Bart Erhman, transformation complete? (page 3)

Midget-Sasquatch

Rex

Alot of the non-NT material you're putting forward as "evidence" (Seutonius etc.) only demonstrates what christians believed and taught at the time of writing. The Gospels are contradictory in several places so aren't reliable history.

PP

I agree with you that the expression "brother of the Lord" could also have a religious meaning (that perhaps added to his legitimacy as head of the Jerusalem community?). I'm not won over by Eisenmann's idea of Jesus and James having set up a succession of sorts like the Maccabeans. I am fascinated though by the question of who exactly was this James, since he apparently had the popular support of the Jews. He was supposedly killed for his opposition to the religious powers that be...a revolutionary of sorts? Political revolutionaries were crucified. I think its an interesting parallel.

Narkissos

We are indeed left with a ton of questions.

"Jesus" is sandwiched between John and James, two characters of some historical consistency, to which Christian sources relate him contradictorily: John is presented either as an immediate "precursor" (but he obviously had an ongoing line of non-Christian disciples, which would be quite strange if he had really pointed to Jesus as his "successor"), or a close relative (Luke), or a more remote figure (Jesus can be presented as the "resurrected John," cf. also "since the days of John the Baptist"); James is either a "brother" (literal, as the Gospels imply? spiritual, as the title "brothers of the Lord," parallel to the "apostles" or the "Twelve," suggests?) or a disciple (the striking parallel between the inner circle of disciples in the Gospels being "Peter, James and John" and "Cephas, James and John" in Galatians; Acts 12 has the "James of the Twelve" killed by Herod just before James of Jerusalem pops up from nowhere).

Very little of what is said about James in non-NT documents (Josephus, Hegesippus) suggests a relationship to Jesus. One can imagine Jesus and James as members of the same (Nazorean?) movement, but James hardly appears as a "disciple of Jesus". Moreover James is a kind of aristocratic priestly figure in Jerusalem rather than a Galilean popular prophet-rabbi.

If there is room for a historical Jesus from what is not purely literary fabrication from OT material in the Gospels, the hypothesis of a Galilean nationalist seems among the most plausible; but then the connection with John and James becomes dubious. And there are many otherwise known contemporary historical figures (e.g. Judas the Galilean) which may have provided the model for the construction.

Anyway, the "earthly Jesus" that really matters to Christian faith is the one who walked on the sea: the god-man that can be built from the Gospels, rather the historical person(s) that may have stood behind them.

Midget-Sasquatch

Sabeans...mandeans...yeah, I can see John the Baptiser had a fairly good franchise of his own. That, along with Josephus, and the matter that the gospels are made to address a rivalry of sorts (perceived by the christian side at least) shows John was very likely real. But zippo on the other side. sigh.

Eiseman's book on James the Just, mentions that there was once a version of Josephus that attributed the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the death of James. From that, he figures James was favoured by zealots and similar movements. That he may have been viewed by them as their legitimate (high)priest in opposition to the establishment (in line with the Herodians and Romans....puh-too-ee). What do experts on Josephus say about the likelihood of such a passage?

Narkissos

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesdeath.html

Leolaia

There is also yet another (legendary) account of the death of James in the Ascents of James (dating to the mid-second century, but in its present form to the third century), which amusingly posits Paul as the instigator responsible for James' death. This is discussed at length in Van Voorst's commentary.

Narkissos

Another piece to the puzzle is the martyrdom of Stephen in Acts 7, in which Saul/Paul is involved: it is strongly reminiscent of Josephus' account of James' death.

Balsam

I have several of Professor Bart Ehrman lectures from the Learning Company, and love them. Also have read all his books, and agree with him. I know it is hard for fundamentalist to loosen the grasp they have on their bibles to even entertain the thought he might be right. I fully understand their fears, I've had them myself. But I've stopped being freaked out by the idea the bible is myth, and learning to live without the biblical net. It is not so scary now.

Balsam

Midget-Sasquatch

Thank you all for the fresh material to read over (the well attested and the legendary). --- And I'm not just writing that to push myself closer to 1,000 posts ---- cross my heart---- Errrrr, but now, if I've been persuaded to conclude its all myth, that gesture should mean squat to me. So how do you know I'm not fibbing?

Joking aside, I have a deep respect for all of you who've fundamentally changed your core beliefs. I can't say I've undergone the process to the same extent, but I've had the mixed emotions that come from realizing the uncertainty of it all. Now a small part of me still wishes that there be at least some grain of truth to the Jesus figure. But in interests of truth, like one JWd poster once wrote "I'd rather have questions I can't answer, than answers I can't question." I love learning how these different beliefs developed and trying to fit it all together. Good night all.

Shining One

>Equating Holocaust "denial" with literary criticism of a story filled with magic and contradictions is just inappropriate and inflammatory.

A 'story'? How about 66 books written by many different authors that tell a cohesive, prophetic story about how the world needs a messiah to right itself from degeneration and eventual extinction?

>The Holocaust is attested by millions of eyewitnesses and physical evidence.

The Bible is attested by millions of believers who know God in a personal way. They offer hundreds of legitimate, eyewitness testimonies and thousands of material evidence of both inspired and secular in nature.

>Jesus as historical person not only has neither

Really? Perhaps you can prove your assumptions and deny they are caused by your own bias?

>but does have all the hallmarks of allegory and fiction and reasonable objective people should assume this to be the case

How do you define what is 'reasonable and objective' for people? Who made up the rules you are quoting and what is their basis in logic? Many more intelligent people than you have looked at the same evidence and said, "this is from God".

>unless significant evidence directs otherwise.

Er uh, excuse me? How many mountains of manuscripts and millions of testimonies do you need to find something 'signicant'?

>Despite endless protests such evidence has not been found.

Disprove the evidence that you say does not exist.
Rex

Shining One

Hey Balsam,
None of us need your condescension....you assume that faith is some kind of 'crutch'. Perhaps you need one? If you are a betting man why not take 'Pascal's wager'?
Rex

Bart Erhman, transformation complete?

Share this