Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Just as a general comment on these posts from Stone and the points above -
Re. 2 & 3 concerning the birth of Jesus and his ancestral line to David - if Paul was not getting such ideas from speaking to earlier followers of Christianity, then where did he get such beliefs? I think it's fairly obvious that he most likely got all those ideas from what he thought was written in the OT.
By 30-50AD Paul may have been relying on whatever was being commonly said at the time about OT prophecies. And what was being said, and what was generally believed, was probably coming from verbal preaching of what people thought was written in Greek translations of the OT. I don’t suppose that Paul, or anyone that he knew, was actually reading their own copies of the older Hebrew language versions of the OT. So I expect there would be all sorts of scope for mistaken ideas & inaccuracy about what the ancient Hebrew OT had originally said.
In the other thread where I linked that YouTube discussion between Richard Dawkins and the bible scholar John Huddleston (link below), Huddleston actually said that in fact there is no evidence that King David was ever a real person anyway. In which case, if Paul and other early Christians were saying that Jesus was in the blood line of King David (something they "knew" from OT scripture), then it seems they may have been claiming Jesus was a “human” descendent of someone who may never have existed anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21NoQuKTB8Q
Re. 5 and the bread and wine supper - there is a similar religious ritual meal described in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Afaik, it is not described there as any form of final last supper, or with the meal representing blood & flesh of a god. Though that may only be because in the Scrolls not much detail is disclosed about that ritual, and the Scrolls are written almost entirely in coded opaque form anyway. But, iirc in the Scrolls it was a ritual meal of bread and wine taken at an organised meeting amongst the faithful.
Those scrolls pre-date the life of Paul by as much as about 200 years, but also cover that entire period through the life of Paul and up to c.70AD. They are of course also describing Jewish religious practices in precisely that same small region. So, I suppose it’s possible that later preachers like Paul and the gospel writers may have got the idea of a last supper from garbled word-of-mouth accounts of those earlier Essene practices recorded in the Scrolls. At least, it’s rather a coincidence that the earlier Essene DSS faithful were also engaging in a ritual religious supper of bread and wine.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
IanS, while the DDS could be a possible source for the institution of the Eucharist, wouldn't there be a more direct source in the Passover meal itself?
Here's something posted on the subject of the Last Supper in the RatSkep monster thread I found most interesting.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-24040.html#p1294301
This wasn't discussed much at the time over there.
Can the better informed posters here say if this reasoning has been refuted or shown to be weak?
Here's something posted on the subject of the Last Supper in the RatSkep monster thread I found most interesting.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-24040.html#p1294301
This wasn't discussed much at the time over there.
Can the better informed posters here say if this reasoning has been refuted or shown to be weak?
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
From that link:
Carrier, as many of you know, has written a scathing review of Did Jesus Exist on his Freethought Blog. He indicates that my book is “full of errors,” that it “misinforms more than it informs” that it provides “false information” that it is “worse than bad” and that “it officially sucks.” The attacks are sustained throughout his lengthy post, and they often become personal. He indicates that “Ehrman doesn’t actually know what he is talking about,” he claims that I speak with “absurd” hyperbole, that my argument “makes
look irresponsible,” that I am guilty of “sloppy work,” that I “misrepresent” my opponents and “misinform the public,” that what I write is “crap,” that I am guilty of “arrogantly dogmatic and irresponsible thinking,” that I am “incompetent,” make “hack” mistakes, and do not “act like a real scholar.”
Unless I'm reading this wrong Stein is claiming to be Ehrman.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
pakeha quoting somebody else
Justin Martyr believed that Mithras worship's ritual meal was taken from Daniel and Isaiah, with a little help from the Devil:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxx.html
Under the circumstances, I don't think we have new information here about the eucharist or its institution.
