PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

You agree with Ehrman's caveat that the text must not be changed to explain it. However, what Ehrman also tells us is that that the text was constantly changed. Ehrman wants us to believe the miracle that we have discovered all the changes made from the original New Testament text.

Forget that our earliest complete text comes from the Third century or Fourth century and the Church fathers constantly quote different text that they were reading. All other text must have been originally composed exactly as we have it. Not even a simple change from "he" to "I" could have happened if we don't have it in the surviving text. We must shut off our logical faculties and no matter how glaring the contradictions in the text we now have, we must assume they are inerrant. It appears that Ehrman only abandoned his fundamentalist background when faced with overwhelming visual/physical proof. When it comes to logical proof, he is still as fundamentalist as ever, accepting the inerrancy of the texts we now possess.

Once we reject this miracle, we can see the simple changes that must have been made. It is simple logic that suggest the changes that must have been made to the text we now possess, even if we do not possess the text to show those changes. Deducing logical changes based on the text we have is not the same as making changes willy-nilly to fit a preconceived hypothesis. It can be compared to holding Hitler responsible for the Holocaust and the concentration camps. No we don't have any written document that says he ordered it, but the evidence and logic overwhelming suggests it. The historian who accepts the dictum of the unrepentent Nazis that there is no proof of Hitler's involvement because there is no written proof is a bad historian indeed.

For example, regarding the Eucharist text I brought up in my last post, it makes sense for Paul to share his bread and wine cup with the Lord and to ask the Lord to remember him. Jews were taught to share their first offerings with the Lord. They lived inside a Greco-Roman culture where making sacrifices, sharing your meat/grain with the Gods and pouring libations, sharing your drink with the gods, was universally observed. In the Jewish culture, you also traditionally ask that God remember you every year and write your name in the book of life. Thus it makes perfect sense that Paul shares his bread and cup with the Lord on the night when he was delivered up - arrested. Note that being a prisoner, Paul would only have been given the traditional bread and water when the Lord visited him on the night he, Paul, was delivered up. If the Eucharist originated at a Passover meal, why is there no sharing of lamb, for example? If it originated at a customary cult meeting meal, why not a blessing over all the food that was shared?

On Ehrman's Historical Jesus Hypothesis, we get no explanation of why the Lord visited Paul and just happened to talk about this specific incident of splitting bread and sharing a cup. It is totally arbitrary.

Ehrman doesn't even notice the amazing coincidence of Paul getting a visit from the Lord on the night he was delivered over in Acts and Paul talking about getting a visit from the Lord and talking about what happened that night Jesus was delivered over in 1 Corinthians. For Ehrman, there is no relationship, as if people routinely get visits from the Lord on the night they were delivered up.

His historical Jesus hypothesis cannot explain it, just as his historical Jesus hypothesis cannot explain why the High Priest Annanus has Paul struck in the face at his trial and also has Jesus struck in the face at his trial.

The Simple Mythological Jesus Hypothesis does explain this - simply: Actions (as well as sayings) that were described as happening to the Apostles of the Lord in the original Apostle literature were later ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels.

What the Simple Mythological Jesus Hypothesis suggests is that the gospels were a post Bar Kochbar War (134-137) retconning of the Apostle literature. Instead of stories of different apostles preaching about a coming Messiah Savior (Christ Jesus) that they individually learned about through reading the Hebrew Scriptures and visions of the Lord (God), now, in the gospels, the apostles are preaching a messiah savior who had gathered them together before he died in Jerusalem and sent them out.

The Gospels are a specific origination myth. It is not a Jesus Messiah origination myth. It is an apostle origination myth. That is why you have so many different explanations of how Jesus became God (from beginning of time, at birth, at baptism, on the mountain, at his death, after his death). This isn't important. It is just a detail that keeps changing. The gospels are meant to explain how the apostles came together and preached a Jesus who had been crucified. In the original apostle tales, they were separate individuals who each had their own visions of Jesus Christ (Anointed Savior) who would come down and save the Jews from becoming Romans. The failure of the Second Jewish War meant the Apostle literature had to be abandoned or the messianic failure had to be explained. The second choice and the rewriting of the apostle tales into the Gospels were the real beginnings of the anti-Jewish, Jewish-Christianity that became so popular.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

outhouse

proselytize much???


nonsense, you bring up more unanswered questions then you even attempted to answer.

PhilosopherJay

Hi outhouse,

Help me by giving an example, please.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

Hi, Jay. I don't think I can agree with your scenario about the Last Supper in relation to Paul, but I do think that if Ehrmann uses Corinthians as "proof" for the gospel story of a historical event of a historical Jesus, he is being disingenuous and unprofessional as a scholar without accounting for several other possibilities, not the least of which is that Corinthians is a mere composite of texts whereby an author went the other way around and inserted some text about the idea of the Last Supper into Corinthians from a written or an oral gospel story........

outhouse

explain why roman god-fearers would deify one of their own oppressed peasant jews avoiding taxation and ticked off over the roman corruption in the temple/treasury viewed as gods house

aa5874

The WRITTEN statements found in any ancient text cannot be altered. This is basic at any level.

