Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

ETA This incursion was a big deal! The Romans under Pompey definitely "devoured" the cities of Judaea. Another passage from my source: This worried the Essenes and other pious sectarians, to whom the integrity of the Holy Places was a matter of the highest importance.

Um, That is one city. Not plural.

Besides that, are you really arguing that these people didn't write any scrolls during that 110 years between Pompey and when the Scrolls were left?

What were they doing? They had a scriptorium, they were treating parchment and making ink, but you don't think they left any of the scrolls?

 

[Craig B]

Have Eagles on his standard did he?

Yes.

In the second consulship of Gaius Marius (104 BC) the four quadrupeds were laid aside as standards, the eagle being alone retained.

 

[Brainache]

Yes.

OK. You got me It's late.

I'll be back freshas a dsaeu'uwe kwbc k

 

[bruto]

deleted

 

[Craig B]

Um, That is one city. Not plural.

Besides that, are you really arguing that these people didn't write any scrolls during that 110 years between Pompey and when the Scrolls were left?

I'm sure they did write scrolls during that time. The question is, when they wrote about a Roman incursion, if they were referring to this past Pompey event. I think they were. Also they were in the habit of re-copying old scrolls, no doubt, for that was and is a standard Jewish procedure.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

No, your words were assuming he exists.

and

How in the world can Jesus be the source of Paul's information, unless Jesus existed? Your “proposal” assumes Jesus existed.

No, Ian.

Why are you even bothering to argue that Didache may be earlier than Paul when you know that most scholars say it’s later?

How exactly does anyone "argue" that a document of much disputed date "may be" earlier than another document whose dating is also imprecisely estimated? One observes that there is dispute which implies the possibility. End of story. What would the earliest survivng manuscripts have to do with the diversity of estimates for the relative dates of composition?

Anyway, if I were you, I'd be reluictant to allow what "most scholars say" to decide historical questions. MSS HJ, if you catch my drift. For range of dating questions, I usually turn to the Early Christian Writings site,

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

and did in this case.

Earlier or later, the Didache doesn't have an institution narrative, but does have a bread-and-cup ritual that differs markedly from Paul's. Either way, we don't know that Paul's is the earliest version of the story told in Christian circles. Either way, it is an example that cautions against amplifying Paul by borrowing details from the later synoptics. The synoptics aren't the only other way the story goes. Nor is the Didache, since we also have the securely after-Paul John's version of (non-)events.

So either of them could have got that idea from the DSS.

Who said otherwise? Your hypothesis is one among many "could have's," includng that anybody could have made up such a ritual without relying on any antecedent, not even the Odyssey.

The point is that someone here tried to claim the bread and wine idea was unique to and arising from Paul.

That's not my problem, and if you feel the need to pursue it, then you need to find somebody who has made the claim, not me. (I suspect it's the same someone who hectored me recenrtly for not laboring you over some point or other - if you two have something to talk about, don't look to me to play go-between.)

That’s the point (as I am sure you really knew all too well).

You greatly overestimate the clarity with which you make your points.

 

[tsig]

See ? You're doing it again. Instead of arguing the evidence or lack thereof, or argument or lack thereof, you argue the posters. In addition to that, you do it by inventing what's going on in their heads.

So let me get this straight... you can't understand why someone who doesn't believe in god might think that a human existed ? Because that's what this is about: having a person who corresponds to part of the Jesus myth be historically at the source of Christianity. I see no reason why this would require any sort of religious thought.

On the other hand, I could see why someone who doesn't believe in god would want Jesus to NOT exist, so as to further validate their atheistic worldview (that was me a while ago). I'd think that about 100% of "mythers" (for lack of a better term) are agnostics or atheists. So actually, that accusation might have more merit than the reverse.

Alternatively we can stop trying to guess each other's motives and focus on the actual issue. What do you think ?

You just can't be nice with people, can you ?



See, here's the problem with you:

I am not arguing that Jesus existed.

Can you get that through your skull ?

Thought you were 60/40 on his existence.

 

[zugzwang]

How about the extremely obvious and ultra simple alternative of the known fact that Jews had preached precisely that same OT messiah belief as a matter of their divinely inspired certainty since at least 500BC? How about that as the answer to where they got the idea from?

I can't see the connexion between what I said, and what you said. I wasn't speculating as to where the notion of a messiah came from; I was merely explaining that 'low' and 'high' 'Christology' are useful terminologically.

In addition, messiahship is a rather different concept from Christology, since for Jews, ancient and modern, the messiah is inevitably human.

 

[tsig]

Well, these threads seem relatively civilized, so I was a bit startled when Tsig said rather peremptorily that I shouldn't be discussing Doherty! Why wouldn't we discuss one of the chief mythicists?

