Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

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.

These are basically the four categories Resmburg and Baker gave nearly 100 years apart.

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.

It certainly doesn't help as there may have been followers of Serapis ("Chrestus") called Chrestians around which just muddies things even further.

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

 

[pakeha]

...[clipped with respect]...
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. ...

I can see your point and what you've outlined is the most powerful argument for an historical 'Jesus' I've seen.

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. ...

Stone, that second para reminded me powerfully of the diatribes of a YEC. I'll show you why by slightly changing your para.

However, it is typical for the mythers darwinists 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 creationistsatheists, because creationistsatheists use the same slippery tactic of fixating on one datum at a time to avoid the cross-referenced data that evolutionaryYEC biologists now have galore. ...

This is the tone I've read all too often from YECs who post here.
It's as distinctive as those sayings which have been attached to the biblical Jesus.
It's a tone that makes people here wonder just what are you about, Stone. Your argument is strong enough for you not to issue blanket insults and sneers to the forum members here.


Hi, Brainache, my answers to your interesting post are in tasteful teal

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.
Not really. The context here points to a group of slaves and freedmen rather than royals.

... how do we explain Paul's Roman Citizenship "from birth"?
Our source for that citizenship would be?


You got me there. That'll teach me for shooting from the wrist.
If I had a euro for every time I've done that...


Whether his new narrative is Historically accurate or not, I'm not sure, but it's an interesting theory.
Yes, I agree with you 100%.
However, this part of the theory revolves around the translation of a word and the status of a person and even the translation of that person's name. That looks like thin ice to me, especially with so much reliance on the veracity of Acts. On the other hand, I do quite like that possible reference to Paul in the DDS you mentioned.


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.
Our source for that would be?



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.
Brainache, are we back to Acts? Is Acts a reliable source of information here? Does Eisenman really take Act seriously?


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.
A bit like Ron L. Hubbard, perhaps?
I don't doubt Paul was capable of insinuating to his audiences he was connected to the Herodian family without it being true, if for no other reason than to pump his own importance in the scheme of things.

When you have time and want a laugh, do read this site.
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/daily-weblogs/2011/01-2011/romans-16-part-2/
It won't take long to get the gist of it.
All the best!

 

[TimCallahan]

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.

Generally speaking, the philosophy of Jesus seems to have paralleled that of the Greek Cynic philosophers mingled with apocalyptic views, with which they mesh well. I don't see anything particularly idiosyncratic in them. Can you supply me with some specific examples?

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.

Of course, Josephus doesn't refer to the sayings of Jesus, just to him being referred to as the Christ. I don't think anyone was likely to be put to death for merely preaching a renunciation of materialism. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' action of creating a disturbance in the temple is the proximate cause of his arrest by the temple authorities.

I don't find the reference in Josephus to Jesus being spoken of (Gr. legomenou) as the Christ to be in itself untrustworthy. However, I do see a problem, in that Josephus, who did record the actions of a number of would-be messiahs, such as Theudas - unknown outside of his reference in the Antiquities - didn't have a previous, brief reference to Jesus making the claim that he was the Christ and being executed for it.

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.

Again, care to give specifics, or are you simply going to make insulting assertions?

Concerning the hilited area: In sharp contrast to the overwhelming mountain of evidence supporting evolution, we have only two nearly contemporary extra-biblical references to Jesus, the passing reference in Josephus and the statement by Tacitus in the Annals that Christ was executed by Pilate. I've outlined the possible objections to the former. I see no real problems with the latter. However, extrapolating the Jesus of the gospels from that brief reference doesn't work for me. Again, for me, Jesus remains a barely historical figure upon whom was created the construct made of a mix of the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalyptic belief, pagan myth and Greek literature.

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.

Yes, I'm making it in good faith. Also, its a simple matter of self-disclosure. Bear in mind that I' have already disclosed to you what my position is.

No cheers,

Stone

Your final, uncivil, shot is snotty and uncalled for.

 

[Brainache]

...

Hi, Brainache, my answers to your interesting post are in tasteful teal{er,Pakeha in bold}

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.
Not really. The context here points to a group of slaves and freedmen rather than royals.

