Steven Carr

Where does Paul say Jesus was killed by the Romans? Paul writes as though the Romans had never killed the Son of God.

Romans 13
Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

So rulers hold no terror for those who do right?

Just replay 'The Passion of the Christ' in your mind, and every time the Jesus character goes down under a hail of blows,with blood spurting all over him, remind yourself that Paul says 'rulers hold no terror for those who do right'.

The rulers 'do not bear the sword for nothing.'

There is no way that could be written by a Christian seething with rage at the treatment handed out to his Lord and Master.

Compare that praise of the killers of the Son of God, with how Christians spoke about people who merely behaved badly during the meal which conjured up the body of their Saviour - 'How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?'



Incidentally Hebrews 12 talks about 'If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?'

Of course, the author has no idea that Jesus was recently on Earth spreading a message that was also refused....





How does Ehrman know what this 'Jesus of Nazareth' said?

DrZoidberg

Woot. I like Ehrman's books. I seem to recall in earlier books that his theory was that Jesus was a Rhabbi. Basically that Jesus existed but that everything in the Bible was most likely a complete re-write of his life.

mountainman

Since the resurrection of Jesus is a matter of public record, it is an historical fact that some of Jesus's followers came to believe that they remembered what Jesus had said to them over a few wines at the local bar, not only while he lived, but well after he died and reappeared to them again.

Ehrman appeals to the public record and historical facts. Their unexamined certainty and unhesitating acceptance of the plain and simple historical truth known to all men and women of the face of planet Earth immediately explains why the supporters of the HJ postulate are so successful in the marketplace of ideas.

DrZoidberg

Any e-book reader or smart phone. I've got a Sony Reader. One of the best electoronic toys I've ever bought. Or this'll give you an excuse to buy an Android. Do it, they're great!

Doug Shaver

Steve can speak for himself, but I can tell you what I would like Ehrman to say. I would like him to say something along the following lines:

"Jesus of Nazareth was based on a real person, and we know this because ______. Furthermore, his name was probably Jesus and he said a lot of stuff similar to what is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, and we know this because ______. He also got killed by the Romans like Jesus of Nazareth, and we know this because ______."

avi

Thank you Andrew, but is it not also possible/reasonable/likely that Pamphilus wrote his "Apology" not because of concern abut Origen's orthodoxy, or lack thereof, but because of the wretched condition of the then extant, oft recopied manuscripts, ostensibly representing the writing of Origen himself.

Doesn't Eusebius write that his library was filled with contradictory and damaged texts? Maybe, from our perspective, the 50 years from the date when Origen put down his quill, and Pamphilus picked up his own, seems like a short interval. A lot can happen to a manuscript during five decades....

To whom was Pamphilus apologizing, if not to the faithful who lacked a reliable version of what Origen had actually written? Surely he had not been apologizing to the Romans for failing to accept their gods? Why should he have apologized to the hierarchy of the church? It seems to me more reasonable to assume that he was apologizing to the faithful, who lacked a genuine manuscript from which to learn about Origen's contribution.

Even had the church leadership, in 300 CE, regarded Origen as a heretic, there would not have been a hysterical demand for book burning, such as was seen a quarter century later, under Constantine. Prior to Nicea, there were probably many, many texts published, addressing issues found in christianity, now just dust in the wind, having been declared heretical after Nicea.

avi

mountainman

Hi avi,

Although it may not be shared, to my way of thinking the controversy over the "orthodoxy" of the books of Origen can be explained very simply. Origen and his spiritual teacher, Ammonias Saccas (the reviver of the lineage) were NeoPlatonic philosophers who had never - for a very good reason - had never heard about the new testament, jesus or the christian church.

In ancient history, if we are to have any regard for the classical perspective (ie: absent apologetics) for these two figures, we will immediately perceive that a number of the classicists are forced to conclude that there may have been in fact two Origens, and two Ammonias Sacccas's in the 3rd century.

At least one classicist Phil Norfleet at this article moots this dual identity for the figure of Ammonias Saccas. Eusebius presents material the intent of which is to make us presume Ammonias was a Christian, and not the founder of neoplatonism. Eusebius states Ammonias left behind him many books, but the classicists are clear that Ammonias never wrote anything, content in being a sack worker on the docks of Alexandria.


