The “range of apocalyptic theology behind Zechariah?”
That sounds like 2000 years of building a house of cards on one poor author’s simple hopes for salvation for Israel. He is writing about Jesus Ben Jehozadak just like Haggai, Ezra, and Nehemiah do. It’s all about dedicating the Temple and it’s first high priest.
It a Jesus. Written by Judeans.
We can analyze Harry Potters deeper meaning to humanity all day long. That’s not why JK Rowling wrote it.
FocusMyView said
The “range of apocalyptic theology behind Zechariah?”That sounds like 2000 years of building a house of cards on one poor author’s simple hopes for salvation for Israel. He is writing about Jesus Ben Jehozadak just like Haggai, Ezra, and Nehemiah do. It’s all about dedicating the Temple and it’s first high priest.
It a Jesus. Written by Judeans.
We can analyze Harry Potters deeper meaning to humanity all day long. That’s not why JK Rowling wrote it.
If that is what it sounds like to you, then you really know nothing. And yeup, that is my point. It is about a historical person. And yet in another thread you ignorantly kept trying to link Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus ben Jehozadak together, which is just ludicrous.
FocusMyView said
“To die in ALL Christian theology means”How can this approach affect my arguments at all?
I listened to Bart Erhman’s talk on what Jesus did after the cross and before he rose. While it was interesting, unfortunately it was useless because it focused on creative works at least 50 and sometimes 500 years after Mark. Anything more than a day AFTER gMark is written is pretty much useless in trying to figure out what parts and pieces went into making gMark.
You are simply focused on the wrong end of this animal. Use you galactic brain on the right side of this issue and maybe, just maybe I would stop repeating the same things over and over! : D.
Firstly, his name is spelt “Ehrman” and it is right on the blog website’s banner. Also, the Pauline epistles were written within 15 years of Jesus’ life, attest to knowing Jesus’ brother and more. Guess what mythical characters don’t have? Living brothers who meet people who write letters about meeting their brothers.
And it affects your argument because it demonstrates there is no similarity to Tammuz. You are just repeating nonsense that you heard online which no serious scholar promotes anymore (and no, mythicists are not serious scholars, especially not the ones promoting this nonsense; those promoting this are either amateurs or unemployed PhD’s who haven’t worked in the field in ages).
You’ve failed to show a single convincing similarity between Tammuz and Jesus. You haven’t shown a single one. And no one else has either, hence why no critical scholars (even those who defend the dying-rising god type like Mettinger) find them convincing. Mettinger wrote the only peer reviewed defense of the category in the 21st century in 2001, and his entire epilogue dismisses any connection between these gods and Jesus. You have absolutely nothing to go off of.
Stephen said
You’ve failed to show a single convincing similarity between Tammuz and Jesus.Well they both have the letter “u” in their english names. Coincidence? I think not.
You found it! You found the link! Also, the first ‘s’ in Jesus is voiced as [z] in IPA, just like the ‘z’ in Tammuz’ name!
Midrashic exegesis of long-ago written holy scriptures was a highly developed art form. It was based on a first commonly accepted authoritative text. I’m not sure it’s exactly the same as Paul’s theologizing about a recently executed Messiah. I don’t think Paul would be as cavalier about such a serious issue. After all, he first persecuted the group making such a scandalous claim before embracing it himself.
1) Paul gets his Jesus from the scriptures. Bart Ehrman in his lecture Saturday says that Paul probably got his “3 days” part from Hosea, who does not actually die BTW FTW. My point being we are not sure exactly where Paul gets his ideas. We know the author of Jude was not confined to what became canon. Other NT authors quote writings not included in the Bible. It is ridiculous to think we have everything that was at that time considered “authoritative.”
2) Pauls’ letters were just that. If he sat down and did a midrash to explain stuff, we do not have it.