Maybe...

... how do we explain Paul's Roman Citizenship "from birth"?
Our source for that citizenship would be?

Paul himself. Early church Historians. More than just Acts.


You got me there. That'll teach me for shooting from the wrist.
If I had a euro for every time I've done that...

We'd all be rich!


Whether his new narrative is Historically accurate or not, I'm not sure, but it's an interesting theory.
Yes, I agree with you 100%.
However, this part of the theory revolves around the translation of a word and the status of a person and even the translation of that person's name. That looks like thin ice to me, especially with so much reliance on the veracity of Acts. On the other hand, I do quite like that possible reference to Paul in the DDS you mentioned.

That's not all it depends on. There are other reasons to think Paul could be a Herodian, this is just a part of it.


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.
Our source for that would be?

Again, all of the ancient source documents. Acts included.



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.
Brainache, are we back to Acts? Is Acts a reliable source of information here? Does Eisenman really take Act seriously?

Just look at Josephus, no Acts required. See all of the fuss over keeping Gentiles out of the Temple in the decades leading up to the war. Then look at the DSS with their obsession over separating Holy Things from Unclean Things. It was a hot-button issue.

It was also one of the main points of contention between Paul and "Those From James" in Paul's letters. "Table Fellowship with Gentiles" is another name for it.


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.
A bit like Ron L. Hubbard, perhaps?
I don't doubt Paul was capable of insinuating to his audiences he was connected to the Herodian family without it being true, if for no other reason than to pump his own importance in the scheme of things.

Pretending to be part of that family isn't going to win him any supporters amongst the Jewish hoi polloi. Their Palaces were the amongst the first things burnt to the ground when the revolution came.

When you have time and want a laugh, do read this site.
http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.net/daily-weblogs/2011/01-2011/romans-16-part-2/
It won't take long to get the gist of it.
All the best!

Ok.
Cheers Big Ears!

 

[maximara]

And deliberately, too. He knows this thread *&$%*$%^#&%^ well, and he knows that deliberate playing with the facts is an intentional provocation. If that isn't clearly actionable by this board -- especially after he's been explicitly called on it already twice -- I'd like to know just what the %^#*^*$^$*$%^*#% is.

Stone

There is no "playing with the facts" other then trying to claim the Testimonium Flavianum is valid. NO ONE before the 4th century even mentions it even when it would have suited their purpose to do so such as Justin Martyr (c100 - c165), Theophilus (d. 180), Irenaeus (c120 - c203), Clement of Alexandria (c150-c215), Origen (c185-c254), Hippolytus (c170 - c235), Minucius Felix (d. c250), and Anatolius (230-280).

And ever after it is first mentioned there are those who don't use it such as Chrysostom (c347-407), Methodius (9th century) and Photius (c820-891)

Apologists like to play 'well part of Testimonium Flavianum is true' but you still run into the “And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...” that immediately follows which makes NO sense with any version of Testimonium Flavianum that has been suggested.

Moreover the passage doesn't fit Josephus tendency to describe events as we see with others as has been previously mentioned nor does it fit parallel events in the Jewish Wars.

Finally Eusebius who was the first to note the Testimonium Flavianum also gave us the fantasy "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs." in his The History of the Church despite the fact Philo wrote not one word about Jesus.

In fact apologists go out of their way to claim Philo had no reason to write anything about Jesus. Well the guy who first mentioned the Testimonium Flavianum just gave us a reason...Philo supposedly met Peter and had a conversation with him.

There are times I am reminded of that one scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where monks are chanting (Pies lesu Domiene Dona eis Requiem) and hitting themselves in the head with boards they are carrying where apologists keep hitting themseves with their own theories until they make sense.

 

[pakeha]

... how do we explain Paul's Roman Citizenship "from birth"?
Our source for that citizenship would be?

Paul himself. Early church Historians. More than just Acts.

Hmm.
Paul himself, Acts and early church historians.
How did those church historians get the idea Paul was a Roman citizen?

... 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.
Our source for that would be?

Again, all of the ancient source documents. Acts included.

