Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Craig

I think the issue is
I don't see any evidence that animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice in any monolatrous proto-Judaism. In polytheisms, each god gets what (s)he wants, with a diversity among the gods in what that is. The Bible seems clear in its accusations that some gods who were worshipped in the Isarealite homeland wanted long pork. It doesn't follow that all gods want that.

An interesting treatise on this subject was published by the late Hyam Maccoby in the 80s. I've found a site with a long abstract of the text. Please note that I am linking this for the purpose of access to Maccoby's work, and not for the introduction and occasional comments by one Peter Myers, which are unfortunately also present, and which I entreat you to ignore. http://mailstar.net/maccoby.html

Maccoby argues that human sacrifice was once present in "proto-Judaism" but it was later abandoned and denounced; but that the Jesus story contains a kind of reversion to human sacrifice, absent from then-current Judaism.

By the way, we have discussed Jephthah. Not only did he sacrifice his virgin daughter, and was rewarded by YHWH for promising this; he also casually equates YHWH with another local divinity. See Judges 11

23 Now since the Lord, the God of Israel, has driven the Amorites out before his people Israel, what right have you to take it over? 24 Will you not take what your god Chemosh gives you [Ammonites]? Likewise, whatever the Lord our God has given us, we will possess.

Then follows the story of the daughter sacrifice. Now please consider the Moabite inscription of King Mesha

And Chemosh said to me, Go take Nebo against Israel, and I went in the night and I fought against it from the break of day till noon, and I took it: and I killed in all seven thousand men, but I did not kill the women and maidens, for I devoted them to Ashtar-Chemosh; and I took from it the vessels of Jehovah, and offered them before Chemosh. And the king of Israel fortified Jahaz, and occupied it, when he made war against me, and Chemosh drove him out before me ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

What happened to the maidens "devoted" to Chemosh? Much the same as happened to the one devoted to YHWH, no doubt. Like the vessels of Jehovah, they would have been "offered before Chemosh". These two gods had remarkably similar predispositions, it would seem. Or at least the warlords who worshipped them did.

ETA The war between Mesha and Israel is described in 2 Kings 3. In this account the Moabites get the worst of things until in desperation

26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom [ally of Israel], but they failed. 27 Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.

So this sacrifice is cited in the Scriptures as efficacious in repelling Israel.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Both forms are attested. I wouldn't kid you.

Craig

Thanks for the link. I happily grant that at some point, the ancestors of the Israelites practiced human sacrifce, and apparently some Israelites continued to practice, even long after a monolatrous, non-human sacrificng cult arose. "Replacement," however, is more than "coming later," and "reversion" is more than the appearance of a new version of an old idea.

The fact remains that Jews have no history of human sacrifice, and despite Paul's portrayal of Jesus as a human and a sacrifical victim, he didn't urge Gentile Christians to adopt human sacrifice. Such sense or logic as there is in Paul's salvation story has Jesus magically undoing the rebellion of Adam, a unique and personal act, and not anything grounded in any shared ritual tradition of killing people to secure divine favor or avert divine wrath. "Lamb of God" is not Paul's teaching, while John, whose teaching it is, seems underwhelmed by Jewish piety. Perhaps one or two nuances of Jewish thought, especially Paul's thought, eluded him.

Not only did he sacrifice his virgin daughter, and was rewarded by YHWH for promising this;...

Fulfilling a vow is a different obligation than human sacrifice. The rash vow did not specify a human death, and a human death was not intended at the time the obligation to perform attached. That is pretty much the point of the motif - you shouldn't make rash vows, because you may be held to them.

Killing a homosexual man is also an obligation and a religiously motivated human death as a condition of divine favor for the community, Leviticus 18:22, but it is also not human sacrifice. As to Jewish views on human sacrifice, retrojected onto righteous Israelites as Jews imagined them, the verse before that would seem informative.

Finally, Paul did not advocate the worship of Chemosh. That the ancestors, neighbors, and unrighteous members of the Israelite community practiced human sacrifice does not make a historical Jewish practice of it.

 

[Craig B]

That the ancestors, neighbors, and unrighteous members of the Israelite community practiced human sacrifice does not make a historical Jewish practice of it.

