Bede

Two points, Bookman.

Being able to make up a possible motivation (and unless you have evidence, that's what you are doing), is not the same as showing something isn't true. I didn't include the betrayal on my list but it is 98% certain, like the empty tomb. It is also very widely accepted by historians (less like the empty tomb). Why? That criteria of embarressment again - Jesus looks a bit silly betrayed by his right hand man. Hence all that stuff about him knowing about it in advance etc trying to deflect from the embarressing point. If there was an OT prophecy saying that the Messiah would be betrayed by his friend you'd be on much stronger ground doubting Judas as that would be a solid motivation for the evangelists to include it.

As for Nazerath - that's embarressment again. Everyone knew that the Messiah was supposed to be from Bethelehem and Jesus wasn't. That explains the need for the birth stories to show he was born where he was supposed to have been.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Being able to make up a possible motivation (and unless you have evidence, that's what you are doing), is not the same as showing something isn't true. I didn't include the betrayal on my list but it is 98% certain, like the empty tomb. It is also very widely accepted by historians (less like the empty tomb). Why? That criteria of embarressment again - Jesus looks a bit silly betrayed by his right hand man. Hence all that stuff about him knowing about it in advance etc trying to deflect from the embarressing point. If there was an OT prophecy saying that the Messiah would be betrayed by his friend you'd be on much stronger ground doubting Judas as that would be a solid motivation for the evangelists to include it.

Thanks for the reply, Bede. My intent was to try to explain the source of my doubt; to say why the disciple tales in the Gospels seem mythical to me. I certainly don't want to fall into the trap that the inerrantists of making up ad hoc theories to explain things that I have problems with, but I was trying to shed some light on the reason that I have the problem to begin with.

Honest question, truly: How is the embarrasment explanation is any different? The embarassment explanation seems to me to be making up a possible motivation for truthfulness, just as my explanation is making up a possible motivation for fabrication?

Please note that I don't suggest a conspiratorial view. If Judas did betray Jesus in a manner similar to what is described in the Gospels, very few people would have had the facts at their disposal.

I suppose to speculate further I would need to know how the early stories of Jesus propogated - were they told and retold by just a few eyewitnesses, or were they widely spread and speculated throughout the region?

As for Nazerath - that's embarressment again. Everyone knew that the Messiah was supposed to be from Bethelehem and Jesus wasn't. That explains the need for the birth stories to show he was born where he was supposed to have been.

Gotcha. We'll leave it up.

Bookman

Hi Bookman

You are asking some very good and interesting questions. If I may, I would like to address this particular point and allow Polycarp and Bede to continue with their very good explanations on the other points about Jesus' earthly life that we know.

I suppose my first question to you is how reliable do you personally think the book of Acts happens to be? This would answer your question about how the Gospel was preached and to whom. In Acts 1 we see Peter in action:

Acts 1: 15-21 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus--he was one of our number and shared in this ministry." (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, "`May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, "`May another take his place of leadership.' Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,

Now, as to the question of whether or not the name of the betrayer was really Judas (the belief that there was someone who betrayed Jesus, and he may very well have been one of the Twelve is pretty well accepted by the great majority of scholars, and largely for the reasons Bede has given) is more disputed. The reason I find it convincing that Judas could have been his name was that there is no signs from the Gospels or NT Canons that Judas became a name so shameful that it was abandoned completely. One of Jesus' own brothers retained the name Jude (Judas) (Mark 6:3, also book of Jude) as did some of His disciples (John 14:22, Acts 1:13). If the name Judas had been invented and attributed to the betrayer as some kind of anti-Semitic slam by the later Gospel writers, then they would have also been slamming their own bretheren and heros. This strikes me as being extremely unlikely, so I think the name of the betrayer was most likely Judas.

Peace,

Nomad

How reliable do you personally think the book of Acts happens to be?

I freely admit a bias against Luke and Acts. Many of the miracle claims (which it will come as no surprise, I suppose, that I discount) seem to me to exist in no other place than the writings of "Luke".

I don't necessarily believe that the author of Luke and Acts was intentionally writing untrue things, but he was apparently an extremely unskeptical chronicler.

I'm certain that you are aware of the differences between Acts 1 and Matthew 27; in my mind, these conflicting accounts of Judas death and the source of the name "Field of Blood" make it very difficult to objectively assess the truth value of any single claim in the passage you gave.

