Toto

In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium Ehrman compares Jesus to David Koresh. I can't imagine a believing Christian with any ounce of orthodoxy writing that. It is quite possible that ALL biblical scholarship is biased, but Ehrman seems to have contained whatever biases he might have had.

capnkirk

Am I contending that ALL biblical scholarship is (potentially) biased,,,in a word, YES. Your second point aptly describes the rationale for my conclusion. At the same time, I don't advocate throwing out everything an author says simply because of his particular bias. Rather, I advocate identifying the nature of the author's potential bias BEFORE reading/studying his work. Doing so provides the nature of the filter through which to detect his biases. Actually, this is no more than a slight sophistication of the principle of skepticism.
I concur that he leaves that impression. On the other hand, he simply left it at that; he chose not to dig any deeper to find the origins of the various movements and interpretations (and through the filter of my own biases appears to scrupulously avoid any interpretation that challenges in any way the conventional orthodoxy of mainstream NT scholarship).What sets my alarm bells off here is that far too many of his colleagues use "Historical Jesus" to mean "Historical Jesus Christ", and my contention is that he also assumes the latter when he says the former. Using these two terms interchangeably tends to blind one to interpretations that separate the two. The example of the Ebionites believing in a historical Jesus, then describing a Historical Jesus Christ only further convinces me that he believes that the two terms ARE interchangeable.Yes, but no one can do it perfectly, so some of it must filter through. After reading him, I felt the need to alert others to be on guard for the same...so they would recognize it when they saw it.I disagree. I hold that fully 90% of the controversy was over the nature of his divinity.The controversy at the (first) Council of Nicaea was precisely about the nature of his divinity...specifically whether he was fully divine or human/divine. Fully human (and resurrected by an act of God) was NOT one of the choices.Like Ehrman, you appear to be unwilling to consider the consequences of those contentions, much less test the validity of those consequences on: the evolution of the gospels, the depiction of Saul/Paul, the nature of TJC, and the nature of the event that started all the Xtian controversy -- specifically with respect to discovering how a savior antithetical and heretical to Judaism emerged from it while claiming continuity with it. That is what I call a blind spot.

Vorkosigan

Cap'n, I for one tend to agree with CX's pocket analysis that "....I contend that Paul was entirely rejected by Jesus' original followers. He was viewed just as heretical by the Jewish-Xian congregation in Jerusalem as they were within the larger Jewish culture."

Why don't you clarify some of the problems you have with this? Is it that you don't think Xtianity came out of Judaism, or that you do, but believe we don't understand how, or what?

Also, CX is one of, maybe even the most measured, poster here. CX likes to hold things up to the light for a while and turn them around in his hands before he pronounces on them. There's no call to abuse him for being biased or not open-minded. Don't mistake restraint for credulousness.

Vorkosigan

godfry n. glad

I concur completely.

godfry n. glad

capnkirk

First, let me point out that, so far as my inclusion of CX in my previous post, I not only qualified my conclusion (with "appear to"), I emphasized that qualilfication by italicizing the word so as to remove any perception that any offense was meant.

Yes, I DO believe that Xtianity "came out of" Judaism, but that it did so in such a way that no observant Jew could follow yet remain an observant Jew. Just as is depicted in Acts, TJC accused Paul of preaching the abrogation of the Torah. That means that they considered Paul's Christ as a NEW RELIGION, with no connection to Judaism. I have, in earlier posts to this thread, elaborated on the problems that derive from failing to appreciate this, so you will need to go back and read through them after you read this. I have also posted to other threads on this subject, so I suggest that you use the search function to gather them all up for you, if you are interested. For now, here it is in a nutshell:

