Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[tsig]

Personally, I believe it is exceedingly clear that Paul is intentionally producing a direct quote from Jesus the human rabbi. His "not I but the Lord" is a dead giveaway. I also find it exceedingly amusing that Ian appears livid at my having offered my thanks for a correction by another poster as to the start and stop of Paul's apparent quote from Jesus.

In fact, in general, I've been struck all over again by the heated feelings (in which I'm one of the worst offenders) that this topic engenders. In the huge RatSkep thread, the feelings on both sides are, if anything, even more heated than here. It may come down to something quite typical in human nature: To wit, many people tend to get especially mad if they feel they've been had. As has been pointed out at RatSkep, many of the mythers tend to be disillusioned fundies -- not all, just many. Consequently, many of them are figures who were extremely invested at one time in what subsequently was cause for bitter disillusion. The resulting animus is pretty understandable.

Likewise, some posters like myself, or RatSkep posters like Tim, RD and quite a few others, were at first highly intrigued by the "facts" uncovered by the mythers -- in fact, inclined to credit a good deal of the myther "scholarship" -- until closer inspection shewed that extreme massaging of the data was needed to support the myther conclusions. It's not just me who has become madder than a wet hen at the ignorant distortions that emerge on closer inspection. Tim and RD at RatSkep get downright withering. I think it's the same feeling involved as with "lapsed fundies": people feel furious at having invested in something where they were had, and they lash out because frequently years of their lives were involved in a lie.

Now, for some still-believing mythers and fundies alike -- some -- this description makes no sense because for them there is only an either/or: Jesus the magic abracadabra guy of orthodox Christianity, or a totally made up character from scratch. The notion that uninformed woo overwhelms both perspectives is foreign to them. That doesn't change the fact that uninformed woo indeed suffuses both perspectives and that those disillusioned after imbibing so much Kool-Aid on either side have every reason to be downright livid.

Stone

You come here, turn up the heat then speculate on what the increased temp means.

 

[TimCallahan]

Personally, I believe it is exceedingly clear that Paul is intentionally producing a direct quote from Jesus the human rabbi. His "not I but the Lord" is a dead giveaway. I also find it exceedingly amusing that Ian appears livid at my having offered my thanks for a correction by another poster as to the start and stop of Paul's apparent quote from Jesus.

. . . (mega snip) . . .

Concerning the hilited area: Since Paul himself says that he got his gospel from a direct revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12) and further says that he didn't confer with flesh and blood (v. 16) and only went to Jerusalem after three years and conferred then only with James and Peter (Gal. 1:17 - 19) and did so for only period of 15 days, where do you see him getting this direct quote? From his revelation of the risen Christ? From Peter or James (which would make it less direct)?

 

[Brainache]

I'm still reading about the parallels between the teachings of Rabbi Hillel and Jesus.
I found a striking coincidence between the two which concerns a teaching I quoted myself just up-thread.


35. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Jesus

35. "The Sabbath has been delivered into your power, not you into the power of the Sabbath."

You can find a great many more parallels here
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/rio/rio10.htm

Reading over that site, it occurred to me that perhaps Stone's core teachings of Jesus, indicative of an individual's thought, aren't actually Hillel's.
Obviously my conjecture is hardly original and I'd be interested in reading Stone's reasoning as to why those core teachings attributed to Jesus aren't taken directly from Hillel.

Maybe not Hillel, maybe the Talmud generally.

But I still think the parts where Jesus speaks against purity laws are from Paul and/or his Gentile followers.

If Jesus was known for preaching that way (ie:that all foods were lawful), there would be no need for Acts to portray Peter's vision of the "Heavenly Tablecloth".

If Jesus was a real 1st century Jewish preacher, he would have preached that Talmudic stuff. Then again, anyone clever enough to invent a fictional Jewish Preacher, would probably have him saying Talmudic stuff as well.

 

[pakeha]

I can see your point, Brainache, but that long list of parallels was quite astonishing and I'm surprised not to have seen references to it before.
Then again, I'm by no means a professional in the field and am glad to read other takes on the subject.

