People were skeptical Jesus was historical.
Bart Ehrman wrote a book making a case Jesus was historical.
People are skeptical Paul’s persecution of Jesus followers was historical.
Make your case. Ehrman made his case. It is a fair request.
I have shared my message to the Nones (no religious affiliation). I discovered Saul/Paul (the lady doth protest too much–Paul declaring he’s not a liar) in another situation of not being believable.
= = =
Ehrman said the woman caught in adultery was a later addition.
Carotta showed Jesus was Caesar and yes, Caesar did not bring his wife, caught in adultery to court.
So, I’m relieved a major figure among the figures composing the Biblical Jesus actually did forgive a woman caught in adultery.
A few people with an obvious agenda thought, or at least stated that they thought, Jesus might not be historical. Now a few people thinks, or maybe just one person thinks, that Paul may not have done the terrible things he claimed he did because . . . . well, just because. That is not actually a case. The case for Paul’s claim is, admittedly, mostly Paul, through his writings, and the idea that it is fully plausible and would be a strange claim to simply make up. That may not be a terribly strong case, but it is at least better than the case being made against it.
Robert said
“… it is at least better than the case being made against it.”There has been no case made against it. I’ve asked Steefen to give us his reasons for being skeptical that Paul wrote his letters and of his claim that he persecuted early followers of Jesus. But Steefen can give us no reasons for why he is skeptical of these things. This has always been the weakest part of his theory. As Stephen mentioned above, Richard Carrier at least recognizes the importance of the authentic letters of Paul. Carrier has no respect for the theories of people like Atwill. Carrier considers Steefen insane and no longer allows him to post on his site. We still try to reason with Steefen here.
Exactly, which is why the arguably weak case is so much better than the case that is nothing at all. So Steefen’s ideas are too crazy even for Richard Carrier? That is an achievement of some kind, I suppose.
JAS said
A few people with an obvious agenda thought, or at least stated that they thought, Jesus might not be historical. Now a few people thinks, or maybe just one person thinks, that Paul may not have done the terrible things he claimed he did because . . . . well, just because. That is not actually a case. The case for Paul’s claim is, admittedly, mostly Paul, through his writings, and the idea that it is fully plausible and would be a strange claim to simply make up. That may not be a terribly strong case, but it is at least better than the case being made against it.
A few people thought Jesus might not be historical.
One person thinks Saul may not have persecuted followers of Jesus.
It is strange for a person to make up persecuting followers of Jesus.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
JAS thinks Saul persecuting followers of Jesus is true because it is too strange for him to manipulatively make up a conversion story that everybody loves.
“Let me self-deprecate. That will win me some brownie points.”
This is precisely why you need to read the passage after the Testimonium Flavianum and the passage after that passage:
those passages tell readers about manipulating the religious.
Robert
There has been no case made against it. I’ve asked Steefen to give us his reasons for being skeptical that Paul wrote his letters and of his claim that he persecuted early followers of Jesus. But Steefen can give us no reasons for why he is skeptical of these things.
Steefen
Robert is in error.
Robert
Richard Carrier at least recognizes the importance of the authentic letters of Paul.
Steefen
Recognizing the importance of the five undisputed letters of Paul is not equivalent to saying 100% of their content is factual.
Robert
Carrier has no respect for the theories of people like Atwill.
Steefen
I have no respect for parts of Carrier’s review of Atwill.
I have little use for parts of Atwill’s content.
Robert
Carrier considers Steefen insane and no longer allows him to post on his site.
Steefen
I am in good company with Dr. Bart D. Ehrman in disapproving the misbehavior of Carrier.
Of course Carrier did not like my support of the strong points of Atwill’s theories.
Carrier erroneously turned over the game board because he was losing the argument.
Robert is not on the side of Dr. Ehrman and myself in disapproving examples of Carrier’s misbehavior.
Nice.
Steefen said
Let’s welcome Robert Eisenman.
Matthew 26: 53
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Dr. Robert Eisenman, Author of James the Brothers of Jesus
John the Baptist was of the Qumran culture if not of the Qumran community who believed in bathing because they believed angels would join them in camps.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist which connects him to the belief of angels joining the militant, anti-Roman, anti-Herodian Essene camps.
Dr. Robert Eisenman
The works of Josephus survive because the works were not anti-Roman.
The Greco-Roman gospels survive because they were not anti-Roman.
The Dead Sea Scrolls as anti-Roman as they were would not have survived if they were not hidden away in jars.