1) Jesus never thought of himself as "the Christ". This misconception arises from differences between the Hebrew word for Messiah and the Greek word that Paul first used.
2) Paul invented "Christ" (and therefore Xtianity) when, on the Road to Damascus, he had a vision of Jesus (whom he had never met) which convinced him that Jesus was the manifestation of the dying/resurrected deity/redeemer of his native (pagan) Tarsus.
3) TJC is a misnomer. They were Jesus' disciples and followers; still observant Jews, still waiting for Jesus' return to throw off the Roman yoke and re-estalish the Kingdom of God (Israel). That is why they considered Paul heretical.
4) After Paul and TJC split, Paul continued to spread "xtianity", and TJC continued to wait for the return of Jesus. After the Jewish War, they fled into exile and became the Ebionites.
5) Decades later, Xtian believers revised the gospels to present Jesus as Christ, but there remains enough of the original portrayal to recognize that this conversion was made. (Self test: Take a passage that deals with Jesus and Pharisees that is included in all three Synoptic Gospels, then compare the accounts, reading GMark (the earliest) first, then GMatt, then GLuke. The earlier the account, the less hostile the encounter. Repeat with another episode. The pattern also repeats.) I contend that this is evidence (not all, by any means) of later redaction to make the gospels support Paul's Christ and to obscure the historical Jesus (i.e. to make Jesus = Christ).

So long as we, in our minds, continue to use the two terms interchangeably, it is nearly impossible to recognize that the Historical Jesus and Christ even could have been two totally different creatures.

CX's insistence of refering to TJC as "Jewish Xtians" is an example of how failing to recognize that Jesus does not equal Christ creates blind spots in our ability to discern just who HJ was, and how Xtianity relates to Judaism. Yes, I was trying to mildly provoke him into looking more deeply into the evidence I had been presenting...which had thus far been thwarted by both his and Ehrman's apparent interchangeable use of the two subject terms. No offense was meant; if offense was taken, I apologize.

Amaleq13

Did you expand on this in another thread? If so, I don't recall seeing it. If not, could you do so?

Did a resurrected Jesus appear to them as it is claimed in the letter to the Corinthians or do you understand this as another lie from Paul?

CX

Hmmm...I think perhaps our disagreement is over semantics more than anything else. I should clarify what I mean by Xian. I do not mean Xian in the contemporary orthdox sense with all the attendant metaphysical baggage that goes with it. I mean only a follower of Jesus. Some how "Jesusian" just doesn't roll off the tongue. Given the etymology of XRISTOS it is perhaps a misuse to refer to all followers of Jesus with the title of Xian regardless of their messianic claims (or lack thereof).

In my experience Ehrman uses the same understanding. Xian refers to a follower of Jesus not necessarily a messianist. The Marcionites for example rejected all things Jewish including the OT and the Jewish God. Consequently they cannot reasonably be considered messianist in any sense. Nonetheless in common academic parlance they are referred to as Xians. You'll forgive me if I think you're being a bit pedantic in your own usage by insisting that it refer narrowly only to messianic followers of Jesus.

Vis-a-vis the Ebionites, we don't have enough information to know anymore than that they were a 2nd century Xian group with a different christology than the proto-orthodox. If they went back to the original followers of Jesus or some other Jews we have no evidence of it.

Vis-a-vis the Jerusalem congregation is it your contention that they did not make messianic claims for Jesus? How do you know that? Unfortunately we have none of their writings to consult (if in fact they wrote anything). I've no doubt that Peter et al viewed themselves, as Jesus did, as Torah observant Jews. I think it is not so clearcut that they could not have believed Jesus to be a messiah. Modern Lubavitchers are observant Jews and yet consider their founder (now deceased) a messiah. Human religious belief is incredibly malleable especially in cases where prophetic or apocalyptic expectations don't pan out.

How do you know what Jesus did or did not think? He left no writings of his own that we know of. We have no writings from his original followers that we know of. What we do know is that during that period in Palestine there were numerous apocalyptic prophets making messianic claims.

One thing you said in particular strikes me as extremely tenuous and I would like to see you defend the position more fully.

On a personal note:

None was and you needn't. The whole point of being here is spirited discussion usually predicated on some disagreement.

