Peter Kirby

Bernard has an extensive web site on early Christianity here:

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/index.html

What follows are some questions and notes that I made while reading, with the hope that Bernard and others will enter discussion.

First, there was "The early years":

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes1.html

About this I have at least three questions that I would like more information on:

Does the occupation of Joseph as a carpenter (if true) mean that Jesus had a lower economic status than (farm-working) peasants?

Did Galilee have very few Gentiles?

Did Aramaic supercede Hebrew?

Next, there was "John the Baptist":

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes1x.html

Bernard correctly notes that GMark makes a mistake regarding Herod's family.

Was John the Baptist well educated and a great orator?

Did John plan on using the crowds to prevent the marriage?

Bernard writes: --==<<While John was baptizing and preaching in the Jordan valley (most likely, east of Jericho), less than a day walk away, in Jerusalem, there was an atmosphere of great expectations: Mk15:43a "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God ..." Note: why would "Mark" "invent" that, when some forty years later (the gospel was written then), the Kingdom had not come yet, making a fool of the highly educated Joseph (who likely had died)? Certainly "Mark" did not want his audience to doubt the prompt arrival of the Kingdom (Mk13:14-37). Therefore, in all likelihood, this Joseph was mentioned earlier by eyewitness(es), very happy to report on a member of the Jewish elite sharing their belief.>>==-- How good is this argument?

Next comes "Jesus' public life":

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2.html

Bernard notes that Jesus avoided cities and "stayed in lonely places" (Mk 1:45).

Bernard says that Jesus wasn't anti-establishment becaues he helped the daughter of a synagogue leader.

Bernard says that Jesus wasn't a wonder worker and that his family in Nazareth rejected him.

The story of the calming of the sea seems to be based on Jonah...so what need is there to postulate a historical squall at all? Likewise, why think that there was a "walking by the water" incident?

Bernard writes: --==<<a) Some scholars argued all of these are parts of the so-called "messianic secret", which does make much sense because, in the same gospel, we read: 4:22 "[Jesus allegedly saying to his disciples] For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out in the open." b) There are two instances where the cured men (not disciples!) are given the gag order by Jesus, but, regardless, they tell it all (the "leper" 1:40-45, the deaf & mute 7:31-36). However, in other passages, Jesus is said to perform publicly spectacular miracles on individuals (the paralytic 2:3-12, blind Bartimaeus 10:46-52) or on crowds (the two miraculous feedings 6:30-44 & 8:1-9). It seems Jesus (or rather "Mark"!) was not consistent about keeping the "messianic secret" and, at times, revealed it very openly!>>==-- What does the reader think of this?

Next comes "Jesus' message":

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes2x.html

Did Paul know about the poverty of Jesus (2 Cor 8:9) in an economic sense?

Bernard says that Matthew transferred the category of the elect away from the poor (as in Q?) and to the righteous.

Bernard says that Luke offers the kingdom specifically to the apostles.

Bernard argues against the Gospel stories of "resurrections" (other than that of Jesus) with reference to 1 Cor 15:20 (Christ as the "firstfruits").

Next comes "Jesus' last days":

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes3.html

Bernard argues: --==<<What is remarkable here is that "Mark", who belittled John: Mk1:7-8 "And this was his message: "After me [John the Baptist] will come one more powerful than I, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. ..."" had to admit Jesus was seen by some Jews as just the "new" John (and "Matthew" & "Luke" followed GMark in that regard). Once again, this looks to be "against the grain" evidence (with some embellishments). But "Mark" must have felt it had to be incorporated because heard from eyewitness(es) and considered genuine.>>==-- One could instead claim that making Jesus into the "new John" could attract folks in the Baptist sect and authenticate Jesus as a prophet of God.

Bernard says that a poor and pious Jew would object to the money changing in the outer court of the Temple. But every other source I have seen recognizes that the outer court was meant for trade and that Jews (including the poor and pious) recognized the essential role that the merchants there played for the function of the Temple cult (changing money into coin that could be used to pay the Temple tax and buying unblemished animals for sacrifice). Some may have been disturbed by this practice, but surely not the majority of the Jews who arrived in Jerusalem for the very purpose of making a sacrifice that required a transaction in the outer court.

