john76 said
gavriel said
john76 said
The article on Price’s homepage was originally printed in “The Encyclopedia of Midrash (ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan Avery Peck 2004):” qid=1428247094&sr=8-2&keywords=the+encyclopedia+of+midrash
The quote you gave is not a definition of “haggadic midrash”. Could you please try to define the term so that we can compare it to the Gospel genre?
I think “haggadic midrash” just means gospel writers were rewriting old testament stories using Jesus as the central character. For instance, Matthew’s Jesus infancy narrative recapitulates the story of Moses. Matthew’s Jesus is the New Moses.
No, that is not the definition of haggadic midrash. Haggadic midrash is a term used to describe certain types of rabbinical writings. I think this is very central to the historical Jesus discussion, seen from the mythicist camp. Therefore a precise description should be established first. Thereafter we can compare it with the gospel genre.
Here is the somewhat lengthy entry on ** you do not have permission to see this link **in the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert Price’s view is neat and tidy but doesn’t seem to be how it actually worked. I don’t think anyone except a hard core fundamentalist would argue that the NT writers didn’t use Jewish scriptures and traditions to shape their stories about Jesus. But the fact that the gospels are full of legends and tales doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist.
Stephen said
Here is the somewhat lengthy entry on ** you do not have permission to see this link **in the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert Price’s view is neat and tidy but doesn’t seem to be how it actually worked. I don’t think anyone except a hard core fundamentalist would argue that the NT writers didn’t use Jewish scriptures and traditions to shape their stories about Jesus. But the fact that the gospels are full of legends and tales doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist.
I have been reading a bit , including your source! It seems that we are talking about a rather broad genre of rabbinic writings, where the common denominator is that there is an explicitly given starting point from a non-legal part of the Jewish Scripture, which then is elaborated in a multitude of ways, narratives, exegesis or whatever.
The Gospel genre does it the other way: It purports to give a kind of biography, and draws the lines backwards from the life of Jesus to Scripture, in opposite direction of the haggadic midrash-style. In many instances though, it is hard to tell if a piece of Jesus-sayings/behaviour is completely pulled from the OT, or if a parallel has been sought after. This is indeed complicated by the fact that if Jesus existed, he would have been deeply steeped in the Jewish Scripture and culture at the outset – parallels are to be expected. To explain the Gospels by simply waving the magic wand of “haggadic midrash” is therefore mostly meaningless.
In the Price-article referenced above, he extends the midrash-concept to embrace also a wider variety of sources like “Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions“, which are foreign to midrash. If one does this, a serious problem of methodology arises: It becomes impossible to not find a parallel, because the material to sift through becomes truly huge. It comes dangerously close to the kind of hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It would be more honest to discard the midrash concept and simply say that the early Gospels were fabricated from Jewish and Hellenistic sources. In which case we would like to see explained a first century historically plausible plot that could achieve this fraud. The opposite type of explanation, the existence of a first century Jewish sect, does not have this difficulty.
gavriel said
Stephen said
Here is the somewhat lengthy entry on ** you do not have permission to see this link **in the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert Price’s view is neat and tidy but doesn’t seem to be how it actually worked. I don’t think anyone except a hard core fundamentalist would argue that the NT writers didn’t use Jewish scriptures and traditions to shape their stories about Jesus. But the fact that the gospels are full of legends and tales doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist.I have been reading a bit , including your source! It seems that we are talking about a rather broad genre of rabbinic writings, where the common denominator is that there is an explicitly given starting point from a non-legal part of the Jewish Scripture, which then is elaborated in a multitude of ways, narratives, exegesis or whatever.
The Gospel genre does it the other way: It purports to give a kind of biography, and draws the lines backwards from the life of Jesus to Scripture, in opposite direction of the haggadic midrash-style. In many instances though, it is hard to tell if a piece of Jesus-sayings/behaviour is completely pulled from the OT, or if a parallel has been sought after. This is indeed complicated by the fact that if Jesus existed, he would have been deeply steeped in the Jewish Scripture and culture at the outset – parallels are to be expected. To explain the Gospels by simply waving the magic wand of “haggadic midrash” is therefore mostly meaningless.
In the Price-article referenced above, he extends the midrash-concept to embrace also a wider variety of sources like “Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions“, which are foreign to midrash. If one does this, a serious problem of methodology arises: It becomes impossible to not find a parallel, because the material to sift through becomes truly huge. It comes dangerously close to the kind of hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It would be more honest to discard the midrash concept and simply say that the early Gospels were fabricated from Jewish and Hellenistic sources. In which case we would like to see explained a first century historically plausible plot that could achieve this fraud. The opposite type of explanation, the existence of a first century Jewish sect, does not have this difficulty.