Again, Brainache, those ancient source documents based on what, exactly?
Just out of curiosity, just when and where are Paul and his adventures and his letters first mentioned?
Outside of Acts, of course.

Brainache, are we back to Acts? Is Acts a reliable source of information here? Does Eisenman really take Act seriously?

Just look at Josephus, no Acts required. See all of the fuss over keeping Gentiles out of the Temple in the decades leading up to the war. Then look at the DSS with their obsession over separating Holy Things from Unclean Things. It was a hot-button issue.

It was also one of the main points of contention between Paul and "Those From James" in Paul's letters. "Table Fellowship with Gentiles" is another name for it.

Yes, of course it was a red-button issue, you're quite right!
And Joseph's writings are illuminating, absolutely.
Still, looking at that red-button issue in the light of the razing of Jerusalem to the ground (more or less) in 69-70 with the destruction of the Temple for all practical purposes, the rebuilding of Jerusalem as the Roman metropolis Aelia Capitolina, the Bar Kochbar rebellion 132-5 and subsequent suppression topped off with the Diaspora gives those Purity debates in the 50s and 60s a strange feel, indeed.

Anyway, from recognising that to deducing Paul was a member of a royal family seems a huge leap.
I read Eisenman's essay on the Herodian link and it all seems very tenuous as a claim to royal kinship.
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
As far as I can see, all the above is based on Paul, Acts and elevating Herodion/Rodion from being a freedman to a Herodian noble.
The Qumrum and DDS come into the picture later, yes, but the linch-pin to Eisenman's argument as to Paul's royal connection seems to be his interpretation of Romans 16:11.
And Acts.
Or is there something I'm missing? It's likely to be the case I've something here, so I'm not fussed at being shown my error(s).

...He lies a lot.
A bit like Ron L. Hubbard, perhaps?
I don't doubt Paul was capable of insinuating to his audiences he was connected to the Herodian family without it being true, if for no other reason than to pump his own importance in the scheme of things.

Pretending to be part of that family isn't going to win him any supporters amongst the Jewish hoi polloi. Their Palaces were the amongst the first things burnt to the ground when the revolution came.

Do we have any evidence Paul preached to the hoi-polloi? My own impression is that Paul's target audiences were the humble, that is to say, the illiterate and what we'd call disenfranchised, more or less.
But I could be dead wrong on that.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading more from you, when you have the time to write on the subject of Paul and his possible connection to the Herodian royalty.
Getting back on topic, just how does Ehrman treat this subject? I went around to his blog, but it's now on a pay to read standing, as far as I can see.
Paywalls vex me.

 

[Stone]

There is no "playing with the facts" other then trying

Nothing to do with this case. The authenticity or in-authenticity of the TF has nothing to do with what TC is attempting. TC is pretending that the TF doesn't exist -- in any way, shape, or form. Excuse me: It does exist. It may come from the man in the moon, it may come from Eusebius, it may come from a nasty mediaeval monk making sinister cackling laughs in a dark hideaway, it may not have anything to do with Josephus at all, but it does exist. TC is attempting to paint out history and pretend there is no such artifact or datum at all. There is. To pretend otherwise is to exalt one view -- however well argued in the poster's opinion -- and change it into a fact. But one view is not a fact. TC's ploy here is unconscionably sneaky and smacks of propaganda, not "reflection".

There's a real irony here. The most recent up-to-date scholars agree that there are no comparable incongruities in text or textual history associated with the later Jesus reference in Antiqs. 20, the one citing James, only with the TF in Antiqs. 18. So TC's ultimate point -- however misleadingly couched -- has ironically hit on something valid: The James reference in Antiqs. 20 certainly does suggest an earlier Josephan reference to Jesus the human rabbi. TC makes a good point there. But surely, if there's nothing comparably odd in the textual history for Antiqs. 20, then TC's valid point ironically indicates that Antiqs. 18's TF did indeed exist after all -- in authentic Josephan form at some early point, if no longer extant today and now significantly corrupted.

Stone

 

[Bad vibe]

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.

As Tim Callahan asked earlier I'd be interested in examples of these colloquial un rabbi like sayings that would point to an individual and couldn't be explained as simply attributed post mortem by early Christian gentiles.

