Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

. . . snip . . . 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.

I think we'll have to leave this discussion here. To me, Paul seems to be saying his gospel comes entirely from his personal revelation. His succeeding battle with James over associating with Gentiles and over circumcision indicates that he had radical new ideas that set him at odds with those - including James - who wanted to keep the followers of Jesus as a Jewish group, only accepting Gentiles who first converted to Judaism.

BTW, if, after conversion, Paul went off to Arabia (probably Arabia Felix) for three years, presumably by himself, and after that only talked to Peter and James and only visited Jerusalem for two weeks, it doesn't sound like he placed a whole lot of importance, comparatively speaking, to James and company.

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.)

No, the text very plainly says that her conception will be supernatural. Concerning the hilited area, the only Davidic genealogy Luke gives is for Joseph.

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.

Yes, I agree that a number of people reported seeing the risen Christ. If such a story came out of India concerning a swami who had appeared to people after his death, Christians would dismiss it as superstition and hysteria. (In fact, numerous miracle stories do come out of India, all well attested to by many witnesses). Yet Christians want others to see multiple post-resurrection Jesus sightings as proof of their claims.

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.

Well, everything seems to be working now.

 

[TimCallahan]

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.

Thanks for that. I'm amazed that Ehrman would see anything in the gospels as being historical. Just about everything in them can be traced back to one of four sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism and recent event viewed through an apocalyptic lens, pagan myth, and Greek literature.

 

[eight bits]

Tim

... it doesn't sound like he placed a whole lot of importance, comparatively speaking, to James and company.

Well, they are the competition.

No, the text very plainly says that her conception will be supernatural. Concerning the hilited area, the only Davidic genealogy Luke gives is for Joseph.

My point goes through well enough if either partner descends from them, and we agree that Luke's Joseph does descend in black letters.

You do, however, have a choice to make. Ruth and Boaz in Mary's line, or Who's the daddy?.Here's Gabriel's speech: 1: 28, 30-33 and then we'll pause

And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.” ... Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father, and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

So, David is Jesus' ancestor. See also Acts 13: 22-23. Now if Joseph was his father, there's no problem. But if there is no human father, then Mary is a descendant of David, as I said. Even Mattie of the Two Asses got that point.

There is no basis in the above for God being Jesus' father. Gabriel continues, 1:35-37, after Mary asks how so, if she hasn't had sex yet:

And the angel said to her in reply, “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.And behold, Elizabeth, your relative, has also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month for her who was called barren; for nothing will be impossible for God.”

Overshadowing is not how babies are made. If God is the father, then Jesus wouldn't be "called" the son of God, a well worn thing to be called, and an echo of the relationship David supposedly had with God, Psalm 89: 21ff. Fiinally, Elizabeth is cited as parallel. She had sex with Zech, don't you think?

Luke is talking around the issue. The Holy Spirit will help Mary. Nothing is said about the help taking the form of unnatural insemination. On other occasions when the Holy Spirit helps people in Luke-Acts, it inspires them to action or tells them what to say. There is every reason to think that if Elizabeth can get the job done, then a healthy young woman can get Joe, whom Mary seems to report as slow on the uptake, in the mood. God will, indeed, do the rest.

If Luke wanted to be unambiguous about Jesus having no human father, then he need only have copied Matthew. He didn't. Not Mattie's geneaology, either. Luke gave an earthly father's ancestors as Jesus' ancestors. That means Joseph is Jesus' father, according to Luke.

So, if you personally think "overshadowing" means some supernatural sex substitute, then that's great. I don't. But since Mary is the only human, and so only possible Davidic parent in that case, then you will give me that, according to Luke, Ruth and Boaz are reasoanbly inferred to be the ancestors of both partners.

Christians would dismiss it as superstition and hysteria.

Perhaps so, and apparently not everybody at the time thought Paul and the James Gang were all there, either. Fortunately, what Christians make of this is not our immediate concern.

 

[IanS]

Ian


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.

What do you mean “that is ALL in the gospels & none of it is miraculous”, as if saying that constitutes a large number of stories common to both Paul and the gospels? That’s not the case at all, is it! In fact all you have there are just two ultra-minimal things - (1) born of a woman, and (2)words said before eating. For which Paul himself repeatedly says that all info. comes to him only from divine revelation and from scripture anyway.

Also as I noted above - in the Huddleston interview, Huddleston says that virtually all important leaders at that time, whether godly or military or anything else, were invariably said to be born of a woman but with a god as the father.

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.