 

[Stone]

Concerning the hilited area: Since Paul himself says that he got his gospel from a direct revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12) and further says that he didn't confer with flesh and blood (v. 16) and only went to Jerusalem after three years and conferred then only with James and Peter (Gal. 1:17 - 19) and did so for only period of 15 days, where do you see him getting this direct quote? From his revelation of the risen Christ? From Peter or James (which would make it less direct)?

Am never certain when T.C. is being snarky and when not. His itemizing here of so much of the "platform" of the mythers -- underscoring the full trinity of the myther-woo mantra from Galatians with a trowel -- as if that long parenthetical cadenza is really more his concern than the shorter question, which seems like the tail wagging the dog, makes one wonder if the question isn't downright rhetorical rather than serious. Is he simply taking this opportunity to re-present once more the sacred screed of the mythers as an attempt to proselytize? -- and bother any attempt to take the question itself seriously.

I wonder just how loooooooooooonng mythers think Paul's revelation of the "risen Christ" really was! It must have been exceedingly long -- and discursive -- if it included Jesus's telling him incidental details like his teachings on marriage and divorce, or his stuff with the eucharist!

The whole tone of all -- every single one -- of Paul's references to human details in the Jesus bio*, the references that I itemized earlier from primarily 1 Corinthians, read so strongly like references to details that his audience already knew, as if he's writing this stuff out to jog their memories and not his, that it becomes pretty silly to imagine that all these memories originate with his own experience. Context, again and again, suggests that Paul is often writing about shared knowledge when referencing biographical details, not original knowledge.

The very fact that throughout this whole marriage-etc. chapter Paul is so careful to distinguish between Jesus's thoughts and his own speaks for itself. He's offering something explicitly new to his readers, and what is new to them is strictly that which Paul is deliberately identifying as his own thoughts and not the Jesus thoughts at all. Else, why place the Jesus thoughts alongside his at all? It's clear that the Jesus thoughts are being used as a shared context in which to frame Paul's own thoughts, the latter constituting the sole unfamiliar ingredient for his audience. By extension, the Jesus quotes can't be new to his audience at all.

Stone

* It's interesting that whenever Paul references any details in Jesus's pre-Resurr. bio at all, those details are purely human with no abracadabra at all, no water-into-wine, no raising of Lazarus, no loaves and fishes, no walking on water, no desiccated fig tree -- none of that.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Well, I'll decide for myself whether I should comment on your posts thanking Stone for a reply in which he says you were pointing out that Paul had quoted the words of Jesus. I'll decide what I say about that thanks.

Nobody's stopping you. What I said was "That's no concern of yours." It isn't. Whether that makes any difference to you is your lookout.

But I am concerned about letting untrue claims like this pass uncontested if they are being offered as evidence of a real earthly Jesus.

OK, and as I said before, you've posted your objection, before. Repeatedly harassing me about it is pointless. Send a PM if you actually want to learn another poster's perspective.


pakeha

Reading over that site, it occurred to me that perhaps Stone's core teachings of Jesus, indicative of an individual's thought, aren't actually Hillel's.

Is Hillel as restrictive about divorce as Paul (and then later Gospels) says that Jesus was?

They definitely agree on some things, and that's funny given that the stock villains of the Gospels are the Pharisees, when Hillel was a Pharisee. Paul, too, of course.


Tim

Concerning the hilited area: Since Paul himself says that he got his gospel from a direct revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11, 12) and further says that he didn't confer with flesh and blood (v. 16) and only went to Jerusalem after three years and conferred then only with James and Peter (Gal. 1:17 - 19) and did so for only period of 15 days, where do you see him getting this direct quote? From his revelation of the risen Christ? From Peter or James (which would make it less direct)?

I'm a bit confused. The "hilited area" resolves to Paul's discussion of divorce and remarriage, featuring something he attributes to Jesus. Is there a verse where Paul says that Jesus' teaching about divorce is part of Paul's gospel? If so, then maybe the information you're seeking would be in some nearby verse. If not, then perhaps your question needs a different foundation; who would care what Paul said about his gospel if we're now talking about something else?

 

[Stone]

I can see your point, Brainache, but that long list of parallels was quite astonishing and I'm surprised not to have seen references to it before.
Then again, I'm by no means a professional in the field and am glad to read other takes on the subject.

I'm not a professional either. So if it somehow makes you feel good to think they come from Hillel, then hey <shrug>.