Yeah I think you’re right. I have the sneaking suspicion that many of these Mythicist arguments are simply examples of begging the question. They rest on the assumption that Jesus didn’t exist which is of course what has to be demonstrated. I maintain that if you actually started with the OT and were going to do what the mythicists claim, invent a religion, you would come out with something very different than Christianity.
That’s not to say that as Christianity developed it didn’t absorb ideas from the wider (and non-Jewish) culture – of course it did. But that’s a separate issue than and says nothing about whether or not Jesus actually existed.
There are real historical problems. Prof Ehrman has spent half his career discussing just those historical problems. But if you make the claim that Jesus didn’t exist then you have to demonstrate how Christianity originated otherwise. And these mythicist solutions are way too complicated. They require too many ad hoc assumptions and idiosyncratic readings of texts and interpretations. It’s just way simpler to think that there was this guy whose disciples made up stories about.
gavriel said
Stephen said
Here is the somewhat lengthy entry on ** you do not have permission to see this link **in the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert Price’s view is neat and tidy but doesn’t seem to be how it actually worked. I don’t think anyone except a hard core fundamentalist would argue that the NT writers didn’t use Jewish scriptures and traditions to shape their stories about Jesus. But the fact that the gospels are full of legends and tales doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist.I have been reading a bit , including your source! It seems that we are talking about a rather broad genre of rabbinic writings, where the common denominator is that there is an explicitly given starting point from a non-legal part of the Jewish Scripture, which then is elaborated in a multitude of ways, narratives, exegesis or whatever.
The Gospel genre does it the other way: It purports to give a kind of biography, and draws the lines backwards from the life of Jesus to Scripture, in opposite direction of the haggadic midrash-style. In many instances though, it is hard to tell if a piece of Jesus-sayings/behaviour is completely pulled from the OT, or if a parallel has been sought after. This is indeed complicated by the fact that if Jesus existed, he would have been deeply steeped in the Jewish Scripture and culture at the outset – parallels are to be expected. To explain the Gospels by simply waving the magic wand of “haggadic midrash” is therefore mostly meaningless.
In the Price-article referenced above, he extends the midrash-concept to embrace also a wider variety of sources like “Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions“, which are foreign to midrash. If one does this, a serious problem of methodology arises: It becomes impossible to not find a parallel, because the material to sift through becomes truly huge. It comes dangerously close to the kind of hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It would be more honest to discard the midrash concept and simply say that the early Gospels were fabricated from Jewish and Hellenistic sources. In which case we would like to see explained a first century historically plausible plot that could achieve this fraud. The opposite type of explanation, the existence of a first century Jewish sect, does not have this difficulty.
gavriel said
Stephen said
Here is the somewhat lengthy entry on ** you do not have permission to see this link **in the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert Price’s view is neat and tidy but doesn’t seem to be how it actually worked. I don’t think anyone except a hard core fundamentalist would argue that the NT writers didn’t use Jewish scriptures and traditions to shape their stories about Jesus. But the fact that the gospels are full of legends and tales doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist.I have been reading a bit , including your source! It seems that we are talking about a rather broad genre of rabbinic writings, where the common denominator is that there is an explicitly given starting point from a non-legal part of the Jewish Scripture, which then is elaborated in a multitude of ways, narratives, exegesis or whatever.
The Gospel genre does it the other way: It purports to give a kind of biography, and draws the lines backwards from the life of Jesus to Scripture, in opposite direction of the haggadic midrash-style. In many instances though, it is hard to tell if a piece of Jesus-sayings/behaviour is completely pulled from the OT, or if a parallel has been sought after. This is indeed complicated by the fact that if Jesus existed, he would have been deeply steeped in the Jewish Scripture and culture at the outset – parallels are to be expected. To explain the Gospels by simply waving the magic wand of “haggadic midrash” is therefore mostly meaningless.