“Astonished”? Who said anything about being astonished about any of this? Where did I ever say or imply any such thing?

On the contrary I’ve repeatedly said to you that there are perfectly obvious explanations for all of this. The total opposite of being “astonished” by any of it.

As far as Paul checking his “accuracy” - Paul thinks his accuracy is guaranteed by God. Because his beliefs come from no mere man, but instead from Jesus himself, and from divinely inspired OT scripture.

Ian
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.

Paul does provide the complete “detail about the basis of his beliefs” - he specifically and repeatedly emphasises that all his “detail” comes from no mere man but as direct revelation from Christ and from his certainty in the inerrancy of what he thought was written in OT scripture.

If you are not claiming that Paul’s letters are credible evidence of the existence of Jesus (and they are certainly NOT), then this whole argument is bogus. The only relevant issue here is whether Paul provides actual evidence of a historical Jesus (not whether Paul merely believed things due to divine revelation or his trusting of OT scripture).

If you want to engage in endless debate about other aspects of ancient biblical writing, then that is more like indulging us all in a bible studies class. And I’m not remotely interested in participating in bible studies classes …

… the only relevant question here is - does Paul provide any evidence of a HJ. And the answer, as you now finally agree above, is NO!

 

[pakeha]

Speaking of honest research, Stone, you've lifted this entire list from a poster at RatSkep without giving any sign of it being a copy paste.

ETA
Here's a link to the post, dated 27 January, 2011
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-7460.html#p689382
That poster even brought up the same list earlier this year, on 20 April
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-33220.html#p1690143

Still no word from Stone about lifting other peoples' work.
To up the ante, imagine my surprise when I found this in the FRDB archives
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/showpost.php?p=6694868&postcount=1

...Born into a Jewish family of a Jewish mother.
Galatians 4 - 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.

The family was either partly related to the David line or merely viewed as descended "of David" figuratively by dint of their being Jewish.
Romans 1 - 3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David,

He was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1 - 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.

1 Corinthians 9 - 5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

He preached that a wife could not leave her husband.
1 Corinthians 7 - 10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.

He preached that those who taught the gospel should earn their living from it.
1 Corinthians 9 - 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

To the day of his crucifixion, he maintained a humble station in life.
Phillipians 2 - 7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11 - 23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

He told his followers he'd come back miraculously after his execution, and those who might die in the interim would join him in the resurrection when he'd return.
1 Thessalonians 4 - 15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.

He was crucified, a typical Roman penalty.
1 Corinthians 2 - 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

After he was buried, some of his followers thought they saw him raised from the tomb.
1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.


Thoughts?

Chaucer

So what is it, Stone, a rip-off or recycling?
Off to read the thread to see if the FRDBers ripped up the list as badly as it was at RatSkep and here.

 

[IanS]

Thanks for that. I'm amazed that Ehrman would see anything in the gospels as being historical. Just about everything in them can be traced back to one of four sources: the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism and recent event viewed through an apocalyptic lens, pagan myth, and Greek literature.

Well to be fair to Ehrman, I believe he has written quite extensively in the past to say that he thinks most of the biblical writing is not historically reliable, and that despite his earlier religious beliefs, he is now an agnostic verging (he says) on atheism.

I can only suppose that Ehrman would say that he has no less than seven independent sources, all writing with very extensive detail about what Jesus said and did, mostly corroborating one-another, and mostly within only a few years of the life of Jesus (or within a few decades at the latest), and with no better specific theory of why such a huge religious following would arise from an entirely mythical figure, he thinks that amounts to irrefutable evidence sufficient to say Jesus "definitely" existed. Though I think his main evidence must be that he believes Paul genuinely met the actual brother of Jesus.

As several other people have said - it appears that what counts as "evidence" for bible scholars, is very different indeed than what would ever count as evidence in something like science.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

What do you mean “that is ALL in the gospels & none of it is miraculous”, as if saying that constitutes a large number of stories common to both Paul and the gospels?

The three items I mentioned, alleged to be incidents from Jesus' natural life, appear within the few letters of Paul that may have survived. All three of those incidents are told later on in the Gospels. No incident told by Paul about Jesus' natural life has a miraculous character.

Your "as if" clause says nothing about anything in my post. I have no comment to make about it.