I've seen a similar assertion from another thread based on biblical scholarship about Aramaic sayings but how do you get from that to an HC? that would seem to be one helluva leap for a conclusion?

 

[TimCallahan]

You get up on your high horse and talk about snark, but what you're doing right here is obvious snark, and you know it. You're taking a fringe opinion and pretending it's fact. Please don't add insult to injury by pretending that your assertion here -- that it's somehow a fact that Josephus "didn't have a previous, brief reference" -- is anything other than a deliberate red flag purely intended to provoke. You know #&*%^#$&^#&&%^& well that I've already brought attention to this kind of smarmy tactic elsewhere ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9513763&postcount=153 -- http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9536958&postcount=240 ). By choosing to repeat the same cute thing here, you're doing a blatant nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.

You're airily asserting here -- as before -- that -- aw, shucks -- there's no previous Josephan reference, is there. Tsk tsk tsk. DISGUSTING, and you know it.

There is an earlier reference, and it's in Chapter 18. You can scream up and down that it's suspect, but to go on and say that no such passage exists at all(!) is taking someone's opinion as a fact. Now, that is blatant misinformation, and I'm calling you on it. It doesn't matter if the #%$#%^**%^%^*^%$ opinion is well-founded or ill-founded. It is still a *&$%&#$%^#%^#$ opinion and not a fact. Nothing except snark justifies your making it a sudden fact.

Here's another fact: The fact that I responded this same way to this %^#$%^#$*$*^$%^*ery the last time means that you have to be doing it again here for an umpteenth time knowing #$%&#%#*%^#%^* well that it will provoke a reaction. You're asking for it and you're getting it.

Happy now?

Stone

Concerning the hilited area: As Maximara has already pointed out in post # 331, the TF is obviously intrusive material introduced by a later scribe. This not to say it's "suspect" or "doubtful". Rather, it is a flat-out forgery.

This leaves us with the reference by Josephus to the execution of James. As to the clause that this James was the brother of Jesus, "who was called Christ," I will again reiterate that most experts in the field accept the clause as part of the original. It does remain true, however, that it could have been inserted innocently by a later scribe who "knew" it had to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. One problem with it remains that, since the TF is a forgery, there is no previous allusion to Jesus "who was called Christ." I have no problem with it either way, since we do have Tacitus' reference in the Annals to Jesus being put to death by Pontius Pilate.

I also have no ax to grind in the argument as to the historicity of Jesus, because, as I've noted several times before, the gospels are almost entirely fiction, and all sorts of mythic tropes were added to whatever historical kernel existed about Jesus.

Concerning the rest of your post: As everyone else who has commented on your posts in this thread has pointed out, your insults and accusations are childish and uncalled for. Consider the fact that eight-bits and I often disagree sharply. Yet, if you check out our posts, you will see that neither of us finds it necessary to insult the other or to accuse the other of deliberate deception.

 

[Brainache]

Concerning the hilited area: As Maximara has already pointed out in post # 331, the TF is obviously intrusive material introduced by a later scribe. This not to say it's "suspect" or "doubtful". Rather, it is a flat-out forgery.

This leaves us with the reference by Josephus to the execution of James. As to the clause that this James was the brother of Jesus, "who was called Christ," I will again reiterate that most experts in the field accept the clause as part of the original. It does remain true, however, that it could have been inserted innocently by a later scribe who "knew" it had to refer to Jesus of Nazareth. One problem with it remains that, since the TF is a forgery, there is no previous allusion to Jesus "who was called Christ." I have no problem with it either way, since we do have Tacitus' reference in the Annals to Jesus being put to death by Pontius Pilate.

I also have no ax to grind in the argument as to the historicity of Jesus, because, as I've noted several times before, the gospels are almost entirely fiction, and all sorts of mythic tropes were added to whatever historical kernel existed about Jesus.

Concerning the rest of your post: As everyone else who has commented on your posts in this thread has pointed out, your insults and accusations are childish and uncalled for. Consider the fact that eight-bits and I often disagree sharply. Yet, if you check out our posts, you will see that neither of us finds it necessary to insult the other or to accuse the other of deliberate deception.