Similarly, we have the same type of confusion over the figure of Origen. We appear to have Origen the Christian (c.185 - 254 CE) and Origen the Neoplatonist (c.185 - 254 CE) living like another set of doppelgangers. The following comment from hypotyposeis.org has been moved, but once ran as follows:


To this kettle of fish we may also add the figure of Anatolius of Laodicea, the neoplatonist and teacher of Iamblichus, (c.210 - 283 CE). History appears to have left us the remains of both a Anatolius of Laodicea the Christian, (c.210 - 283 CE) and Anatolius of Laodicea the Neoplatonist and teacher of Iamblichus, (c.210 - 283 CE). About this we have:


What happened to cause so many Christian duplicates
in the lineage of the NeoPlatonic school of philosophy?


Here are my notes on Origen and the Academy of Plato

The answer to this question, imo, is "Eusebius".
Eusebius was searching for all the prestigous authenticity he could find.
And he made free use of all his available sources.
He had the imperial archives at his disposal 312 to 324 CE.


Eusebius made false representations about these figures in the academy of Plato, in that they were "christian". The controversy over the books of Origen were as a result of the "Christianization" of Origen by Eusebius. The controversy over the books of Origen is therefore simply exlplained by the appearance, after Nicaea, of books authored by Origen which did not anywhere mention Jesus, the new testament or the christian church. These books may have included treatments of the Hebrew Bible, such as Origen's Hexapla, and may have included philosophical literature, but did not make any reference to Jesus, etc.

Whenever these books turned up, especially as the 4th and 5th centuries progressed, there was a great deal of very nervous controversy. Pachomius is reported to have thrown a book of Origen's into the Nile. That's one way to avoid a controversy. Consequently, Origen began to viewed as a heretic, and consequently Rufinius and Jerome had major disagreements over how to handle the "Original Works of Origen", which they were translating to Latin from the Greek.

Rufinius actually presents a letter, that he purports was written by Origen's hand, declaring that the heretics were altering Origen's original writings even while Origen was alive. Such is the insidious nature of historical retrojection, but an analysis of the turbulence and the controversies which then ensued, permits us to see how this may have been caused by Eusebius.


Ammonias, Origen, Anatolius and Arius of Alexandria

And because on another thread you repeated a mention of Arius of Alexandria, I will add Arius as a 4th example, even though at present I have no supporting citations to substantiate the hypothesis that Arius was only presented as a Christian, but in fact just like Ammonias (whom Arius calls his "father"), Origen and Anatolius, Arius was not a christian, but part of the neoplatonic school. The victors rewrote the history of the conflict. The orthodox heresiologists got to choose how their heretics would appear, and it was to their advantage to make them "christian".


Best wishes



Pete

avi

Thank you very much, Pete. Well written, thorough, and lots of detail.

I have such strong emotional prejudice in favor of Arius as a Christian "heretic", that it will be an effort to overcome that notion, but I will endeavor to give your thesis a proper hearing....

I have long believed, without any evidence, i.e. purely faith based, that Arius was the one person whose ideas made any sense at all, obviously if Jesus was the "son" of God, then, there must have been a time when he did not exist.

But, now, what with time itself, having been shown to vary, depending on circumstance, maybe the rigidity of my thinking is exposed. I should broaden my horizons, and consider the alternative, as you have outlined it: Arius, neoPlatonist, falsely accused of heretical christian thinking....

Somehow, I imagine that there must exist yet today, a great deal of evidence, regarding Nicea, the purpose of which, I imagine, to have been to address the controversy over Arius. It seems to me improbable that Eusebius could have rewritten the history of Nicea, since it involved so many bishops, from all over the empire.....

The simplest explanation may not be the best, in this situation, but it fits as well with my prejudices....

avi

EarlDoherty

What are the chances that Ehrman's new ebook is going to give us this, vs. the chances of his appeal to well-known historical facts as axiomatic, never to be examined?

I have a feeling that just about any mythicist or mythicist sympathizer is going to able to shred this book in his sleep (how does one "shred" an ebook, by the way?).

Earl Doherty

Juststeve

I have little doubt that Earl could shred Ehrman's new ebook, to Earl's satisfaction.

Steve