aa5874

Are we not supposed to be discussing Ehrman's New Book? If Doherty is so wrong then why can't people show that Ehrman MUST be so right?

There must be people here who support Ehrman who can show with EASE and DELIGHT that Ehrman's theory on Jesus is FAR SUPERIOR to any other theory and can highlight the very "strong" evidence from antiquity that he is likely to use in his new book.

But, all I am hearing is Doherty, Doherty, Doherty............Doherty!!!!

HJers this thread is for your man, Ehrman!!

Let us hear it for Ehrman, HJers!!!!

I can't hear anything from you.

What Ehrman do?

dog-on

Such things usually come on after 11pm, I guess...

radius

If you crossed out all of the gospel fulfilments of 'prophecy' that were not proper prophecy fulfilments, I doubt there would be anything left. They are in general nonsensical and naïve.

Which gospel prophecies actually make sense, never mind hold water? And where is the prophecy that the messiah would be from Bethlehem? Which they had covered anyway.

Of course there wasn’t. Since when did a prophecy not existing stop an evangelist from finding one? It was their modus operandi. The fact is that, contrary to Ehrman’s assertion that Jesus being from Nazareth did not fulfil any prophecy, Matthew explicitly states that he came to Nazareth "so that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets, that a Nazōraion he shall be called". The gospel writers determine prophecy, not us - Ehrman can't step in and object that it's not really a prophecy because it's not much good. It is an absurd 'prophecy' based on word-play and ignorance masquerading as mysticism. There is only a single vowel difference between the LXX 'nazirite' phrase at Judges 13:7 and Matthew's phrase, so it is likely that which he had in mind. It would hardly be the only time 'Matthew' misread the LXX or beggared belief.

How would this 'inconvenience' manifest itself then? Why would the evangelists be stuck with this embarrassing one-horse town – if they’d 'lied' that he was from Bethlehem (and, let's face it, they got away with much bigger lies apparently without fear of contradiction!), who would have objected and what would their objection have been? Why, if being 'the Nazōraion' (a phrase that has much greater emphasis than the placename) was embarrassing, rather than significant like Matthew said it was, would the gospel writers refer over and over again (and particularly at spiritually significant junctures) to Jesus Nazōraion instead of, well, leaving it at the birth in Bethlehem and settling in Capernaum and not mentioning it? It seems clear that the term Nazōraion held considerable significance to the gospel writers.

GakuseiDon

Yes, on page 695 and note 189. Even then, you can only push them back to around 160 CE. This is the sort of thing Ehrman and other scholars are going to eat you alive when they get to it. Neither Athenagoras and Theophilus refer to the names "Jesus" or "Christ", they treat the Old Testament as authoritative and only gives allusions to Gospel content (though Theophilus refers to the "Gospel of John" which you suggest wasn't there in the original), and both suggest their Christianity as a thriving religion spread throughout the world. If the proto-orthodox heresiologists didn't notice them, surely they noticed the proto-orthodox?

Richard Carrier notes on Theophilus (my bolding):

"Near Tatian's Syrian church, but across the border in Roman territory (and amidst a decidedly Greek culture) flourished bishop Theophilus at Antioch, around 180 A.D. (M 117-9). Theophilus is important for a variety of reasons: he was the second, very shortly after Athenagoras (below), to explicitly mention the Trinity (Ad Autolycum 2.15); he may have composed his own harmony and commentary on the four Gospels chosen by Tatian; and he wrote books against Marcion and other heretics. He is also a window into the thinking of converts: he was converted by the predictions concerning Jesus in the OT (ibid. 1.14), perhaps the weakest grounds for conversion. But most of all, he routinely treats Tatian's Gospels as holy scripture, divinely inspired, on par with the Hebrew prophets (M 118). He also refers to John's Revelation as authoritative".

So again we see the same pattern: emphasis on the OT, few (if any) references to a historical Jesus. If the best explanation was that Athenagoras and Theophilus were historicists, what would they do to our expectations of what we would see in the First Century writers?

OK. So the Epistle to Diognetus is the last document reflecting a "non-Gospel Pauline-style cult". It is dated in ECW to 130 CE or 200 CE. The author doesn't refer to "Jesus" or "Christ", blah blah blah, all the other 'indicators' you use to show that the letter is the creation of an ahistoricist.

Now, would everyone agree that, if the best explanation is that the author is some kind of historicist, that this should impact our expectations on what we would expect to see in the First Century writings?

Here is the text of the Epistle to Diognetus:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

First, the author's comments about the Christians, whom appear to be one group. He is going to describe something "prevalent among the Christians":

Since I see thee, most excellent Diognetus, exceedingly desirous to learn the mode of worshipping God prevalent among the Christians...

For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe... But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life...

They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven... they are assailed by the Jews as foreigners, and are persecuted by the Greeks; yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred...

... Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world... the Christians, though subjected day by day to punishment, increase the more in number.

So what is the doctrine that the author gives for this group?:

... God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things--by whom He made the heavens... This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing?

No mention of "Jesus", "Christ", "Nazareth", etc. Completely absent. But... given the date that this was written and the author's comments about Christians generally, who would we think the author was talking about? If the answer is "proto-orthodox Christians assumed he was talking about Christ", I would answer: I agree, and that is because the author WAS talking about Christ. But for some reason, the author decided not to refer to "Jesus", "Christ", historical details, etc.

If I am right, how would that set our expectations about what we would see in the Pauline literature?

