (read: hallucination). He as much as says so in Galatians.

I can believe that Jesus might have claimed that he held the true "High Priesthood" of Israel, which was like claiming to be the King. If he tried to enter the "Holy of Holies" and pray, because he saw the Herodian appointed High Priest as illegitimate, or something, that would have been enough.

I doubt he would have tried to enter the Holy of Holies. However, according to all the gospels, he did disrupt the money changer business. That may actually be plausible, though John's removing from the end of his ministry and putting it toward the beginning, is suspect.

 

[Fizil]

As to Ehrman's view that Jesus secretly stated that he saw himself as the king of the Jews, and that Judas' betrayal was that he told the Jewish priesthood that Jesus was secretly saying this; I find it hard to believe. First of all, they really didn't need a betrayer if they wanted to be rid of him. All they would have needed were some stooge witnesses to fabricate a story that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews.

Again, claiming to be the Christ, i.e. the 'anointed one," was tantamount to saying one was the king of the Jews, ordained by God.

You are making the assumption that Ehrman thinks the priesthood knew who Jesus was or cared about his preaching in the slightest. I have not read his newest book, but I got the opposite impression from his earlier books. Just because he thinks that Jesus is historical doesn't mean he thinks that the Gospels are accurate historical accounts after all. Instead of the authorities really wanting to get Jesus bad, and Judas providing them with just what they needed to put him on trial, it would have been more like Judas approaching them saying "Hey I know a guy who is claiming to be the King of the Jews!" That is enough to get him in trouble, even if the authorities in Jerusalem were unaware of his existence previously.

 

[Brainache]

Forgive, Brainache, for such a huge snip from this excellent post. As to the Greeks possibly getting their Cynic views from the Jews, Diogenes, the founder of the Cynics, was a contemporary of Socrates, IIRC. I don't know if there was any cultural intercourse between the Greeks and Jews until after the death of Alexander the Great. In any case, the Greeks were a bit snotty about foreign ideas.

I just had some vague notion that Diogenes got his philosophy while he wandered in the East. I don't know why.

But really apart from seeing poverty as a virtue, I don't see anything very "Cynical" about the supposed teachings of Jesus.

Cynics talked about how morality was all man-made and that "Good" and "Evil", as such, didn't exist. They would openly flaunt convention and have sex in the street if they felt like it.

Jesus was pretty much the opposite of that, from what I can gather.

I agree that Paul largely created the Christ of his religion out of his own revelation (read: hallucination). He as much as says so in Galatians.

Which makes it pretty unlikely that "Christ" is anything that Jesus might have claimed to be.

I doubt he would have tried to enter the Holy of Holies. However, according to all the gospels, he did disrupt the money changer business. That may actually be plausible, though John's removing from the end of his ministry and putting it toward the beginning, is suspect.

Could "Money Changers", like "Tax Collectors" be a euphemism for Herodians and their collaborators in general?

There is a tradition that James entered the Holy of Holies to pray for Atonement, uttered the name of the Lord, and that is why they stoned him to death. Not sure where it's from.

(Well, he did say "Jehovah" )

 

[Stone]

I believe there really was a guy named Jesus who taught a particular philosophy. I further believe that he had an apocalyptic mindset, that he was a messianic pretender and that he had the deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead. Thus, I suspect he had complicity in his own arrest, i.e. he deliberately provoked the authorities to get them to arrest him, so he could be condemned to death and be raised from the dead.

As an atheist I obviously don't believe in any of the miracles claimed by the gospels and the Book of Acts. Further, I don't believe that any of the gospel narratives were historically accurate. This includes the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot. About the only thing historically accurate in the Christian scriptures is that the Romans put Jesus to death for sedition.

In fact, the only real historical evidence for the existence of Jesus is the passage in Tacitus' Annals on Nero blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome. We might add to that the passage in Josephus' Antiquities about the execution of James, although there are some problems, which I've mentioned already, about the clause, "who was called Christ."

I have just disclosed my position to you and others on this thread.

O.K., you haven't provided any links that support your position. Show us, please, where the information is stored with respect to the scholarship that can lead us to the kinds of conclusions that you are making. It would be interesting to read a backgrounder for your many interesting speculations, wouldn't it?

Thank you,

Stone

 

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
Where did you get the 40 BCE to 120 CE dating, Brainache?
The sources I've consulted gave a very different account.
The most amazing source I found was this one
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/lea...rical-timeline
...
ETA
Ehrman has this to say about the DDS
http://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/

Not sure where my brain was that day...

Or your billfold!
The article's behind a paywall, after all.


ETA

Originally Posted by pakeha View Post
I'm confused.
Judas betrayed Jesus for claiming to be a Messiah, the same charge Theudas and others faced, and that until the betrayal, Jesus' claim was a secret amongst the twelve disciples.

Yet only Jesus is arrested, not his co-conspirators?

I haven't quite understood how this betrayal can be considered historical....

Nor I, Brainache.
Ehrman's argument seems weak to me.
Off to read other scholars' take on the arrest.