Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[eight bits]

Judas is quite the character; villains are predictably more interesting to an audience than good guys. As always, I don't know whether we're discussiing anything "historical," but I comment just from the point of view of what happens in the story as it reaches us (which is also the one and only source for "historical" claims, if Ehrman wants to make them):

The Gospels agree that Jesus was arrested and tried by Jewish authorities (John suggests, obliquely, Roman participation in the arrest) for infractions of Jewish laws. So far as I know, there is no Jewish law that forbids saying that somebody (including yourself) is the Messiah. Saying you're God may be an infraction, but Jesus doesn't do that (except maybe in John).

Meanwhile, all four Gospels agree that what Judas provides authorities is information about Jesus' afterhours whereabouts, which turns out to be a secluded place where an arrest can be inexpensively and safely accomplished by a small unit. In the event, none of Jesus' associates participate in Jesus' trial, neither to provide testimony about what he says privately (Judas doesn't testify), nor to testify in his favor or attempt a rescue (nobody else shows up, either).

There doesn't seem to be any textual basis, then

- to exaggerate Judas' role in the affair: he cooperated in nabbing a guy with whom he had a falling out over policy (once again, our old friend John spells it out). He kissed the guy off and walked away, taking care not to collide with his former colleagues, who were running;

- to wonder that the other close associates of Jesus weren't arrested (With what army? How would you find them? They ran away in the dark after a brief skirmish. For what offense?)

The modesty of what Jesus "needs to be" to be the historical Patient Zero of Christianity contributes to the plausibility that there might well have been a "hisotrical jesus who counts." In the same way, the modesty of what Judas needs to have done to have been retrospectively cast as some "great betrayer" contributes, in my estimate anyway, to the plasubility that he existed.

 

[pakeha]

...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'm glad I'm not the only one to be puzzled by Ehrman's reasoning about the historicity of the arrest.

... 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. ...

Steady on, Stone.
After all, it's Stein's take on the possible sayings of Jesus, not your's.
No one's opposing you here, so why treat an open discussion as a middle school debate contest?

All I did was point out that particular post of Stein was roundly ignored over at RatSkep and I also expressed an interest in learning more about the actual source of the idea.

If you're interested in debating creationists, why not participate here
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267050 and show us how it's done?

 

[TimCallahan]

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.

I was responding to what Ehrman wrote in Did Jesus Exist?, his latest book. On page 330, he writes:

What then did Judas betray that allowed the authorities to arrest Jesus? Possibly this insider information, Jesus was calling himself the future king. Jesus was not executed for calling himself the Son of God or the Son of man or the Lord or even God. He was executed for calling himself the messiah, the anointed one of God, the king of the Jews. And Judas may well have been the one who let the authorities know.

Ehrman seems to think that the priests were looking for a reason to kill Jesus. It also seems odd that, if Jesus weren't someone who had made himself a thorn in their side, that they would care all that much about him. On the other hand, if did actually make a disturbance in the temple district, particularly disrupting the financial operations of the money changers, the temple authorities would likely have arrested him then and there.

 

[TimCallahan]

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

My belief that there was a historical Jesus is based on the admittedly thin evidence provided by Tacitus in the Annals and the possibility that what Josephus wrote of the execution of James did originally contain the words, "Jesus, who was called Christ." I accept that this may well not be the case, since the earliest copies of the Antiquities dates from ca. 1100.

Beyond these two references, we have no non-Christian evidence of the existence of Jesus. We can, however, reasonably infer that Jesus was put to death by the Romans for sedition, specifically for claiming to be the anointed of God (Hebrew meshiach, Aramaic meshiha, Greek christos), hence king of the Jews. As a messianic pretender, he would have had an apocalyptic mindset. This apocalypticism is certainly expressed in all the gospels, specifically: Mark 8:31 -9:1 (parallel verses Mt. 16:27, 28; Lk.9:26, 27), Mark 13 (parallel verses in Mt. 24, Lk. 21) and John 5:25 - 29, among others. We also have Paul's belief, expressed particularly, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, in the imminent end of the world.

As to Jesus having complicity in his own arrest due to a deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead, you will note that I express that as my own theory.

I once again invite you to disclose your positions on the subjects discussed in this thread.

