Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Now, you admit that you take parts of the Bible at face value

Nobody is doing that, Dejudge. You are simply utterly unable to draw conclusions from your observations, or distinguish one claim from another.

 

[Belz...]

I will present another 2nd century writer c 180 CE who wrote about the CULTURE of the Greeks at that time.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote 3 books To Autholycus and revealed that there were numerous mythological gods called Jupiter in Greek and other cultures. There were at least NINE mythological Gods called Jupiter.

Theophilus' To Autolycus

The claim that Gods had Mothers was already found in the CULTURE of Greek and Romans which is compatible with the Jesus story.

A mythological Jesus perfectly matches the Culture of mythology in the Roman Empire in the 2nd century.

And yet this doesn't make MJ more likely than HJ. If true, it would tend to make them equally probable.

 

[dejudge]

Figures like Jesus weren't worshiped during the 1st c CE; they (or their ideals) were followed.
The conversion into worshipping and iconography came later.

Why do you assume Jesus was followed when you have no evidence at all? Other people may have been followed but you cannot assume Jesus of Nazareth did exist and had followers.

Who were the followers of Jesus in the 1st century? Who wrote about them outside of Apologetics?

IF their culture had survived in passing to another; it is very possible that one of their Kings could have been converted into a figure of worship akin to Jesus in some fashion; however, we will not be able to know, as their culture imploded without communicability.

So your speculation amounted to nothing. You really don't know what would happen.

Yeah, I'm not religious; to me, Jesus means jack all of anything.

The culture surrounding this figure, and from where this figure came out of...now those are of value and interesting.

Don't you see how contradictory your position is? If your are not interested in the existence or non-existence of the Jesus character then how will you be able to determine which culture and the time period?

Once it is admitted that there are forgeries and fiction in the NT and Apologetic sources then you may be looking at the wrong culture and time period if you take the forgeries and fiction as history at face value.

It is imperative, I think, that you become interested in the history of the Jesus cult in order to do a proper anthropological analysis.

If you place the wrong Jesus in the wrong culture then your anthropological analysis will be useless.

So far, there are no recovered manuscripts to show that the Jesus story had any influence on the 1st century CULTURE of the Roman Empire--only from the 2nd century and later.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge,

When I spoke of the culture it had nothing to do with attributing a Jesus following, and everything to do with Jesus-like followings in the culture.
I do not draw a conclusion from such that Jesus existed or did not.
Further, there are multiple cultures represnted in all Jesus texts, not just one.
Jesus is one figure of whom many groups grew up around in varying capacities.
The origin of the form was Hebraic, but became far more diverse due to an interest in mysticism which was growing around the 1st c BCE though the 2nd c CE all around and the texts lend themselves to this in what they value as worth asserting of the Jesus figure.

We don't know who "Jesus" followers were, if there were any, in Judah or Galilee in the 1st c CE, or any figures who were followed in such fashion, because the texts and records of these lands were entirely wiped out by the Romans and the peoples of the land were scattered and decentralized.

I never claimed the historicity was knowable.
I did, however, raise concerns over your proposition, as well as some propositions of the HJ side as well.

 

[dejudge]

...We don't know who "Jesus" followers were, if there were any, in Judah or Galilee in the 1st c CE, or any figures who were followed in such fashion, because the texts and records of these lands were entirely wiped out by the Romans and the peoples of the land were scattered and decentralized.

You do not know what was wiped out so you cannot assume that texts and records of Jesus or followers were actually written and then wiped out.

Unknown and never seen evidence is really worthless.

If you are not interested in whether or not Jesus existed then you are not really interested the actual time period of the story.

You are merely taking known forgeries and fiction at face value to do your anthropological analysis when you are probably off by 100 years or more.

There is no evidence at all of any character called Jesus of Nazareth in any Jewish writings that were NOT wiped out.

There are about 40 books of Philo, the DEAD Sea Scrolls and writings of Josephus and we have nothing of Jesus of Nazareth.