In fact all you have there are just two ultra-minimal things -

Why is this remarkable? According to Paul, did Jesus do anything that wasn't "ultra-minimal" (that is, typical of an ordinary devout Jewish man of the time) before God raised Jesus from the dead? No, not in any writing of Paul that reaches us. So, if I describe what's in Paul about Jesus' natural life, it will be "ultra-minimal" things. That's all there is in Paul, no miracles for Jesus until after he's been dead for a short while.

in the Huddleston interview

That's very interesting that he thinks that. However, Paul doesn't write any such thing in what reaches us. Huddleston, of course, is entitled to his view.

On the contrary I’ve repeatedly said to you that there are perfectly obvious explanations for all of this.

Well, at least we agree that the explanation is obvious, even if we disagree what the most likely explanation is.

As far as Paul checking his “accuracy” etc.

Paul doesn't say what you attribute to him in any writing of his that reaches us. However, you and I seem to be in agreement that Paul did not disclose any check of the accuracy of his information about Jesus' life, and that his writing is not credible evidence of Jesus' natural life.

That's on topic here, since Ehrman expresses some views on this and closely related points, often contrary to mine, although at least he and I usually agree what's in the text.

 

[Stone]

Paul doesn't say what you attribute to him in any writing of his that reaches us. However, you and I seem to be in agreement that Paul did not disclose any check of the accuracy of his information about Jesus' life, and that his writing is not credible evidence of Jesus' natural life.

I'm curious: How do you derive that Paul's half-dozen authentic writings are not credible evidence of Jesus' natural life? Doesn't

Galatians 1 - 19 "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother."

and

1 Corinthians 9 - 5 "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"

seem pretty strong indicators of a human family?

Of course, I know that many mythers here will simply spout their pre-programmed Kool-Aid about some mysterious order called Brothers of the Lord and blah blah blah. But you're more intelligent than that. I'd like to know why you personally do not deem references like that as credible? Please?

Thanks,

Stone

 

[TimCallahan]

Tim
. . . (minor snip) . . .

My point goes through well enough if either partner descends from them, and we agree that Luke's Joseph does descend in black letters.

Of course since the two genealogies of Joseph, one in Matthew, the other in Luke, are utterly incompatible, it's quite obvious that one or both were invented. The problems of the genealogies are not only that Matthew says the line producing Joseph descended through Solomon, while Luke says it descended through another of David's sons, one named Nathan; but as well that both genealogies make Joseph a descendant of Zerubbabel, who cannot be both a descendant of Solomon and Nathan. Finally there are more generations from Abraham to Joseph in Luke's fanciful and manufactured genealogy than there are in Matthew's fanciful and manufactured genealogy.

You do, however, have a choice to make. Ruth and Boaz in Mary's line, or Who's the daddy?.Here's Gabriel's speech: 1: 28, 30-33 and then we'll pause

I have absolutely no idea what your are talking abut here. Where, in Luke does it say Mary was descended from Ruth and Boaz?

So, David is Jesus' ancestor. See also Acts 13: 22-23. Now if Joseph was his father, there's no problem. But if there is no human father, then Mary is a descendant of David, as I said. Even Mattie of the Two Asses got that point.

Again, the Davidic ancestry of Jesus was manufactured to give him credibility.

You seem to have bought into fundamentalist nonsense that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, although Luke plainly says it's that of Joseph.

There is no basis in the above for God being Jesus' father. Gabriel continues, 1:35-37, after Mary asks how so, if she hasn't had sex yet:

If there's nothing supernatural about the conception of Jesus according to Luke, why wouldn't Gabriel answer Mary's rather naive question by saying she soon will have a husband. After all, according to Lk. 1:27, she's already betrothed to Joseph. None of this narrative makes any sense unless it refers to a virgin supernaturally bearing a child.

Overshadowing is not how babies are made. If God is the father, then Jesus wouldn't be "called" the son of God, a well worn thing to be called, and an echo of the relationship David supposedly had with God, Psalm 89: 21ff. Fiinally, Elizabeth is cited as parallel. She had sex with Zech, don't you think?

Elizabeth having a child in old age or after a prolonged period of barrenness, is a trope from the Jewish scriptures, referring back to the births of Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph, Samson, and Samuel. It's supernatural because Elizabeth has been barren all her life. Mary's conception is supernatural because she's a virgin.

Luke is talking around the issue. The Holy Spirit will help Mary. Nothing is said about the help taking the form of unnatural insemination. On other occasions when the Holy Spirit helps people in Luke-Acts, it inspires them to action or tells them what to say. There is every reason to think that if Elizabeth can get the job done, then a healthy young woman can get Joe, whom Mary seems to report as slow on the uptake, in the mood. God will, indeed, do the rest.