Quite so, as I have said, but in your last post you broadened the scope of investigation a bit by alluding to

any monolatrous proto-Judaism

and it is this, whatever it may be taken as referring to, that I had in mind.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is:

1. Void of logic

2. Void of facts.

3. Void of evidence pre 70 CE [before the Fall of the Jewish Temple].

In writings of antiquity attributed to Apologetics it is claimed that Christians considered human sacrifice to Gods as murder, extremely barbaric and evil.

Such claims by Apologetics support the argument that the Jesus of Nazareth was not considered a human being But God Incarnate--GOD in the flesh.

In fact, Apologetic writers argued against human sacrifice, the use of human blood and showed that Roman/Greek Myth are riddled with stories of sacrifices of human and Gods.

OK, so you think Jesus existed, but he was God incarnate and not just a Jewish Preacher who had crazy stories told about him?

That seems a bit silly to me.

How illogical can you be!! What nonsense!! What silliness!! You believe the CRAZY stories contain the history of your Jesus.

It is true, without a reasonable doubt, the HJ argument is VOID of logic, facts and evidence pre 70 CE.

Admitted Crazy stories are the evidence for an HJ.

 

[Brainache]

How illogical can you be!! What nonsense!! What silliness!! You believe the CRAZY stories contain the history of your Jesus.

It is true, without a reasonable doubt, the HJ argument is VOID of logic, facts and evidence pre 70 CE.

Admitted Crazy stories are the evidence for an HJ.

The crazy stories can tell us a lot about he types of craziness people were buying into back then.

All 2000 year old writing is a bit crazy, as far as I'm concerned. All of it refers to gods and the supernatural as if it's real, therefore crazy.

Almost as crazy as the idea that Jesus was actually a God, which you seem to want to promote.

 

[dejudge]

How illogical can you be!! What nonsense!! What silliness!! You believe the CRAZY stories contain the history of your Jesus.

It is true, without a reasonable doubt, the HJ argument is VOID of logic, facts and evidence pre 70 CE.

Admitted Crazy stories are the evidence for an HJ.

The crazy stories can tell us a lot about he types of craziness people were buying into back then.

All 2000 year old writing is a bit crazy, as far as I'm concerned. All of it refers to gods and the supernatural as if it's real, therefore crazy.

Almost as crazy as the idea that Jesus was actually a God, which you seem to want to promote.

What a big lie.

I argue that Jesus was a MYTH.

You very well know that it is the Jesus cult writers of antiquity who claimed THEIR HJ was the Son of a God, BORN of a Ghost, the Logos and God Creator.

Look at the CRAZY ghost story in gMatthew.

Matthew 1:18

---Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Mark 6:48 KJV

And he saw them toiling in rowing ; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out.

Why are you using those Crazy NT stories for the history of your Jesus?

I can only accept Jesus as a CRAZY Myth fable until new evidence surfaces.

 

[Brainache]

What a big lie.

I argue that Jesus was a MYTH.

You very well know that it is the Jesus cult writers of antiquity who claimed THEIR HJ was the Son of a God, BORN of a Ghost, the Logos and God Creator.

Look at the CRAZY ghost story in gMatthew.

Matthew 1:18


Mark 6:48 KJV

Why are you using those Crazy NT stories for the history of your Jesus?

I can only accept Jesus as a CRAZY Myth fable until new evidence surfaces.

I suppose that would be because you think the study of History simply involves taking old stories at face value.

The concept of critical analysis of ancient texts is something your arguments never address, so I have to assume it is from ignorance.

It is either ignorance or dishonesty, so I'll take the charitable option and assume it's ignorance.

 

[dejudge]

I suppose that would be because you think the study of History simply involves taking old stories at face value.

The concept of critical analysis of ancient texts is something your arguments never address, so I have to assume it is from ignorance.

It is either ignorance or dishonesty, so I'll take the charitable option and assume it's ignorance.

What big lies.

You very well know that Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar, preached that Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead in the Reformed Church of America.

You have already been notified that Joseph RATZINGER, a Christian Scholar, the former Bishop of Rome preached and Taught that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Virgin, resurrected and ascended.