It is the Written statements that must be analyzed and NOT what you assume should have been written.

You are engaged in the very same WILD Assumptions as Ehrman.

Examine Excerpts from your previous post.

Now, after claiming Ehrman ASSUMES what he must Prove you IMMEDIATELY ASSUME your own evidence.

What you have done in effect is to assume you are Inerrant, that is, whatever you assume must be or most likely true which is no different to Ehrman.

Both you and Ehrman are promoting what appears to be "Inerrant Assumptions".

Again, there is NO need to make assumptions about Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings.

As soon as we DO AWAY with assumptions then we can properly analyzed the NT and present proper arguments.

This is basic and extremely reasonable and is accepted throughout the whole world.

Once Ehrman introduces Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings as Ancient evidence for a human Jesus with a human father then AUTOMATICALLY they MUST be scrutinised for their historical reliability and veracity.

Once we read and analyze Acts of the Apostles it can EASILY be seen that there is NO human Jesus with a human father in Acts.

No need to ASSUME anything.

Acts of the Apostles is about the Non-historical resurrected and Ascended character and a Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.

Next, we can analyze the so-called Pauline writings.

Again, we have a similar result--No human Jesus with a human father.

The Pauline Jesus is Specifically described as a Resurrected being. The Pauline writer personally INTERACTED with his Jesus AFTER a non-historical event--the Resurrection.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline writings do NOT require an actual human Jesus. They ONLY require Belief.

Now, when did this BELIEF in a resurrected Jesus begin???

It began AFTER the short gMark.

When the Short gMark is analyzed it can be seen that the author implied that the disciples were NOT Commissioned to preach the Jesus story. The Commission came in a LATER Long gMark by the Resurrected Jesus.

There is NO evidence that the Short gMark was written before the 2nd century.

There is NO evidence that there were Pauline writings before the 2nd century.

ALL recovered dated NT Texts are 2nd century or later.

Writings attributed to 2nd century writers claimed Christians were being PERSECUTED durung the reign of Antoninus and later.

From "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, it can be seen that the Jesus story IMPACTED the Roman Empire in the mid to late 2nd century.

The present available evidence do show that the Resurrected Myth Jesus story was developed sometime in the 2nd century.

There is ZERO need to make assumptions-- it is the Written statements of the "witnesses"--the writings of antiquity--that must be analyzed.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Duvduv,

I can't speak for Ehrman, of course, but my best guess is that he would invoke his "law of convenience." Basically, it suggests that anybody who proposes that there have been changes in the New Testament without manuscript evidence is doing it just for the sake of the convenience of their theory.

No matter what logically probable evidence suggests interpolation, you better have the manuscript evidence, otherwise it can be summarily dismissed. One hears the echo of Mathew 5:18 in this, "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Only Ehrman corrects it to be "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, except for the manuscript evidence we have already found, not the smallest letter, nor the least stoke of a pen, of the New Testament has been changed, until new manuscript will be found."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Duvduv

That's interesting since a) that assumes there had been earlier drafts of manuscripts in circulation before the copy with the composites; and b) it ignores the fact that it was the regime church that had control over the canonical texts to begin with; and c) it is so obsessed about "manuscript evidence" that it ignores the context and content of what is in the extant copies.

It would be like saying that there are only existing copies of a manuscript stating that Mickey Mouse was the Emperor of Japan, and since no other manuscripts exist without the name of Mickey Mouse we have to accept the manuscripts and even go so far as to say that Mickey Mouse was the emperor since we have no proof to the contrary despite the fact that the character of Mickey Mouse doesn't make any sense in the context of a history of a Japanese dynasty.

Toto

This is getting old.

No one deified an oppressed peasant. The idea that Jesus was an oppressed peasant with economic grievances is a modern romantic Marxist reinterpretation of the text.

outhouse

False, your out of line.

the cultural anthropology backs my statements to a T


romans oppressed jew's, fact!

no one is reinterpretating the text. its being used and viewed as written for what it is. Not isnt.

written to a roman audience, the gospels are roman god-fearers work. This is not even up for debate its a fact.

its also a fact they are in fact worshipping a jewish man, this man was a poor jewish peasant who traveled small villages for food scraps and didnt have enough money to pay for a simple poll tax without sending peter fishing.

this is also how it was written, not a reinterpretation.


Do you have the education to take on Crosson, Borg and Reed?