I suppose it's a sore spot, rather than a soft spot - I mean the idea of a HJ.

It's not that you shouldn't discuss Doherty but we get posts here all the time that say 'X agrees with me so you have to argue with X'. This is dishonestly hiding behind someone elses's name.

I only got into this because I saw posters for the HJ side using the same arguments and wielding the same certainty and righousness as Christian apologists:

"It must be true because it's embarrassing and nobody would write anything embarrassing about themselves if it wasn't true."

"While some of the bible has miraculous happenings we can extract the truth from the falsehood."

And of course the tidbit from Tacitus and a scrap from Josephus.

Then when I tried to ask about this I got met with a blast of scorn and ridicule instead of facts just like I would on any Christian site so I concluded that the HJ is faith driven and not fact driven.



Finally my considered opinion is that not only don't we know about an HJ, we cannot know about an HJ.

For this opinion I have been called everything but an honest person.

 

[Craig B]

In addition, messiahship is a rather different concept from Christology, since for Jews, ancient and modern, the messiah is inevitably human.

Indeed. In Isaiah 45:1, the Persian King Cyrus is so addressed.

Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him

The Greek has "tō christō", for "anointed". Cyrus is a Christ.

 

[IanS]

Ian

How in the world can Jesus be the source of Paul's information, unless Jesus existed? Your “proposal” assumes Jesus existed.

No, Ian.

I asked you a very simple question, it’s highlighted above.

Your answer to that was the single word “No”.

That is not any kind of answer to the question.

Here is the question again -


How in the world can Jesus be the source of Paul's information, unless Jesus existed?


And by the way, I don't think you told us the date of the earliest extant readable copy of Didache either. What date is that claimed to be? (because re. Paul it's claimed to be from P46 c.200AD).

 

[tsig]

See ? You're doing it again. Instead of arguing the evidence or lack thereof, or argument or lack thereof, you argue the posters. In addition to that, you do it by inventing what's going on in their heads.
So let me get this straight... you can't understand why someone who doesn't believe in god might think that a human existed ? Because that's what this is about: having a person who corresponds to part of the Jesus myth be historically at the source of Christianity. I see no reason why this would require any sort of religious thought.

On the other hand, I could see why someone who doesn't believe in god would want Jesus to NOT exist, so as to further validate their atheistic worldview (that was me a while ago). I'd think that about 100% of "mythers" (for lack of a better term) are agnostics or atheists. So actually, that accusation might have more merit than the reverse.

Alternatively we can stop trying to guess each other's motives and focus on the actual issue. What do you think ?

It's OK for you to speculate what goes on in other posters heads?

 

[IanS]

How about the extremely obvious and ultra simple alternative of the known fact that Jews had preached precisely that same OT messiah belief as a matter of their divinely inspired certainty since at least 500BC? How about that as the answer to where they got the idea from?

I can't see the connexion between what I said, and what you said. I wasn't speculating as to where the notion of a messiah came from; I was merely explaining that 'low' and 'high' 'Christology' are useful terminologically. .

I’m saying you don’t need obscure terms like High Christology vs. Low Christology. Instead - “How about the simple fact that …” … see my quote highlighted above.

In addition, messiahship is a rather different concept from Christology, since for Jews, ancient and modern, the messiah is inevitably human.

Afaik the word “Christ” is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew term “messiah”, is it not?

 

[Craig B]

Afaik the word “Christ” is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew term “messiah”, is it not?

As I show above in reference to Isaiah 45:1. But it is the title of a human being, not of a god. It was the Christians who divinised it.

 

[zugzwang]

I’m saying you don’t need obscure terms like High Christology vs. Low Christology. Instead - “How about the simple fact that …” … see my quote highlighted above.






Afaik the word “Christ” is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew term “messiah”, is it not?

Well, your description does not make explicit the difference between a view of the messiah as human (the normal Jewish view), which in relation to Jesus, is often described as low Christology, and the view of the messiah as divine (the Christian view), often described as high Christology.

In relation to mythicism, this is useful, since it clearly demands a very high Christology, and also an early one. But it's useful in other ways - for example, some scholars seem to argue for a low Christology in the synoptics, and a high one in John.

Of course, there is nothing particularly special about the terms themselves, and other ones could be used, but anyway, they seem to have stuck amongst scholars.

Actually, I thought a bit later, that one reason for the Jewish abhorrence of a divine messiah, is strict monotheism, since they cannot and could not, countenance a human being divine, or sharing in divinity. I suppose this is one reason for the eventual rupture in the synagogues, where eventually Christians were not welcome.

 

[Stone]

See ? You're doing it again. Instead of arguing the evidence or lack thereof, or argument or lack thereof, you argue the posters. In addition to that, you do it by inventing what's going on in their heads.