The author goes on:

For, who of men at all understood before His coming what God is?... He [God] formed in His mind a great and unspeakable conception, which He communicated to His Son alone. As long, then, as He held and preserved His own wise counsel in concealment, He appeared to neglect us, and to have no care over us. But after He revealed and laid open, through His beloved Son, the things which had been prepared from the beginning, He conferred every blessing all at once upon us...

As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses... But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us... He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God?...

The author describes "Christians" but never uses the word "Christ". He believes he is a member of a group scattered around the world and is punished for being called a "Christian", without signifying any other groups exist. He refers to one of the common complaints about Christians' "love feasts" (Christians "have a common table, but not a common bed"). A Son is sent as Saviour and a ransom, but no references to miracles or sayings.

Either Doherty is right and this represents some kind of Christian "Son of God" worship, or I am right and this is consistent with a pattern that we see throughout the early Christian literature.

Vorkosigan

I'll go with Doherty on this, since you keep making his point for him.

Hahahaha.

mountainman

According what we have from Epiphanius, there was a list of 80 heresies that were subdued by the Christian orthodox victors. Here are the first 7:

The First Seven Heresies in the Index of Eighty

In his introductory prelude, in speaking of the "sects" or "heresies" Epiphanius notes:

"For it was about these four sects ("heresies") that the apostle clearly said in reproof,
"In Christ Jesus there is neither Barbarian, Scythian, Hellene nor Jew, but a new creation" [5] Col 3:11

Heresy 1 of 80 - Against Barbarism
Heresy 2 of 80 - Against Scythianism
Heresy 3 of 80 - Against Hellenism
Heresy 4 of 80 - Against Judaism
Heresy 5 of 80 - Against Stoics
Heresy 6 of 80 - Against Platonists
Heresy 7 of 80 - Against Pythagoreans

No. You can see Platonists listed as # 6 of 80

That is not what the evidence discloses. The heresiologists wrote at length about the heresy of Platonism and Pythagoraeanism.

Vorkosigan

"order of texts" You mean the dating?

Maybe to you....

Nope. Because the early documents were all produced by people who believed in the cosmic christ. Then they were reinterpreted and edited by people who believed in a historical Jesus.

It is difficult to believe this is a serious question. Earl has discussed this at length. The Paulines contain a cosmic Christ, not a historical one. So does Mark, or rather, I should say, there's no history of a human person in Mark. Since i've worked with GMark at length, I;m pretty confident it contains no history and its author didn't intend it as such. Since I know of at least two sets of texts (actually four or more depending on you divide up "Paul") written by people who didn't believe in a historical Jesus and they are among the earlier texts, I'm pretty sure the early Jesus was a cosmic savior figure.

1. No.
2. Luke and Acts
3. Offhand, none that I can think of. But I haven't studied the NT epistles at length.

Vorkosigan

mountainman

The full context of the quote is cited at the very opening of a recent essay located here. The statement is taken from "Lost Christianities" and refers to the "conflict with the Gnostics".


The full quote runs as follows:


My own opinion on the unknown history of the Gnostics can be stated by papraphrasing Bart as follows:

We have 4th century comparanda evidence for the modus operandi of the "history rewrite"
The victors retrojected the Nicaean Controversy into a fabricated pre-Nicaean history,
by the insertion of references and mentions of popular 4th century "Gnostic Gospels and Acts"
into their special "Ecclesiastical Version" of the "Historia Augusta"

The false history rewritten by the victors declared the debate lasted "three hundred years",
but despite the fact that we'd like to believe them, and assume they told the truth, they lied.

Authorship of the "Gnostic Gospels" commenced c.324 CE in reaction to the Constantine Bible.
Constantinian damnatio memoriae, exile, and other forceful measures destroyed the books,
the name and the political memory of the Post-Nicaean gnostic author(s), with the result that
the "Greek debate" was "fascistly outlawed" inside "three hundred days", then imperially
suppressed and destroyed within "three hundred weeks".

Pachomian renegades reopened the "book debate" in Coptic. Others reopened it in Syriac.
But these, in turn, were "fascistly outlawed" inside "three hundred months".

The practice of Christian forgery certainly has a long and distinguished history,
but the evidence of the practice of Christian forgery appears with the 4th century.
The debate submerged for "three hundred leap years" while civilisation recovered.
The debate has been renewed with the recent discovery of ancient manuscript evidence.

mountainman

Do you mean the Second Century writers seriously cited by Eusebius from the 4th century?

Vorkosigan

I just finished Ehrman's book on Jesus as an Apocalyptic Prophet. Here's a passage on Judas:

• "This act of betrayal is about as historically certain as anything else in the tradition. For one thing, it is multiply attested (Mark 14:10-11, John 18:2-3, Acts 1:16; possibly 1 Cor 11:23). Moreover, it is not the sort of thing that a later Christian would probably make up (one of Jesus closest disciples betrayed him? He had no more authority over his followers than that?). According to our accounts..."

Now, during the two page discussion of Judas, Ehrman never raises the serious possibility that Judas might be a fiction. In fact there are good reasons to argue for Markan invention of Judas, I laid them out in my discussion of Mk 14:10-11 here:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark14.html

The point is not whether Judas was invented or not. The point is that Ehrman's treatment of him as a character is incredibly shallow, even disingenuous, especially when one is writing for a lay audience.

Passages like this, which fill Ehrman's popular writing, don't give me confidence that his book on mythicism will be especially useful for anyone. I suspect it will be like Steve Carr says, we'll be paying $6 to learn that Paul said James was Jesus' brother, so Jesus is real.

Vorkosigan