3) Paul believed a lot of things, including that he saw and heard the recently deceased Jesus Christ! He also believed he went to the third heaven. He is an eccentric religious person who disagrees with almost everyone else out there preaching, according to his own letters. That Paul believes he met the brother of Jesus Christ does impress me as authoritative. He definitely believed he met the brother of the earthly Jesus Christ. While it would be fun to guess why a madman says he knows Batman sidekick Robin, it does not effect whether Batman exists.
4) I have been scolded for mocking Matthew putting Jesus Christ on two donkeys because it was midrash. I get respecting other cultures, but the results of midrash seem to be illogical for the most part.
As a beginning point, we know that Tammuz was worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple. We know that Tammuz was important enough to proto-Judean Arameans that Judeans kept the calendar and the name of the month. Tammuz is a part of the heritage of the Judeans.
We also know that Asherah-Ishtar-Innana was written out of the Bible as a god, except for the making of cakes in Kings and the woman responding to Jeremiah fleeing the mess in Judah who worshipped the Queen of Heaven. Tammuz worship is described as an abomination by Ezekiel, so of course Yahwists and later yahwist authors would write him out as well. Or rename him. But honestly we dont have many adventures of Tammuz and none of them remind us of the Joshua, Elisha, or Jeshua Jesuses. One does remind us somewhat of the quarrel between Cain and Abel, but that is about it.
The dying and rising nomenclature still fits as the crops die each year as he goes to the land of the dead. Its about agriculture.
FocusMyView said
Midrashic exegesis of long-ago written holy scriptures was a highly developed art form. It was based on a first commonly accepted authoritative text. I’m not sure it’s exactly the same as Paul’s theologizing about a recently executed Messiah. I don’t think Paul would be as cavalier about such a serious issue. After all, he first persecuted the group making such a scandalous claim before embracing it himself.
1) Paul gets his Jesus from the scriptures. Bart Ehrman in his lecture Saturday says that Paul probably got his “3 days” part from Hosea, who does not actually die BTW FTW. My point being we are not sure exactly where Paul gets his ideas. We know the author of Jude was not confined to what became canon. Other NT authors quote writings not included in the Bible. It is ridiculous to think we have everything that was at that time considered “authoritative.”
2) Pauls’ letters were just that. If he sat down and did a midrash to explain stuff, we do not have it.
3) Paul believed a lot of things, including that he saw and heard the recently deceased Jesus Christ! He also believed he went to the third heaven. He is an eccentric religious person who disagrees with almost everyone else out there preaching, according to his own letters. That Paul believes he met the brother of Jesus Christ does impress me as authoritative. He definitely believed he met the brother of the earthly Jesus Christ. While it would be fun to guess why a madman says he knows Batman sidekick Robin, it does not effect whether Batman exists.
4) I have been scolded for mocking Matthew putting Jesus Christ on two donkeys because it was midrash. I get respecting other cultures, but the results of midrash seem to be illogical for the most part.
1) Ehrman also thinks that Paul got information about Jesus from the Apostles, and that Paul knew his brother James. He has a whole book on the subject.
2) His letters show Jesus existed.
3) People don’t just believe a well-attested brother of Jesus into existence.
4) If you think they are illogical then you don’t understand them.
FocusMyView said
As a beginning point, we know that Tammuz was worshipped in the Jerusalem Temple. We know that Tammuz was important enough to proto-Judean Arameans that Judeans kept the calendar and the name of the month. Tammuz is a part of the heritage of the Judeans.We also know that Asherah-Ishtar-Innana was written out of the Bible as a god, except for the making of cakes in Kings and the woman responding to Jeremiah fleeing the mess in Judah who worshipped the Queen of Heaven. Tammuz worship is described as an abomination by Ezekiel, so of course Yahwists and later yahwist authors would write him out as well. Or rename him. But honestly we dont have many adventures of Tammuz and none of them remind us of the Joshua, Elisha, or Jeshua Jesuses. One does remind us somewhat of the quarrel between Cain and Abel, but that is about it.