See my comments above.

If Luke wanted to be unambiguous about Jesus having no human father, then he need only have copied Matthew. He didn't. Not Mattie's geneaology, either. Luke gave an earthly father's ancestors as Jesus' ancestors. That means Joseph is Jesus' father, according to Luke.

Actually, Luke says at the beginning of Luke 3 that it was supposed that he was the son of Joseph.

So, if you personally think "overshadowing" means some supernatural sex substitute, then that's great. I don't. But since Mary is the only human, and so only possible Davidic parent in that case, then you will give me that, according to Luke, Ruth and Boaz are reasoanbly inferred to be the ancestors of both partners. . . . (minor snip) . . .

Again, where does it say Ruth and Boaz were ancestors of both Joseph and Mary?

 

[IanS]

Ian


The three items I mentioned, alleged to be ...

...
... etc
...

Do you have any evidence from Paul's letters to show that Paul knew Jesus to be a real living person, yes or no?

If what you have been saying for the past x pages just amounts to you saying that Paul held religious beliefs about all sorts of things, then this entire discussion has been utterly pointless.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Do you have any evidence from Paul's letters to show that Paul knew Jesus to be a real living person, yes or no?

No. Paul writes as if he believes that Jesus was once a real living person. Paul doesn't seem to know that first-hand, nor can we be confident that he examined his professed belief critically.

Twice, just on this page, I have already said:

However, you and I seem to be in agreement that Paul did not disclose any check of the accuracy of his information about Jesus' life, ...

before that,

Paul professes to believe something about Jesus' earthly life, but provides little detailed information about the basis for his beliefs.

Moving on,


Stone

I'm 60-40 favoring a historical Jesus who "counts" (real man, born Jewish, executed during Pilate's time, associated with John the Baptist, spent some time as a preacher, was survived by some followers, and displayed some disitnctive marker(s): dissension among his followers at the time of his arrest, an unusual teaching on divorce, or that sort of thing). The epistles of Paul are plainly the centerpiece of any evidentiary case.

On the plus side, Paul speaks of Jesus as an ordinary man until after Jesus died, and Paul's theory of why any Gentile would care about this Jewish preacher requires a real man. Paul also discusses opportunities for him to find out what the Jesus story is by natural means, and never says that he lacked natural sources of biographical information. So, I think Paul is presenting Jesus as a real man, who died.

Reservations: I have no basis for uncritical confidence about Paul's personal honesty or mental stability. Asssuming that those aren't concerns, Paul says little about why he thinks Jesus was a real man, in the sense of ever having investigated critically. There are certain points in my idea of "counting" which can't be established from the Paul material that reaches us. Finally, while the Gospels can help us understand Paul, I think, they are not necessarily independent witnesses from Paul even to Jesus traditions, much less to Jesus.


Tim

We were talking about Luke-Acts, and what the author's story is. If he made it all up, then that's fine. It's a work of literature. You and I are talking about what the work says, not whether it's true.

The geneaology only comes up between as we examine whether Jesus was proposed to descend from David on one side or both. It is a small point, but there are those who love it. That David descended from Ruth and Boaz is not peculiar to Luke, and it may only be a legend anyway, like all the people mentioned. That Jesus descends from David is asserted as a fact in both Luke's volumes. Joseph's line is the only geneaology Luke recites.

Where, in Luke does it say Mary was descended from Ruth and Boaz?

It is a reasonable inference from what Luke wrote, especially if, as you propose, Luke teaches that Jesus had only one human parent. Luke doesn't teach that, but I'm discussing this with you, so I'm happy to discuss whatever question arise based on your premise arguendo.

You seem to have bought into fundamentalist nonsense that the genealogy in Luke is that of Mary, although Luke plainly says it's that of Joseph.

You seem to have missed the part of my post which says

Luke gave an earthly father's ancestors as Jesus' ancestors.

Next.

If there's nothing supernatural about the conception of Jesus according to Luke, ...

Of course there's something supernatural. Gabriel showing up to announce the good news is supernatural. There's a major world religion based solely on Gabriel talking to a guy.

Gabe says nothing to Mary about divine paternity, though. That's why God made Joe.

why wouldn't Gabriel answer Mary's rather naive question

You need to get out more. She's saying Joe hasn't risen to the occasion. Well, I suppose waiting for an angel to say that that can be fixed is naive in its own way. As you point out, she's already "betrothed," and she will have that same status with respect to Joseph when she gives birth to his son. Whatever else "betrothed" meant in that context, it meant OK with God to be pregnant.