Stone

 

[pakeha]

...Is Hillel as restrictive about divorce as Paul (and then later Gospels) says that Jesus was?

They definitely agree on some things, and that's funny given that the stock villains of the Gospels are the Pharisees, when Hillel was a Pharisee. Paul, too, of course. ...

Hillel's views on divorce were surprisingly liberal, if Wiki is to be believed

the House of Hillel allowed divorce for even trivial offenses, such as burning a meal.[7]

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

This site gives a longer explanation of Hillel's interpretation
http://gsnt.wikispaces.com/Hillel+and+Shammai+Vs.+Jesus

Bottom line, is that Hillel's school permitted a woman to avoid starvation or prostitution after repudiation by way of remarriage, Jesus'* did not.


*
Or at least, Jesus via Paul's Epistles

 

[pakeha]

I'm not a professional either. So if it somehow makes you feel good to think they come from Hillel, then hey <shrug>.

Stone

??
Hey, I'm just trying to figure out the truth.
I'm trying to be respectful and tolerant and conscious of my many limitations in this field.

Are you uncomfortable with the idea those core teachings are actually from Hillel?

 

[Brainache]

Hillel's views on divorce were surprisingly liberal, if Wiki is to be believed

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

This site gives a longer explanation of Hillel's interpretation
http://gsnt.wikispaces.com/Hillel+and+Shammai+Vs.+Jesus

Bottom line, is that Hillel's school permitted a woman to avoid starvation or prostitution after repudiation by way of remarriage, Jesus'* did not.


*
Or at least, Jesus via Paul's Epistles

I know of one group of 1st century Jews who had strong ideas about Marriage and divorce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Scroll
http://cojs.org/cojswiki/Women_in_t...Jewish_Publication_Society,_Philadelphia_1994.

...The special section of the Temple Scroll known as Law of the King maintains especially strict marital regulations for the king: He may not marry more than one woman. She must be a Jewish woman of his own clan. He may not divorce her and remarry as long as she lives; however, he may remarry if she dies.

This scroll, then, certainly the largest halakhic text found in the scrolls corpus, assumes marriage and family, and it legislates on that assumption. In setting out an ideal plan for a future society, but not one that is messianic, the scroll expects that women and family will occupy their natural place. Whether this document was edited in the sectarian community or imported from a related but different group, it is obvious that its readers must have felt no discomfort about the society described here; it was, as the Zadokite Fragments said, “the custom of the land” (Zadokite Fragments 7:6).

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for that reference in the Temple Scroll, Brainache.
Of course it's hard to decide the degree of importance that scroll had in 1st Century thought.

Here's a link to another way of looking at those injunctions
http://books.google.es/books?id=Z-M...nepage&q=divorce in the Temple Scroll&f=false

The subject of divorce isn't quite so clear-cut there, from what I read from the linked text of the bookDivorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context by David Instone-Brewer.
The author seems to see the Temple Scroll as an explanation of the Deuteronomy and Leviticus texts and that the Temple Scroll does not prohibit divorce nor re-marriage, except in the case of the king.

 

[IanS]

Personally, I believe it is exceedingly clear that Paul is intentionally producing a direct quote from Jesus the human rabbi. His "not I but the Lord" is a dead giveaway. I also find it exceedingly amusing that Ian appears livid at my having offered my thanks for a correction by another poster as to the start and stop of Paul's apparent quote from Jesus.

Who said I was "livid"? Where did you get an idea like that?

I'm not even mildly irritated by your posts, let alone "livid".

The issue here is not about anyone getting angry about what anyone else says (except perhaps you seeming to lose your temper in most of your posts). The issue is just whether or not you should be allowed to get away unopposed with saying that Eight Bits had posted something which was direct evidence of Paul knowing what an earthly Jesus had actually said, and hence you therefore saying that was evidence of the existence of Jesus (I think that's whet you were trying to claim?).

I don't think you should be allowed to get away with claiming that as evidence of Jesus, and especially not in threads which are specifically all about whether or not any such evidence exists, because afaik your claim there is entirely untrue - those words in Corinthians are not (as far as any of us can honestly tell) an example of Paul knowing what had ever been said by any earthly Jesus ... Corinthians is not evidence of a HJ, for all the reasons I and others have previously and repeatedly explained (ie Paul is, as he repeatedly says himself, preaching an OT theology, not quoting a real Jesus).