In the Price-article referenced above, he extends the midrash-concept to embrace also a wider variety of sources like “Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions“, which are foreign to midrash. If one does this, a serious problem of methodology arises: It becomes impossible to not find a parallel, because the material to sift through becomes truly huge. It comes dangerously close to the kind of hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It would be more honest to discard the midrash concept and simply say that the early Gospels were fabricated from Jewish and Hellenistic sources. In which case we would like to see explained a first century historically plausible plot that could achieve this fraud. The opposite type of explanation, the existence of a first century Jewish sect, does not have this difficulty.
gavriel said
Stephen said
Here is the somewhat lengthy entry on ** you do not have permission to see this link **in the online 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. Robert Price’s view is neat and tidy but doesn’t seem to be how it actually worked. I don’t think anyone except a hard core fundamentalist would argue that the NT writers didn’t use Jewish scriptures and traditions to shape their stories about Jesus. But the fact that the gospels are full of legends and tales doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist.I have been reading a bit , including your source! It seems that we are talking about a rather broad genre of rabbinic writings, where the common denominator is that there is an explicitly given starting point from a non-legal part of the Jewish Scripture, which then is elaborated in a multitude of ways, narratives, exegesis or whatever.
The Gospel genre does it the other way: It purports to give a kind of biography, and draws the lines backwards from the life of Jesus to Scripture, in opposite direction of the haggadic midrash-style. In many instances though, it is hard to tell if a piece of Jesus-sayings/behaviour is completely pulled from the OT, or if a parallel has been sought after. This is indeed complicated by the fact that if Jesus existed, he would have been deeply steeped in the Jewish Scripture and culture at the outset – parallels are to be expected. To explain the Gospels by simply waving the magic wand of “haggadic midrash” is therefore mostly meaningless.
In the Price-article referenced above, he extends the midrash-concept to embrace also a wider variety of sources like “Euripides, Homer, and Mystery Religion traditions“, which are foreign to midrash. If one does this, a serious problem of methodology arises: It becomes impossible to not find a parallel, because the material to sift through becomes truly huge. It comes dangerously close to the kind of hypothesis that cannot be falsified. It would be more honest to discard the midrash concept and simply say that the early Gospels were fabricated from Jewish and Hellenistic sources. In which case we would like to see explained a first century historically plausible plot that could achieve this fraud. The opposite type of explanation, the existence of a first century Jewish sect, does not have this difficulty.
Okay, we’ll agree to disagree. I hope you had a happy Easter!
I would like to note that the idea that Christianity started off as a scam is NOT the position of mythicists like Price, Carrier, and Doherty. They argue that the midrash which was used to create the gospel pericopes was simply euhemerizing of the vague mythic savior God found in Paul. Euhemerism is a process whereby initial mythological accounts come to be treated as real historical events or historical personages; later accounts were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores.
I argue it was done as a scam because I don’t accept Price, Carrier, and Doherty’s view that the gospel writers simply started rewriting The Old Testament Scriptures for no reason.
I am also not a mythicist. I believe Jesus existed (as Paul met his brother James). I think that Jesus was a real person whose biography got overtaken by legend.
I think the gospel writers portrayed Jesus as fulfilling the scriptures that he did because that was they only way they could construct the story as him being the messiah. They couldn’t have developed a legend of Jesus being a traditional messiah, overthrowing Roman rule and establishing Jewish independence, since that portrayal would have been contradicted by the reality of the time.
I was just saying in my posts that the three core episodes of Christianity, (1) The Passion in Mark (2) The Empty Tomb and (3) The Resurrection pericopes were historical fiction developed by rewriting Old Testament stories to make it seem like Jesus was fulfilling Old Testament Scriptures. They were doing this to sell the new Jesus religion. The goal of the Christians was to take over the world with the gospels. For instance, we read in Matthew that:
Matthew 28:16-20 New International Version (NIV)
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
AND IN LUKE:
a. Sending out Emissaries (Deuteronomy 1; Luke 10:1-3, 17-30)
Just as Moses had chosen twelve spies to reconnoiter the land which stretched “before your face,” sending them through the cities of the land of Canaan, so does Jesus send a second group, after the twelve, a group of seventy, whose number symbolizes the nations of the earth who are to be CONQUERED, so to speak, with the gospel in the Acts of the Apostles. He sends them out “before his face” to every city he plans to visit (in Canaan, too, obviously).
To match the image of the spies returning with samples of the fruit of the land (Deuteronomy 1:25), Luke has placed here the Q saying (Luke 10:2//Matthew 9:37-38), “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few; therefore beg the Lord of the harvest to send out more workers into his harvest.”
And Jesus’ emissaries return with a glowing report, just as Moses’ did.
*****************************************************************
The first Christians thought that if people would listen to Jesus’ message, it would create a better world. I believe they were willing to die for this cause, and would do anything to bring it about.
