Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

No. I don't forget things. I simply think that your lists of statements about dead Jesuses and so on are absurd, because both the early Jesus followers and Paul believed Jesus had returned to life.

So, you believe the absurd statements of Paul that Jesus existed because it was believed he resurrected and talked to Paul and his early followers?

That is how you do your history?

What people believe is true?

 

[maximara]

Thanks. I'll get down to the Fuller Theological Seminary's library early in the new year to look at James Barr Mitchell's Chrestos.

In the meantime, I have two questions you could perhaps answer. First, if those referred to by Tacitus as "Chrestians" are not Christians but worshippers of Serapis, what, exactly would have made them targets of general hatred, hence easy scapegoats for Nero to use?

I don't know how accurate it is but here is one theory:

"The Roman Senate was not amused with Ptolemy's attempt to craft a universal religion. When the cult of Isis swept into Rome via Hellenistic sailors and Egyptian emigrants, it became outstandingly popular with women and the lower classes, including slaves. Fearing a religious unification of the lower strata of Roman society, and fearing the loss of piety in the traditional Roman gods of the state, the Senate repeatedly placed restrictions on the new cult. Private chapels dedicated to Isis were ordered destroyed. When a Roman Consul found that the demolition team assigned to him were all members or sympathizers of the cult and refused to destroy their chapel, he had to remove his toga of state and do the deed himself.

Tiberius, upon hearing of a sexual scandal involving the cult, had the offenders crucified and images of Isis cast into the Tiber. But much like Christianity, periodic and sporadic persecutions did nothing to stem the tide. What was death when one's deity promised salvation and resurrection?
As part of undoing the policies of Tiberius, Caligula legitimized the religion." (Cult of Isis)

A cult regarded as "dangerous" by the powers that be and popular with one of the most reviled Caesars of Rome, Caligula--not exactly viewable as "wholesome". Also we must remember that Tacitus is writing propaganda as much as history and so must view the account in that light. Remember by the account the group had to be large enough for Nero's attempt to fasten blame to be credible but doesn't that seem unlikely for Christianity in Rome 64-68 CE?

Second, what do you think of those Christians Pliny the Younger was prosecuting ca. CE 110? Were these, in your opinion, not necessarily what we would consider Christians, as dejudge has asserted, or do you think they were actual Christians of the sort whose religion eventually became the Christian religion of today? In his letter, Pliny had those accused of being Christians, who deny the charge, prove it by not only cursing Christ, but as well by burning incense to the emperor. This implies that the Christians he was Prosecuting refused to make the token sacrifice to the emperor. This would fit exclusive monotheism, for which the Jews got a grudging pass from the Romans as an ancient people, but which was not acceptable for others.

Well they followed a Christ but if that Christ was Jesus or some other person we simply don't know. Pliny the Younger is more concerned with the procedure of how to deal with what are clearly viewed as a bunch of dangerous religious radicals then what they believed.

 

[Craig B]

So, you believe the absurd statements of Paul that Jesus existed because it was believed he resurrected and talked to Paul and his early followers?

That is how you do your history?

What people believe is true?

No it is often not true. But Paul didn't worship a dead Jesus and he didn't tell other people to worship a dead Jesus. That's because he wrongly believed that Jesus had come alive again. What I'm saying here is precisely that Paul's belief was NOT true, because personally I don't believe that Jesus came back to life.

 

[eight bits]

Belz

When you speak of gentiles do you mean those in the area or all around the Empire ?

Gentiles in the sense of "The Nations," meaning everybody, everywhere who is not Jewish. Paul says he avoided the area where Jesus taught, visiting Jerusalem only two or three times after his conversion, and then to speak with Christian leaders, not to make converts (apparently). Otherwise, "all around the Emire" is a great description of Paul's missions (Romans 15).

 

[dejudge]

No it is often not true. But Paul didn't worship a dead Jesus and he didn't tell other people to worship a dead Jesus. That's because he wrongly believed that Jesus had come alive again. What I'm saying here is precisely that Paul's belief was NOT true, because personally I don't believe that Jesus came back to life.

Your response is absolutely fascinating.

If your HJ did live and was actually DEAD you are now claiming that Paul did not worship an actual dead person because he was believed to be alive.

Paul had ne evidence that the actual dead Jesus was living but he still believed he was alive.

I think I understand you now.

Your HJ existed merely because YOU BELIEVE he did.

There was NO real HJ BUT you believe so.

You have no evidence for an HJ but you believed he lived.

Paul believed Jesus was alive when he was not and you BELIEVE Jesus existed when he did not.

 

[dejudge]

Well they followed a Christ but if that Christ was Jesus or some other person we simply don't know. Pliny the Younger is more concerned with the procedure of how to deal with what are clearly viewed as a bunch of dangerous religious radicals then what they believed.