 

[Brainache]

I was responding to what Ehrman wrote in Did Jesus Exist?, his latest book. On page 330, he writes:

What then did Judas betray that allowed the authorities to arrest Jesus? Possibly this insider information, Jesus was calling himself the future king. Jesus was not executed for calling himself the Son of God or the Son of man or the Lord or even God. He was executed for calling himself the messiah, the anointed one of God, the king of the Jews. And Judas may well have been the one who let the authorities know.

Ehrman seems to think that the priests were looking for a reason to kill Jesus. It also seems odd that, if Jesus weren't someone who had made himself a thorn in their side, that they would care all that much about him. On the other hand, if did actually make a disturbance in the temple district, particularly disrupting the financial operations of the money changers, the temple authorities would likely have arrested him then and there.

Is the implication of the story that the Jewish Authorities knew there was a Messiah Movement and that it had a leader, but that they couldn't tell which guy it was? That Judas had to walk up to Jesus and kiss him, because standing at a distance, pointing and saying: "The guy with the beard in the robe" isn't going to be very useful?

Or is there something symbolic about the kiss? There usually is with kisses.

 

[TimCallahan]

Is the implication of the story that the Jewish Authorities knew there was a Messiah Movement and that it had a leader, but that they couldn't tell which guy it was? That Judas had to walk up to Jesus and kiss him, because standing at a distance, pointing and saying: "The guy with the beard in the robe" isn't going to be very useful?

Or is there something symbolic about the kiss? There usually is with kisses.

To be fair, Ehrman isn't arguing that any of the specifics of the betrayal story are true. He accepts that all of that is fiction. He does believe that Judas betrayed Jesus to the authorities by revealing that Jesus was secretly saying he was the future king of Israel. I' find this to be hair-splitting, in that Jesus is supposed to have come into the Temple and acted as though he owned the place and to have called himself the Son of God.

As to the betrayal by a kiss, it is, in all probability, based on the general story of betrayal in 2 Samuel, when Absalom revolts against his father, David. In that story, David gives explicit orders that Absalom is not to be killed. Joab, David's cousin and the commander of his army, a completely amoral pragmatist, disobeys the order and kills Absalom. David retaliates by making Amasa, Absalom's commander, the commander of his armies in Joab's place. However, another revolt takes place, and Amasa proves ineffective at putting it down. Joab solves the problem by meeting Amasa on the road and stabbing him in the guts with a sword he has concealed under his clothes (2 Sam. 20:9, 10a):

And Joab said to Amasa, "Is it well with you, my brother?" And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa did not observe the sword in Joab's hand; so Joab struck him with it in the body, and shed his bowels to the ground, without striking a second blow; and he died.

So, there you have the betrayal with a kiss, which appears in all three Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew elaborated on this by taking another incident from the story of Absalom's revolt and its aftermath. In 2 Samuel, when Absalom fails to take the advice of Ahithophel and rapidly pursue David, after Absalom has drivin him out of Jerusalem, Ahithophel sees that his cause is lost, saddles his ass, rides home and hangs himself. As Absalom's advisor, Ahithophel betrays his master, David. So, Judas, having betrayed his master, David's descendant, also hangs himself.

The thirty pieces of silver the priests pay Judas, which he throws down in the temple, and which they use to buy a potter's field, is based on a passage from Zechariah. Acting as the shepherd who delivers up the sheep for slaughter - just as Judas delivers up the lamb of God for slaughter - the prophet asks for his wages (Zech. 11:12, 13):

Then I said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. The the LORD said to me, "Cast it into the treasury" [or "Cast it to the potter"] - the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury [or 'to the potter'] in the house of the LORD,

The reason Zechariah sarcastically calls the thirty shekels a "lordly price" is to be found in the various laws in the later part of Exodus, where Ex. 21:32 states that 30 shekels is the price one must pay if one's ox gores another man's slave to death.