Ian
Tim
On your six points (best not to comment on moderator activity):
1 ~ There is no textual basis for asserting that Paul's "gospel" in Galatians 1 and 2 coincides with the entirety of his confident beliefs about Jesus' life. Throughout his letters, including Galatians, Paul acknowledges contacts with the James Gang and familiarity with what others teach about Jesus. Affirmatively, his "gospel" need be no more than this, Galatians 2: 15-21.
2 ~ No Gospel except Matthew asserts a virgin birth. Luke depicts Mary saying she was a virgin when she learned that she would, in the unspecified future, give birth. Mark doesn't mention Mary's sex life. Paul will be dead before Matthew is composed. There is no basis at all for retrojecting Mathhew's misreading of Isaiah onto Paul's unambiguous statement that Jesus was born as lifelong Jewish men are born. That the two works are bound in the same physical book was a decision made by third parties long after both authors were dead.
3 ~ The money phrase is according to the flesh, as if there is some other way to be crucified, die and be entombed. Paul thinks the ghost he and others saw is the ghost of a man.
4 ~ 1 Corithians 9: 5; I would not assume that the relationship is kinship; I would say that it is suggestive that Paul was told and believed that Jesus had eartthly associates who later on were Paul's competitors.
5 ~ What difference do tales of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, consistent or inconsistent, make for his earthly life? He's already dead. His importance to Paul is what Paul thinks Jesus did after dying. Jesus' life is important to Paul mainly since having had one is the only way to die, and having lived as a Jew is the only way to be raised from the dead as a Jew.
6 ~ You supposed "given" was addressed at point 1. I have some reservation about this. The Gospels could have been written from a knowledge of Paul, rather than Paul referring to some pre-existing Jesus tradition. Paul is, however, placing a constraint on a historical Jesus who counts, as I discussed in that thread. That constraint is topical for Ehrman.
No, I think Justin is saying that the Mithraic ceremony used water. The Christian ceremony uses both, that is, watered wine. That was the typical table drink.
Justin Martyr believed that Mithras worship's ritual meal was taken from Daniel and Isaiah, with a little help from the Devil:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.lxx.html
Under the circumstances, I don't think we have new information here about the eucharist or its institution.
Ian
Deny as you will, and fib about me as you incessantly do, the fact endures that what we have of Paul discusses Jesus as having once been a mortal man. Paul describes no miracle involving that mortal man during his earthly life, but a miracle occurs the third day when the mortal man who was Jesus had been dead. Beginning at that time, a lot of people see a ghost. BFD.
Tim
On your six points (best not to comment on moderator activity):
1 ~ There is no textual basis for asserting that Paul's "gospel" in Galatians 1 and 2 coincides with the entirety of his confident beliefs about Jesus' life. Throughout his letters, including Galatians, Paul acknowledges contacts with the James Gang and familiarity with what others teach about Jesus. Affirmatively, his "gospel" need be no more than this, Galatians 2: 15-21.
There is exactly one fact alleged about Jesus' earthly life: he was crucified. Do you seriously propose that despite having "persecuted" Wayists before his conversion, Paul didn't already know that this was what Wayists believed about Jesus?
2 ~ No Gospel except Matthew asserts a virgin birth. Luke depicts Mary saying she was a virgin when she learned that she would, in the unspecified future, give birth. Mark doesn't mention Mary's sex life. Paul will be dead before Matthew is composed. There is no basis at all for retrojecting Mathhew's misreading of Isaiah onto Paul's unambiguous statement that Jesus was born as lifelong Jewish men are born. That the two works are bound in the same physical book was a decision made by third parties long after both authors were dead.
3 ~ The money phrase is according to the flesh, as if there is some other way to be crucified, die and be entombed. Paul thinks the ghost he and others saw is the ghost of a man.
4 ~ 1 Corithians 9: 5; I would not assume that the relationship is kinship; I would say that it is suggestive that Paul was told and believed that Jesus had eartthly associates who later on were Paul's competitors.