 

[Brainache]

Thanks for that reference in the Temple Scroll, Brainache.
Of course it's hard to decide the degree of importance that scroll had in 1st Century thought.

Here's a link to another way of looking at those injunctions
http://books.google.es/books?id=Z-M...nepage&q=divorce in the Temple Scroll&f=false

The subject of divorce isn't quite so clear-cut there, from what I read from the linked text of the bookDivorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context by David Instone-Brewer.
The author seems to see the Temple Scroll as an explanation of the Deuteronomy and Leviticus texts and that the Temple Scroll does not prohibit divorce nor re-marriage, except in the case of the king.

There seems to be debate about that, because the referenced verses from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in their original context, apply to all Israelites.

The special instructions for the King might be there just because the Herodian Kings were breaking all of those rules. Marrying their Nieces, divorcing, re-marrying, marrying Gentiles, the lot. The Author was voicing his disapproval of the ruling class and their fornicating ways.

 

[IanS]

Nobody's stopping you. What I said was "That's no concern of yours." It isn't. Whether that makes any difference to you is your lookout.

OK, and as I said before, you've posted your objection, before. Repeatedly harassing me about it is pointless. Send a PM if you actually want to learn another poster's perspective.

I am not “harassing you“ (if you think that, then you are simply mistaken). And I did not say you were "stopping me".

What I said was that it’s not your place to tell me or anyone else whose posts they should reply to or what they should say.

The issue is only whether or not you are agreeing with Stone when he thanked you for pointing out that Paul was quoting direct evidence of knowing what a real living Jesus had said (I think Stone has confirmed that is indeed what he was implying). You let that pass unopposed and merely thanked him for it.

I am just pointing out two things about that exchange of yours with Stone - (a)as far as anyone can honestly tell, Corinthians is not providing evidence that Paul knew what an earthly Jesus had actually said about anything, so Stone was entirely wrong to conclude that as evidence of a living Jesus, and (b)contrary to you just letting Stone’s “evidence” pass unopposed, and in fact actually thanking him for that reply, none of us here should allow erroneous claims like that to pass unopposed, and certainly not in a thread which is specifically all about whether or not such biblical writing does present credible evidence of a real living Jesus …


… but that particular passage in Corinthians is clearly not the evidence that Stone believes it to be, for all the reasons that I and others have explained repeatedly in all these recent HJ threads (ie, briefly - Paul is preaching an OT theology (as he himself repeatedly says), not quoting anything from anyone he knew to be a real living Jesus).

Finally as far as a PM is concerned - I have never PM’s anyone here about anything, so I don’t want to start now wasting time in a private argument about this, and on the contrary if we are disagreeing on such things as whether Paul knew what a real Jesus had said, then I think it’s far better on a public forum like this that everyone here sees for themselves exactly what each of us is saying.

 

[pakeha]

There seems to be debate about that, because the referenced verses from Deuteronomy and Leviticus, in their original context, apply to all Israelites.

The special instructions for the King might be there just because the Herodian Kings were breaking all of those rules. Marrying their Nieces, divorcing, re-marrying, marrying Gentiles, the lot. The Author was voicing his disapproval of the ruling class and their fornicating ways.

Possibly, but it's not the impression I got.
Still, we're all of us free to speculate on the meaning of the text, after all!

Did you read the pages in that link I posted?

 

[eight bits]

Ian

What I said...

... has little to do with the topic or with anything I posted.

Both verses of Paul's "fom the Lord" teaching about divorce and remarriage are best discussed as a unit. I did so. A poster remarked favorably about my having sone so, and I thanked him for remarking favorably.

I infer, obviously enough, that that poster and I are in agreement that the two verses should be kept together as a unit. My posting them that way was what our kind exchange was about, and not anything else. If I have some comment to make about anything else in anyone's posts, then I'll post it. Until and unless I post something, there is nothing for you to question me about.

You can, may and actually do ask me, of course. Only in Ian fantasy land do I instruct you concerning what you may and may not post. But you're not going to get an answer from me to a question about something I didn't post. If you have a problem with what somebody else posted, then that's not my problem.