The reason for the confusion between "treasury" and "potter" in Zechariah is that depending on whether a translation uses the Hebrew or Aramaic version of Zechariah, the word is either yatsar, Hebrew for "potter" or (in the Aramaic version) owtsar, Hebrew for "treasury." Using Hebrew letters, yatsar is spelled yodh - tsadeh - resh; while owtsar is spelled aleph - vav - tsadeh - resh. The letters yodh and vav are very similar, each consisting of a single troke, the vav being a longer stroke than the yodh. The confusion seems to be the result of a scribal error. Matthew takes advantage of this by having the priests respond to Judas throwing the thirty pieces of silver down in the temple (as in Zechariah) by saying that, since it's blood money, it can't be put in the treasury. So they use it, instead to buy a potter's field in which to bury strangers (Mt. 27:6, 7).

In Luke, it's Judas who buys the potter's field, into which he falls, shedding his bowels to the ground, as did Amasa. In both Matthew and Luke, as a result of either the priests buying the field with blood money (Mt.) or because Judas dies there (Lk.) the field is known as the "field of blood," Akeldama in Aramaic. This claim is common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. Since it's not necessarily sayings material, it implies some borrowing from Matthew by Luke, as per the Farrar - Goulder hypothesis.

 

[maximara]

My belief that there was a historical Jesus is based on the admittedly thin evidence provided by Tacitus in the Annals and the possibility that what Josephus wrote of the execution of James did originally contain the words, "Jesus, who was called Christ." I accept that this may well not be the case, since the earliest copies of the Antiquities dates from ca. 1100.

Beyond these two references, we have no non-Christian evidence of the existence of Jesus. We can, however, reasonably infer that Jesus was put to death by the Romans for sedition, specifically for claiming to be the anointed of God (Hebrew meshiach, Aramaic meshiha, Greek christos), hence king of the Jews. As a messianic pretender, he would have had an apocalyptic mindset. This apocalypticism is certainly expressed in all the gospels, specifically: Mark 8:31 -9:1 (parallel verses Mt. 16:27, 28; Lk.9:26, 27), Mark 13 (parallel verses in Mt. 24, Lk. 21) and John 5:25 - 29, among others. We also have Paul's belief, expressed particularly, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, in the imminent end of the world.

As to Jesus having complicity in his own arrest due to a deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead, you will note that I express that as my own theory.

I once again invite you to disclose your positions on the subjects discussed in this thread.

Based on John Frum I would say the Gospels accounts are too late to determine anything about Jesus. No Church father make any real reference to them in any way we can check until 130 CE and we don't get a detailed reference until c180 CE and has a 50+ year old Jesus being crucified no earlier then 42 CE ("For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.")

Tacitus could simply be repeating what the Christens were saying or been talking about Chrestians (a group who supposedly worshiped the pagan god Serapis ie Chrestus according to the Hadrian Augustus to Servianus letter).

As for the 'James brother of Jesus, who was called Christ' thing John Frum acquired Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who has no brothers only sisters) as a brother by 1957 and the movement inspired no less then three natives to take up the name John Frum in a seven year period: Manehivi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943, inspired people to build an airstrip), and Iokaeye (1947, preached a new color symbolism).

The fact that Philo even though he was in direct correspondence Herod Agrippa I who writes of the excesses of Pontius Pilate makes no mention Jesus.

 

[TimCallahan]

Based on John Frum I would say the Gospels accounts are too late to determine anything about Jesus. No Church father make any real reference to them in any way we can check until 130 CE and we don't get a detailed reference until c180 CE and has a 50+ year old Jesus being crucified no earlier then 42 CE ("For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified.")

I certainly agree with that. My points in the post above on the sources for the motifs in Synoptic Gospels, and particularly in Matthew's version of the betrayal of Jesus by Judas, demonstrate, i think, that even the non-supernatural narratives in the gospels were fiction. Thus, it really doesn't matter to me if Jesus was or wasn't historical. In any case, the Christ Jesus of Paul, the architect of Christianity as a separate religion, is his own invention. He says as much in his epistle to the Galatians.

Tacitus could simply be repeating what the Christens were saying or been talking about Chrestians (a group who supposedly worshiped the pagan god Serapis ie Chrestus according to the Hadrian Augustus to Servianus letter).

Tacitus could be doing that. However, he could also be actually talking about what actually happened. Was there any relationship between the Chrestians and Pontius Pilate?