Elizabeth having a child in old age or after a prolonged period of barrenness, is a trope from the Jewish scriptures,

No kidding? Talkative angels appear once in a while, too. That would show God's favor, and that God thought something important was about to happen.

But God having a baby, or a virgin giving birth is where in the Hebrew Bible? Do you suppose that Luke doesn't know that?

Mary's conception is supernatural because she's a virgin.

According to Gabriel, Mary's conception is supernatural because her kid is going to be an overachiever of Biblical proportions, and the Holy Spirit will help her get her main squeeze on task. God will see to it that Joe hits a bullseye... um, cowseye, whatever.

supposed

And in Luke 4, as opposed to Mark suggesting that Jesus is a bastard by having townsfolk asking about Jesus being the son only of Mary, Luke's treatment of the incident has them asking about Joseph, as you would expect they would of a legitimate child. I see no problem at all that Luke distances himself from his predecessor on this point in the context of Jesus' ancestry. Mattie caught it, and Luke's a lot smarter than Mattie.

We also know that by the Second Century, critics like Celsus are saying what Mark suggests. The point is not so difficult to suspect. I think people are talking already, and Luke is shutting them down. Luke's Jesus is Joseph's son, Jesus is legitimate, and was thought to be legitimate by those who knew the family. No stray rumors, no doubts about it.

 

[Stone]

Stone

I'm 60-40 favoring a historical Jesus who "counts" (real man, born Jewish, executed during Pilate's time, associated with John the Baptist, spent some time as a preacher, was survived by some followers, and displayed some disitnctive marker(s): dissension among his followers at the time of his arrest, an unusual teaching on divorce, or that sort of thing). The epistles of Paul are plainly the centerpiece of any evidentiary case.

On the plus side, Paul speaks of Jesus as an ordinary man until after Jesus died, and Paul's theory of why any Gentile would care about this Jewish preacher requires a real man. Paul also discusses opportunities for him to find out what the Jesus story is by natural means, and never says that he lacked natural sources of biographical information. So, I think Paul is presenting Jesus as a real man, who died.

Reservations: I have no basis for uncritical confidence about Paul's personal honesty or mental stability. Asssuming that those aren't concerns, Paul says little about why he thinks Jesus was a real man, in the sense of ever having investigated critically. There are certain points in my idea of "counting" which can't be established from the Paul material that reaches us. Finally, while the Gospels can help us understand Paul, I think, they are not necessarily independent witnesses from Paul even to Jesus traditions, much less to Jesus.

Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

Please, do you think it might be possible to establish some sort of sliding scale as to which verses in the half-dozen authentic Paulines give the relatively strongest indication of a normal human who was born, lived and died in a normal way, which verses are most irrelevant to such a normal human, and which verses are in-between? I freely admit I find the verses about siblings the strongest general indicator, but since you're clearly approaching this question as scholarly exploration rather than non-stop propaganda, I won't go into my too-frequent atomic mode -- ;-) -- if your sliding scale picks out instead some other ingredient among the letters as more indicative than the siblings angle.

Thanks again,

Stone

 

[IanS]

Ian

No. Paul writes as if he believes that Jesus was once a real living person. Paul doesn't seem to know that first-hand, nor can we be confident that he examined his professed belief critically.

Twice, just on this page, I have already said:


before that,


Moving on,

OK, well lets try the question like this - on what basis does Paul say that he believes Jesus to have been a real living person? Does Paul mention any factual evidence which led him to that belief?

Or does Paul say that his belief comes only from what he described as revelations from Jesus himself (he believed Jesus was already dead by then), and from what he believed was known from OT scripture?

If Paul's belief came only from what he knew as divine revelation and ancient scripture, then he is talking about a belief in Jesus which is religious and theological, not a belief which derived from any factual earthly reality.

What evidence do Paul's letters describe, apart from Paul’s religious and theological beliefs?

 

[Stone]

What evidence do Paul's letters describe, apart from Paul’s religious and theological beliefs?

A plainly dishonest question, since you already know the answer -- Paul's two references to Jesus's siblings, which you've already disallowed. This is really a rhetorical question, not an informational one, designed purely for triumphalist purposes at 8bits' expense. Like every myther in Wonderland, you've rendered the verdict before examining the data.

Stone

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (major snip) . . . Tim

We were talking about Luke-Acts, and what the author's story is. If he made it all up, then that's fine. It's a work of literature. You and I are talking about what the work says, not whether it's true.