Amaleq13

I can tell you his answer to this one is "no". He explained this in another thread and it relates to the distinction between HJ and HJC. According to the Capn's previous explanation, the Jerusalem group considered Jesus to have been the traditional Jewish Messiah (i.e. destined to overthrow Roman oppression).

capnkirk

I concur completely that 'semantics' is clearly causing us to talk past each other. Further, I also agree that the etymology of the Greek XRISTOS tends to obfuscate the difference between the Jewish definition of MESSIAH from the Greek translation. And this difference is absolutely critical to understand. The Jewish Messiah was a MAN. He was not divine in ANY sense. The Greek Xristos WAS a divine being or at least something very close to it. Using the latter term when you don't intend to confer divine nature is both confusing and misleading; that is why I have abandoned such use...and increasingly encourage others to do the same. This is also why I have used (parenthetically) "political" and "spiritual" prefixes to the term 'messiah' to help communicate the separation of the two meanings, and the two different Jesuses implicit in the two definitions. I have come to use 'Jesus' to indicate the Jewish messianic candidate (as I have come to believe that if he existed at all, that is most likely who/what he was), and reserve the use of 'Christ' for the "divine savior" of Paul's epiphany...and all its subsequent derivatives because all these derivatives shared belief in a being that was something other than (or more than) a mortal man. If there was a sect of Xtains that did consider Jesus just a man, they were certainly the rare exception.

Given the above definition, all the followers of Jesus AND most of the followers of Christ were messianic; they just had very different understandings of the term.

Please reevaluate this quote in the light of the above. No, it is my contention that TJC DID make messianic claims for Jesus...in the Jewish context of the word. We need look no farther than the book of Acts to glean some insight, beginning with who they chose to be their leader. They chose James, Jesus' brother, someone whose only mention in the gospels is as one who opposed Jesus' mission. Why would they do that instead of choosing Peter, the (apparent) spiritual leader of Jesus' disciples? If they believed Jesus was a strictly Jewish Messiah, James would have been the obvious choice because the Messiah would be the new king. That's why Jesus' "House of David" lineage was critical; he had to have royal blood. In the absence of the King, the King's closest kin becomes regent; that would be James. After James was executed by the High Priest, the Sadducee Ananias in 62 CE, he was succeeded by another member of Jesus’ family, Simeon, son of Cleophas, who was Jesus’ cousin. This further demonstrates that the structure of the Jerusalem ‘church’ was monarchial rather than ecclesiastical. Moreover, there is evidence that the Romans saw the matter in this light, for they issued decrees against all descendants of the house of David, ordering them to be arrested. Simeon was eventually executed by the Romans as a pretender to the throne of David.

In their confrontations with Paul, Acts consistently portrays TJC as (Torah)-observant Jews who accused Paul of preaching abrogation of the Torah (i.e. creating a NEW religion). They seemed much less incensed over what he was preaching to Gentiles than over what he was preaching to expatriate Jews. There's more, but it would require more space than is polite to take here.

Now, look again at the description of the Ebionites in light of both the foundation I have just laid down and the responses below. These people considered themselves Torah-observant Jews, just like TJC. They believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, just like TJC. They considered Paul a heretic, and founder of a new religion, just like TJC. If they were not actually, the remnants/descendants of TJC (post-Temple), then they were their ideological twins.

While no one can "know" what Jesus did or didn't think, we do have the means to assign probabilities based of what evidence we do have.
Let me begin by briefly quoting from Crossan (from his Prologue to The Historical Jesus):

"Historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke. There were always historians who said it could not be done because of historical problems. There were always theologians who said it should not be done becaause of theological objections. And there were always scholars who said the former when they meant the latter." That is the foundation for the caveat that I proffered to potential readers of LC. Quoting again from the same source: "The ordinary reader may well wonder why there is any problem at all with the literary or textual level of the Jesus tradition. Have we not...four biographies by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, individuals all directly or indirectly connected with him and all composing within, say, 75 years of his death? Is that not better than what we have for the contemporary Roman emperor, Tiberius, ....What, then, is the literary problem for the Jesus textual tradition? It is, at heart, precisely that fourfold record, even if there were no external documents whatsoever, that constitutes the literary problem. If you read those texts vertically, as it were, from start to finish and one after another, you get a pretty persuasive impression of unity, harmony, and agreement. But if you read them horizontally, focusing on this or that unit, (ed: episode) and compare it across two, three or four versions, it is disagreement rather than agreement that strikes one most forcibly."

My studies and research in such "horizontal" reading produced some startling observations:

1). That Jesus is presented as being opposed by the Pharisees while taking philosophical positions that are in agreement with Pharisee teaching.