The dying and rising nomenclature still fits as the crops die each year as he goes to the land of the dead. Its about agriculture.
We have evidence that Tammuz was worshiped 500 years before Jesus ever was born in Jerusalem. We have nothing in between. So, that is not a connection. The use of the name in a month is not evidence they worshiped him continuously or repeated the myth. Thursday is named after the god Thor. This is not proof anyone worships Thor. Case in point, 99.9999999% of people don’t worship Thor, and yet billions use “Thursday”
Ishtar is not the same as Asherah. The Ishtar myth has no attestation in Israel, on in Assyria and Sumer. There are around seven possibilities for who the “Queen of Heaven” is, because it was an exceedingly common title for goddesses. That Tammuz was “written out” is conjecture with no evidence. “Te dying and rising nomenclature still fits” no it does not. Unless you say that “alive” and “death” are the same thing, in which case your nomenclature is actually meaningless and worthless.
Also, Jesus was not about agriculture. Therefore, you just proved the nomenclature would not apply to Jesus.
Of course Jesus was not about agriculture. Its an updated savior.
Tammuz was worshipped 1000 years after Christ as well, was he not?
The Greeks, especially, Herodotus, would identify other gods with their own. It was this blurring of the lines that the Maccabees would rise up against, but remember it was fellow Judeans that invited Hellenization. Yahwists, according to the stories in the Bible, would rise up and destroy the idols to other gods and clean those idols out of the Temple as long as they held power – according to the stories. But Herodotus would not have had any influence on Jerusalem, and Hellenization would not take hold until 300 BCE or so.
Hmmm, I have heard a few lecturers on ancient ME talk about Asherah, Innana, and Astarte as one. Is it only in Biblical Academics that these are seen as mutually exclusive entities? (I’ll admit these were on Youtube, but they seemed to be professors teaching classes).
FocusMyView said
Of course Jesus was not about agriculture. Its an updated savior.Tammuz was worshipped 1000 years after Christ as well, was he not?
The Greeks, especially, Herodotus, would identify other gods with their own. It was this blurring of the lines that the Maccabees would rise up against, but remember it was fellow Judeans that invited Hellenization. Yahwists, according to the stories in the Bible, would rise up and destroy the idols to other gods and clean those idols out of the Temple as long as they held power – according to the stories. But Herodotus would not have had any influence on Jerusalem, and Hellenization would not take hold until 300 BCE or so.
Hmmm, I have heard a few lecturers on ancient ME talk about Asherah, Innana, and Astarte as one. Is it only in Biblical Academics that these are seen as mutually exclusive entities? (I’ll admit these were on Youtube, but they seemed to be professors teaching classes).
You have no evidence he was updated. Sheer conjecture. Also, Tammuz is not a savior.
Proto-Germanic variants of Thor and Odin were worshiped during the time of Christ too and continued long after. Just because a god was worshiped by other people in the time, does not mean he was worshiped by Judeans. Irrelevant point. But even then, Tammuz worship was already in steep decline by the time of Christianity.
And, again, Yahwists doing this in other cases, is not proof they did it in this case… Also there is a big problem. In those cases, the Bible records that those idols were destroyed. We have no evidence whatsoever they did anything to eradicate Tammuz worship from the Bible. You are just conjecturing things from unrelated events.
Asherah is not the same as Inanna or Astarte. Astarte and Asherah are two different Canaanite goddesses. Astarte is a cognate name of Ishtar, but Astarte has no similar myths to Ishtar. Furthermore, we have no evidence of Ishtar’s descent myth after around 700 BCE. Lastly, even if “queen of heaven” was a reference to Ishtar (which we cannot prove), this is not proof that the myth was known. Gods and goddesses were worshiped without the myths they were known for in other places.
“4) If you think they are illogical then you don’t understand them.”