There are many many Christian Scholars, [perhaps thousands] who take the CRAZY stories of Jesus at face value.

http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-christian-scholars/


Christian Scholars don't even realise that they are actually arguing for a Myth when they claim their Jesus was a resurrected being.

 

[Brainache]

What big lies.

You very well know that Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar, preached that Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead in the Reformed Church of America.

You have already been notified that Joseph RATZINGER, a Christian Scholar, the former Bishop of Rome preached and Taught that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Virgin, resurrected and ascended.

There are many many Christian Scholars, [perhaps thousands] who take the CRAZY stories of Jesus at face value.

http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-christian-scholars/


Christian Scholars don't even realise that they are actually arguing for a Myth when they claim their Jesus was a resurrected being.

What has any of that (apart from the bit about Carrier) got to do with the study of History?

The answer is nothing. You know this, it has been explained numerous times. Or, are you still not aware of the difference between religious belief and Historical Scholarship?

I have to wonder what you think goes on in University History classes. Do you think they read a lot of William Lane Craig, or Joseph Ratzinger in the History departments of Oxford and Cambridge? Really?

And Carrier is not associated with any University, his book still hasn't been published and no one is teaching his "Myth Jesus" idea anywhere.

Plus, of course, Richard Carrier's theory is nothing like your idiotic "Hoax Fake Forgery Fable" "Theory"... Carrier would just face-palm if he thought he had supporters like you.

Keep it up. You make the Myth idea look stupider with every post.

Well done!

 

[dejudge]

What has any of that (apart from the bit about Carrier) got to do with the study of History?

The answer is nothing. You know this, it has been explained numerous times. Or, are you still not aware of the difference between religious belief and Historical Scholarship?

I have to wonder what you think goes on in University History classes. Do you think they read a lot of William Lane Craig, or Joseph Ratzinger in the History departments of Oxford and Cambridge? Really?

And Carrier is not associated with any University, his book still hasn't been published and no one is teaching his "Myth Jesus" idea anywhere.

Plus, of course, Richard Carrier's theory is nothing like your idiotic "Hoax Fake Forgery Fable" "Theory"... Carrier would just face-palm if he thought he had supporters like you.

Keep it up. You make the Myth idea look stupider with every post.

Well done!

How illogical can you be!! What nonsense!!! What silliness!!

Your argument is void of logic.

The evidence for an Historical Jesus is NOT related to the existence of Universities.

You don't even know the history of the QUEST for an HJ.

It was BIBLE BELIEVERS who initiated the Quest for an HJ.

You believe the CRAZY stories of Jesus contains the history of your HJ like William Craig, Van Voorst and Ratzinger

Mark 6:48-49 KJV

And he saw them toiling in rowing ; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out

 

[Brainache]

How illogical can you be!! What nonsense!!! What silliness!!

Your argument is void of logic.

The evidence for an Historical Jesus is NOT related to the existence of Universities.

You don't even know the history of the QUEST for an HJ.

It was BIBLE BELIEVERS who initiated the Quest for an HJ.

You believe the CRAZY stories of Jesus contains the history of your HJ like William Craig, Van Voorst and Ratzinger

Mark 6:48-49 KJV

The study of History is related to Universities.

Universities are where people go to learn stuff.

You should try that one day.

 

[dejudge]

The study of History is related to Universities.

Universities are where people go to learn stuff.

You should try that one day.

What nonsense!! What hopeless illogical statements!! What absurdities!!!

You are not even an historian!!
You have confirmed that your argument is void of logic.

 

[Brainache]

What nonsense!! What hopeless illogical statements!! What absurdities!!!

You are not even an historian!!
You have confirmed that your argument is void of logic.

History is indeed studied at University. I'm actually surprised that you don't know that. I thought it was pretty basic common knowledge. Oh well, live and learn, I suppose...

I believe an Education from a University would indeed help anyone to know more about how the Academic disciplines work.

You disagree.

I can't imagine why...

 

[dejudge]

History is indeed studied at University. I'm actually surprised that you don't know that. I thought it was pretty basic common knowledge. Oh well, live and learn, I suppose...

I believe an Education from a University would indeed help anyone to know more about how the Academic disciplines work.

You disagree.

I can't imagine why...

Your argument is void of logic.

