So did Jesus live or what?

[ceo_esq]

Don't apologize: Bethlehem didn't exist either at the time. I believe it was established well after Christ's birth was supposed to have taken place.

What exactly are you talking about? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

An ancient settlement, [Bethlehem] is possibly mentioned in the Amarna Letters (14th-century-BC diplomatic documents found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt), but the reading there is uncertain. Bethlehem is first mentioned in the Bible in connection with Rachel, who died on the wayside near there (Genesis 35:19). It is the setting for most of the Book of Ruth and was the presumed birthplace, and certainly the home, of her descendant, King David; there he was anointed king of Israel by the prophet Samuel (I Samuel 16). The town was fortified by Rehoboam, David's grandson and first king of Judah after the division of the state between Israel and Judah (II Chronicles 11). During the Jewish return to Palestine after the Babylonian Captivity (516 BC and following), the town was repopulated; later, a Roman garrison was there during the Second Jewish Revolt led by Bar Kokhba (AD 135).

* * * * *

Was Bethlehem a village? I'd heard it refered to as the City of David. That suggests something slightly larger. Regardless, I have a hard time believing that a group of soldiers marched into a village, stole even 12 newborns and killed them for no reason, without anyone saying anything. Given the uniqueness of the event (killing a group of babies in one village in one night), it would certainly warrant more mention than "Herod killed a lot of people."

The Britannica passage suggests that the settlement was more substantial in Old Testament times; the site was subsequently abandoned and then at least modestly repopulated.

Wikipedia adds:

If the [Massacre of the Innocents] is historical, given the small size of "Bethlehem and its vicinity," it did not involve a large number of boys age two and under. Albright estimates the area had about 300 people at the time. Brown estimates that the population was no more than a thousand. Given the birth rate and high infant mortality rate of the time, either of these figures would mean at most only a few dozen children killed. This would not have been a particularly large atrocity for the period in general and Herod in particular and thus might have escaped mention by Josephus and others.

 

[CapelDodger]

I don't find the thread question interesting, but I do find the reasons why people claim to care about it interesting.

I share davefoc's curiosity as to just what really went on, but there is also arguably a more practical reason. If we can fathom the roots of the Christian cult we may be able to make sense of the "interplay between the fictions and the facts", as kuroyume puts it, in its development. That has practical significance, since there will no doubt be cults to come and it would be best if they were spotted and stopped early on.

In this regard, an understanding of Paul is probably more significant than the existence of Jesus, but there was an existing Jesus cult for him to work with. What was its form, why did Paul choose it, how did he manipulate it, why was he so successful? What does it tell us about world-imperial societies? Could something similar happen again?

 

[Complexity]

Thank you, CapelDodger - your reason for pursuing this question makes some sense.

 

[jjramsey]

The oft-quoted reference to "James, the brother of Jesus" can be countered by a dozen references to other 'brothers of Jesus' and 'brethren of Jesus'. Priests and congregations are regularly referred to as 'brothers' and 'brethren'. Does that mean they are all related? I'd have to see a clear distinction between usages in the epistles.

As has been pointed out before, maybe even on this thread, the Greek grammar is different when referring to "brothers of the Lord" and "brothers in (or into) the Lord." Also, from the textbook The Historical Jesus--A Comprehensive Guide, here is a question at the end of the fourth chapter, pp.123-124:

By comparison with other grounds for extreme historical scepticismm it is interesting that Wells regards the Pauline letters as authentic and early, but disputes that Jesus is recognizable in them as the contemporary of Peter, James, Paul, etc. Of course, he has to explain how in Gal. 1.19 James is called the 'brother of the Lord' and (married) 'brothers of the Lord' also appear in I Cor. 9.5. His answer is that 'brother of the kurios [BTW, kurios = "lord"] does not mean (physical) brother of Jesus but 'member of the brotherhood of the exalted kurios'. The Risen Christ spoke of those who followed him as 'my brothers' in this sense in Matt. 28.9f. and John 20.17.

(a) What objections are there to understanding 'brother' in Gal. 1.19 and I Cor. 9.5 in a transferred sense? Note the other groups and persons named in this context!