Bernard says: "I explained already in "HJ-2b" that Peter and the "Nazarenes" never believed in resurrections." Does anyone here agree? (I will have to go and re-read HJ-2b as I must have missed that argument.)

Bernard writes: "Therefore, there is no evidence Sunday was observed in any ways by Christians before 70-71C.E." There is circumstantial evidence in 1 Corinthians 16:2--"On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made."

Rounding out this series is: "The beginning of Christianity"

http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/hjes3x.html

I didn't notice any section of this page that explained whence the belief in the resurrection of Jesus arose, or why Jesus' death was linked to salvation, or in general how the primitive Christian ideology came to be. Bernard, where on your site should I look for that kind of material?

Bernard makes a convincing case that Hebrews was written before 70 CE, but I am less sure that it was by Apollos to Corinth.

Bernard made several references to certain epistles of Paul being earlier or later than others. I would like to ask how the sequence of letters is established.

Overall, Bernard has made a great contribution to the web with his site, which is distinguished above all by its uncompromising adherence to the primary evidence consisting of quotes from ancient authors. I look forward to reading the rest of his web site. I hope to see a polite and interesting exchange of ideas in this thread, which is open to participation by all.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

I've read that the word is better translated as "stone mason" and that, as such, he likely found ample work in the rebuilding of nearby Sepphoris. I would think that would suggest a higher economic status than the average peasant.

If Vermes is correct, however, it originally had nothing to do with anybody's profession:

"In Talmudic sayings the Aramaic noun denoting carpenter or craftsman (naggar) stands for 'scholar' or 'learned man'." (Jesus the Jew, p21)

Bernard Muller

"Luke" thought that Jesus' parents were poor (Lk2:24).
Justin (who knew the meaning of 'carpenter') wrote in Trypho LXXXVIII "He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes ...)".
Jesus &/or Joseph working in Sepphoris is speculative. If Joseph worked there and was well off, why didn't he live in the city?
Paul wrote HJ was materially poor: 2Co8:9 YLT "for ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that because of you he became poor -- being rich, [when in heaven!] that ye by that poverty may become rich."
I noted Paul used 'poor' only regarding material things, but he used 'rich' only for spiritual things.
Illiterate and/or uneducated people were poor and Jesus' closest associates were so, as believed by "Luke" and Justin:
Ac4:13a "When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized they were unschooled, ordinary men ...")
1Apology XXXIX "... men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking ..."
Crossan did some true historian work on some written material from an ancient dump in Egypt and found artisans, in that case textile workers on their own, to live very poorly.

This is hotly debated and Joseph or Jesus as scholar does not jive with the rest. All the gospelers have the Holy Spirit to come on Jesus at baptism to make him "enlightened".

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Why does this passage require the assumption of poverty for Jesus' parents?

Why should we rely upon the author of Luke as having a credible source for his/her claims?

According to the editors of The Complete Gospels, there is no known support for Lk's depiction of a purification ritual involving both parents (2:22) nor for the custom of presenting a firstborn to God in the temple (2:22-23). They go on to point out that Num 3:47-48 requires a firstborn son to be redeemed by payment but Lk makes no mention of this. With regard to the passage you cite, they simply note this to be "part of the maternal purification ritual" (p.122).

What is Justin's source for this information?

It is all speculative, Bernard. However, if they truly were craftsmen of either wood or stone, it would appear to be a fairly safe bet that they found ample work available in nearby Sepphoris. It was the largest and nearest constuction effort that would require significant numbers of such laborers.

First, I didn't say "well off" but suggested it he was likely better off than the typical peasant. Second, my understanding is that Sepphoris was within walking distance of Nazareth. Third, who is to say he didn't live there? The tradition that Jesus was from Nazareth is questionable according to spin's explanation of the original term used in Mark. If you search for "Nazareth" in this forum, you will find several threads on the subject.

And that could not possible be because it served his theological purposes? Note that Jesus is described as becoming poor which, assuming you are correct and Paul means this literally, would seem to suggest Jesus was originally not poor.

Again, why should we rely upon the information conveyed by these authors as though it were based on credible sources?

Christianity makes suffering and poverty positive attributes and essential qualifications for entering the Kingdom of God. It only makes sense to portray the original followers of Jesus as largely consisting of members of this same socio-economic level.