As for the 'James brother of Jesus, who was called Christ' thing John Frum acquired Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (who has no brothers only sisters) as a brother by 1957 and the movement inspired no less then three natives to take up the name John Frum in a seven year period: Manehivi (1940-41), Neloaig (1943, inspired people to build an airstrip), and Iokaeye (1947, preached a new color symbolism).

The, "who was called Christ," clause is, admittedly, open to debate.

The fact that Philo even though he was in direct correspondence Herod Agrippa I who writes of the excesses of Pontius Pilate makes no mention Jesus.

I would see any historical Jesus as such a minor character that didn't warrant any mention. A test ofthis would be this: Does Philo mention Theudas, the twit Josephus says was done in by Roman cavalry sent out by Cuspius Fadus?

 

[Brainache]

To be fair, Ehrman isn't arguing that any of the specifics of the betrayal story are true. He accepts that all of that is fiction. He does believe that Judas betrayed Jesus to the authorities by revealing that Jesus was secretly saying he was the future king of Israel. I' find this to be hair-splitting, in that Jesus is supposed to have come into the Temple and acted as though he owned the place and to have called himself the Son of God.

As to the betrayal by a kiss, it is, in all probability, based on the general story of betrayal in 2 Samuel, when Absalom revolts against his father, David. In that story, David gives explicit orders that Absalom is not to be killed. Joab, David's cousin and the commander of his army, a completely amoral pragmatist, disobeys the order and kills Absalom. David retaliates by making Amasa, Absalom's commander, the commander of his armies in Joab's place. However, another revolt takes place, and Amasa proves ineffective at putting it down. Joab solves the problem by meeting Amasa on the road and stabbing him in the guts with a sword he has concealed under his clothes (2 Sam. 20:9, 10a):

And Joab said to Amasa, "Is it well with you, my brother?" And Joab took Amasa by the beard with his right hand to kiss him. But Amasa did not observe the sword in Joab's hand; so Joab struck him with it in the body, and shed his bowels to the ground, without striking a second blow; and he died.

So, there you have the betrayal with a kiss, which appears in all three Synoptic Gospels.

Matthew elaborated on this by taking another incident from the story of Absalom's revolt and its aftermath. In 2 Samuel, when Absalom fails to take the advice of Ahithophel and rapidly pursue David, after Absalom has drivin him out of Jerusalem, Ahithophel sees that his cause is lost, saddles his ass, rides home and hangs himself. As Absalom's advisor, Ahithophel betrays his master, David. So, Judas, having betrayed his master, David's descendant, also hangs himself.

The thirty pieces of silver the priests pay Judas, which he throws down in the temple, and which they use to buy a potter's field, is based on a passage from Zechariah. Acting as the shepherd who delivers up the sheep for slaughter - just as Judas delivers up the lamb of God for slaughter - the prophet asks for his wages (Zech. 11:12, 13):

Then I said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." And they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver. The the LORD said to me, "Cast it into the treasury" [or "Cast it to the potter"] - the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury [or 'to the potter'] in the house of the LORD,

The reason Zechariah sarcastically calls the thirty shekels a "lordly price" is to be found in the various laws in the later part of Exodus, where Ex. 21:32 states that 30 shekels is the price one must pay if one's ox gores another man's slave to death.

The reason for the confusion between "treasury" and "potter" in Zechariah is that depending on whether a translation uses the Hebrew or Aramaic version of Zechariah, the word is either yatsar, Hebrew for "potter" or (in the Aramaic version) owtsar, Hebrew for "treasury." Using Hebrew letters, yatsar is spelled yodh - tsadeh - resh; while owtsar is spelled aleph - vav - tsadeh - resh. The letters yodh and vav are very similar, each consisting of a single troke, the vav being a longer stroke than the yodh. The confusion seems to be the result of a scribal error. Matthew takes advantage of this by having the priests respond to Judas throwing the thirty pieces of silver down in the temple (as in Zechariah) by saying that, since it's blood money, it can't be put in the treasury. So they use it, instead to buy a potter's field in which to bury strangers (Mt. 27:6, 7).