Hi Tim, what do you think of the idea that Josephus originally wrote a TF which was critical of Jesus, in the same way that all his other descriptions of Messianic pretenders were? Wouldn't Christian Scribes tamper with it if it described Jesus as an "impostor" and a "Deceiver"?

 

[Brainache]

Hmm.
Paul himself, Acts and early church historians.
How did those church historians get the idea Paul was a Roman citizen?




Again, Brainache, those ancient source documents based on what, exactly?
Just out of curiosity, just when and where are Paul and his adventures and his letters first mentioned?
Outside of Acts, of course.

I'll look into this and get back to you.

Yes, of course it was a red-button issue, you're quite right!
And Joseph's writings are illuminating, absolutely.
Still, looking at that red-button issue in the light of the razing of Jerusalem to the ground (more or less) in 69-70 with the destruction of the Temple for all practical purposes, the rebuilding of Jerusalem as the Roman metropolis Aelia Capitolina, the Bar Kochbar rebellion 132-5 and subsequent suppression topped off with the Diaspora gives those Purity debates in the 50s and 60s a strange feel, indeed.

Purity was central to all of it. All of those riots about Romans erecting statues or hanging shields in the Temple were all about polluting the Holy things. It was the main thing that set the Jews apart from everyone else (plus the circumcision, I guess), and yet we have Paul in all of his letters saying "nothing is unclean", "eat whatever is on sale in the marketplace", "an idol is nothing", etc etc. All of his positions are anti-Jewish.

Anyway, from recognising that to deducing Paul was a member of a royal family seems a huge leap.
I read Eisenman's essay on the Herodian link and it all seems very tenuous as a claim to royal kinship.
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/eisenman.html
As far as I can see, all the above is based on Paul, Acts and elevating Herodion/Rodion from being a freedman to a Herodian noble.
The Qumrum and DDS come into the picture later, yes, but the linch-pin to Eisenman's argument as to Paul's royal connection seems to be his interpretation of Romans 16:11.
And Acts.
Or is there something I'm missing? It's likely to be the case I've something here, so I'm not fussed at being shown my error(s).

I'm still working on this, but I think by comparing Acts with other ancient writings like the DSS, Josephus, The Pseudo Clementines, Hegesippus, Papias, Eusebius etc and drawing conclusions. Paul as an Herodian makes sense in this context.

It makes more sense than the traditional view, which would have us believe that Paul was honestly and naively propagating a religion which just happened to be a direct contradiction of the beliefs of the Revolutionaries hanging around at the time. And really, not just the Revolutionaries, but all observant Jews.

Do we have any evidence Paul preached to the hoi-polloi? My own impression is that Paul's target audiences were the humble, that is to say, the illiterate and what we'd call disenfranchised, more or less.
But I could be dead wrong on that.

By Hoi Polloi I meant the common people, not royalty. Isn't that what it means? And those common Jewish folk were not big fans of the Herodians. Common Greco-Romans on the other hand, probably thought the Herodians were great.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading more from you, when you have the time to write on the subject of Paul and his possible connection to the Herodian royalty.
Getting back on topic, just how does Ehrman treat this subject? I went around to his blog, but it's now on a pay to read standing, as far as I can see.
Paywalls vex me.

Not sure about Ehrman, but as someone whose early training in this area came through religious studies, I'm guessing he doesn't agree with Eisenman.

 

[TimCallahan]

Hi Tim, what do you think of the idea that Josephus originally wrote a TF which was critical of Jesus, in the same way that all his other descriptions of Messianic pretenders were? Wouldn't Christian Scribes tamper with it if it described Jesus as an "impostor" and a "Deceiver"?

The biggest problem with the TF is that it is intrusive. Here's the end of Antiq. 18:3:2 and the beginning of 18:3:4, with the TF (Antiq. 18:3:3)excised, but indicated by an elipsis in boldface. Antiq. 18:3:2 tells of the Jews demonstrating in front of Pilate's palace, because he used Temple funds to pay for an aqueduct to bring water to Jerusalem. In response, Pilate had secreted among them soldiers dressed as civilians, with concealed weapons. When the Jews refused to disperse at his order, he signalled his men to attack, with the following result :

. . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means and others of them ran away wounded: and thus an end was put to this sedition. . . . About this same time also another sad clamaity put the Jews into disorder; . . .