And now, the answer in the back of the book (p. 581):

(a) The argument that 'brothers of the Lord' in the passages mentioned means brothers who are especially zealous in the service of the Lord is intrinsically contradictory: in the Gospels, as is clear from the context, the brothers are the eleven apostles or the disciples, and Peter is always with included with them. In I Cor. 9.5, however, the 'brothers of the Lord' are distinguished from the 'other apostles and Peter'; in Gal. 1:19 James, and not Peter, is called 'brother of the Lord'.

 

[Euromutt]

Excuse me, ramsey, but in the bits you cite there, there's no reference to "brothers into the Lord"*, so there isn't actually any support for the distinction you claim exists.

* - That's what, αδελφοι κυριον, as opposed to αδελφοι κυριου? If I understand correctly, you can't mean αδελφοι κυριωι as Koine has no dative case, if I understand correctly.

 

[jjramsey]

Excuse me, ramsey, but in the bits you cite there, there's no reference to "brothers into the Lord"*, so there isn't actually any support for the distinction you claim exists.

* - That's what, αδελφοι κυριον, as opposed to αδελφοι κυριου? If I understand correctly, you can't mean αδελφοι κυριωι as Koine has no dative case, if I understand correctly.

That's because the particular argument cited is against Wells, not Doherty. It's Doherty who mixes up "brothers of the Lord," in Gal. 1.19 and 1 Cor. 9.5, and "brothers into the Lord," which is in Philippians 1.14. Here's the NIV translation of Philippians 1.14:

Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Thanks, jjramsey - always with more references than I.

I'll have to load up my QuickVerse (think that it has Greek and Hebrew versions to scripture where available). My problem is that I'm a (living) Spanish, German, Japanese language person. Learning Greek and Hebrew would be beyond my current age and concentration ability. So, I'll have to slug it out to understand the subtleties in translations.

Here's the nasty question: Do the original letters still exist or are we only working from copies and/or translations?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Here's a question to either jjramsey or ceo_esq:

If you had to choose between one of these, which would be the best computer reference:

BibleWorks 6.0
Logos Bible Software
GramCord Ultimate Bundle

I ask because it appears that my QuickVerse 7 is not only outdated, but the CDs are inoperable (after only four years of careful storage). Anyway, these seem to be the most highly regarded and scholarly - unless you can profer others.

Thanks!

 

[LW]

Here's the nasty question: Do the original letters still exist or are we only working from copies and/or translations?

No, they don't.

Just about the only area where some original 1st century texts have been preserved is Egypt. (And of course the Dead Sea area).

 

[kuroyume0161]

Exactly. There are no originals except for these more lateral documents. The preservation is not meet and we must dally with what is meet out. It becomes difficult to argue from secondary (if not much further separated) sources about things conveyed without sufficient evidence.

Parsing the interpretations and reading between the lines seems to be the only recourse to arrival at consensus. Not a very scientific enterprise assuredly.

 

[jjramsey]

Exactly. There are no originals except for these more lateral documents. The preservation is not meet and we must dally with what is meet out. It becomes difficult to argue from secondary (if not much further separated) sources about things conveyed without sufficient evidence.

The nice thing though is that so many copies were made, even early on, so that it is very difficult for an interpolation to affect all the copies. This is especially true of the New Testament. Generally we don't have to guess where there are interpolations because they can be detected by comparing the copies against one another. The New Testament has been much better preserved that, say, Josephus.

 

[kurious_kathy]

We can take it on faith! Jesus not only came and lived among men, but He died and rose again. Jesus is the only one that death could not keep. He never sinned unlike all the rest of us. If it wasn't for the Messiah all would be lost! I know my redeemer lives!

 

[kuroyume0161]

Back to the topic at hand...

Which of the above mentioned computer software references do you recommend, jjramsey?

I am nowhere near a college, university, or major library and compiling a collection of hard literature would be more expensive and time consuming than any of these resources.

Thanks!

 

[jjramsey]

Which of the above mentioned computer software references do you recommend, jjramsey?

I haven't used any of them, so I can't recommend one way or another. Usually I've used things like the Strong's Concordance and a few of the books I've kept from college, and I've also made use of the libraries near me. Sorry I can't be more helpful here.