You are NOT an historian.

You have NO idea what evidence is!!

Evidence and Witnesses of antiquity are NOT products of Universities.

One does not have to attend a University to reconstruct the past.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

but in your last post you broadened the scope of investigation a bit by alluding to

any monolatrous proto-Judaism

The point of my sentence from which you took the phrase "any monolatrous proto-Judaism,"

I don't see any evidence that animal sacrifice replaced human sacrifice in any monolatrous proto-Judaism.

was that I don't see evidence of replacement, already within the scope of investtigation.

Human sacrifice and animal sacrifice are two different thiings, not necessarily two alternative, substitutatble approaches to doing one thing, or to honor the same god(s). Similarly, the religiously motivated killing of a human being as punishment or as the unforeseen consequence of a unique and personal rash vow is not necessarily a social tradition of ritual human sacrifice, either. Categories, gods and rituals can be combined in particular religious traditions, but it would be nice to see evidence of that.

There is a peculiarity of Jewish thought, that the relationship betwen God and his people is contractual. God resolves not to change his mind except in conformity with his agreement. However, the Jews' current contract in Paul's time did have an end of days. If the end of days begins at the moment where Jesus resolves to do whatever God requires of Jesus to be designated as God's Messiah, then Paul tells us there is a new covenant (at 1 Corinthians 11:25 , ostensibly quoting Jesus shortly before his death):

In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

It is not unusual for Jewish covenants to be initiated with human bloodshed and death. The first covenant, in Genesis 3, where human dominance over the earth is reaffirmed, now with bloody strings attached, is a death sentence. The second covenant, with Cain, is a life sentence for murder. The Noahide covenant settles a mass extinction. Abraham and the men of his household mutilate their genitals, and pledge to do the same to their yet-unborn children indefinitely, to ratify that covenant. I lose track of how many died as the Sinai covenant was proclaimed and implemented: a whole generation, if you count the 40 years' wanderings, not to mention Egyptian collateral damage, and the casualties of evicting the current tenants of the promised land.

Paul is good at this, and of course, he was more concerned with fidelity to Jewish traditions than later Christian writers, who would be Gentiles. Being God's chosen one, or chosen many, is a bloody buisness and always was. That is not, however, a revival of some ancestral ritual demand for barbecued people, and none of this human bloodshed takes place in a temple or shrine by priestly hands acting in a ritual capacity. These are deaths and injuries incidental to accomplishing the actors' roles in (an often imagined) history.

 

[Brainache]

Your argument is void of logic.

You are NOT an historian.

You have NO idea what evidence is!!

Evidence and Witnesses of antiquity are NOT products of Universities.

One does not have to attend a University to reconstruct the past.

I never claimed to be a Historian.

I know exactly what evidence is.

Competent Scholarship of the relevant documents most certainly is a product of Universities. If you expect anybody to accept your ideas, it would help if they made sense. A University could help you with that.

Your reconstruction of the past is laughably inept and apparently devoid of any real understanding of the cultural context for any of the things you proclaim. It is worse than useless in the service of the Myth Jesus idea, so well done for that.

I admire the way that you can take a barely plausible Academic Theory and turn it into an intellectual catastrophe, the way you have. It is truly inspiring.

Well done.

 

[Craig B]

"Lamb of God" is not Paul's teaching

Surely this is very much the same.

1 Corinthians 5:7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

And this is clearly a new covenant--between God and a "new batch" purged of the old yeast.

 

[dejudge]

I never claimed to be a Historian.

I know exactly what evidence is.

Competent Scholarship of the relevant documents most certainly is a product of Universities. If you expect anybody to accept your ideas, it would help if they made sense. A University could help you with that.[/quote]

You are not competent based on your own words.


You don't know what evidence is or else you would not have believe the CRAZY stories contain historical accounts of Jesus.

You know the names of UNIVERSITIES.

You are not an historian or a Scholar.

Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

Jesus was Born of a Ghost, Walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and ascended in a cloud according to Christian writers of antiquity.

The NT and Apologetic writings are evidence of a Mythological Jesus.

Your reconstruction of the past is laughably inept and apparently devoid of any real understanding of the cultural context for any of the things you proclaim. It is worse than useless in the service of the Myth Jesus idea, so well done for that.