How could poor men from poor families afford to abandon their families to wander around the countryside following Jesus?

Bernard Muller

Peter:
Actually I do not even raise the issue. He certainly was against it and said it. Herod arrested him because he did not want to take any chance. Once JB would have open his mouth about preventing the ceremonies, that would have been too late.

I read about money changers in the temple court. But not the outer temple court meant for trade, as if it was a market place.
What are your sources?

Well, that's explained at the very end of HJ-3a (Philo about Moses) and in HJ-3b in my section on early Jewish Christianty, with reference to the Psalms. The whole thing started: the King could not be dead before ruling, so he had to be saved in heaven. "Confirmation" from the Psalms, Pharisaic/Gentile beliefs (immortality of the soul), Philo regarding Moses & Abraham, etc. The resurrection process (the 3 days, bodily) started later.
Jesus' death linked with salvation was first mumbled by Paul, but demonstrated later by 'Hebrews' (all in HJ-3b).
Primitive development of Christian theology? Also in HJ-3b, from start to finish. Are you sure you read that page? I wonder. On the same topic, see also the very simple table in Beliefs of early Jewish & Gentile Christians and the "Nazarenes"
HJ-3a "Jesus last days"
HJ-3b "The beginning of Christianity"

That's explained starting in Appendix B, then "Paul and the Corinthians" page, then through 9 Pages about the reconstructed Corinthians and Philippians epistles. "Galatians" dating is on my page which is the extention on HJ-3b.
Appendix B
Paul and the Corinthians
Dating of 'Galatians'

Best regards, Bernard

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13
I fully agree that the episode you mentioned never happened, for many reasons. What I keep is the perception that "Luke" thought the parent of Jesus were poor. For this occasion, the normal offering is a lamb:
Lev12:8 "... If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons ..."
I do not think "Luke" had contact with any eyewitness of Jesus, but through the "we" in Acts, likely heard about companions of Paul who went to Jerusalem and saw the "Nazarenes". Second hand info could be had this way (but apparently very little was gathered about HJ then).

I used Justin's quote to indicate what a carpenter was thought to do in Palestine in the 1st/2nd century.
I have my own theory about Nazareth being a haven for wood working people:
Nazareth now is a city, not only spreading on a small flat (but slanted) basin, but on the hills above it (East, North and West) and even beyond the main crest to the North (I was there).
However, before that urban sprawl, the little basin was cultivated, and the hills above were forested. Down below was a wide valley (from today Haifa to Afula & Bet She'an), likely heavily cultivated and therefore with few trees. Result: trade. The trees were harvested on the hills above Nazareth, dragged down to the edge of the basin, then worked on the spot into planks, beams, etc. Then all this products would be carted down the road (2 miles), to the booming Jewish town of Jaffa. Joseph or/and Jesus could have worked in Nazareth or shuttle every day to Jaffa (to work in a shop making furniture, door, window frame, etc.)
Neat theory, isn't it?

The verse in question with my comments from my website:
Paul in 2Co8:9 YLT "for ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that because of you he became poor -- being rich, [when in heaven!] that ye by that poverty may become rich."
Note: in his epistles, Paul's usage of the words "rich" and "riches" is always related to spiritual (and not material) wealth:
1Co4:8-10, 2Co6:10,
2Co8:1-2 "And now, brothers, we want you to know about the grace that God has given the Macedonian churches. Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity."
Ro2:4 "Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?"
Ro9:23 "... the riches of his [God's] glory ..."
Ro11:33 "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! ..."
Php4:9 "And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus."
And Paul always used the word 'poor(ly)' in a material & earthly context:
Ro15:26; 1Co4:11,13:3; 2Co6:10,9:9; Gal2:10
Furthermore, Paul had no concept of material wealth in heaven.

I checked the tense of "became": it is aorist (past)
Jesus being rich is in the present tense (in heaven). So there is no progression from rich to poor. Furthermore, Jesus in the gospel is never said to have given anything material to anybody. Actually him and disciples looked like "takers", not "givers".