Plus, non-Jewish writers would probably be eager to demonize Jesus if he did exist--but again nothing

The first non-Apologetic writer known to mention that Christians worshiped a Crucified man was Lucian of Samosata so it was the 2nd century CULTURE of the Roman Empire that was influenced by the Jesus story and cult--not the 1st century.

Based on Lucian of Samosata, there were Christians in Palestine in the 2nd century and again, this corroborates Justin who was of Palestinian origin.

 

[JaysonR]

I did not claim a lack of material suggests Jesus existed, Dejudge.
I simply stated thst, in this case of the Hebrew culture in the 1st c CE, a lack of texts does not inherently rule out any given figures existence.
A large point of your position is that there should be texts, as we have texts from elsewhere, and since we lack texts, therefore Jesus did not exist.

I am not claimig either direction, nor do I need to for me to comment on other's propositions.
No, I do not take the texts on face value.
Criticising texts and comparing against other information is nit a face value reading.

I am not your opposition, nor am I you ally.
I commented on aspects of your presentation which do not work or align with paleographic or anthropological information.

Most of the points which I have raised, you have simply not addressed nor answered.
Where you have answered, you have insulted me rather rudely, cslled me several names, and dismissed a point without addressing it.

Again, do not think that I only critique your view, as noted, I have critiqued Brainache and CraigB both as well.
They simply have handled the discourse of critique far better than you have done so far, and are far more open to learning as well as accepting that they are not incapable of error.

As a side note, not related to your arguments, have you noticed that you have not complimented or offered much in the way of positive feedback, even unto other's who support your position?
I could write you a compliment and include one critique, and you would focus upon that critique and absent any recognition of the compliment.

It seems as though you may to focused on being defensive, are you able to partake in the vommunity and chill a bit, or are you stuck on this campaign of being right?

 

[Belz...]

Why do you assume Jesus was followed when you have no evidence at all?

Did you even read the post you are replying to ?

 

[TimCallahan]

The rabbit hole on Serapis (Osiris-Apis) goes even deeper if Desmond Stewart is to be believed: "Chrestus (or in its Greek original, chrêstos ) means gentle, kindly, good; it is, curiously, the equivalent of the common pharaonic title of Osiris, Un-nefer."

Arthur Drews' version of the Hadrian to Servianus letter is slightly (but critically) different making me wonder if there are variants about:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high- priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt."

Louis H. Feldman's 1996 Studies in Hellenistic Judaism by BRILL pg 381 states that Serapis was identified with not only Osiris but Aesculapius, Jupiter, and Pluto ie a Healing deity, the Ruler of the Gods, and two King of the Underworlds (one of whom overcame death) all got mixed into one neat little package with this guy.

In fact, Aesculapius in Greek myth was struck down by Zeus via thunderbolt for...raising someone from the dead!

Throw in the fact that Chrestos had been used as an adjective and even a title going back to the 5th century BCE and appearing on tombs before, during, and after the supposed time of "Christ" and the headaches begin.

This is all very impressive. I've learned not to expect less from you. The main problems I have with accepting that the "Chrestians" of Tacitus' Annals are simply an Egyptian sect are, first, that I find it hard to understand why Tacitus would label them odio humani genereus (forgive me if I've slightly misquoted the Latin; however, it's often quoted as "hateful to the human race.") Second, why would any such sect go out of its way to take on the baggage of Jewish apocalyptic belief and, as evidenced in the gospels, the need to have Jesus 'fulfill" the Jewish scriptures. This seems to me to point to a Jewish base for Christianity.

 

[TimCallahan]

Again, on this page, p. 62, so far, 7 of the 8 posts on this page, prior to this one, are arguments between dejudge and everyone else. 7/8 equals 87.5% of the posts on this page, prior to this one, so far. These arguments with dejudge are pointless, fruitless and a waste of time and energy. People, stop feeding the troll! Do as I did. Put him on "ignore" and move on.