Your reconstruction of the past is laughably inept and devoid of understanding because you have NO evidence from antiquity.

You are NOT an historian or a Scholar.

Your argument is hopelessly illogical and self-contradictory.

Jesus was Born of a Ghost, God Creator, the Logos that Walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and ascended in a cloud according to Christian writers of antiquity.

Jesus was a Myth until new evidence surfaces.

I admire the way that you can take a barely plausible Academic Theory and turn it into an intellectual catastrophe, the way you have. It is truly inspiring.

Well done.

I do NOT admire your illogical arguments at all.

You believe the CRAZY stories in the NT contains the history of your Jesus.

How illogical!!.

It is true--the HJ argument is void of logical, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

You don't know what evidence is.

Look at the EVIDENCE--Not at Universities.

Jesus was just a Crazy Ghost Story.

1. Mark 6:48 KJV

....... and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

2. Matthew 1:18 KJV

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

3. John 1.1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

4. 1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV

And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

5. Ignatius' Ephesians

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

6.Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ

He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God.

7. Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

8. Origen's De Principiis

He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit

9. Justin's First Apology

...the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven...

10. Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies

This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation.

 

[Brainache]

I know exactly what evidence is.

Competent Scholarship of the relevant documents most certainly is a product of Universities. If you expect anybody to accept your ideas, it would help if they made sense. A University could help you with that.

You are not competent based on your own words.


You don't know what evidence is or else you would not have believe the CRAZY stories contain historical accounts of Jesus.

You know the names of UNIVERSITIES.

You are not an historian or a Scholar.

Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

Jesus was Born of a Ghost, Walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and ascended in a cloud according to Christian writers of antiquity.

The NT and Apologetic writings are evidence of a Mythological Jesus.



Your reconstruction of the past is laughably inept and devoid of understanding because you have NO evidence from antiquity.

You are NOT an historian or a Scholar.

Your argument is hopelessly illogical and self-contradictory.

Jesus was Born of a Ghost, God Creator, the Logos that Walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and ascended in a cloud according to Christian writers of antiquity.

Jesus was a Myth until new evidence surfaces.


I do NOT admire your illogical arguments at all.

You believe the CRAZY stories in the NT contains the history of your Jesus.

How illogical!!.

It is true--the HJ argument is void of logical, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

You don't know what evidence is.

Look at the EVIDENCE--Not at Universities.

Jesus was just a Crazy Ghost Story.

1. Mark 6:48 KJV


2. Matthew 1:18 KJV


3. John 1.1


4. 1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV


5. Ignatius' Ephesians


6.Tertullian's On the Flesh of Christ


7. Aristides' Apology


8. Origen's De Principiis


9. Justin's First Apology


10. Hippolytus' Refutation of All Heresies

Oh yes, because we just have to read what the text says. I take it these are all excerpts from the Ancient book of "What Really Happened"...?

Richard Carrier is digging a grave right now so he can go spin in it for a while.

Well done.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

Surely this is very much the same

A bit less than sure. There is no lamb in the Greek, just either the event, its commemoration, or both, pascha or Passover (Pasch). And what happened to Passover? etythe... a word which appears nowhere else in the NT; assuming that's a mistake of tau for theta, then it could mean "celebrated" or "commemorated," since it is the event that is being discussed, or indeed sacrified in its root meaning. Regardless, no animals were injured in constructing this figure of speech.

Paul's allusion is to Exodus 12, and its annual remembrance among the Jews. It is the rite as a whole which is the sacrifice, not the death of the lambs. The rite includes several days of unleavened bread, eaten where leavened bread has been expelled.

The original passover was a selective mass killing, which set the stage for the Sinai covenant. The lambs (or goats were OK, too) were dinner for the survivors of the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn. The lambs' inedible blood supplied a mark by which the passing over, the selective part of the massacre, occurs. The lambs didn't die for anybody's sins, the lambs didn't die in anybody's stead. No doubt for John, that's just another of those fussy Jewish things. Jews killed several lambs all at once? Must be atonement. You know, like Yom Kippur, only with food.

It's harder to see how Paul would screw that up. So, maybe not quite sure that it's much the same.