Pliny was mainly interested in what they believed--that is precisely why he tortured some of them.

In fact, Pliny repeatedly attempted to find out what the Christians believed and those who refused to admit their beliefs were promptly executed.

 

[dejudge]

No. I don't forget things.

... Paul makes almost no statements about Jesus' life. One he does make is that Jesus acquired his powers at the resurrection; so he didn't perceive Jesus as a dead anything. Of course Paul was either lying, or more likely deluded, in stating that Jesus came back from the dead, but so what? What on earth does that have to do with anything being argued here?

You forgot what was being argued here!!

You forgot that if Paul was either a Liar or Delusional that the Pauline Jesus could have been a product of lies or delusions--Not history.

 

[Craig B]

... the Senate repeatedly placed restrictions on the new cult.[/HILITE] Private chapels dedicated to Isis were ordered destroyed. When a Roman Consul found that the demolition team assigned to him were all members or sympathizers of the cult and refused to destroy their chapel, he had to remove his toga of state and do the deed himself.

Tiberius, upon hearing of a sexual scandal involving the cult, had the offenders crucified and images of Isis cast into the Tiber....As part of undoing the policies of Tiberius, Caligula legitimized the religion." (Cult of Isis) ... Well they followed a Christ but if that Christ was Jesus or some other person we simply don't know. Pliny the Younger is more concerned with the procedure of how to deal with what are clearly viewed as a bunch of dangerous religious radicals then what they believed.

Tiberius persecuted all manner of people including worshippers of Isis, but I don't think devotees of Serapis in Bythinia had much to fear. Anyway it is most unlikely that Pliny would have been so unfamiliar with Serapis worship as to have to elicit information about it by torture. That is most improbable for that period.

Serapis was among the international deities whose cult was received and disseminated throughout the Roman Empire ... From the Flavian Dynasty [69-96 AD] on, Serapis was one of the deities who might appear on imperial coinage with the reigning emperor.

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

 

[pakeha]

...It seems that Christos ("anointed") and Chrestos ("good" or "excellent") were used interchangeably by Christians for their savior in the early centuries of Christianity, and the Chrestos was a common epithet in the Egyptian worship of both Serapis and of Isis and Osiris. There certainly would have been a lot of borrowing on the part of the syncretist Christians; so overlapping imagery and philosophies between Serapis and Christ would be reasonable.

As to those Pliny was prosecuting, there doesn't seem to me to be any reason the Romans would have outlawed the worship of Serapis; nor does there seem to be any reason that worshippers of Serapis would have refused to burn incense to the emperor as a token sacrifice.

Quite, Tim.
Serapis christians would not be unknown to any Roman leader, nor would any be prosecuting them, as it was an officially recognized and designed religion of Rome.

Serapis is a remarkable example of a god consciously designed by known individuals for political purposes. The fact that such a god could happily be accepted and worshipped by people well aware of, or who could easily find out about, his origin, tells us a great deal about the nature of religion. See wiki. The ideology behind the invention of Serapis in Ptolemaic times was congenial to later Romans, and there was no suppression of the cult up to the advent of Christianity as the sole state religion.

Thanks for the insights on the Serapis religion, people.

...Roman culture was very open and free-form with creating and modifying religions.
The religions which found problem under Roman rule were those which denied worshipping the emperor and instead, from a Roman perspective, worshipped a different human being.
You could worship nearly any gods of choice, but only one human was permitted to be worshipped.

As such, Pliny's account is very narrow in possibility and effectively only applies to the new flare of messianic worshipping coming out of the Levant region through exposed Hellenist ports.
Which messianic following Pliny was dealing with is not certain, but it is reasonable to deduce that they were messianic worshippers fom what is described of them and their rituals.

Now I'm getting an idea of why Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire.
You could worship nearly any gods of choice, but only one human was permitted to be worshipped.

Lord, what fools these mortals be.

 

[Craig B]

You forgot what was being argued here!!

You forgot that if Paul was either a Liar or Delusional that the Pauline Jesus could have been a product of lies or delusions--Not history.

Paul has almost nothing to tell us about the human life of Jesus. Paul never met him, and his information about him was received in the form if supernatural revelations. Jesus doesn't tell Paul, I was born in a normal way in Galilee. That's true, but neither did Jesus tell Paul, I was born in a miraculous fashion in Bethlehem. Paul is not a source for these details. However, one thing Paul was convinced of is this: Jesus came back to life.

 

[JaysonR]

Quite, pakeha.
Christians, in most cases, referred to any group who religiously followed a living, or once living, specially revered human being; most of whom theologically addressed social politics and justification, as well as largely legened from the Levent region.

Think of the Roman empire during this age as going through what America went through with "Gurus" in the 1960's.