 

[IanS]

Ian


... has little to do with the topic or with anything I posted.

Only in Ian fantasy land do I instruct you concerning what you may and may not post.

Where do you think this “fantasy land” is? That appears to be some attempted derogatory nonsense which you just made up. Here is what you actually said, twice, in two separate posts -

Ian
That I thanked another poster for using kind words? That's no concern of yours.

Ian


What I said was "That's no concern of yours." It isn't. Whether that makes any difference to you is your lookout.

You are very clearly (and unarguably) trying there to tell me what I should post and who I should address my posts too. Well, it's for me to decide that, not you.

And by the way my post #465 which you are objecting to, was not even addressed to you anyway!

That post (#465) simply quoted posts from both you & Stone, and very specifically did not ask you (or Stone) anything at all! It was a post in which I merely pointed out that contrary to Stones interpretation, your quote from Corinthians was not actually evidence of Paul reporting something he knew to have been said by Jesus.

As for the rest of your reply - do you agree with Stone when he says that your quote from Corinthians is an example of Paul reporting what he knew to have been said by an earthly Jesus, and as such therefore being direct evidence of a living Jesus? Or not? It's a simple enough question (though I think I have asked you that 3 times now).



Edit to add - and by the way, when you reply to anyone telling them what they should post or who they should address posts too, telling them that things are none of their business, and that they live in fantasy land, that is very clearly attempting to personalise things in an inflammatory and derogatory manner which is of no use here at all and entirely misplaced.

And notice I have not tried to say any such thing to you (I have not told you who to address your remarks to, nor told you to mind your own business, or said that you are living in a fantasy land etc.).

 

[Stone]

Who said I was "livid"? Where did you get an idea like that?

I'm not even mildly irritated by your posts, let alone "livid".

The issue here is not about anyone getting angry about what anyone else says (except perhaps you seeming to lose your temper in most of your posts). The issue is just whether or not you should be allowed to get away unopposed with saying that Eight Bits had posted something which was direct evidence of Paul knowing what an earthly Jesus had actually said, and hence you therefore saying that was evidence of the existence of Jesus (I think that's whet you were trying to claim?).

I don't think you should be allowed to get away with claiming that as evidence of Jesus, and especially not in threads which are specifically all about whether or not any such evidence exists, because afaik your claim there is entirely untrue - those words in Corinthians are not (as far as any of us can honestly tell) an example of Paul knowing what had ever been said by any earthly Jesus ... Corinthians is not evidence of a HJ, for all the reasons I and others have previously and repeatedly explained (ie Paul is, as he repeatedly says himself, preaching an OT theology, not quoting a real Jesus).

You have still not addressed the context in which Paul proffers these APPARENT (happy now?) quotes from an historical Jesus (I find it snarky to use the term "living Jesus" since that's redolent of fundie-ism; if you said "dead Jesus", that would be fine by me, since I view him as an ordinary human). Paul's context involves carefully distinguishing between what Jesus said and what Paul is saying. Why? How come? Why do that at all unless Paul is aware that his audience is quite likely aware of -- some of -- what Jesus said already?

Stone

 

[tsig]

You have still not addressed the context in which Paul proffers these APPARENT (happy now?) quotes from an historical Jesus (I find it snarky to use the term "living Jesus" since that's redolent of fundie-ism; if you said "dead Jesus", that would be fine by me, since I view him as an ordinary human). Paul's context involves carefully distinguishing between what Jesus said and what Paul is saying. Why? How come? Why do that at all unless Paul is aware that his audience is quite likely aware of -- some of -- what Jesus said already?
Stone

The hilited is where you go off the rails. How can you have any idea why Paul did or did not write a certain thing?

I see this type of fallacious reasoning all the time in biblical studies:

Why did biblical character X do Y? Why obviously X did it because (fill in your favorite hobby horse here)

 

[dafydd]

The hilited is where you go off the rails. How can you have any idea why Paul did or did not write a certain thing?

I see this type of fallacious reasoning all the time in biblical studies:

Why did biblical character X do Y? Why obviously X did it because (fill in your favorite hobby horse here)

Believers seem to have a problem with the word ''evidence''. It does not mean ''anything that I choose to imagine''.