5 ~ What difference do tales of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, consistent or inconsistent, make for his earthly life? He's already dead. His importance to Paul is what Paul thinks Jesus did after dying. Jesus' life is important to Paul mainly since having had one is the only way to die, and having lived as a Jew is the only way to be raised from the dead as a Jew.
6 ~ You supposed "given" was addressed at point 1. I have some reservation about this. The Gospels could have been written from a knowledge of Paul, rather than Paul referring to some pre-existing Jesus tradition. Paul is, however, placing a constraint on a historical Jesus who counts, as I discussed in that thread. That constraint is topical for Ehrman.
Last edited:
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
We may have to agree to disagree on this point. Paul specifically says he got nothing from James and company.
Yes, I can accept that this belief was common knowledge.
Concerning the hilited area: No, Luke actually says Mary was a virgin (Lk. 1:26, 27, bracketed material added for clarification, bolding also added):
In the sixth month [of Elizabeth's pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary.
That neither Paul nor Mark mention the virgin birth certainly indicates that it wasn't part of Christian belief until ca. CE 80.
Agreed.
My point about Paul's description of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus is that they differ from all of the gospels, which all differ from one another, which strongly implies that they were all made up stories.
Yes, the gospels were definitely latter than Paul's writings. However, there had to have been some sort of tradition about Jesus for there to be a Jesus movement that Paul was persecuting before his conversion experience. Could you clarify this last point?
No, I’m not lying about you. Nobody here is lying about you.
If I have misrepresented or misunderstood your position then (a)it was entirely innocently done, and (b)you can always put the record straight very easily.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
To fib is nicer than to lie, Ian.
The letters are evidence of what Paul believed about Jesus, that Jesus was a human being who did his best work conspicuously late in his career, after he had died. Included in that evidence, however, is that Paul didn't disclose a basis for knowing whether Jesus really had had an earthly career. Meeting up with Paul was another of Jesus' later accomplishments, it seems.
Tim
From a "historical Jesus" point of view, then, this would be a marker that we've got the right guy, and not some other Jesus with some other ragtag bunch of hangers-on who got himself killed the way the Romans liked to do it. This sort of thing is Ehrman's job to sort out.
Nobody disputes that Paul thought Jesus had participated in wonders, but Paul only mentions wonders that came after Jesus had died. Paul didn't describe Jesus participating in any miracles while Jesus was alive on Earth.
The letters are evidence of what Paul believed about Jesus, that Jesus was a human being who did his best work conspicuously late in his career, after he had died. Included in that evidence, however, is that Paul didn't disclose a basis for knowing whether Jesus really had had an earthly career. Meeting up with Paul was another of Jesus' later accomplishments, it seems.
Tim
In the same Galatians passages, Paul says he spent two weeks with Cephas, and some unspecified amount of time with James. What do you think that was? Silent prayer?
That's not in dispute. It's whether she's still a virgin when she is pregnant. Luke doesn't say. Gabe says to the virgin at 1: 31, you will conceive; he doesn't say when, and he certainly doesn't say before you've done what mommies and daddies who love each other very much do.
I think Paul could have thought he had "seen a ghost," my words, not his. I think Paul could have believed that 500+ other people saw a ghost, too. Did later people make up more stories? Yes; at least what's in Matthew's tomb scene never happened, that's a slam dunk. Luke-Acts?. Hard to say; these are the same people who supposedly saw Jesus, before he died, chatting with Moses and Elijah and then heard a voice in the clouds. They saw his ghost fly off afterwards? Why the hell not?
I think there was "some" pre-existing Jesus tradition, but there's no way to tell whether Paul's teaching on divorce was part of it, or something Paul made up and put into Jesus' mouth. All we know is that the later Gospels depict Jesus teaching, to an extent, directly contrary to what's in the Hebrew Bible. If that happened, then that would be distinctive - a Jewish preacher changing the written Torah, and making no bones about it. That was then, this is now, deal with it.
