Robert said
Steefen said
September 21, 2020
Sounds like “Where did Paul’s theology come from” would make an interesting blog post.Good background reading for such a thread, it seems to me, would be ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I was hoping Bart covered this in one his books because Bart said: most of Paul’s theology does not come from Jesus.
This is OUTRAGEOUS. All of Paul’s theology must come from Jesus OR All of Jesus’s theology must come from Paul.
Professor,
You said, “I think most of Paul’s theology does not come from Jesus”.
Which of your books best discusses this claim? Is there a debate, a Great Courses class, or another scholar’s book that makes this argument?
Hans Windisch held that the living Jesus commands different decisions than a post-Ascension, vision Jesus.
Christians today may have a joint living Jesus and Pauline Jesus but 1) Jesus and the 12 were insular, not pushed or pulled by the then current religious trends outside the arena of Temple Judaism while 2) Paul was in an eclectic, competitive religious environment trying to win converts.
If most is 60% not from Jesus and 40% from Jesus, I am curious about the major source/s of his theology.
Looking forward to your answer so I can dig into it.
Steefen
Robert
Scholars certainly do believe that there was in fact a Jesus of Nazareth who lived and died around 30 CE.
Steefen
Let’s talk facts, Robert, starting with Nazareth. I want to make sure I am not blindsided by unsubstantiated “facts”.
The etymology of the city’s name is uncertain; it is not mentioned in the Old Testament or rabbinic literature; the first reference is in the New Testament (John 1). The contempt in which this then insignificant village was held is expressed in the same chapter (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”).
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Other than Encyclopedia Britannica, I am finding
• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any ‘Nazareth’ from its list.
• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St Paul knows nothing of ‘Nazareth’. He mentions Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
‘Never heard of the place’ – Josephus
In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.
Josephus does, however, have something to say about Japha (Yafa, Japhia), a village just one mile to the southwest of Nazareth where he himself lived for a time (Life 52).
A glance at a topographical map of the region shows that Nazareth is located at one end of a valley, bounded on three sides by hills. Natural access to this valley is from the southwest.
Before the first Jewish war, Japha was of a reasonable size. We know it had an early synagogue, destroyed by the Romans in 67 AD (Revue Biblique 1921, 434f). In that war, it’s inhabitants were massacred (Wars 3, 7.31). Josephus reports that 15,000 were killed by Trajan’s troops. The survivors – 2,130 woman and children – were carried away into captivity. A one-time active city was completely and decisively wiped out.
Now where on earth did the 1st century inhabitants of Japha bury their dead? In the tombs further up the valley!
With Japha’s complete destruction, tomb use at the Nazareth site would have ended. The unnamed necropolis today lies under the modern city of Nazareth.
At a later time – as pottery and other finds indicate(see below) – the Nazareth site was re-occupied. This was after the Bar Kochba revolt of 135 AD and the general Jewish exodus from Judea to Galilee. The new hamlet was based on subsistence farming and was quite unrelated to the previous tomb usage by the people of Japha.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen
I am not going to go out on a limb on this, Robert.
Robert
they do not at all accept the idea that Jesus was created by an Egyptian Paul or later Flavian authors. These are considered very fringe theories without much or even any scholarly merit.
Steefen
Feel free to put forward their examination stating the purpose of the verse about cohort commander having reason to suspect Paul was the Egyptian Prophet. If they have not done that, they are not in a position to “not at all accept …”
Second, pro-Roman elements in the gospels written under the Flavian Dynasty SERVE the Flavian Dynasty. Again, your scholars are not in a position to “not at all accept … “
Feel free to put forward their explanation that pro-Roman elements found in the gospels would not be written and published by pro-Flavian authors.
Feel free to put forward their explanation that Paul who requested that his innocence be decided not by an audience of Jewish justice but before Caesar is not pro-Roman. Regardless if Nero was Caesar or someone else was Caesar, Paul advocated on the grounds of his Roman citizenship to be heard by a better audience to justice.