2). That this conflict with the Pharisees increases in hostility from the earliest gospel to the later ones.

3). That sometimes the Pharisees were depicted quarreling with Jesus over issues that were issues of concern only to the High Priest (leader of the Sadducees), giving the impression that the quarrel was redefined by later redaction, substituting Pharisees where Sadducees had been in the earlier versions.

These observations demonstrated a pattern of redaction wherein a purely Jewish Messiah was reinvented as a spiritual one. At the same time I realized that this also represented the best understanding I had encountered for the puzzling treatment of Jesus' disciples in the gospels as a bunch of dullards that just couldn't quite grasp the true mission of Jesus the Christ. If they were such dullards, then why did Jesus pick them in the first place? But if the Jesus Christ of the redacted versions was NOT the Jesus they knew and were taught by, then this depiction made a lot more sense. Their description in Acts (as observant Jews) further enforced the premise that such was the case.

Then I started assembling all the NT descriptions of, writings of, and references to Saul/Paul (mostly from Acts and his letters). Then, I researched contemporary Tarsus in Cilicia. The person that emerged was a very different from the superficial impression you get from casually reading NT scripture:

1). Saul once refers to himself as "Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin". Aside from the coincidence(?) that the ill-fated OT King was also "Saul of the Tribe of Benjamin", the Tribe of Benjamin had been fully absorbed and had not existed as such for several hundred years...making the claim incredulous. Evidently, Saul was not his name back in Tarsus.

2). Saul claims to be "a citizen of Tarsus, no mean city". Yet in another place he claims to have been raised in Jerusalem. Someone raised in Jerusalem would certainly have claimed THAT higher honor rather than of Tarsus.

3). Saul claimed to have had Pharisaic training from none less than the Chief of the Pharisee party (Gamaliel). Unlikely on several counts: Gamaliel taught only the most advanced students (after preparatory training that reached all the way back to childhood). Very unlikely that any Pharisaic training at all was available in Tarsus.

4). Saul worked for the High Priest persecuting Jesus' followers. The High Priest was head of the Temple (as opposed to the synagogues), was a wealthy Sadducee, and was appointed by the ROMAN governor! As such, he was required to be actively suportive of Roman interests, one of which was of nipping potential insurrections in the bud. Only if the High Priest considered Jesus movement (politically) messianic (as in restoring the House of David and reestablishing a free and independent Kingdom of God (this term is used repeatedly in the OT to mean the Kingdom of Israel.), would persecution of Jesus and his followers meet that criteria. So Saul was a hired Sadducee 'thug' doing essentially police work for the Sadducees.

5). The dominant religious sects of Tarsus were Zoroastrian/pagan (Tarsus was named for the god Ba'al-Taraz.). Here was worshipped the dying and resurrected deity who was always the same in all his guises, whether called Attis, Adonis, Osiris, or Ba'al-Taraz. Given this evidence, I cannot believe that it is coincidental that Paulist Xtianity has far more in common with these mystery religions than it had with any form of Judaism (not only the sacrificial deity, but also the Eucharist (there is no Hebrew precedent for symbolically eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a person, much less a deity)).

From this foundation, I have concluded that while on his way to Damascus under orders from the High Priest to covertly kidnap certain unnamed high-value targets, Saul had a cathartic episode where he finally recognized the resurrected Jesus as the manifestation of the resurrected deity of his childhood. At this instant, the Jewish messianic candidate became Jesus Christ the redeemer and savior of the world, the son of God. When TJC heard about this, they rejected it as heretical, and Saul (now Paul) went to Antioch to begin his new ministry of Jesus Christ. In claiming Pharisee training, he was claiming high honor and high standing in the Jewish community (which was untrue). Even in Paul's early ministry, he was acutely aware of the need to demonstrate connection to antiquity, and that claim depended wholly on his being able to demonstrate continuity with Judaism, hence the Pharisaic claim.

If this still seems sketchy, it is necessarily so, because it would take the volume of a book to present an exhaustive case.

Perhaps, now you will understand why I am so sensitive about people using Jesus, Jesus Christ, and Christ all interchangeably.

Thank you

Llyricist

Hyam is that you???