From a "historical Jesus" point of view, then, this would be a marker that we've got the right guy, and not some other Jesus with some other ragtag bunch of hangers-on who got himself killed the way the Romans liked to do it. This sort of thing is Ehrman's job to sort out.
Last edited:
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
I haven't gotten around to reading Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? yet, so I'm curious about thid statement made by him on the Huffington Post:
With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.
This is the first time I've heard of such sources. Does anyone know what Ehrman is talking about?
With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.
This is the first time I've heard of such sources. Does anyone know what Ehrman is talking about?
This is all superb stuff, 8bits. Thank you. Not only is your grounding in this considerably more solid than mine, but you act on it with greater clarity and faaaaar better civility than I do. I envy you your patience and your thoroughness.
Yours truly,
Stone
I think he is talking about a reconstructed oral tradition. That some of Jesus' sayings are only puns in Aramaic etc. I'm not sure why that ties these sayings to a specific individual called Jesus though...
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for your take, eight bits.
Added-
When is the first reference to the cup of the Last Supper actually containing wine?
Last edited:
ddt
Mafia Penguin
There's a further argument for this. Luke says in 1:5 that the annunciation of John the Baptist's conception happened during Herod the Great's (*) reign. But then in 2:2, Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem during Quirinius' reign. There's a 10 year gap in between. Or, of course, the great historian Luke f***ed up. (**)
(*) Or another Herod - like Archelaus? After all, about all the Herodians were called Herod. But he uses "basileus", a title Archelaus never had, he was only "ethnarch".
(**) Sorry, I read to many DOC threads.
TimCallahan
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 6,293
Whatever he was doing, Paul asserts that he got nothing from those who knew Jesus, however much he talked to them.
I honestly don't know why you're quibbling over this Here's what happens after Gabriel tells Mary she's going to have a child who will be call the Son of the Most High (Lk.1:34, 35):
And Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no husband?"
And the angel said to her,
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the MOst High will overshadow you;
therefore the child to be born will be called holy,
the Son of God. . . ."
So Gabriel is telling her she will have a supernatural birth, even though she doesn't have a husband.
As to the 500+ brethren, this may be a later interpolation. The passage shows signs of tampering.
Okay, I have no quarrel with that.
BTW, I responded to this post earlier, only to have the jref system tell me I wasn't logged in, right after I had made a post. In the process of doing this jref managed to destroy my post. I don't know what the hell is going on. I had to log in yet again to make this post.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Stone
Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that.
pakeha
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Mark 14:25 seems to be the first overt suggestion that it is wine (Jesus won't drink the "fruit of the vine" again until he drinks it new in the Kingdom of God). All the synoptics follow Paul and stay with "cup" for the institution narrative itself (the incident isn't in John). The basis for inferring watered wine is that would be what would typically be in a cup at table (where the synoptics, but not Paul, place the action). The Didache, which is hard to date, is again suggestive, speaking of the holy vine of David, but it's still a cup.
Hope that helps, and it is a good question, to be sure.
ddt
Yes, it's hard to know what Luke knew of the region's history, though. The way he writes it is like a modern movie musical. An unpregannt virginal Mary interviews with Gabriel, followed by her big song, and off she goes. Jump cut; it's an unspecified interval of time later, and she's about to give birth. Not one word about what transpired in between scenes. Well, OK, we're all grown-ups here. We know what happened, Luke doesn't have to spell it out for us.
(The Greek word for Joseph and Mary's relationship is the same in chapters 1 and 2, which most give as betrothed, as if distinct from married. On the other hand, they are traveling together in chapter 2, and she is pregnant and at term, so there is no clear implication of anything asexual here. Bigger than hell they are a couple.)
Tim
Sorry to hear about your misadventure with the JREF system. I notice that the inactivity time-out is very crisp, and often unrealistically short for a thoughtful response to be composed.
Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate that.
pakeha
Oddly enough, Genesis 14: 18-20. I don't know which Christian first wrote in as many words that it is wine. Justin Martyr does refer to watered wine as regular, in 65 of the First Apology, about 150-160 CE
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Mark 14:25 seems to be the first overt suggestion that it is wine (Jesus won't drink the "fruit of the vine" again until he drinks it new in the Kingdom of God). All the synoptics follow Paul and stay with "cup" for the institution narrative itself (the incident isn't in John). The basis for inferring watered wine is that would be what would typically be in a cup at table (where the synoptics, but not Paul, place the action). The Didache, which is hard to date, is again suggestive, speaking of the holy vine of David, but it's still a cup.
Hope that helps, and it is a good question, to be sure.
ddt
Yes, it's hard to know what Luke knew of the region's history, though. The way he writes it is like a modern movie musical. An unpregannt virginal Mary interviews with Gabriel, followed by her big song, and off she goes. Jump cut; it's an unspecified interval of time later, and she's about to give birth. Not one word about what transpired in between scenes. Well, OK, we're all grown-ups here. We know what happened, Luke doesn't have to spell it out for us.
(The Greek word for Joseph and Mary's relationship is the same in chapters 1 and 2, which most give as betrothed, as if distinct from married. On the other hand, they are traveling together in chapter 2, and she is pregnant and at term, so there is no clear implication of anything asexual here. Bigger than hell they are a couple.)
Tim
No, he said he didn't get his gospel from other people, and apparently defines his gospel as what I quoted in the earlier post, Galatians 2: 15 ff. If not, then he hasn't defined gospel and so cannot be said to have said anything definite at all. And either way, he says it in the context of disclosing a two week confab with Cephas. If you want to define his words for him, for your own use, then peachy, but you can't attribute the resulting joint composition to him.
Supernatural interest in a future pregancy does not imply that the conception will occur without the lady having had sexual intercourse. I doubt the thought would occur except that Matthew misread Isaiah, about which "Luke" holds his silence. (I actually read it as Gabe telling Mary that God wouldn't mind, just this once, if she gave Joe a helping hand, so to speak, in stepping up to the plate. Then again, I have a dirty mind. Then again again, unwed Ruth did the same for Boaz, and according to Luke, they are among Jesus' ancestors on both sides.)
Don't they all. Nevertheless, that's what in the text we are discussing. With or without the five hundred, I do think there is a plausibly original passage that says Paul isn't alone in seeing this ghost, and that he is the most recent one to do so among the apostolic class.
Sorry to hear about your misadventure with the JREF system. I notice that the inactivity time-out is very crisp, and often unrealistically short for a thoughtful response to be composed.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question, eight bits.
The post I quoted piqued my interest and I'm glad to have learned more.
Also thanks for the link!
For many readers here, Justin Martyr is prolly old potatoes, but this was the first time I'd read his entire First Apology.
From section 32
Anyway, that was an amusing reference of yours to Genesis
Hardly my idea a supper reference, given the context of the chapter 14
Or at least it's not typical of the suppers I go to, anyway.
Your mileage may vary.
But that's really not admissible (ie the highlighted part above), because the miracles you are referring to as absent in Paul, are those in the gospel stories of Jesus. But Paul does not describe any part of those gospels stories - he does not describe the miracle parts, but he does not describe any of the other parts of those stories either!
Paul does of course tell us a lot of other things about Jesus, but that is all about his visions and other peoples visions of Jesus as a deceased entity who “reveals” things to him. For the rest, he tells us, it comes from OT scripture.
But that is not evidence of an earthly Jesus in Paul’s letters. Quite the contrary. Because the letters make clear that Paul never met any earthly Jesus and personally new nothing of Jesus. All that Paul “knew“ is what he believed on religious & theological grounds.
I’m not sure what you mean in the above by first saying that Paul believed Jesus was a human being (see the first highlight), but then immediately saying “Paul didn't disclose a basis for knowing whether Jesus really had had an earthly career” (second highlight) … you seem to be talking about Paul knowing that Jesus was simultaneously a human person, but who may not have had an ” earthly career”.