Of course he made his Nativity all up, just as Matthew made his.Both of those took material from Mark, who also made it all up, using material from the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalypticism, pagan myth and Greek literature.

The geneaology only comes up between as we examine whether Jesus was proposed to descend from David on one side or both. It is a small point, but there are those who love it. That David descended from Ruth and Boaz is not peculiar to Luke, and it may only be a legend anyway, like all the people mentioned. That Jesus descends from David is asserted as a fact in both Luke's volumes. Joseph's line is the only geneaology Luke recites.

Of course, my question was about your assertion that Mary was descended from Ruth and Boaz.

It is a reasonable inference from what Luke wrote, especially if, as you propose, Luke teaches that Jesus had only one human parent. Luke doesn't teach that, but I'm discussing this with you, so I'm happy to discuss whatever question arise based on your premise arguendo.

So, it's not actually in Luke. Rather, it's an inference you are making, which you consider reasonable. Thank you for finally clarifying that.

. . . (snip) . . .

Of course there's something supernatural. Gabriel showing up to announce the good news is supernatural. There's a major world religion based solely on Gabriel talking to a guy.

Gabe says nothing to Mary about divine paternity, though. That's why God made Joe.

You need to get out more. She's saying Joe hasn't risen to the occasion. Well, I suppose waiting for an angel to say that that can be fixed is naive in its own way. As you point out, she's already "betrothed," and she will have that same status with respect to Joseph when she gives birth to his son. Whatever else "betrothed" meant in that context, it meant OK with God to be pregnant.

The hilited area is yet another of your inferences. Mary can't be so dumb that she doesn't know where babies come from; so you infer that Joseph most be impotent. Of course, the actual text of Luke says nothing of Joseph being unable to get it up.

No kidding? Talkative angels appear once in a while, too. That would show God's favor, and that God thought something important was about to happen.

But God having a baby, or a virgin giving birth is where in the Hebrew Bible? Do you suppose that Luke doesn't know that?

Of course, it isn't in the Hebrew Bible. However, as I mentioned earlier, the gospels took their material from varied sources. Luke's Nativity is quite close to that of Egyptian pharaohs, who, by the way, were considered at one and the same time to be sired by the god Ammon in their father's guise and their actual earthly father. Aristotelian logic doesn't apply situations of this sort.

In the panels relating to the conception and birth of Hatshepsut, her mother is first told by a divine messenger that she will bear the divine child (the Annunciation). She then consorts with Ammon (virgin birth) and the child is adored by gods and mortals (the adoration in Luke by angels and shepherds).

Another pagan aspect of Luke's Nativity is Jesus being born in humble or obscure circumstances. Many of Zeus' children were born in hiding in caves (Apollo and Artemis, and, IIRC, Hermes), and heroes were often reared in secret or raised by shepherds (Paris, Oedipus) or other humble folk (Perseus, raised by a fisherman) or were raised by animals (Romulus and Remus) - hence, Luke has Jesus born among animals and adored by local shepherds.

According to Gabriel, Mary's conception is supernatural because her kid is going to be an overachiever of Biblical proportions, and the Holy Spirit will help her get her main squeeze on task. God will see to it that Joe hits a bullseye... um, cowseye, whatever.


. . . (snip) . . . We also know that by the Second Century, critics like Celsus are saying what Mark suggests. The point is not so difficult to suspect. I think people are talking already, and Luke is shutting them down. Luke's Jesus is Joseph's son, Jesus is legitimate, and was thought to be legitimate by those who knew the family. No stray rumors, no doubts about it.

Again, something hinky about origins is common to hero tales. For example, in certain versions of his story, Tammuz is the product of father - daughter incest. In the Volsunga Saga, the hero Sinfjotli is the product of brother sister incest between Sigurd and Signy. Theseus is conceived out of wedlock after his father, Aegeus, while drunk, stumbles into the bedroom of the princess, his host's daughter, by accident.

The assertion on your part that Luke's Nativity does not feature a virgin birth is your own idiosyncratic interpretation.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

OK, well lets try the question like this - on what basis does Paul say that he believes Jesus to have been a real living person?

OK, let's try the answer the way I've already answered it:

Paul professes to believe something about Jesus' earthly life, but provides little detailed information about the basis for his beliefs.

Stone

Please, do you think it might be possible to establish some sort of sliding scale as to which verses in the half-dozen authentic Paulines give the relatively strongest indication of a normal human who was born, lived and died in a normal way, which verses are most irrelevant to such a normal human, and which verses are in-between?