I don’t believe Jesus’ first followers thought he was a miracle worker, because there is no such thing as miracles. The first Christians just put forth the story that Jesus was a miracle worker in order to “wow” new potential followers.
Just like Apollonius of Tyana had miracle stories to about him that he never really did, so too with Jesus.
I’m trying to come a it from an atheist’s perspective. I don’t believe in miracles, and yet the bible has all kinds of stories of Jesus being followed around by disciples who supposedly observed him doing miracles. If I know that Jesus never did any of the miracles (since there are no such thing as miracles), then what am I to make of the New Testament miracle stories about Jesus? I think the miracle stories were made up to sell the religion with the intention of making a better world. Put yourself in an atheist’s shoes. What is to be made of all the stories of Jesus being followed around by a bunch of disciples watching him do miracles. I’m just trying to be consistent with the atheist worldview when reconciling a Godless universe with miracle stories being told about Jesus.
john76 said
I’m trying to come a it from an atheist’s perspective. I don’t believe in miracles, and yet the bible has all kinds of stories of Jesus being followed around by disciples who supposedly observed him doing miracles. If I know that Jesus never did any of the miracles (since there are no such thing as miracles), then what am I to make of the New Testament miracle stories about Jesus? I think the miracle stories were made up to sell the religion with the intention of making a better world. Put yourself in an atheist’s shoes. What is to be made of all the stories of Jesus being followed around by a bunch of disciples watching him do miracles. I’m just trying to be consistent with the atheist worldview when reconciling a Godless universe with miracle stories being told about Jesus.
That first sentence should have read: “I’m trying to come at it from an atheist’s perspective.” Sorry, my grammar is almost as bad as my crazy conspiracy theories lmao. And if I’m not convincing anyone, I think I should still get points for creativity and thinking outside the box lol.
john76 said
john76 said
I’m trying to come a it from an atheist’s perspective. I don’t believe in miracles, and yet the bible has all kinds of stories of Jesus being followed around by disciples who supposedly observed him doing miracles. If I know that Jesus never did any of the miracles (since there are no such thing as miracles), then what am I to make of the New Testament miracle stories about Jesus? I think the miracle stories were made up to sell the religion with the intention of making a better world. Put yourself in an atheist’s shoes. What is to be made of all the stories of Jesus being followed around by a bunch of disciples watching him do miracles. I’m just trying to be consistent with the atheist worldview when reconciling a Godless universe with miracle stories being told about Jesus.That first sentence should have read: “I’m trying to come at it from an atheist’s perspective.” Sorry, my grammar is almost as bad as my crazy conspiracy theories lmao. And if I’m not convincing anyone, I think I should still get points for creativity and thinking outside the box lol.
Well I’m an atheist too. I don’t believe in miracles either but I also don’t believe in conspiracy theories. We have other examples of historical figures who had miraculous stories created about them after their demise. In a pre-literate, pre-scientific age the mythologizing process seems natural enough without assuming a scenario where a bunch of guys get in a room and make stuff up. Everything is subject to debate of course but my main point would only be that the fact miraculous stories became associated with Jesus is a separate issue than whether or not he was a historical figure.
Stephen said
john76 said
john76 said
I’m trying to come a it from an atheist’s perspective. I don’t believe in miracles, and yet the bible has all kinds of stories of Jesus being followed around by disciples who supposedly observed him doing miracles. If I know that Jesus never did any of the miracles (since there are no such thing as miracles), then what am I to make of the New Testament miracle stories about Jesus? I think the miracle stories were made up to sell the religion with the intention of making a better world. Put yourself in an atheist’s shoes. What is to be made of all the stories of Jesus being followed around by a bunch of disciples watching him do miracles. I’m just trying to be consistent with the atheist worldview when reconciling a Godless universe with miracle stories being told about Jesus.That first sentence should have read: “I’m trying to come at it from an atheist’s perspective.” Sorry, my grammar is almost as bad as my crazy conspiracy theories lmao. And if I’m not convincing anyone, I think I should still get points for creativity and thinking outside the box lol.
Well I’m an atheist too. I don’t believe in miracles either but I also don’t believe in conspiracy theories. We have other examples of historical figures who had miraculous stories created about them after their demise. In a pre-literate, pre-scientific age the mythologizing process seems natural enough without assuming a scenario where a bunch of guys get in a room and make stuff up. Everything is subject to debate of course but my main point would only be that the fact miraculous stories became associated with Jesus is a separate issue than whether or not he was a historical figure.