In Luke, it's Judas who buys the potter's field, into which he falls, shedding his bowels to the ground, as did Amasa. In both Matthew and Luke, as a result of either the priests buying the field with blood money (Mt.) or because Judas dies there (Lk.) the field is known as the "field of blood," Akeldama in Aramaic. This claim is common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. Since it's not necessarily sayings material, it implies some borrowing from Matthew by Luke, as per the Farrar - Goulder hypothesis.

That's all very interesting. Apparently there were a few stories about people casting money into the Temple Treasury and what should be done with it.

There is a story about one Jacob of K'Far in the Talmud I think, who was asked whether the Temple should accept donations from Prostitutes. He replied that "Jesus the Nazorean" said they might be used to build an outhouse for the High Priest...

Jewish humour.

 

[pakeha]

...
Tacitus could simply be repeating what the Christens were saying or been talking about Chrestians (a group who supposedly worshiped the pagan god Serapis ie Chrestus according to the Hadrian Augustus to Servianus letter). ...

Is that letter generally accepted as authentic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serapis

 

[Brainache]

Is that letter generally accepted as authentic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serapis

From Hadrian Augustus to Servianus the consul, greeting. The land of Egypt, the praises of which you have been recounting to me, my dear Servianus, I have found to be wholly light-minded, unstable, and blown about by every breath of rumour. There those who worship Serapis are, in fact, Christians, and those who call themselves bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. [The letter continues on to non-religious matters.]

Just seems to me he is calling them all a bunch of Hypocrites who indulge in all sorts of superstitiousness in the name of Religion. Not that Christians were a cult of Serapis, but that the rituals were interchangeable. Astrology, Soothsaying and Anointing, they all do it. They even force The Patriarch (whoever he is) to do it when he visits. Christ and Serapis!

Egyptians are a bunch of indecisive no-good bums, if you ask Hadrian Augustus.

 

[maximara]

Tacitus could be doing that. However, he could also be actually talking about what actually happened. Was there any relationship between the Chrestians and Pontius Pilate?

We don't know but worship of Egyptian deities was regarded as enough of a problem that in 19 CE Tiberius expelled them from Rome...along with the Jewish population (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) Furthermore we know that the Egyptian deity cults were all over the place in the Roman world.

I would see any historical Jesus as such a minor character that didn't warrant any mention. A test ofthis would be this: Does Philo mention Theudas, the twit Josephus says was done in by Roman cavalry sent out by Cuspius Fadus?

Problem is Theudas is also the name of a man who "was head of the Egyptian Therapeuts, whose customs were described with admiration by Philo in his essay The Contemplative Life.". While some people like to claim this Theudas is the same as described in Josephus or the one in Acts there is nothing to support it.

Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea claimed in his Ecclesiastical History that the Therapeuts were the first Christian monks. But wait it gets even better

"The semianchoritic character of the Therapeutae community, the renunciation of property, the solitude during the six days of the week and the gathering together on Saturday for the common prayer and the common meal, the severe fasting, the keeping alive of the memory of God, the continuous prayer, the meditation and study of Holy Scripture were also practices of the Christian anchorites of the Alexandrian desert."

And where did Philo live? Why in that very same Alexandrian desert!

So here we have a group regarded as the first Christian monks who Philo writes about and yet says not one word about Jesus?!?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?!?

The more you dig the more Philo become a MAJOR problem as now we have him with Christians practically on his doorstep which means the movement as insanely large.

 

[pakeha]

^
Oh, I love the smell of a new topic to explore in the morning.
Therapeutae.
About those Egyptian cults- they come back in the form of the Roman Isis, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm writing without consulting my reference books, but weren't a number of the BVM's titles copied directly from the Roman Isis?
Anyway, off to learn more.
And make some coffee.

 

[Brainache]

...

And where did Philo live? Why in that very same Alexandrian desert!

So here we have a group regarded as the first Christian monks who Philo writes about and yet says not one word about Jesus?!?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?!?

The more you dig the more Philo become a MAJOR problem as now we have him with Christians practically on his doorstep which means the movement as insanely large.

Maybe like the people at Qumran, these guys had a rule against sharing secrets with outsiders: http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Of religious discussion.

No one is to engage in discussion or disputation with men of ill repute; and in the company of froward men everyone is to abstain from talk about (keep hidden) the meaning of the Law [Torah].