No amount of cultural understanding makes Jesus riding on two donkeys logical. I have heard other midrash as well. It appears often as apologetics by Jews for Biblical events. You don’t accept modern apologetics from Christians. Why accept apologetics from Judeans or Jews? Is it because its from a different culture? Time period?
“(4) Matthew specifically uses Jonah and Moses as parallels to emphasize Jesus’ importance. This is not a “theme” of dying-rising. This is the use of prophetic traditions to emphasize Jesus’ divinity and prophetic personality.”
From Jonah, who is in the belly of a great fish:
““I called to the Lord out of my distress,
and he answered me;
out of the belly of Sheol I cried,
and you heard my voice.
3 You cast me into the deep,
into the heart of the seas,
and the flood surrounded me;
all your waves and your billows
passed over me.
4 Then I said, ‘I am driven away
from your sight;
how[** you do not have permission to see this link **] shall I look again
upon your holy temple?’
5 The waters closed in over me;
the deep surrounded me;
weeds were wrapped around my head
6 at the roots of the mountains.
I went down to the land
whose bars closed upon me forever;
yet you brought up my life from the Pit,
O Lord my God.
7 As my life was ebbing away,
I remembered the Lord;
and my prayer came to you,
into your holy temple.
8 Those who worship vain idols
forsake their true loyalty.
9 But I with the voice of thanksgiving
will sacrifice to you;
what I have vowed I will pay.
Deliverance belongs to the Lord!”
This is the poetic section of chapter 2, thought to be the more ancient part and the inspiration for the prose portion. Clearly, we have an ancient Judean theme of going to the land of the Dead and then returning. In three days. Its a theme.
Again, Hosea 6:2
2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.
FocusMyView said
“4) If you think they are illogical then you don’t understand them.”No amount of cultural understanding makes Jesus riding on two donkeys logical. I have heard other midrash as well. It appears often as apologetics by Jews for Biblical events. You don’t accept modern apologetics from Christians. Why accept apologetics from Judeans or Jews? Is it because its from a different culture? Time period?
Then you just don’t know how to think or have an ounce of ability to put your shoes in someone else’s, which is probably why your theories are so bad.
FocusMyView said
“(4) Matthew specifically uses Jonah and Moses as parallels to emphasize Jesus’ importance. This is not a “theme” of dying-rising. This is the use of prophetic traditions to emphasize Jesus’ divinity and prophetic personality.”From Jonah, who is in the belly of a great fish:
““I called to the Lord out of my distress,
and he answered me;
out of the belly of Sheol I cried,
and you heard my voice.
3 You cast me into the deep,
into the heart of the seas,
and the flood surrounded me;
all your waves and your billows
passed over me.
4 Then I said, ‘I am driven away
from your sight;
how[** you do not have permission to see this link **] shall I look again
upon your holy temple?’
5 The waters closed in over me;
the deep surrounded me;
weeds were wrapped around my head
6 at the roots of the mountains.
I went down to the land
whose bars closed upon me forever;
yet you brought up my life from the Pit,
O Lord my God.
7 As my life was ebbing away,
I remembered the Lord;
and my prayer came to you,
into your holy temple.
8 Those who worship vain idols
forsake their true loyalty.
9 But I with the voice of thanksgiving
will sacrifice to you;
what I have vowed I will pay.
Deliverance belongs to the Lord!”
This is the poetic section of chapter 2, thought to be the more ancient part and the inspiration for the prose portion. Clearly, we have an ancient Judean theme of going to the land of the Dead and then returning. In three days. Its a theme.
Again, Hosea 6:2
2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will raise us up,
that we may live before him.
Jonah is not actually in the land of the Dead. Do you know what a metaphor is, or do you just refuse to actually see ancient authors as creative workers, who can use literary devices to their own ends?
Also, Jesus is not even dead for three days AND three nights, as specifically stated in Jonah.