Actually I wrote a page on that, saying these trips with the 12 in tow are fiction. The only wandering trip that HJ did (on his own), after he went to Capernaum, appears the one "in the nearby villages", apparently to get away from the miracle seekers of Capernaum.
Jesus' public life
the wandering journeys

Finally, here is what Crossan wrote, from his historical research. These ones I have no reason to reject:

"Next came the Artisans, about 5 percent of the population [in the Roman empire], below the Peasants in social class because they were usually recruited and replenished from its dispossessed members.
Beneath them were the Degraded and Expendable classes - the former with origins, occupations, or conditions rendering them outcasts; the latter, maybe as much as 10 percent of the population, ranging from beggars and outlaws to hustlers, day laborers, and slaves.
If Jesus was a carpenter [according to Mk6:3], therefore, he belonged to the Artisan class, that group pushed into the dangerous space between Peasants and Degradeds or Expendables."
John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography (1994)

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Yes but, whether Jaffa or Sepphoris, it would appear that there was ample work available for an artisan in southern Galilee. Crossan (I couldn't find the reference in the book you mentioned but I did find it is The Historical Jesus) relies on Lenski for his information but I question how appropriate it is to apply his general divisions of social classes in an agrarian society to the income potential for artisans near more than one "booming" metropolitan building effort. Why doesn't more work equal more money for those capable of performing the work?

In the past, Jesus became poor. If we assume that Paul believed in a Jesus who had descended straight down from heaven to be killed, your assumption that the prior state was "rich in heaven" is entirely reasonable. If, on the other hand, we assume Paul believed in a Jesus who lived a full, earthly life before being killed, his statement can easily be understood to refer to a man who walked away from worldly possessions.

He is portrayed as telling those who would follow him to walk away from their lives and possessions. Why should we not assume he had done the same, himself?

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
Usually, more work for craftmen in one area, encourage craftmen from other areas to move in. At the end, the rates are not significantly increased. If you are thinking about more working hours, craftmen in these days were putting already long hours just to get by. They had no time left to handle extra hours.
I witnessed the local craftmen in India and Nepal, among other places. Some making pottery, carpets, wood-work, iron-work, etc. They are very noticeable. Working all day and living in poverty. Essentially, their social position is very near the bottom. And the economic situation in the Roman empire was similar to the one of today poor nations, more so in the area of traditional crafts.

For Paul, Jesus is pre-existent. When in heaven (in the present, when he wrote 2Corinthians), Christ is rich. Consequently he was also rich when pre-existent in heaven, before "coming" on earth. So Paul could use "become poor". For your last sentence, we do not have a single bit of evidence. All indication is that his family was poor, so Jesus was poor by birth. As it is the case in the old days, if you are born in a poor family, it was near impossible to get out of poverty.

The problem is no gospel says he did, which would have been a good thing to write. More so for "Luke", very much into the "giving to the poor" thing. A poor person can ask that kind of thing any time without having been wealthy before and giving what he had.

Best regards, Bernard

Amaleq13

Bernard,

Assuming a historical Jesus, I think you make a strong case for poverty but I still consider his (or his father's) occupation a much less secure claim.

What I like about your depiction of the historical Jesus is that it matches up with Paul's minimal references to the pre-crucifixion Jesus contrary to the Gospel depiction.

I'm still not clear how this essentially unsuccessful nobody had such an astounding theological interpretation applied to him but I intend to check the specific links you provided Peter as soon as I get the time.

Bernard Muller

Amaleq13:
You hit it dead on! I could not have done my reconstruction without Paul's testimony, even it is is "in passing" and through tidbits.

Ya, that's the crux. Almost everybody thinks that something big had to start from somebody big (but not Doherty, what a pal!). But I think in matter of religion, that does not apply, as long as you can find suckers along the way. This is what really matters. Furthermore Christianity developed not from HJ, but later & away from Palestine and really took off from Paul's "visions", "revelations" and "scholarly" speculations.
A nobody crucified as King of the Jews was bound to have Jewish minds speculating and looking in the OT for answers. From that point on, who was HJ and who he was not, did not matter much (but him as a 'good guy' would help).
But I let you read my site, more so my page HJ-3b "the beginning of Christianity" where it all starts from:
"A common mortal (a "son of man"), who talked about "the good news" of the coming Kingdom, died as "king of the Jews"."

Best regards, Bernard