 

[Craig B]

Your response is absolutely fascinating.

If your HJ did live and was actually DEAD you are now claiming that Paul did not worship an actual dead person because he was believed to be alive.

Paul had ne evidence that the actual dead Jesus was living but he still believed he was alive.

I think I understand you now.

Your HJ existed merely because YOU BELIEVE he did.

No, you clearly do not understand me at all; and please don't try again to misdirect your response from what has been stated previously. You said Paul worshiped a dead Jew. He did not, because he believed (wrongly) that Jesus had been resurrected from his grave.

There was NO real HJ BUT you believe so.

I think it more probable than not, as do many or most scholars of renown, even Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

You have no evidence for an HJ but you believed he lived.

Of course I have evidence. We disagree on what the word "evidence" means. I have overwhelming evidence that elements of the NT were known to Justin and Irenaeus, for example. But you propose a late forgery theory without evidence.

Paul believed Jesus was alive when he was not

That's right.

and you BELIEVE Jesus existed when he did not.

You mean I think he did and you think he did not? Fine. You mean I know he did not, but I still believe? That makes no sense.

 

[Belz...]

]you keep forgetting

Oh, stop these childish debate tactics.

 

[Belz...]

Belz


Gentiles in the sense of "The Nations," meaning everybody, everywhere who is not Jewish. Paul says he avoided the area where Jesus taught, visiting Jerusalem only two or three times after his conversion, and then to speak with Christian leaders, not to make converts (apparently). Otherwise, "all around the Emire" is a great description of Paul's missions (Romans 15).

Ok, because you said that some gentiles would have come to respect Jewish religion and tradition, but who are those gentiles if not those in the area of Judaea ?

 

[Belz...]

Your response is absolutely fascinating.

If your HJ did live and was actually DEAD you are now claiming that Paul did not worship an actual dead person because he was believed to be alive.

Paul had ne evidence that the actual dead Jesus was living but he still believed he was alive.

I think I understand you now.

Your HJ existed merely because YOU BELIEVE he did.

I can't say that I'm particularily surprised that you are again confusing two things.

You forgot

I told you to stop it. You are not a mind reader. You're not even a post reader.

 

[eight bits]

Belz

Ok, because you said that some gentiles would have come to respect Jewish religion and tradition, but who are those gentiles if not those in the area of Judaea ?

Jews lived throughout the Empire, even before the Common Era. Gentile neighbors would have ample opportunity to noticce the distinctive and exclusive Jewish approach to religion.

 

[JaysonR]

Ok, because you said that some gentiles would have come to respect Jewish religion and tradition, but who are those gentiles if not those in the area of Judaea ?

Quite a number of peoples who were not Jewish came to adopt christianity seemingly rather early.
John and Luke show strong indications of Hellenistic interests, and the opening of Matthew as well.
There are definate Jewish values and concepts preserved in them, however, but Rome was facinated with mystery and messianic traditions and it was not odd at all for Rome to adopt coquered cultures into its religious culture in hopes of harmonizing the social culture.

 

[Brainache]

Weren't there also Kingdoms East of the Euphrates, like Edessa and Adiabene who also converted to some form of Judaism?

I see the names Elchasaites, Masbutaeans, Sabaeans and Ebionites as all various sects coming out of Judea around that time, is that right?

 

[dejudge]

No, you clearly do not understand me at all; and please don't try again to misdirect your response from what has been stated previously. You said Paul worshiped a dead Jew. He did not, because he believed (wrongly) that Jesus had been resurrected from his grave.

You mean the Pauline Corpus is the product of Lies or Fiction about the resurrection.

The Pauline writers did not need an actual human Jesus--they just needed a pack of Lies or Fiction as is evident and admitted.

The Pauline Corpus is based on a non-historical event---the resurrection of Jesus.

Look at some of the Lies or fiction about the resurrection.

1. 1 Cor.15

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.]

2. Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

3. Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

4. 1Thessalonians 1

9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

5. Philippians 3:10

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death..

6. Colossians 1:18

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence

7. Ephesians 1.

And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe , according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places.

 

[Craig B]

You mean the Pauline Corpus is the product of Lies or Fiction about the resurrection.

The Pauline writers did not need an actual human Jesus--they just needed a pack of Lies or Fiction as is evident and admitted.

The Pauline Corpus is based on a non-historical event---the resurrection of Jesus.

Look at some of the Lies or fiction about the resurrection. <snipped as irrelevant misdirection>

So what? You stated that Paul worshipped a dead Jew. No he didn't. He believed Jesus had come alive again. The Pauline writers did not admit that their own writings were lies, as you absurdly suggest above. Why is it that anyone ancient or modern who says anything you think is false, has to be a conscious liar and forger?