 

[JaysonR]

Unfortunately, Tim, it isn't that easy; though I wish that it were.
The time period in question was a time period where Rome was soaking up mystical religions like it was a going out of business sale.

For instance, just Serapis alone represents the condition whereby seemingly needless baggage of another culture was preserved in creating a new religion.

It was, instead, popular to refer to far away culture's mysticism and "baggage" was seen as authentication.

 

[pakeha]

The rabbit hole on Serapis (Osiris-Apis) goes even deeper if Desmond Stewart is to be believed´...

Throw in the fact that Chrestos had been used as an adjective and even a title going back to the 5th century BCE and appearing on tombs before, during, and after the supposed time of "Christ" and the headaches begin.

The more I read about Serapis, that curly locked invented/adapted deity, the more I wonder about what Paul and the gospel writers were up to.
Could you shout a link for the hilited bit, please?

...why would any such sect go out of its way to take on the baggage of Jewish apocalyptic belief and, as evidenced in the gospels, the need to have Jesus 'fulfill" the Jewish scriptures. This seems to me to point to a Jewish base for Christianity.

It wouldn't be to my taste, actually, but as JaysonR points out below, tying on mystical baggage seems to have been the name of the game in the 1st and 2nd century Roman Empire. I'm reminded of the mercifully defunct New Age.

...The time period in question was a time period where Rome was soaking up mystical religions like it was a going out of business sale.

For instance, just Serapis alone represents the condition whereby seemingly needless baggage of another culture was preserved in creating a new religion.

It was, instead, popular to refer to far away culture's mysticism and "baggage" was seen as authentication.

... A mythological Jesus perfectly matches the Culture of mythology in the Roman Empire in the 2nd century.

It does seem that way, dejudge.

 

[dejudge]

Why would a Jewish sect go out of its way and make their Jesus say that the Jews are evil and that he does not want them to be converted or healed?

The authors of Synoptics were non-Jews.


Matthew 13

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand . 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith , By hearing ye shall hear , and shall not understand ; and seeing ye shall see , and shall not perceive :

15 For this people's heart is waxed gross , and their ears are dull of hearing , and their eyes they have closed ; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted , and I should heal them.

Why would a Jewish sect go out of its way to make their Jesus say that the Father of the Jews was the Devil?

The author of gJohn is a non-Jew.


John 8

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.

When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The Gospels appeal to non-Jews as is evident. The Gospels demonize the Jews.

There is no evidence of any known Jew who was a member of a cult who worshiped a crucified dead man as a God.

 

[pakeha]

Why would a Jewish sect go out of its way and make their Jesus say that the Jews are evil and that he does not want them to be converted or healed?

The authors of Synoptics were non-Jews. ...

dejudge, what are the chances those particular references are later interpolations to the Synoptics?

 

[Craig B]

Why would a Jewish sect go out of its way and make their Jesus say that the Jews are evil and that he does not want them to be converted or healed?

It didn't. It is not possible that Jesus said such disparaging things. In Acts 1:6 a trace of the original aspirations of the disciples remains, where they question the risen Jesus

Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

That, originally is what it was all about.

The authors of Synoptics were non-Jews. Why would a Jewish sect go out of its way to make their Jesus say that the Father of the Jews was the Devil?

It didn't. Here is the original group, under its leader James, reprimanding Paul for having abandoned Jewish observances. Acts 22

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites [in the Temple] and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

The last verse contains a version of the "Noahide Laws" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah which Orthodox Jews to this day believe should be observed by righteous Gentiles. James and his followers are the most observant Jews. Their one peculiarity - they believe the Messiah has already been on earth in the form of Jesus.

There is no evidence of any known Jew who was a member of a cult who worshiped a crucified dead man as a God.

Exactly so. The original Jesus group did NOT worship Jesus as a God. Peter proclaims in Acts 2

22 “Fellow Israelites, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24 But God raised him from the dead

No Jews anywhere worship a dead man as a god. They worship the Eternal who (by reason of being eternal) is not dead, and who is also not a man.