There are free tools available from Crosswire.org. I can't speak for their quality, but if they don't work for you, at least you haven't lost any money. Also, lurking around the Crosstalk discussion list and keeping an eye on a biblioblog or two is useful. At the very least, it gives you an idea of who the real players are in Biblical Studies.

 

[kuroyume0161]

See, I've not been to college - gasp - and definitely no biblical concordance or other structured religious studies in my past. Were I still a Center City, Philadelphia resident, the main library branch would be a leisurely walk or bike ride from whence I resided (as well as Temple University, Art Museum, Franklin Institute, to mention a few of the accessible resources there). Now my closest resource is the internet and purchased software and books. Otherwise, it's horses.

Allbethey free, online sources tend to be unreliable (put mildly). I don't even find my paid memberships to the ACM and CMP (professional computer developer references and resources) always to be very informative or contain the required practical applications when needed.

The one advantage of these concordance softwares (if done well, of course) is that they are relational databases which allow access to biblical scholarship and versions to a degree that I think the online resources and even books can not possibly achieve. Of course, there is a cost factor associated with this level of organizational collection of sources (upwards to a thousand dollars or more).

Thanks for responding nonetheless. I'll have to do the research for comparisons and reviews and make the decision based upon these.

 

[kuroyume0161]

It appears that one of the most highly regarded bible study/scholarship/concordance softwares is Accordance by OakTree Software. The coverage is amazing and you can purchase the Scholar's Collection Core for $199 and add whatever module resources as you go. Covers full Greek and Hebrew sources, translations, dictionaries, and cross-references as well as non-canonical books, commentaries, maps, and so forth. MacOS only, but that doesn't bother me...

It was a toss-up between this and Logos, but this gets the highest praise and has the best structure (incremental modules with a reasonable base price). Of course, if you want everything, the cost is $1799. Don't think that I'll need that much material.

 

[Ossai]

ceo_esq

I find that to be an unusual way of looking at it. You almost make it sound as though the teaching about turning the other cheek were a spiteful one - and given your inexplicable propensity to cast Jesus and his teachings in an absurdly unfavorable light, I wonder if that's exactly what you're trying to do here.

Unfavorable yes, absurdly unfavorable no.

Surely no unbiased reader would summarize Jesus' lessons about the treatment of enemies as "Insult them" (as you did a few posts back).

I think you need to look into cultural norms of the time. It was a shame for the viewer to look upon a naked person. The turn the other cheek is mixed in with a whole host of other insulting behavior, so why should it be considered different?

Ossai

 

[ceo_esq]

Here's a question to either jjramsey or ceo_esq:

If you had to choose between one of these, which would be the best computer reference:

BibleWorks 6.0
Logos Bible Software
GramCord Ultimate Bundle

I ask because it appears that my QuickVerse 7 is not only outdated, but the CDs are inoperable (after only four years of careful storage). Anyway, these seem to be the most highly regarded and scholarly - unless you can profer others.

Thanks!

I'm afraid I don't have any firsthand familiarity with any of these software packages. Sorry.

 

[ceo_esq]

Unfavorable yes, absurdly unfavorable no.

Considering that you earlier argued that Matthew's Jesus preached violence, when much stronger and more direct textual evidence exists for the opposite claim, I find your interpretations to be, in fact, somewhat absurd. Certainly they do not appear to be the product of an unbiased critical approach.

I think you need to look into cultural norms of the time. It was a shame for the viewer to look upon a naked person. The turn the other cheek is mixed in with a whole host of other insulting behavior, so why should it be considered different?

Unless you have some undisclosed sources, everyone here has presumably now looked into the "cultural norms" as closely as you have. If you can point out an authority that actually states that "turning the other cheek" is, according to a specifically applicable cultural norm, intended primarily to give offense to or show contempt for another person, we will read it with great interest.

On the subject, would you agree that Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels, anyhow) indicated that his followers should love their enemies and do good to them? A simple affirmative or negative will suffice.

 

[CapelDodger]

Considering that you earlier argued that Matthew's Jesus preached violence, when much stronger and more direct textual evidence exists for the opposite claim, I find your interpretations to be, in fact, somewhat absurd. Certainly they do not appear to be the product of an unbiased critical approach.

Unless the same text is involved in both claims you're simply pointing out the inconsistencies in Matthew.