Steve Campbell
Matthew 26: 53, as well as his baptism by John the Baptist, is letting us know Jesus was not so distant from the militant, War-Scroll-reading community–
who of course, with their legions of angels, lost the Battle of Galilee and the First Jewish-Roman War: they lost the battle and the war.
There was no show-down, no Jewish Revolt on Pilate’s watch. Now, Jesus speaks of his military capacity (capacity for violent war) at Matthew 26:53 before his trials. Who was there to hear this? The answer is at Matthew 26: 47, a large crowd armed with swords and clubs sent from the chief priests and elders of the people. Those people would have reported back to the chief priests and elders.
Of course, Jesus had committed sacrilege with his Last Supper (see Leviticus 17: 10), God, his Father, had turned his face away from Jesus; so, Jesus would not have had one legion at his disposal. The chief priests, elders, and Romans would look and say to Jesus, you and what army? Jesus would turn around and ask, Father, why have you forsaken me?
Judas would have told the chief priests about the Last Supper. The priests would have discussed Leviticus 17: 10; and, as we read in Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer, Jesus would have been deemed a teacher who went astray, misleading anyone who would listen to him. Those who loved him and stayed with him in the end, ate a poisoned Last Supper to the extent God was true to Leviticus 17: 10.
I’m sure the Essene community would not want to be caught up in the Talmudic net of Leviticus 17:10.
Second, Jesus’ fate was sealed at Matthew 26: 53, so far as being a threat to Rome.
QUESTION: Mr. Campbell, Jesus was a composite character of historical fiction.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Even if a person wanted to hold on to the Biblical Jesus, that Jesus crossed the line of Judaism at the Last Supper and crossed the line of high priests and elders who did not want a threat to Rome to rise in their community.
Bart Ehrman on Paul Persecutor of the Church
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Join me in re-reading this post from May 30th, 2016.
Will it inspire me to leave a comment or question?
Will it shed light on whether or not that persecution was historical?
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Also, please re-read Bart Ehrman’s post of July 20, 2012: Paul the Persecutor and the Historical Jesus.
Bart D.E. / Paul on Judas post 2013
What gives me pause is the passage that started this whole discussion, ** you do not have permission to see this link **, where Paul indicates that Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared to “the twelve.” If Paul does *not* know about the Judas tradition, then it makes sense that he thinks that Jesus appeared to all twelve of his disciples. If he *does* know about it, then he must mean “twelve” as a kind of technical term for the closest earthly followers of Jesus, even though there were only eleven of them.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
Paul knows about the Last Supper that he can quote this is my body and blood phrases but the scholar Bart Ehrman says:
Paul doesn’t mention Judas by name – either here or anywhere else in his writings. But doesn’t this show that he knows about the betrayal tradition?
As I said, I used to think so. But I don’t think so any longer. And here is why. The word that is translated “betrayed” here doesn’t actually mean “betrayed.” The Greek word is PARADIDOMI. It is close to the word PRODIDOMI, but is different. It is this latter word that means “betrayed.” The former word PARADIDOMI, can *possibly* mean “betrayed,” but that’s not its primary meaning. It literally means “handed over.”
Paul uses this word PARADIDOMI (handed over) other times in his letters. And when he uses it in reference to Jesus, it is always a reference to something that *God* did to Jesus – handed him over to his suffering for the sake of others. And so, if Paul is consistent in his usage of the term, that is more likely what it means in 1 Corl 11:22-24 as well. On the night that God handed Jesus over to his suffering and death, “he took bread and….”
Without this reference there is no indication that Paul knew of the tradition that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own followers, and, obviously, no reference to Judas Iscariot. Did Paul *know* about Judas Iscariot? Assuming the tradition of Judas is historical, it’s hard to understand how Paul could *not* have known about it. Paul did know Peter, Jesus’ closest disciple, and spent two weeks with him just three years after he converted (Gal 1-2). It seems like he must have learned something about the circumstances of Jesus’ death at the time. But who knows? Maybe they were talking about something else.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
By the time “Paul” writes First Corinthians, he does not pray the Our Father once or reference it, Paul does not reference Jesus healing the servant of the Roman centurion or reference the faith of the Roman centurion, and with Jesus appearing in a supernatural way to him but not in a supernatural way that he appeared to the 11, Paul does not mention Judas or that Judas was not present when Jesus made his post-crucifixion appearance.
Draw your swords of conclusions.