If one inserts the TF where the elipsis is, the opening of Antiq. 18:3:4 doesn't make any sense. When you remove a chunk of material, and the flow of the narrative makes better sense than before, it's highly unlikely the excised material was part of the original text.

 

[Brainache]

The biggest problem with the TF is that it is intrusive. Here's the end of Antiq. 18:3:2 and the beginning of 18:3:4, with the TF (Antiq. 18:3:3)excised, but indicated by an elipsis in boldface. Antiq. 18:3:2 tells of the Jews demonstrating in front of Pilate's palace, because he used Temple funds to pay for an aqueduct to bring water to Jerusalem. In response, Pilate had secreted among them soldiers dressed as civilians, with concealed weapons. When the Jews refused to disperse at his order, he signalled his men to attack, with the following result :

. . . and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means and others of them ran away wounded: and thus an end was put to this sedition. . . . About this same time also another sad clamaity put the Jews into disorder; . . .

If one inserts the TF where the elipsis is, the opening of Antiq. 18:3:4 doesn't make any sense. When you remove a chunk of material, and the flow of the narrative makes better sense than before, it's highly unlikely the excised material was part of the original text.

Maybe he originally called Jesus a "sad calamity"...Another one of these "Manias" that continually plague the times as he describes them. One of these "Innovators" and "Impostors".

Maybe. It's just a thought I had.


Another thought I've been having lately is: What would the movie of this be like?
I'd cast Larry David, as Paul... David Krumholtz, as James... Seth Rogan as Peter... and Bryan Cranston as at least one Roman Authority figure, possibly the Emperor. (...Also a brief cameo of Jonah Hill as Jesus in a flashback)

Maybe not...

 

[maximara]

Nothing to do with this case. The authenticity or in-authenticity of the TF has nothing to do with what TC is attempting. TC is pretending that the TF doesn't exist -- in any way, shape, or form. Excuse me: It does exist.

Sorry but the TF is what is known as contaminated evidence and if we are to follow Lee Stroble's tack of treating the case for Jesus as if it was a trial then you would have to go on as if the TF did not even exist because there is no way to know what parts if any are genuine.

Albert A. Bell, Jr. in his Josephus the Satirist? A Clue to the Original Form of the "Testimonium Flavianum" The Jewish Quarterly Review New Series, Vol. 67, No. 1 (Jul., 1976), pp. 16-22 presents the two extreme sides of the coin in the lead in to his article.

Vincent Bugliosi in his 2011 Divinity of Doubt: The God Question points out the many problems with the Testimonium Flavianum in pages 297-300. One point Bugliosi fails to mention regarding the James passage is "After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed..." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book III, ch. 11.)

Well, let's look at the list of High Priests from the removal of Ananus to the conquest of Jerusalem:

Joshua ben Damneus (ie Jesus son of Damneus) 63
Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64
Mattathias ben Theophilus 65-66
Phannias ben Samuel 67-70

Supposedly Eusebius has Josephus right at his finger tips (he is the first person to mention the infamous Testimonium Flavianum after all) so how (bad pun time) in the name of Heaven does he mess this up?

Either Eusebius has the most insane definition of "immediately followed" in the history of the world (7 years and four High Priests) or his James is NOT the same James referenced in Josephus.

 

[pakeha]

...Just out of curiosity, just when and where are Paul and his adventures and his letters first mentioned?
Outside of Acts, of course.

I'll look into this and get back to you.

That would be great, Brainache. It's something I've wondered about since all our speculation seems to revolve around the Epistles, Acts and alternative readings of the DDS.

...Purity was central to all of it. All of those riots about Romans erecting statues or hanging shields in the Temple were all about polluting the Holy things. It was the main thing that set the Jews apart from everyone else (plus the circumcision, I guess), and yet we have Paul in all of his letters saying "nothing is unclean", "eat whatever is on sale in the marketplace", "an idol is nothing", etc etc. All of his positions are anti-Jewish.