Contrary to your assertion that these are theories, fringe theories, very fringe theories, without merit, without scholarly merit, no one agrees with you because
1) It is a fact that the verse is in the Acts of the Apostles
2) It is a fact that the cohort commander a) remembered Paul by sight, b) identified him from description circulated, or c) was mistaken.
3) It is a fact that the gospels mention Jesus frequenting the Mount of Olives.
4) The position that Paul was mistaken by the cohort commander is only a possibility/theory.
Stephen said
Congratulations DirkCampbell!Getting put on Steefen’s ADVERSARY LIST is a significant rite of passage here on the blog. You have truly arrived! Unfortunately there are no accompanying prizes so you’ll have to be satisfied with a feeling of pride in a job well done.
Actually he hasn’t ignored me, he is unable to comply with his own bombast! But thanks for the acknowledgement! 
Robert didn’t follow my advice, I think feeding trolls is fun for him.
Robert said
There’s lots of archeology supporting the existence of Nazareth around the time of Jesus. Here’s a few links to get you started, but there’s much more detailed information out there.** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any ‘Nazareth’ from its list.
• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.
• St. Paul knows nothing of ‘Nazareth’. He mentions Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.
• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
‘Never heard of the place’ – Josephus
In his histories, Josephus has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all.
= = =
** you do not have permission to see this link **is not The Biblical Archaeology Society.
** you do not have permission to see this link ** a Biblical Archaeology Society link, has in its last paragraph: “Was this the house where Jesus grew up? It is impossible to say…“
The remaining link refers to: Roman-Period and Byzantine Nazareth and its Hinterland by Ken Dark
“It is useful to begin by outlining just how little we know from written sources about Nazareth and its hinterland before the Crusades. … The earliest mention of Nazareth as a place name seems to be in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”
Herod the Great before he became king was governor of Galilee.
Sepphoris is mentioned but Nazareth is not:
The Roman client king, Herod the Great recaptured the city [Sepphoris] in 37 BCE after it had been garrisoned by the Parthian proxy, the Hasmonean Antigonus II Mattathias.[20] The city was called Sepphoris from the word tzippori, a variant of the Hebrew word for bird, tzippor, perhaps, as a Talmudic gloss suggests, because it is “perched on the top of a mountain, like a bird”.[21][22][23]
After Herod’s death in 4 BCE, a rebel named Judas, son of a local bandit, Ezekias, attacked Sepphoris, then the administrative center of the Galilee, and, sacking its treasury and weapons, armed his followers in a revolt against Herodian rule.
= = =
So, the Babylonian Talmud mentions Jesus but does not mention Nazareth.
Pantera could have been in Judea, but I am not seeing Sepphoris to be visited by Mary.
Robert
I think you’re already aware of Bart’s view of Atwill’s thesis, right?
Stephen
Who knows what you are talking about? Atwill did not discuss the verse from Acts about the Roman cohort commander thinking Paul was the Egyptian Prophet. You will have to explain how Atwill is relevant to Luke including this verse in Acts.
Again, this is not about a thesis, it is about the what the verse from Acts can mean. See the title of this thread.
Robert
As for the idea that Paul, regardless of whether or not he was Egyptian, invented Jesus, I suspect you’re also aware of Bart’s assessment of this thesis, right?
Stephen
Bart thinks Jesus existed because Jesus appears in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
Bart also thinks the majority of Paul’s Christology does not depend on Jesus of Nazareth. So, most of Paul’s content about Jesus is invented by Paul. If the majority of Paul Christology depended on Jesus of Nazareth, there would be less invention.
Robert
I accept that the author presents the tribune as mistakenly thinking initially that Paul was the Egyptian who recently led the four thousand sicarii assassins into the wilderness.
Steefen
You assume it is a mistake.
The hawk calls you lazy and vulnerable to missing cues.
Your assumption has no argumentation; so, I cannot flow an assumption as a persuasive line of reason.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)
Sounds like “Where did Paul’s theology come from” would make an interesting blog post.