I look over a list of verses, like in pakeha's post above (the long quote from the other site). I think people would disagree about strength. As I am sure you've noticed, the "brother(s) of the Lord" passages divide people very deeply.

Personally, I go for the simple direct ones,

Galatians 4: 4-5; , Romans 1: 3;1 Corinthians 11: 23-25; and any number of references to Jesus dying by crucifixion.

I think the "brother(s) of the Lord" are believed by Paul to have been associates of Jesus during Jesus' earthly life. It is specificity of the kinship relationship that I think is hard to establish. (It also doesn't help that I think Paul's James is actually the son of Zebedee and Salome.)

The "teaching" passages (divorce, making a living as a preacher) are subject to uncertainty when the Lord said it and to whom (recall that in Fantasyland, Paul has no knowledge of Jesus except through visions), and whether Paul having written about it influenced later writers to depict Jesus teaching likewise during his life. The "kenosis" verses, Phillipians 2: 5ish get spun as being a pre-exisiting heavenly Jesus appearing on Earth. This blunts their effectiveness (or requires more work for the same credal impact).

So, something like that would be my own three-way sort.


Tim

Of course, my question was about your assertion that Mary was descended from Ruth and Boaz.

And the discussion is ongoing (although I see it will end with this post). At the moment, I have agreed to adopt arguendo your hypothesis that Luke teaches that Jesus has no human father. Luke does teach that Mary is his mother, and so his only human parent if your hypothesis is granted. Luke teaches that Jesus is a descendant of David. It follows that Mary is a descendant of David.

Rather, it's an inference you are making, which you consider reasonable.

Well, no, actually, I don't find your hypothesis reasonable. But Mary's Davidic status is what follows from it, based on it and black letter Luke-Acts. So you must find that Luke taught that Mary descends from David.

We are in agreement about the conclusion, at least on this minor point, but we disagree about why it's so. By internet standards, that's pretty good.

Mary can't be so dumb that she doesn't know where babies come from; so you infer that Joseph most be impotent. Of course, the actual text of Luke says nothing of Joseph being unable to get it up.

I am not sure that knowing where babies come from is the problem. In any case, I happily aacknowledge that I was chivalrous. I am sure Joe forgives me if he loves her.

Luke teaches that Mary, on meeting Gabriel, is in the same relationship status with Joe that she will have when she gives birth. It follows that sex is permissible in that estate. Luke also teaches (and she testifies) that despite being in this relationship status, she hasn't had sex yet. Without blaming anybody, the problem is that they are supposed to be making a baby, they aren't having sex, and no alternative to having sex is discussed. That's probably because Luke knows there is no alternative, and that Isaiah didn't say otherwise.

as I mentioned earlier, the gospels took their material from varied sources.

That's not the point. Mattie tells us why he made up the virgin birth: he misread Isaiah. That's it. Luke isn't stupid. He uses a Jewish image, angelic appearance and prophetic announcement, a staple of the Hebrew Bible, to make Jesus' birth special. The angel foretells the kind of stuff after which you can have sex, and your subsequent baby is still going to be a big deal. Which fits nicely into the story, because Luke knows that if you don't sex, then you won't have a baby. Gabriel doesn't say otherwise.

The assertion on your part that Luke's Nativity does not feature a virgin birth is your own idiosyncratic interpretation.

I am crushed.

 

[pakeha]

...The "teaching" passages (divorce, making a living as a preacher) are subject to uncertainty when the Lord said it and to whom (recall that in Fantasyland, Paul has no knowledge of Jesus except through visions), and whether Paul having written about it influenced later writers to depict Jesus teaching likewise during his life. The "kenosis" verses, Phillipians 2: 5ish get spun as being a pre-exisiting heavenly Jesus appearing on Earth. This blunts their effectiveness (or requires more work for the same credal impact). ...

Regards the hilited bit, wouldn't that uncertainty also extend as to whether the Lord actually said it?
After all, we're talking about the teachings of a man who believed in the imminent End Times, correct me if I'm wrong.
Securing dosh for preachers sounds a bit like long-range thinking for establishing ecclesiastical funding than rather than taking measures for the Apocolypse.
Not a bird shall fall and all that?

As for the divorce issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, but Paul's representation of the Lord's words sounds more like ad hoc justification for controlling women (and their money) more than preparing folk for the Second Coming.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

After all, we're talking about the teachings of a man who believed in the imminent End Times, correct me if I'm wrong.