I don’t see why a conspiracy theory is any less likely than any other explanation. A mythologizing process may be the answer, but maybe it was outright deception. Lying to the masses in order to deceive them for there own good was a well known idea in the ancient world. Plato had the idea of “The Noble Lie” in The Republic. Lucius Annaeus Seneca said “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” In Euripides’ “Bacchae” Cadmus says: “Even though this man (Dionysus) be no God, as you say, still say that he is. Be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, for this would make it seem that she was the mother of a god, and it would confer honour on all our race.”
And the writers of The New Testament were highly educated.
And lying was permitted in the Bible if it was done in the service of God. For example, we read that:
“And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives.” (Exodus 1:18-20)
“And the woman [Rahab] took the two men and hid them and said thus: There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were; and it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate, when it was dark that the men went out; whither the men went I wot not; pursue after them quickly, for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to the roof of the house and hid them with the stalks of flax.” (Joshua 2:4-6)
“David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business….” (1 Samuel 21:2) [But David was an enemy of King Saul, and was not on the king’s business. We know that God approved of this lie, since 1 Kings 15:5 says that God approved of everything David did, with the single exception of the matter of Uriah.]
“And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him … I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him and prevail also; go forth and do so.” (1 Kings 22:21-22)
“And Elisha said unto him, go, say unto him, Thou mayest certainly recover: howbeit the Lord hath showed me that he shall surely die.” (2 Kings 8:10)
“[Jesus said] Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast. … But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.” (John 7:8-10)
“Was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” (James 2:25)
“Raphael the angel answered … I am Azarias.” (Tobit 5:17-18)
God himself lies by proxy: (see 1 Kings 22:23; Jeremiah 4:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:11)
I think that the original Christians believed that if they lied about Jesus doing miracles and being resurrected, they could create a better world by getting people to buy into Jesus’ moral teachings. In doing this, they would be doing the will of God by creating a better world. In reality, Jesus never did any miracles, and he certainly wasn’t resurrected, because as we know now miracles don’t happen. I think they were inspired to do this by the idea of the “noble lie,” present in Plato and Euripides (and well known throughout the ancient world), and certainly known to the Greek speaking writers of the New Testament.
Just a quick thought about mythicism:
Rev 13:8 says “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”
If Christ was “slain” since “the creation of the world,” wouldn’t this be more suggestive of a mythicist position than a historicist position?
john76, just for the sake of argument let’s say you’re right and Christianity was invented to fool people for their own good. Then tell me why the conspirators would have their invented messiah crucified which would guarantee the vast majority of their fellow Jews would reject it out of hand?
john76 said
And lying was permitted in the Bible if it was done in the service of God. For example, we read that:
Lying wasn’t an offense, bearing false witness was an offense. The Bible speaks against false witnessing as that act can affect another person’s reputation or life or livelihood. Think of it as being a witness in court where you swear to tell the truth, but you actually lie against another person. You have borne false witness AND you have lied. Doing so harms their reputation or leads to actions that will harm the other person. All false witnessing is a lie, but not all lies are false witnesses. This is how it is viewed among the Jews that I’ve asked about it. If your spouse asks if you picked up the mail, but you didn’t and you lie and say “yes”. It is a lie, but it isn’t a lie that harms another person (unless you count yourself and as far as I know God only says to love your neighbor, not yourself!).
john76 said
Just a quick thought about mythicism:Rev 13:8 says “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.”
If Christ was “slain” since “the creation of the world,” wouldn’t this be more suggestive of a mythicist position than a historicist position?
Then how would you read the very next chapter which states “And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.”
Judith said
To me it does not matter if most of the gospels are fiction. The Spirit of Jesus lives on in our world. His teachings that we can think of the Creator as Abba and everyone else as brothers and sisters would make earth heaven if truly followed by us so-called Christians.
I admire your humility. My topic threads were deleted because I am not humble enough. Or rather not “temperate” enough. However, I am posting because I admire your humility. It is a relief to me considering how hot-headed angry I have become dealing with funda’mental’ Christians who try to scare people into believing God loves them. How crazy is that? SCARING PEOPLE into believing God loves them. Ridiculous!
I just came across this debate between Professor Ehrman and William Lane Craig. When I suddenly stumbled upon it I was excited. I was curious how Mr Craig would deal with the empirical, historical evidence Professor Ehrman was putting forth.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Seems William Lane Craig is the best representative God has available. Pathetic. The guy doesn’t have the Divine Power to PROVE his faith objectively. All he has are words that are easily countered by the words of the godless. Apparently God has given up on the human race. Can’t say I blame Him.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)