Bookman

The Jews had every reason to believe that Jesus was indeed NOT the Moshiach. First of all, we must understand how a Jew views the Jewish Messiah and what requirements the Torah put forth as the requirements given by Yaweh that demonstrate the true Messiah. First, this man will be a descendant of David defined by the patriarchal trace of lineage. Then he will be responsible for rebuilding the temple. He will bring all the Jews back to Judaism (not create a new religion), peace will prevail and the entire world (gentile and Jew) will recognize him as the Messiah, hunger and war will end. The Messianic generation has to embody teshuva which means in Hebrew, literally means "response," or "answer" as well as "return”, meaning returning to Yaweh in great numbers. Also, Judaism believes that in every generation there is someone who has the potential to be the Messiah, but they may not make that determination UNTIL all the signs have been fulfilled, then and ONLY then can a man be called the Messiah. Then there is the idea of the second coming. This is not part of messianic prophecy, nor is the sacrifice of the Messiah. The Messiah cannot die, according to Judaism. Once Eliyahu (Elisha) comes all these things will be fulfilled and the Earth will be renewed and all people will hear the word of the Judaic god.

So, Jesus was not a direct decendent of David. He did not bring all of the Jews back to Judaism. War, famine, disease and pain did not cease with his presence. The generation did not embody teshuva, his predictions did not all come true and most of all he died! That was the final sign for devout Jews to have a once and for all that Jesus was not Eliyahu, the Messiah. They have held that believe for over two thousand years and it is not Judaism that bares the burden of proof on Jesus’ Jewish and Messianic status, but Christianity!

The OT is not even ambiguous about these things: Deuteronomy 13:1 The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. [2] If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, [3] and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!" [4] do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul. [5] HASHEM, your G-d, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. [6] And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against HASHEM, your G-d Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery to make you stray from the path on which HASHEM, you G-d, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst. (Artscroll)
Deuteronomy 18:15 A prophet from your midst, from your brethren, like me, shall HASHEM, your G-d, establish for you to him shall you hearken. [16] According to all that you asked of HASHEM, your G-d, in Horeb on the day of the congregation, saying, "I can no longer hear the voice of HASHEM, my G-d, and this great fire I can no longer see, so that I shall not die." [17] Then HASHEM said to me: They have done well in what they have said. [18] I will establish a prophet for them from among their brethren, like you, and I will place My words in his mouth; He shall speak to them everything that I will command him. [19] And it shall be that the man who will not hearken to My words that he shall speak in My name, I will exact from him, [20] But the prophet who willfully shall speak a word in My name, that which I have not commanded him to speak, OR who shall speak in the name of the gods of others that prophet shall die. [21] When you say in your heart, "How can we know the word that HASHEM has not spoken?" [22] If the prophet will speak in the Name of HASHEM and that thing will not occur and not come about that is the word that HASHEM has not spoken; with willfulness has the prophet spoken it, you should not fear him. (Artscroll)


Brighid

I think the problem here is once again treating the natural evidence by a different standard simply because it contains legendary or miraculous elements. Doing this places virtually all of ancient history in doubt however, and impedes our ability to investigate what happened.

I think a more appropriate test is to determine if the author got the natural events that we can verify independently right, and if he did a great majority of the time, then we can have greater confidence in the other natural events he reports. In the case of Peter's report about the death of Judas, it seems plausible, even if it is exaggerated. The fact that he did not get the story straight with what Matthew tells us should not be a great surprise.

The bottom line is that after Jesus died, one of the Twelve is gone, and needed to be replaced. It is very reasonable to assume that this one died, and most likely at his own hand, since a martyr's death would have definitely been reported in the Gospels or Acts.

IOW, something happened to Judas, and him killing himself in a fit of guilt and/or remorse is highly plausible.

I think if we compare him to other ancient chroniclers (like Tacitus, Livy, Philo, Josephus, ect.) Luke does pretty good.

Raymond Brown did an excellent analysis of the death of Judas both in Matt and Acts, as well in a third account passed down to us by Papias in the 2nd Century (R. Brown, Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2, [Doubleday: New York, 1994], pg. 1404-1410. He did this within a wider article dealing with the historicity of Judas. His final conclusion was that "disappointing as it may be, historical probability cannot be assigned to any of the (three reported) deaths." (DM2, pg. 1409)

I would have to agree. We do not have enough evidence, although I do think Matt and Luke both believed they got the story right. At the same time, I agree with Michael Grant when he tells us "The story of Judas must, in its main lines, be genuine, because it is too shameful tfor the evangelists to have invented."(M. Grant, Jesus, pg. 155).

Nomad

Ostensibly. This remains in dispute, Layman.

Yet, following Mark, both Matthew and the gentile Luke make the mistake of saying of John "... and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." (Mark 1:4) "And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Matthew 3:6 "...preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;" Luke 3:3. It seems none understood that baptism in Jewish eyes was an outward expression of previously obtained inward purity, as Josephus tells us in Antiquities 18:5:2 ...a good man who commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and Piety towards God andn so to come to baptism; not in order to the putting away of sins, but for the purification of the body, supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness." Whiston translation.

