by XJW4EVR 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
I think it is fairly certain that there was a historical Rabbi Jesus who was expected, by some or even many, of his contemporary disciples to become Messiah, and about whom various miracle stories were told. To what extent the story of this Rabbi Jesus can be recovered from the gospels is debatable - as, indeed, is the extent to which this Rabbi relates to the Jesus of later Christian belief.
Rob Crompton http://snigsfoot.blogspot.com
When I saw him at the SBL last year, he said he was writing a book to respond to the mythicist position.
Most scholars think that Jesus the man existed, though I have never read a scholar who thinks Jesus was a Rabbi.
There is the (biased) gospel accounts; there is reference from Josephus (possibly biased) and from Roman history, probably more credible than Josephus.
Rabbinic Judaism post dates Jesus; it is post temple era.
XJW4: When the uber-liberal, agnostic Bart Ehrman says it...it must be true.
But Ehrman's Jesus doesn't perform miracles and rise from the dead, so Ehrman remains agnostic. Right?
If jesus was not a rabbi of sorts then why are his words preserved by his followers? Not an expert on these things but figures that if someone is holding something as sacred and documenting it, using it to teach others then a rabbi being a teacher is a correct term.
Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior.
I think it was from Erhman that I first heard the following that I posted on another thread.
If Jesus had been invented out of whole cloth Matthew and Luke would not have had weave these strories to accommodate Jesus' connection with Galilee
Matthew and Luke both want Jesus born in Bethlehem to establish his royal link to king David, but there is a problem in that the historical Jesus was from Galilee.
The two gospel writers come up with different and mutually incompatible ways of achieving this.
Matthew begins with Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem. His problem is to get Jesus up to Galilee so he invents Herod's slaughter of the innocents and the flight and subsequent exodus from Egypt, with obvious echoes of Moses. They return to Israel when an angel tells them Heord is dead but..
".. when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene." - Matt.2:22,23 (let's leave the blunder of the Nazarene reference for now)
Luke goes the other way; he has Joseph and Mary living in Galilee from the start and invents the far-fetched story of a census to get then down to Bethlehem just in time for the birth. Can you imagine being told to return to your hometown for registration and going to a place where an ancestor lived 1000 years previously? Mary and Joseph then go to the temple to make the prescribed offering a month after the birth and then go home to Nazareth.
I do believe though that there are examples of the influence of pagan myth in the gospels.
There are many examples of miracle stories attributed to historical men of importance within the lifetimes of those who knew them. The emperor Vespasian was said to have healed a blind man in Alexandria by spitting into his eyes (compare Mark 7:33), as well as healing a man with a withered hand by touching it (cf. Mark 3:1-5, 5:25-34), as reported by Suetonius (Vespasian 8.7), Dio Cassius (Roman History 65.8), and Tacitus (Historia 4.81), the latter citing the reports of "eyewitnesses". There are many miraculous stories about the second-century AD rabbis in the Mishnah (completed c. AD 200), written within the lifetime of witnesses of the fourth, third, and possibly the second generation of the tannaim: (1) R Eliezer and R Aqiba b Joseph instantly filling a field with cucumbers and then gathering them all together with a single command (b. Sandedrin 68a; cf. m. Sanhedrin 7.11, y. Sanhedrin 7; 25d), (2) R Eliezer tearing a tree out of its place a hundred cubits by a single command and making water flow backwards (b. Bava Metzia 59b, y. Kil'ayim 3,1; 81c-d), (3) R Gamaliel II calming a storm at sea with a prayer (b. Bava Metzia 59b; cf. Mark 4:35-51), (4) R Joshua b Hananiah being challenged by Emperor Hadrian to prove to him the power of a lion, and after praying a lion roared and all the pregnant woman in Rome miscarried and the walls of Rome fell (b. Hullin 59b), (5) R Simeon b Yohai, who was "experienced in miracles," exorcizing a demon from the Emperor's daughter (b. Me'ilah 17a, b), (6) R Judah h Nasi healing the dumb sons of R Yohanan b Gudgada by prayer (b. Hagigah 3a), (7) R Pinhas finding a lost pearl from a Saracean king swallowed inside a mouse who coughed it up (y. Demai 1; 22a; cf. Matthew 17:27 and the tale of Yosef Moqir Shabbat finding a lost jewel in a fish's mouth in b. Shabbat 119a), and so forth. The similarity of these stories with the miracle tales attributed to Jesus in the gospels is quite apparent. The stories are also quite legendary; there is no evidence, for instance, that the walls of Rome ever fell in the reign of Hadrian.
And of course many of the miracle stories of Jesus draw on OT traditions as well, such as the stories of Elijah and Elisha. That the messiah ought to work miracles was an expectation found in earlier Essene writings: "For the heavens and the earth shall listen to his Messiah and all which is in them shall not turn away from the commandments of the holy ones....For he will honor the pious upon the throne of his eternal kingdom, setting prisoners free, opening the eyes of the blind, raising up those who are bowed down....For he shall heal the critically wounded, he shall revive the dead, he shall send good news to the afflicted, he shall satisfy the poor, he shall guide the uprooted, he shall make the hungry rich" (4Q521 2:1-13; cf. Isaiah 61:1 and Luke 4:18-19, 7:22). The miracle stories thus have a theological objective.
2 thoughts, dgp pretty much nailed it. we are now going to see dishonest fundementalists claim that somehow what bart erhman said means christianity is true. he said no such thing. he said what the evidence proves, Jesus existed. there no evidence that he rose from the dead, and if you think he believes that, check out his debate on the exact subject vs william lane craig.
my second point is that i find it comical that the fundementalists on the other side will reject what Erhman, a respected scholar and historian says, just like the creationists reject what scientists say about evolution.
one of the greatest examples of this is when "the infidel guy" interviewed Erhman on his show. this is one of the classic examples that both sides of the God issue have extremists who have no interested at all in evidence.
Pistoff said: "Most scholars think that Jesus the man existed, though I have never read a scholar who thinks Jesus was a Rabbi."
It is true that most Christian biblical scholars are reluctant to refer to Jesus as a Rabbi but he is quite clearly portrayed as such in the Gospels. In his ethical teaching and his use of parables he follows a similar pattern to the rabbis or sages of his day - particularly those who followed Hillel.
Jacob Neusner says: "Among earliest writers in Israelite Christianity, Jesus finds ample representation as King-Messiah, but also as prophet and king, and, furthermore, as perfect priest and sacrifice, and always as sage, wise teacher and rabbi. That accounts for the fact that the bulk of the ethical sayings given to him are commonplaces in the Judaism of the age." (Neusner: Judaism in the beginning of Christianity, p36)
Rob Crompton http://snigsfoot.blogspot.com
Crestus is not the same as Christus. The former means useful while the latter means annointed. They are quite separate different words.