So let me get this straight... you can't understand why someone who doesn't believe in god might think that a human existed ? Because that's what this is about: having a person who corresponds to part of the Jesus myth be historically at the source of Christianity. I see no reason why this would require any sort of religious thought.

On the other hand, I could see why someone who doesn't believe in god would want Jesus to NOT exist, so as to further validate their atheistic worldview (that was me a while ago). I'd think that about 100% of "mythers" (for lack of a better term) are agnostics or atheists. So actually, that accusation might have more merit than the reverse.

Alternatively we can stop trying to guess each other's motives and focus on the actual issue. What do you think ?

But Belz, second-guessing the skepticism or atheism of those who conclude the latest modern secular scholarship has it about right on the relative likelihood of Jesus the human rabbi's historicity is second nature for -- certain -- mythers/MJ-ers. It's an obvious reflection of a conspiratorial mindset that lies behind its entire anti-academe outlook. You can't expect some mythers to ever stop using this ugly ploy -- no matter how often posters like you may re-assert your general skepticism. If you view historicity as merely the more likely alternative for Jesus the human rabbi, that is already enough for you to be a covert believer in woo of every kind. This notion of rendering a snap verdict on any poster here before viewing the evidence totally parallels their identical approach to all historical data as well. So don't be surprised -- or expect it to stop.

Ironically, in your case, you are actually guarded at best(!) on Jesus the human rabbi's historicity. Consequently, your still being targeted in this way all the same shews even more just how extreme and intolerant -- and ignorant -- the myther outlook can get!

Stone

 

[dejudge]

.....Actually, I thought a bit later, that one reason for the Jewish abhorrence of a divine messiah, is strict monotheism, since they cannot and could not, countenance a human being divine, or sharing in divinity. I suppose this is one reason for the eventual rupture in the synagogues, where eventually Christians were not welcome.

Your supposition has no value. There is no record where Jews or Roman citizens worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as God since c 37 CE. In fact, even Christian writers in the late 2nd and early 3rd century admitted that the Jews claimed the Christ had not yet come or was unknown.

Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius all wrote that the Jews expected prophesied Jewish Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE--None came.

There was simple no real Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth in the history of mankind.

 

[IanS]

As I show above in reference to Isaiah 45:1. But it is the title of a human being, not of a god. It was the Christians who divinised it.

It's not necessarily always a human person known on earth to those people issuing the title "messiah". See for example the quotes & highlights below, where the title “messiah”, just meaning “anointed”, can (& apparently did) also apply to objects and buildings, and even food.

However, as far as anointed people are concerned - notice the highlighted where it says "The Jewish messiah is a leader anointed by God, physically descended from the Davidic line" … in some instances therefore, the “anointing” is not a literal physical act all, but simply the belief that God has somehow done the “anointing”.

And in that same highlight - as far as the Davidic line of descendents is concerned, in the YouTube clip of bible scholar/historian John Huddleston in conversation with Richard Dawkins, iirc Huddleston says that like many figures and many events of the earliest copies of the OT, King David may not even have existed anyway.


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


Messiah
In the Hebrew Bible, a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil.[1] However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah[2] for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. The Jewish messiah is a leader anointed by God,..... physically descended from the Davidic line, ..... who will rule the united tribes of Israel[3] and herald the Messianic Age[4] of global peace also known as the World to Come.

Judaism
The literal translation of the Hebrew word moshiach (messiah) is “anointed,” which refers to a ritual of consecrating someone or something by putting holy oil upon it.[1 Sam. 10:1-2] It is used throughout the Hebrew Bible in reference to a wide variety of individuals and objects; for example, a Jewish king,[1 Kings 1:39] Jewish priests,[Lev. 4:3] and prophets,[Isa. 61:1] the Jewish Temple and its utensils,[Ex. 40:9-11] unleavened bread,[Num. 6:15] and a non-Jewish king (Cyrus king of Persia).[Isa. 45:1]

In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil, to be king of God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a divine Son of God. Belief in the eventual coming of a future messiah is a fundamental part of Judaism, and is one of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.[8]

 

[Craig B]

It's not necessarily always a human person known on earth to those people issuing the title "messiah". See for example the quotes & highlights below, where the title “messiah”, just meaning “anointed”, can (& apparently did) also apply to objects and buildings, and even food.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a cognate of the word "christ" in the Greek version of the list of contents of a plastic sack of soil-improving compost, where, judging by the English version, it seemed to mean: has been fortified with vegetable oil.

 

[tsig]

I'm pretty sure I've seen a cognate of the word "christ" in the Greek version of the list of contents of a plastic sack of soil-improving compost, where, judging by the English version, it seemed to mean: has been fortified with vegetable oil.

It will save your soil?