Yes.
In fact, you have to wonder why Paul even consulted with the pillars of the church in Jerusalem or have any truck with them at all.

...the linch-pin to Eisenman's argument as to Paul's royal connection seems to be his interpretation of Romans 16:11.
And Acts.
Or is there something I'm missing? It's likely to be the case I've something here, so I'm not fussed at being shown my error(s).

I'm still working on this, but I think by comparing Acts with other ancient writings like the DSS, Josephus, The Pseudo Clementines, Hegesippus, Papias, Eusebius etc and drawing conclusions. Paul as an Herodian makes sense in this context. ...

Eusebius, Papias and the pseudo Clementines?
Oh, myyy.
Interesting reading, but as source material for evidence of Paul's Roman citizenship or Herodian family connections?

Do we have any evidence Paul preached to the hoi-polloi? My own impression is that Paul's target audiences were the humble, that is to say, the illiterate and what we'd call disenfranchised, more or less.
But I could be dead wrong on that.

By Hoi Polloi I meant the common people, not royalty. Isn't that what it means? And those common Jewish folk were not big fans of the Herodians. Common Greco-Romans on the other hand, probably thought the Herodians were great.

Back to the hoi polloi with me!
Your last comment is interesting, because I think you have the key to Paul's insinuations about being in with the Herodian family, because Paul's target audience was the Gentiles, wasn't it?

...Getting back on topic, just how does Ehrman treat this subject? I went around to his blog, but it's now on a pay to read standing, as far as I can see.
Paywalls vex me.

Not sure about Ehrman, but as someone whose early training in this area came through religious studies, I'm guessing he doesn't agree with Eisenman.

I asked because of the OP and the thread's topic. And also because Ehrman's opinion on Romans16:11 would be interesting. Shame about the paywall, though.

 

[Brainache]

That would be great, Brainache. It's something I've wondered about since all our speculation seems to revolve around the Epistles, Acts and alternative readings of the DDS.

There is a Saulus in Josephus that Eisenman thinks is Paul. Saulus (a relative of Aristobulus), who is given letters of authority from the High Priest to persecute the opposition. So there is that. Apparently most Scholars think this is someone else of the same name that we've never heard of. I don't know.

Yes.
In fact, you have to wonder why Paul even consulted with the pillars of the church in Jerusalem or have any truck with them at all.

If Eisenman is to be believed, they had a lot of influence. I get the sense that Paul didn't have much choice in dealing with them. He couldn't stop them from interfering in his Churches everywhere.

In the second half of Acts - which many Scholars argue is more reliable than the first half - These "Pillars Of The Church" make Paul shave his head and take an oath in the Temple. Whether or not that actually happened, and the subsequent arrest and trial as well, the incident shows the Author of Acts thought James and "the Others" were in charge. Paul had to do his act of penance on their orders.

Eusebius, Papias and the pseudo Clementines?
Oh, myyy.
Interesting reading, but as source material for evidence of Paul's Roman citizenship or Herodian family connections?

Looking at the index in the book I'm reading, I see there is a chapter: "James in the Anabathmoi Jacobou and Paul as Herodian". I'll skip ahead and report back...

Some of what I've been arguing is my own inference from Eisenman's other points. He also puts in a lot of asides which build up over time, but I'm looking forward to this chapter hoping it will have these Herodian arguments all together in one place.

I'll let you know.

Back to the hoi polloi with me!
Your last comment is interesting, because I think you have the key to Paul's insinuations about being in with the Herodian family, because Paul's target audience was the Gentiles, wasn't it?

He says that, but then he proceeds to preach to Jews as well, that's what gets him in big trouble in Jerusalem. Apparently he promised to preach to the Gentiles, but the Jews from "Asia Minor" say he's been preaching against the Law to them and their families, riot ensues, Paul saved by Romans...

I'm not sure who Paul's target audience was, maybe the impressionable youth who had been signing up with the Zealots?

I asked because of the OP and the thread's topic. And also because Ehrman's opinion on Romans16:11 would be interesting. Shame about the paywall, though.

I'd love to see Ehrman's considered opinion of Eisenman's work.