PARADIDOMI
I think you can make at least the germ of a case that the figure of Judas is not historical. The question becomes, would followers of Jesus invent such a story? Well if my scenario about Jesus being immediately arrested at the Temple Mount, turned over to the Romans and crucified is correct, Jesus WAS betrayed. His disciples abandoned him and headed for their equivalent of the hills – Galilee. One can imagine a literary conceit where Peter’s denial stands in for those disciples who fled and later rejoined the movement, perhaps after some kind of resurrection experience. Judas’ betrayal stands in for those disciples who left the movement never to return and perhaps the Jews who turned Jesus over to the Romans after he was arrested. The truth is, we’ll never know what really happened. What we’re left with are these powerful dramatic stories.
JAS said
A few people with an obvious agenda thought, or at least stated that they thought, Jesus might not be historical. Now a few people thinks, or maybe just one person thinks, that Paul may not have done the terrible things he claimed he did because . . . . well, just because. That is not actually a case. The case for Paul’s claim is, admittedly, mostly Paul, through his writings, and the idea that it is fully plausible and would be a strange claim to simply make up. That may not be a terribly strong case, but it is at least better than the case being made against it.
I don’t know what “historical” means as regards the Jesus character in the New Testament. Did he walk on the surface of Lake Kinneret (הַכִּנֶּ֫רֶת, “the Sea of Galilee”)? Surely not. Did he turn over the tables and drive out the money changers from the Temple? Probably not. Did he raise the dead and multiply fish and loaves? No. If Jesus was historical, more than ninety percent of what is said about him is legend (not history). We are left with less than ten percent that is possibly true (that he was possibly crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate, that he possibly taught some things within the Galilee region, that he possibly spoke about the coming of a “son of man” that would bring about the eschaton).
It makes you wonder, what does it mean to say that Jesus was an “historical” person? If you believe that almost everything said about him is mythology, do you not believe that we are presented with a 90% myth? Wouldn’t that make you a mythicist for all intents and purposes? Does a mythicist just have to go that little bit further and say that we know nothing about him and what we are told cannot be trusted? In the end, who cares if Jesus existed? He was a nobody, if he was real. Tons of people preached the same nonsense, even at the same time. Tons of people were crucified under Roman authority. Nothing sets Jesus apart from the many others. It is only the faith that was based on the CLAIMS that turned Jesus into something other than human…. The MYTH is what was carried forward, no matter if you think there’s a kernel of truth about his life or not. All non-believers are somewhat mythicists.
JAS said
So Steefen’s ideas are too crazy even for Richard Carrier? That is an achievement of some kind, I suppose.
What does this mean? If you read or listen to Carrier, you see that he rejects what he calls “crank scholarship.” He doesn’t run with every wild idea. He even comes to the idea that there is a 30% chance that there was a historical kernel around which the Jesus myth formed. I know that Carrier and Ehrman have bad blood between them, but we shouldn’t need to choose one or the other. The arguments are what the arguments are, and I think that Carrier makes a better argument for mythicism than Ehrman does for historicity. I mean, building a case on the Gospels representing so many different sources (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Q, M, and L—as if Matthew and Luke do not represent M and L but had them as sources that they fleshed out) is a terrible argument. The four Gospels do not represent seven separate sources of information about the life of Jesus. This argument just irritates me in Ehrman’s book. It should be better than this.
I have heard Richard Carrier speak, and I am not a fan; evidently you are. Your overly broad definition of being a mythicist serves as an example of why I find such arguments unpersuasive. I would certainly not consider anyone with mere questions about, for example, miracles or any degree of uncertainty about the issue of divinity to be be a mythicist. Obviously, anyone interested in the history of the movement known as Christianity is interested in the issue of Jesus as a historical figure. Where one might run the scalpel to cut myth from what might have actually been true is a highly complicated matter full of subjective evaluations. (These would be similar to questions about the historical aspects of Moses, David, Solomon and Abraham. I would feel much safer in simply dismissing Adam and Noah as purely creations of fiction.)
I think the issue with Jesus can be compared to that of Edgar Allan Poe. What most people think of when they think of Poe, if they think of Poe at all, is largely a matter of misunderstanding, which in no way diminishes the fact that Poe was a real person who actually wrote a number of very famous works. Various items have been attributed to Poe which can be dismissed as forgeries or hoaxes, with varying degrees of certainty. A major complication is trying to sift out which of the unsigned editorial and magazine filler pieces may or may not be by him. But no matter how much arguing may take place over such issues, his reputation is chiefly based on a few poems and short stories, which no one seriously would deny to him. (There have been attempts, particularly in the case of “The Raven,” but to little avail.) Admittedly, there are much greater complications for Jesus due to greater time and the religious implications.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)