This is supported by 1QSIII 6-9 of the Community Rule of the DDS: For it is through teh spirit of true counsel conserning the ways of man that all his sins shall be expiated...He shall be cleansed from all his sins by the spirit of holiness...and his iniquity shall be expiated by the spirit of uprightness and humility. And when his flesh is sprinkled with purifying water and sanctified by cleansing water, it shall be made clean by teh humble submission of his soul to all the precepts of God.(The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English; Geza Vermes)

Now, one can understand the mistake of the gentile author of Luke making such a mistake as to say people went to John for the remission of sins. However, one would expect both Mark and Matthew, as Jews, to get it right. But Mark first errs, with Matthew following him.

Now we look to Mark 2:5-7 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of uhe palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? followed by Matthew 9:2-3 and Luke 5:20-21. Yet in The Prayer of Nabonidus (DDS 4Q242) The words of the prayer uttered by Nabunai, king of the land of Babylon, the great king, when he was afflicted with an evil ulcer in Teiman by decree of the Most High God: I was afflicted witn an evil ulcer for seven years...and an exorcist pardoned my sins. He was a Jew from among the children of the exile of Judah...

It seems that the Jews of the Qumran community had no problem with the concept of man forgiving the sins of other men. Genesis 50:17 has Joseph's father reputedly praying that his son forgive ... the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin. In no literature have I ever seen it said that this was a blasphemous request.

Surely, as Jews, Mark and Matthew would have known this.

As I said, Layman: their Jewishness remains in dispute.

So you concede that the Gospel of John was written by a Jew? He does not emphasize that the baptism is for the repentance of sin.

And, if I understand you correctly, you are contending that Mark and Matthew were written by Gentiles? This is quite astonishing, especially regarding the Gospel of Matthew. Which scholars agree with you on this?

You claim that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were incorrect about the nature of John the Baptist's baptism. To support your contention you note that they disagree with Josephus's account and that the Qumran community believed in purificatory baths. Neither point is sufficient to demonstrate that Matthew and Mark were not Jewish and you overlook strong evidence that Jesus' ministry was closely related to John the Baptists.

First, you have offered no reason to agree with Josephus against Matthew and Mark. Josephus was writing from 25-30 years after Mark and at least 60+ years after the death of John the Baptist.

Second, from my review of the literature, most scholars agree that it is the Gospels that accurately portray John's baptist as one of repentance, not purification. And with good reason. Josephus appears to be reacting to established reports that John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Although it is accepted that John was unaware of the Christian depictions of John in the gospels, he goes out of his way to say that it was not for the forgiveness of sins. This suggests that the there were Jewish reports that John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins.

Why would Josephus transform him?

To fit him in with his greco-roman audience. As J.P. Meier states:

Third, the gospel authors were relying on a much earlier and widespread tradition for their view of John's baptism. One of the more well established facts about Jesus was that he was baptized by John. The reason that this is so accepted is because of the incredible embarrasment that it caused the early church to portray Jesus as partaking in a baptism for repentance, when he was supposedly perfect. Surely they would not invent such a fiction.

How much easier would it have been to justify Jesus' baptism by John had it not been for the forgiveness of sin. Indeed, if, as you suggest, it was to recognize an inner purity that had already been achieved, then it would have been the perfect setting for arranging Jesus' baptism by John!

Fourth, your reliance on the Qumran view of "baptism" is completey unwarranted and, in fact, supports the view that John's baptism was radically different thant theirs. Far from establishing general Jewish thought, the Qumran community, probably Essenes, were separatists comparable to the Puritans of England. They were not the mainstream, but had generally retreated from public discourse on things religious.

And there were substantial differences between John's baptism and the bathing at Qumran that you gloss over but which demonstrate that his baptism was conceptually different than theirs. As stated by Michael Grant:

Far from confirming their nonJewishness, the gospel writers reference to the reasons for John's baptism are the only one that explains the similarities to the Qumran view and its distinctiveness. Josephus is wrong. They are right. All are Jewish.

Next.

Your next argument was that they misportrayed the scene were the Jews were upset with Jesus for granting the forgiveness of sins of his own accord. Your attempt to demonstrate that such ideas were not blasephemus because the Qumran community may have had a similiar view. Again, this does not support your point but adds credibility to the gospel authors.

It is the scribes, not the Essenes, that are portrayed as shocked by Jesus' forgiveness of sins. So your reference to the Qumran material is completely irrelevant. Except that it might tend to confirm the fact that Mark got it right. The Essenes were anti-temple, so of course they would be more open to the view that an especially righteouss man could forgive sin (although I don't think your single quote establishes that they, in fact, held this belief). The scribes on the other hand, were part of the Jerusalem establishment with an important interest in maintaining the Temple as the center of Jewish worship and offering.