With those, however, that have chosen the right path everyone is indeed to discuss matters pertaining to the apprehension (knowledge) of God's truth and of His righteous judgments. The purpose of such discussions is to guide the minds of the members of the community, to give them insight into God's inscrutable wonders and truth, and to bring them to walk blamelessly each with his neighbor in harmony with all that has been revealed to them. For this is the time when 'the way is being prepared in the wilderness', and it behooves them to understand all that is happening. It is also the time when they must needs keep apart from all other men and not turn aside from the way through any form of perversity.

Too busy preparing the Way to be talking out of school with a froward bloke like Philo...

 

[TimCallahan]

We don't know but worship of Egyptian deities was regarded as enough of a problem that in 19 CE Tiberius expelled them from Rome...along with the Jewish population (Boatwright, Mary T. (2012) Peoples of the Roman World Cambridge University Press pg 123) Furthermore we know that the Egyptian deity cults were all over the place in the Roman world. [QUOTE/]

I thought it was Claudius who expelled the Jews from Rome, though that's a minor point. IIRC the Romans also forbade the Bacchanalia from being practiced in Italy. Reading Tacitus and Suetonius, they come across as grumpy conservative types who are disgusted by all these foreign religions coming to Rome.

One this that makes it so hard to distinguish possible allusions to Christians from allusions to other invasive religions is that the Christians were so wildly syncretistic, taking the Madonna and child from the imagery of Isis and Horus, for example.

Problem is Theudas is also the name of a man who "was head of the Egyptian Therapeuts, whose customs were described with admiration by Philo in his essay The Contemplative Life.". While some people like to claim this Theudas is the same as described in Josephus or the one in Acts there is nothing to support it.[QUOTE/]

Yeah, I came across that Theudas as well. I'm sure he wasn't the same one as Josepehus was referring to. So, we'd have to say that Philo doesn't mention him. Yet, he existed, as attested to by Josephus. So, it's quite possible Philo knew about, and didn't bother mentioning Jesus. I can see him as being too minor a character for Philo to care about.

Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea claimed in his Ecclesiastical History that the Therapeuts were the first Christian monks. But wait it gets even better

"The semianchoritic character of the Therapeutae community, the renunciation of property, the solitude during the six days of the week and the gathering together on Saturday for the common prayer and the common meal, the severe fasting, the keeping alive of the memory of God, the continuous prayer, the meditation and study of Holy Scripture were also practices of the Christian anchorites of the Alexandrian desert."

And where did Philo live? Why in that very same Alexandrian desert!

So here we have a group regarded as the first Christian monks who Philo writes about and yet says not one word about Jesus?!?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?!?

The more you dig the more Philo become a MAJOR problem as now we have him with Christians practically on his doorstep which means the movement as insanely large.

I can well imagine the Christians absorbed material from the Theraputae, just as they took the Isis and Horus imagery for the madonna and child.

Again, should it turn out that Jesus never existed, it wouldn't be much different from a historical Jesus of little substance clothed with the fictions of the gospels and the hallucinations of Paul.

 

[Robrob]

Again, should it turn out that Jesus never existed, it wouldn't be much different from a historical Jesus of little substance clothed with the fictions of the gospels and the hallucinations of Paul.

I agree. The results of either scenario (no Jesus or a fictionalized Jesus) would be so nearly identical as to be moot. Inventing a story out of whole cloth or inventing a story based on a kernel of truth, it's still a story.

 

[JaysonR]

Problem is Theudas is also the name of a man who "was head of the Egyptian Therapeuts, whose customs were described with admiration by Philo in his essay The Contemplative Life.". While some people like to claim this Theudas is the same as described in Josephus or the one in Acts there is nothing to support it.

Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea claimed in his Ecclesiastical History that the Therapeuts were the first Christian monks. But wait it gets even better.

"The semianchoritic character of the Therapeutae community, the renunciation of property, the solitude during the six days of the week and the gathering together on Saturday for the common prayer and the common meal, the severe fasting, the keeping alive of the memory of God, the continuous prayer, the meditation and study of Holy Scripture were also practices of the Christian anchorites of the Alexandrian desert."

And where did Philo live? Why in that very same Alexandrian desert!