Newer interpretations of the passage as used in Matthew also indicate it is not even referencing Jesus’ death at all, but is to do with his time in Jerusalem. Jesus spends a total of three days and three nights in Jerusalem (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Kenneth Waters Sr. notes:
“Matthew’s reference to “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” as an ordeal for the Son of Man is therefore not a stressed synecdoche, nor a cryptic chronology, nor a mismatched metaphor. It is a summation of events involving Jesus in Jerusalem from Thursday evening to Sunday morning. Although draped in biblical prose, it recalls a historical memory about the suffering of Jesus. As Jonah spent three days and three nights of suffering inside the great fish, so Jesus spent a final three days and three nights of suffering in Jerusalem, that place known in biblical and extrabiblical tradition as the “middle,” “center,” “navel,” or “heart” of the earth.”
If you think the reference to Jonah in Matthew has specifically to do with the resurrection, then you are wrong, because the parallel would be incoherent in the Gospel of Matthew. It has to do with paralleling Jesus’ time in Jerusalem, as equivalent to Jonah’s suffering in the fish. Jonah, likewise, uses a metaphor comparing it to Sheol. He is not literally in Sheol. Robin Routledge noted, “Because the petitioner is clearly not dead, these are usually taken metaphorically.” Routledge has also noted that the Bible demarks clearly between those who suffer and those who die. So, it is not a case of dying-rising at all. This is just you going on parallelomania… again.
Also yes, Matthew probably does use Hosea… Hosea nowhere attests to dying-rising gods (despite attempts to misinterpret him as doing so).
Also, most scholars either see Chapter 2 of Jonah as a later addition or as being original and authentic. Either way, it in no way attests to dying-rising, unless you believe in nonsense Jungian psychology, where basically anything remotely crappy in the world can be turned into a “death and rebirth” symbol as long as you have enough of a methodologically incoherent brain.
I mean his entire argument is in support of being imprecise. He is literally arguing that: a metaphor of death (Jonah), not dying at all (Jonah and Tammuz), bilocation (Tammuz), and actually dying (Jesus) can all qualify for the “death” element of a dying-rising god. Like, if you attempted this in any remotely academic arena, they would have already called him on equivocation.
At this point, having a mildly crappy day mine as well qualify for “dying”.
I am a little confused by your acceptance of metaphor – on occasion. Its just as bad as arguing with an apologetic. Yes, The character of Jonah goes down to the deep – Shoel , the Pit. I am not arguing that any HB Jesuses were real people. I am convinced they were all fictional. I am arguing that the 3 days down THERE and then rescued is a THEME, and its known to Judeans – including Paul!
Paul was aware of the theme and so was Matthew. Sure the theme can be stretched to include the horrors of walking Jerusalem, I suppose. I gotta think if Jesus is going to crucified, and then rise in three days, and the authors know this because they are writing at least 35 years later – that the sign of Jonah is sensibly his crucifixion and rising.
Overall, I have to admit I can find no reason to link the Tammuz worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple and the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. It is a tempting comparison. The ancient shepherd god that went to the land of the Dead for half the year, replacing Inanna who was dead 3 days there and had to find a substitute. There are few stories about Innana that survived, and fewer still about Tammuz.
If I find anything, I will be sure to update it here.
FocusMyView said
I am a little confused by your acceptance of metaphor – on occasion. Its just as bad as arguing with an apologetic. Yes, The character of Jonah goes down to the deep – Shoel , the Pit. I am not arguing that any HB Jesuses were real people. I am convinced they were all fictional. I am arguing that the 3 days down THERE and then rescued is a THEME, and its known to Judeans – including Paul!Paul was aware of the theme and so was Matthew. Sure the theme can be stretched to include the horrors of walking Jerusalem, I suppose. I gotta think if Jesus is going to crucified, and then rise in three days, and the authors know this because they are writing at least 35 years later – that the sign of Jonah is sensibly his crucifixion and rising.