 

[pakeha]

^
Thanks for giving me so much to investigate, Brainiac.
I appreciate the time you've given me on this subject.
Off to read more.

 

[TimCallahan]

Getting back to the main subject of this thread, "Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus," I find it quite surprising that he believes the betrayal of Jesus by Judas Iscariot to be historical. Some of his reasoning on this seems quite bizarre, one of them being multiple attestation (from the site, bolding added):

Multiple attestation. The traditions about Judas are multiply attested in numerous independent sources. It is independently found in both Mark and John; it is attested in a material unique to Matthew (the M source); and there is an independent tradition about it in the book of Acts. (Both M and Acts have accounts of Judas’s death, which are independent of one another and in fact at odds with one another at a number of key points: read them carefully yourself and take notes and you’ll see the irreconcilable differences. But they also have striking commonalities. My hunch is that historically, Judas died in a field in Jerusalem used by potters for its red clay, and somehow this field was connected with the money he acquired for the betrayal.)

In fact, Mark has Judas betray Jesus with a kiss, which would likely be based on the betrayal and assassination of Amasa by Joab in 2 Samuel (2 Sam. 20:8 - 10). Matthew's account of the betrayal uses Zechariah (Zech. 11:12, 13) as his source for Judas being paid 30 pieces of silver to betray Jesus. Zechariah's use of thirty shekels is itself based on Ex. 21:32. Matthew uses the suicide of Ahithophel as his source for Judas hanging himself (2 Sam. 17:23). Just as Ahithophel, counseling Absalom, betrayed King David, so Judas betrayed Jesus, supposedly the descendant of David. Thus, both hang themselves. The fact that the account of Judas' death in Acts doesn't support his suicide in Matthew is further evidence that it was made up, rather than historical.

It's pretty clear that both Matthew and Luke used Mark as their source of Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss. Consider that Jesus was supposedly a public figure, one the temple authorities were keeping an eye on. They wouldn't really need someone from his inner circle to show them where he was or to single him out from his followers. So, Matthew elaborates on Mark's story of the betrayal, and Luke spins it a different way. John, writing after all the other gospel writers, would certainly have picked up the basic story of betrayal from them.

Another problem with this story is that Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the temple seems to be the proximate cause of his arrest by the temple authorities. Yet, were that the provocation, he certainly would have been arrested on the spot. Instead, we are supposed to believe the temple guards stood by and did nothing while Jesus disrupted a lucrative temple enterprise, yet went out after him later. It seems far more likely that the ones who arrested Jesus were the Romans.

Ehrman goes on (from the link above, bolding added):

Dissimilarity. The tradition that one of Jesus’ closest followers betrayed him is usually understood to pass the criterion of dissimilarity – -meaning that since it does not appear to be the kind of tradition that a Christian storyteller would “make up,” that it almost certainly is in multiple independent traditions because it actually happened. And why wouldn’t it be made up? Mainly because it appears to cast Jesus in an unexpectedly bad light as someone who had no more authority and power over even his closest followers than *that*. It speaks against his charisma and persuasive power that he couldn’t even control those nearest to him. This argument may not be overwhelmingly convincing on its own, but it is relatively convincing, and when combined with the abundant attestation of the tradition in multiple sources, it makes for a pretty compelling case.

Actually, the betrayal fits well with what Mark says of Jesus being rejected in his hometown and his predictions that the scribes and Pharisees would come against him. Again, it also fits the story of the betrayal of David in 2 Samuel. David is betrayed by his own son. Jesus is betrayed by one of his closest followers. There's prefect fictional symmetry. So, in point of fact, this is exactly what we would expect someone to make up about Jesus.

I have Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?, but I'm having trouble looking things up in it, because, surprisingly, it lacks an index!

 

[pakeha]

Well done, Tim, for getting past the paywall at Ehrman's blog.
Could you let us know if he has anything to say about Romans 16:11 or Eisenman's theories, please?

 

[Brainache]

^
Thanks for giving me so much to investigate, Brainiac.
I appreciate the time you've given me on this subject.
Off to read more.

Careful with that. Brainiac is a different guy altogether.