Paul, yes, he believes that Jesus' resurrection is the first fruits of a general resurrection: the end times are happening. Jesus? The synoptic Gospels, yes, it seems to be a near future thing (which Jesus would have taught during Paul's recent past, so the views are consonant).

Securing dosh for preachers sounds a bit like long-range thinking for establishing ecclesiastical funding than rather than taking measures for the Apocolypse.
Not a bird shall fall and all that?

Paul needs to eat while the end times unfold. He also seems to have some staff to support as well. I really don't think Paul's responsible for the ecclesiastical behemoth that arises after his death. He just wants himself, and his companions, to survive to see Jesus return. Maybe.

The corresponding Jesus teachings seem to be Mt 10: 5-15; Mk 6: 7-13; Lk 10: 1-12. Those are all in the context of disciples performing an active ministry while traveling light and living off of local charity. Jesus himself, not so much by word but by example in the Gospels, does seem to have dedicated benefactors (the women who travel with him), and a purse. Maybe that's a bad example, since according to John, the keeper of the purse was Judas.

As for the divorce issue, again correct me if I'm wrong, but Paul's representation of the Lord's words sounds more like ad hoc justification for controlling women (and their money) more than preparing folk for the Second Coming.

The Gospels aren't precise just what Jesus taught about divorce, either, but it seems he was regulating remarriage after divorce in a gender neutral way (and differently from Moses). Paul attributes to the Lord both verses of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which is apparently gender neutral and also focuses on remarriage. I interpret the verses as saying that Paul discourages but allows (should not, rather than may not) either spouse to divorce, but disallows remarriage. I grant that the instructions to husbands are ellided.

The verses (several) that follow state his own view, not the Lord's. Paul places much weight on not striving to change what you were when you converted (not just in marriage, but also circumcision - I wonder how that would be "undone" - or slave-free status). A usual reading is anti-sexuality, and we know that a female-centered virginity cult eventually developed in the religion, and was for a time associated specifically with Paul.

All I can say is that I am not so sure about that. I think Paul is saying something about the Second Coming, along the lines of not worrying about changing your situation if it's only for a little while anyway. This is a key place where I'd love to see the letter he's replying to.

Anyway, Paul doesn't seem to be specifically more burdensome on women than on men, not here at least.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for your take on the teachings on dosh, eight bits.
I see I was hopelessly pre-coffee when I posted, as I neglected to make clear as far as I can see, the divorce teachings boil down to control of money, rather than downing women.

It seems to me Paul's prime quotations of Jesus are about money. But yes, I see your point about sustaining a missionary enterprise. The lilies in the field get left behind when your tummy's clamouring for some red lentil porridge.

Then there's the Eucharist.
I wonder when the passing of the plate was instituted?

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . . Tim


And the discussion is ongoing (although I see it will end with this post). At the moment, I have agreed to adopt arguendo your hypothesis that Luke teaches that Jesus has no human father. Luke does teach that Mary is his mother, and so his only human parent if your hypothesis is granted. Luke teaches that Jesus is a descendant of David. It follows that Mary is a descendant of David.


Well, no, actually, I don't find your hypothesis reasonable. But Mary's Davidic status is what follows from it, based on it and black letter Luke-Acts. So you must find that Luke taught that Mary descends from David.

We are in agreement about the conclusion, at least on this minor point, but we disagree about why it's so. By internet standards, that's pretty good.


I am not sure that knowing where babies come from is the problem. In any case, I happily aacknowledge that I was chivalrous. I am sure Joe forgives me if he loves her.

Luke teaches that Mary, on meeting Gabriel, is in the same relationship status with Joe that she will have when she gives birth. It follows that sex is permissible in that estate. Luke also teaches (and she testifies) that despite being in this relationship status, she hasn't had sex yet. Without blaming anybody, the problem is that they are supposed to be making a baby, they aren't having sex, and no alternative to having sex is discussed. That's probably because Luke knows there is no alternative, and that Isaiah didn't say otherwise.


That's not the point. Mattie tells us why he made up the virgin birth: he misread Isaiah. That's it. Luke isn't stupid. He uses a Jewish image, angelic appearance and prophetic announcement, a staple of the Hebrew Bible, to make Jesus' birth special. The angel foretells the kind of stuff after which you can have sex, and your subsequent baby is still going to be a big deal. Which fits nicely into the story, because Luke knows that if you don't sex, then you won't have a baby. Gabriel doesn't say otherwise.


I am crushed.

Well, as you say, it's probably better to agree to disagree on this point. So, let's move on.