Jonah does not go to Sheol. He is eaten by a whale and remains alive in its belly for three days and three nights. The cry of Jonah in his prayer is a metaphor. Job also uses references to Sheol when talking about his own despair.
And if you think that Joshua the High Priest is fictional, then you essentially are denying the reality of someone who had writings about him within and shortly after his life (Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra). But then again, we know you don’t really know the history of the period.
You have failed to show a theme of anything to do with dying-rising. You have shown a theme of the usage of three days and nights for hardship, but not for dying-rising. Jonah never dies. He never rises. The text is metaphorical, and this is the position of most leading scholars.
And there is no proof Paul used the theme. Also, Jesus did not rise in three days. Friday-Sunday is not being dead for three days and three nights. Friday-Saturday is one day. Saturday-Sunday is two days. Hence the parallel has to include the whole stay of Jerusalem. The sign of Jonah begins with the temple cleansing for the Gospel authors. If you think otherwise, then you have a big problem trying to explain the mathematics, since Jesus is only dead for two days before rising up in the Gospels.
FocusMyView said
Overall, I have to admit I can find no reason to link the Tammuz worshiped in the Jerusalem Temple and the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. It is a tempting comparison. The ancient shepherd god that went to the land of the Dead for half the year, replacing Inanna who was dead 3 days there and had to find a substitute. There are few stories about Innana that survived, and fewer still about Tammuz.If I find anything, I will be sure to update it here.
Also, Inanna was dead for more than three days. It was only three days until the mourning rituals began (as Tryggve Mettinger noted). It is three days and three nights and then her servant begins mourning rituals. It is never stated how long it is before she is resurrected. Also, Jesus never went to the land of the dead for half a year. Honestly, you really shouldn’t find this a tempting comparison. The fact you do means that you aren’t actually evaluating your pattern seeking behavior that well. Most scholars find that these “parallels” are nothing but modern humans just looking for similarities where none really exist.
So July 1 Bart posted “
Was Jesus Like One of the Pagan Fertility Gods?”
The answer is of course not. But how does one get from a Tammuz going to the land of the dead once a year to a Jesus dying and rising once?
IT got me thinking of the differences and similarities between the two concepts. Being a fan of “Before Religion” I don’t think as much in terms of theology (I don’t think ancient Judeans did either) but in everyday events that changed and made an impact, sometimes ones very unexpected.
How about a change in calendar? Time was marked by what year it was in the reign of the current ruler. e.g. 4th year of king Darius. But the Seleucids had a calendar that marked the time they took over a significant portion of Alexander’s conquests in 312 BCE. It was about 158 of the Seleucid calendar when Daniel was written, the first of the “end of age” apocalytpic works. These regional calendars signified who was in charge and what type of culture was dominant. The Bithynian calendar was created a century after the Seleucid one but backdated to nearly the same year. The Romans made a calendar sometime in the first century BCE and backdated it to 753 BCE. (So if the made the calendar in 53 BCE, the very first year it was actually used it would say 700 AUC). So it was a theme. Making calendars to express both the heritage and the dominate culture was something people felt was worthwhile to do. (Actually the Romans did not use the AUC much, almost exclusively going by the date of the proconsul are emperor, but it was used in medieval Europa as was the Seluecid calendar by European Jews – according to the Wikipedia article on the subject.)
Pagan fertility gods were about the immediate, annual struggle for survival. Jesus Christ of Paul and Mark differed because he was about the end of an age.
It is a hope for an “End of days” and a New Jerusalem at the center of a Judean era. Of course the various authors all have very different apocalyptic views, storylines, and of course very vivid imagery.
I don’t see how any of this is relevant or helps your case. Looks like you just randomly grabbed stuff from Ehrman’s latest post. Go read his book. He argues explicitly there is nothing to do with dying-rising gods and Jesus. In fact, no scholar thinks there is except for cooky misinformed or grifting mythicists.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)