So here we have a group regarded as the first Christian monks who Philo writes about and yet says not one word about Jesus?!?

HOW DOES THAT WORK?!?

The more you dig the more Philo become a MAJOR problem as now we have him with Christians practically on his doorstep which means the movement as insanely large.

I don't see much of a problem; this is pretty standard for the ascetic groups in this region in this time and geographic location.

Jesus wasn't, in every group's culture, seen as the figure to worship or remark upon in the way Christians do today, but instead was the figure they saw as pointing to a way of practice they considered to be just, right and pure.
If they were Hebrews following the Law as they saw it should be followed and did so reverently, then they would likely see Jesus more like Moses (though somewhat different), and instead, we would find much talk about a right life and moral balance and not much about Jesus idolization; as such was taboo culturally for Hebrews to do of such leading figures (real or made up and believed to be real).

The further North and West we go, the more we see Jesus idolized and focused on as the worship icon.
The further South and East we go, the less we see of this.

 

[maximara]

I don't see much of a problem; this is pretty standard for the ascetic groups in this region in this time and geographic location.

Jesus wasn't, in every group's culture, seen as the figure to worship or remark upon in the way Christians do today, but instead was the figure they saw as pointing to a way of practice they considered to be just, right and pure.
If they were Hebrews following the Law as they saw it should be followed and did so reverently, then they would likely see Jesus more like Moses (though somewhat different), and instead, we would find much talk about a right life and moral balance and not much about Jesus idolization; as such was taboo culturally for Hebrews to do of such leading figures (real or made up and believed to be real).

The further North and West we go, the more we see Jesus idolized and focused on as the worship icon.
The further South and East we go, the less we see of this.

But wouldn't Jesus still be known as the founder of the movement? Also doesn't this lead credence to the idea that the Jesus movement goes back to c100 BCE which supporters dismiss with the same argument from silence arguments used against the idea there was a historical Jesus?

 

[JaysonR]

But wouldn't Jesus still be known as the founder of the movement?

I don't know that they would consider him a founder at all; if they were Hebrew.
Moses wasn't the "founder" of Judaism; Judaism was Hebrew, Hebrew was Judaism.
These very early Hebraic followers of Jesus-based-views would more see Jesus as an iteration of adjusting the approach to life; which is the central focus of Judaism (how to live life).
I don't know that they would understand what you mean if you asked them your same question; they may look puzzled and wonder what the difference was between Judaism, Hebrew, and Living Life - what is this idea of founder of life? The only Founder of Life is the divine.

This would be the ancient Hebraic way of thinking, more or less.
It wouldn't be odd for very early groups to be "Christian" and yet lack what we think would be the cultural norm by our standard for what people should do when they adhere to a new deviation or schism.

Also doesn't this lead credence to the idea that the Jesus movement goes back to c100 BCE which supporters dismiss with the same argument from silence arguments used against the idea there was a historical Jesus?

I'm not arguing from silence for anything.
I was just noting that it's not odd for Hebrew monastic adherents to not go on at length about individual figures and instead to spend a good deal of time going on about the ideals of how to live life "right".

The Qumran group actually makes a point to not even mention their leadership by name at all, nor use any title from that teacher as a description of their following.

In Hebrew culture of this time, creating idols out of leaders was a big taboo; it's even an idiom of their culture: "Morning Star". The idiom was comparing leaders who wanted recognition and following with Venus in the sky attempting to outshine the Sun as the supplier of daylight in the morning.

 

[maximara]

I agree. The results of either scenario (no Jesus or a fictionalized Jesus) would be so nearly identical as to be moot. Inventing a story out of whole cloth or inventing a story based on a kernel of truth, it's still a story.

Which is why over hundred years ago Resmburg said "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

Similarly Archibald Robertson stated in his 1946 book Jesus: Myth Or History at least as far as John M. Robertson in 1900 was concerned the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account but rather "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

It all dovetails into Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's two ways Jesus could be historical which when inverted produce two ways Jesus could be unhistorical:

1) Jesus existed as a flesh and blood man but the Gospels stories are no more historical then the tales of King Arthur.
2) Jesus is a totally fictional construct on par with King Lear or Doctor Who.