Again - in Paul’s letters, afaik, Paul did not personally know anything about an earthly Jesus … everything Paul believed about Jesus came to him either from divine revelation or else from what he thought was contained in OT scripture … Paul is presenting a theological description of his religious beliefs about a prophesised messiah of past legend.
Perhaps it would help if you provide what will surely be a very short list taken from any of Paul's letters, where you say Paul talks of someone he knew to be the earthly Jesus?
edit to add - I think we may be largely at cross-purposes here (throughout all our recent exchanges on this). That is - of course Paul may have “believed” that Jesus once lived on earth. But his reasons for thinking that, were religious and theological, not evidential or factual (at least, not as far as anything revealed in his letters) …
… what Paul knew of Jesus was only that an earlier legend existed where others had talked of a messiah of the past. According to Paul’s letters, Paul came to believe that the messiah legend was true. But the reasons Paul believed it to be true were not because of anything he personally knew of Jesus and not because of anything convincing he had been told about Jesus by any other man. Paul came to believe the legend of Jesus because he himself thought he saw visions of Jesus (although Jesus was by then already dead since some unknown time), and most importantly for Paul (and indeed for the gospel writers and everyone at that time), Paul thought he could make sense of his beliefs and understand his beliefs as “facts” revealed by what he thought had been written in OT scripture (ie his theological beliefs).
But that is most definitely not evidence of any earthly living Jesus. That is just evidence of Paul’s propensity to seeing visions and hearing “revelations” from heavenly figures, supported by his reliance on the theology of OT scripture.
I have his book. His evidence for concluding "Jesus definitely existed" (ie he says it is a certainty) is -
(1) Paul met the actual brother of Jesus.
(2) At least 7 "independent" sources for Jesus exist in the form of the canonical gospels.
Now you may be scratching your head over 2, and thinking how on earth can four gospels, at least 3 of which were clearly copied from one-another, be turned by Ehrman into no less than seven "INDEPENDENT" attestations of Jesus?
The answer is that, according to Bart Ehrman - the four canonical gospels, although for the most part clearly copied from one-another, do each contain some parts which do not appear in the others ... hence he counts all four as "independent" attestations to Jesus. And of course he dates those to within as little as 40 years after the death of Jesus.
So that's 4 "independent" attestations. Where do other three come from? Well, iirc (I can check it) - he says that g-Mark came from the famous now lost earlier work Q, and that since g-Mathew is not 100% identical to g-Mark, it (ie g-Mathew) must have come from another lost earlier work "M", and similarly g-Luke must have again come from yet another earlier work "L" ...
... so altogether that now makes seven independent attestations for Jesus. Brilliant, huh? And, since the lost works Q, M and L, must have been written before the gospels, that must also mean, according to Mr Ehrman, that Q, M and L would have all been written within only a few years after the death of Jesus c.30AD.
As far as the “Aramaic origins” are concerned - Ehrman says that although the gospels were written in Greek, as were (he says) Q, M and L, in several passages he says key words or phrases appear to have been mistranslations from what was originally oral Aramaic speech, such that they no longer make sense in the translated Greek. He says that is an indication that the gospels came from oral Aramaic speech, which must have again therefore been earlier than the written gospels, and hence closer to the time of Jesus.
Just as a passing comment on the “virgin” (mistranslated) birth - referring back again to that YouTube film of Dawkins talking to Huddleston -
- Huddleston says that in all old testament writing, and other early religious writing such as writing about Roman Gods, it was very common for the stories to describe any important person from gods and messiahs to leaders and generals of all sorts, as having a human mother but a god as a father…
… ie, Huddleston says that was almost a “given” in all these ancient stories of important people, such that it would be a surprise if anyone as important as Jesus was said to have any other parentage except a human mother with a god as the father.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
Ian
I appreciate that you are astonished that two Jewish preachers, Paul and Jesus, both take a lot of their material from the Jewish Bible. OK, you're astonished. I believe you and I have covered that his letters include no explanation of how Paul checked his beliefs' factual accuracy.