And there is a crucial distinction between your reference to Genesis 50:17 and Mark 2:5-7. In Genesis, the forgiveness is for sins committed against the forgiver. In Mark, Jesus is forgiving sins committed against someone else! This is a radical departure and surely something only God could do. Remember, at the time, most Jews viewed physical afflication as punishment by God for sins, even the sins of the father. Thus, in their eyes, such sin could only be removed by God, not by a man. And certainly not forgiven by a man who was not the one sinned against.

So, again, far from demonstrating the author's nonJewishnessness, these passages confirm their familiarity with Jewish customs and beliefs.

Originally posted by Nomad:
I think the problem here is once again treating the natural evidence by a different standard simply because it contains legendary or miraculous elements. Doing this places virtually all of ancient history in doubt however, and impedes our ability to investigate what happened.

Not exactly. I was intending to characterize Luke to answer your question so that I could address a specific claim, not all of the naturalistic evidence in Luke. I was responding to the the point that you make here:

Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)

You were using this, I believe, to point out how widespread the facts about the disciples were at the time of Judas (and therefore Jesus) death. I was saying in reply, that I consider the author of Luke to be a serial exaggerator; it is impossible to know using him as a source how many people really heard. Based upon my reading of Luke, that author would be inclined to say "everyone" if the number were 1000, 100, or just 12.

You go on to make a case for the death of Judas to bolster the claim of betrayal. It seems to me that you are having to connect far too many dots on this one to add it to our list of facts about Jesus and the events of his life.

At the same time, I agree with Michael Grant when he tells us "The story of Judas must, in its main lines, be genuine, because it is too shameful tfor the evangelists to have invented."

This is the same argument from embarassment that I discuss briefly with Bede, above. Here's the substance of that post:

Bede:
Being able to make up a possible motivation (and unless you have evidence, that's what you are doing), is not the same as showing something isn't true. I didn't include the betrayal on my list but it is 98% certain, like the empty tomb. It is also very widely accepted by historians (less like the empty tomb). Why? That criteria of embarressment again - Jesus looks a bit silly betrayed by his right hand man. Hence all that stuff about him knowing about it in advance etc trying to deflect from the embarressing point. If there was an OT prophecy saying that the Messiah would be betrayed by his friend you'd be on much stronger ground doubting Judas as that would be a solid motivation for the evangelists to include it.
Thanks for the reply, Bede. My intent was to try to explain the source of my doubt; to say why the disciple tales in the Gospels seem mythical to me. I certainly don't want to fall into the trap that the inerrantists of making up ad hoc theories to explain things that I have problems with, but I was trying to shed some light on the reason that I have the problem to begin with.

Honest question, truly: How is the embarrasment explanation is any different? The embarassment explanation seems to me to be making up a possible motivation for truthfulness, just as my explanation is making up a possible motivation for fabrication?

That's how I see it anyway. I will admit that it's difficult for me to know what would have been a source of embarassment for the people of the first and second centuries. I'm going to be cautious of an conclusion that we have to rely upon knowledge of someone's motivations to establish.

Bookman


[This message has been edited by Bookman (edited May 04, 2001).]

BEDE: Being able to make up a possible motivation (and unless you have evidence, that's what you are doing), is not the same as showing something isn't true. I didn't include the betrayal on my list but it is 98% certain, like the empty tomb. It is also very widely accepted by historians (less like the empty tomb). Why? That criteria of embarressment again - Jesus looks a bit silly betrayed by his right hand man. Hence all that stuff about him knowing about it in advance etc trying to deflect from the embarressing point. If there was an OT prophecy saying that the Messiah would be betrayed by his friend you'd be on much stronger ground doubting Judas as that would be a solid motivation for the evangelists to include it.

EARL: The criterion of embarrassment does not strengthen the case for the betrayal's historicity, because in this particular case, namely Mark where the story is first told, we have the theme of the disciples' failure, cowardice, and lack of trust, something many scholars believe Mark used not because of any commitment to historicity but for didactic purposes, to show his readers how not to behave but also to comfort them and let them know that Jesus' love is unconditional despite his followers' inevitable imperfections. Judas' betrayal fits in quite nicely with the over-riding theme of the disciples' failure of Jesus in Mark.

This theme was also used to explain why Jesus in general didn't receive a proper reception on Earth as the Messiah. He was, after all, executed as a common criminal. The early Christians had to explain that strange fact. In Mark, the disciples' series of failures goes hand in hand with the general failure of humanity to appreciate God's efforts on our behalf, and our enormous ingratitude bound up in our willingness to kill God's Son. So there is much more at work here than just historicity and the criterion of embarrassment.

Moreover, there is the unpleasant anti-Jewish implication in the name "Judas," which represents Jews in general (it's the Greek for "Judah," the tribe from which descended the Jews). There is also the story in Genesis about Joseph's betrayal by eleven brothers, which includes mention of the sale of Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. Ps.41:9, "Even my bosom friend, whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has raised his heel against me," might also have influenced the story.