It was Paul who changed the character of the movement. The gospels were written after Paul's epistles, and reflect these new non-Jewish ideas. Had it not been for Paul, the Jesus group would have remained a petty messianic sect, no doubt, and would have disappeared around 70 AD along with the others.

 

[Belz...]

Why would a Jewish sect go out of its way and make their Jesus say that the Jews are evil and that he does not want them to be converted or healed?

The authors of Synoptics were non-Jews.

And yet he author of Matthew went out of his way to connect his Jesus with the Jewish OT prophecies. Why is that ?

 

[maximara]

The more I read about Serapis, that curly locked invented/adapted deity, the more I wonder about what Paul and the gospel writers were up to.
Could you shout a link for the hilited bit, please?

Read James Barr Mitchell's Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence for some background.

Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S.. "Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702)." Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill Online, 2013. is another work to look at.

 

[Craig B]

And yet he author of Matthew went out of his way to connect his Jesus with the Jewish OT prophecies. Why is that ?

It may be seen as "substitutionism", a common Christian way of assimilating Jewish things. God chose the Jews, but they rejected him. He sent the messiah, but they killed him. So all the benefits which the Jews were intended by God to receive now belong to Christians, because unlike the Jews, they have acknowledged and accepted God's gifts. Thus, as beneficiaries of Divine Providence the Christians "substitute" themselves for the Jews.

Why did these non-Jews bother about the Jews at all? Because they were inclined to monotheism, and the Jews had already worked out a monotheist religion, full of material containing most impressive stories about God, interesting prophecies and so on. Why reinvent anything? At first there were non-Jewish "god fearers" who attended synagogues and worshipped the same god as the Jews, whose validity they acknowledged as a manifestation of the One True God. Christianity represents a further development of this, where the interesting elements of the Jewish religion are simply taken over, and a new religion created by fusing these with pagan and Hellenistic philosophical notions. Paul may be regarded as the main author of this new religious format.

 

[pakeha]

Read James Barr Mitchell's Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence for some background.

Pleket, H.W.; Stroud, R.S.. "Egypt. Funerary epithets in Egypt.(26-1702)." Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum. Current editors: A. T. R.S. R.A. Chaniotis Corsten Stroud Tybout. Brill Online, 2013. is another work to look at.

Thanks!

 

[Belz...]

It may be seen as "substitutionism", a common Christian way of assimilating Jewish things. God chose the Jews, but they rejected him. He sent the messiah, but they killed him. So all the benefits which the Jews were intended by God to receive now belong to Christians, because unlike the Jews, they have acknowledged and accepted God's gifts. Thus, as beneficiaries of Divine Providence the Christians "substitute" themselves for the Jews.

Why did these non-Jews bother about the Jews at all? Because they were inclined to monotheism, and the Jews had already worked out a monotheist religion, full of material containing most impressive stories about God, interesting prophecies and so on. Why reinvent anything? At first there were non-Jewish "god fearers" who attended synagogues and worshipped the same god as the Jews, whose validity they acknowledged as a manifestation of the One True God. Christianity represents a further development of this, where the interesting elements of the Jewish religion are simply taken over, and a new religion created by fusing these with pagan and Hellenistic philosophical notions. Paul may be regarded as the main author of this new religious format.

Yeah but who would care about these prophecies if not Jews ?

 

[eight bits]

Belz

Yeah but who would care about these prophecies if not Jews ?

That's where Paul comes in. The prophecy is that righteous Gentiles rise at the end of days along with Jews. When is the end of days? When the dead rise.

Paul sees a ghost => the dead are rising => the end of days is now.

The first dead guy to rise must be the Messiah => the ghost Paul saw was the Messiah.

A Gentile aligns him(her)self with the Messiah => that Gentile is righteous.

Put it all together: Tell the Gentiles to align with the ghost Paul saw, and if they do, they will never die, because they are righteous and now is the end of days.

Include flight lessons at no extra charge.

Profit.