Your addendum ~ I think you have the causal arrow backwards. I think Paul finds the ghost theologically and religiously significant because he believes that it is the ghost of a Jewish man, and Jewish men will rise from the dead in the end of days. Conclude: now is the end of days.
Part of the real explanation of the ghost Paul sees, whom he believes others have already seen, is his anti-Wayist activity. I find it easy to believe that Paul, before his conversion, would know from the Way or from Jewish law enforcement sources that the Way venerated an ordinary man, who was born to a Jewish woman, who was somehow involved with John the Baptist, who asked for a bread and wine commemoration, and who was purportedly recently crucified. The Way are also doing something that offended Jewish authority, maybe Jesus was said to do that, too.
I would be unsurprised that there were post-mortem, pre-Pauline ghost stories about this purported Jewish man. I don't know whether there were any real-life miracle stories about Jesus at this point. I have no reason at all to think that Jesus did anything before he died that was seen early on as anything other than a teachable and learnable skill or outright gift available to all comers, just as Paul thinks Jesus' after-death mircle, resurrection, will also be available to all comers, soon.
Given his pre-exisitng Pharisaic beliefs, Paul was a walking time bomb to have a dream or vision about that man. But Paul may well already have thought he knew as much as he needed to know about that man's real life, because he could scarcely avoid finding out the broad brushstrokes if he'd been rousting the people who are telling Jesus stories, as he says he was. Gaps? Two weeks with Cephas must have cleared them up. But we know little about Cephas, so we never do get much evidence about a historical Jesus through Paul.
So, Paul describes a man who was born to a Jewish woman, who said a few things over his food shortly before he was crucified. All that's in the Gospels. None of it is miraculous.
I appreciate that you are astonished that two Jewish preachers, Paul and Jesus, both take a lot of their material from the Jewish Bible. OK, you're astonished. I believe you and I have covered that his letters include no explanation of how Paul checked his beliefs' factual accuracy.
Paul professes to believe something about Jesus' earthly life, but provides little detailed information about the basis for his beliefs. That being the case, I do not propose that "Paul’s letters are credible evidence of Jesus," contrary to your claim about me.
Your addendum ~ I think you have the causal arrow backwards. I think Paul finds the ghost theologically and religiously significant because he believes that it is the ghost of a Jewish man, and Jewish men will rise from the dead in the end of days. Conclude: now is the end of days.
Part of the real explanation of the ghost Paul sees, whom he believes others have already seen, is his anti-Wayist activity. I find it easy to believe that Paul, before his conversion, would know from the Way or from Jewish law enforcement sources that the Way venerated an ordinary man, who was born to a Jewish woman, who was somehow involved with John the Baptist, who asked for a bread and wine commemoration, and who was purportedly recently crucified. The Way are also doing something that offended Jewish authority, maybe Jesus was said to do that, too.
I would be unsurprised that there were post-mortem, pre-Pauline ghost stories about this purported Jewish man. I don't know whether there were any real-life miracle stories about Jesus at this point. I have no reason at all to think that Jesus did anything before he died that was seen early on as anything other than a teachable and learnable skill or outright gift available to all comers, just as Paul thinks Jesus' after-death mircle, resurrection, will also be available to all comers, soon.
Given his pre-exisitng Pharisaic beliefs, Paul was a walking time bomb to have a dream or vision about that man. But Paul may well already have thought he knew as much as he needed to know about that man's real life, because he could scarcely avoid finding out the broad brushstrokes if he'd been rousting the people who are telling Jesus stories, as he says he was. Gaps? Two weeks with Cephas must have cleared them up. But we know little about Cephas, so we never do get much evidence about a historical Jesus through Paul.
Last edited:
- Status