The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ (Daniel Boyarin | New Press 2012)

[struggle4progress]

Boyarin is a professor of Talmudic culture and rhetoric at Berkeley. His thesis here is that many long-established "distinctions" between Christianity and Judaism arose only long after the beginning of the Christian era. More precisely, Boyarin wants to read early Christian texts, such as Mark, as Jewish texts. In particular, as example, a messiah who was both Son of God (in the sense of being a divinely-anointed human king) and Son of Man (in the sense of sitting on the celestial throne of the Ancient of Days), and a suffering messiah ultimately triumphant, are (to Boyarin's view) not Christian innovations but common (though not universal) Jewish notions in the pre-Christian and early Christian era.

The book is IMO worth reading, though I think it could have profitably cut in length by 25%, since there are places where Boyarin rambles a bit too much without saying anything

[KurtNYC]

1. The ascension was added centuries after the cruxifiction

Lots of editing in that period.

This BBC documentary explores another theory:

[humblebum]

2. I would certainly question on what basis you make such a statement. I see

it as nothing but pure contrived speculation with no clear empirical evidence.

[KurtNYC]

4. The ascension is not in the oldest versions of Mark and Matthew

The resurrection is there but not the ascension. When we look at the order in which the gospels were written:

Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

We see that the ascension appears first in Acts, which seems to be written together with Luke and not by any of Christ's contemporaries. Given how central the ascension is to faith today, how could Matthew and Mark leave it out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_of_Jesus#Biblical_accounts

[humblebum]

5. The Ascension is only referred to in Luke and Acts, which were written about the same time.

The fact that it does not appear in all four gospels means nor proves nothing, but only that it appeared in the book of Luke and Acts. Not every event that is mentioned in the gospels appears in all four gospels and other books.

One fact, that is certain, is that the Ascension is specifically mentioned. And that is as far as objective inference can take one. Anything else is subjective speculation, not fact. Therefore, to say that it never happened is opinion and nothing more.

[KurtNYC]

6. I don't have answer for why Matthew and Mark don't mention it but it

seems like a very significant thing for the direct disciples of Christ to leave out.

Without going into whether or not the body of Christ literally floated up into the sky 3 days or 40 days after the cruxifiction, the fact that something is mentioned by an unknown Greek author 50 years after Christ does not mean that it happened. So I don't follow the logic of your second paragraph and I t didn't say that it didn't happen, only that it was not in the firsthand accounts as written by Matthew and Mark.

[humblebum]

7. Again, your opinion is mere speculation. Many reasons can be put forth as

to why the ascension isn't mentioned in certain places. The absence proves nothing, especially when one is going back 2000 years. Far too many unanswered questions that will remain unanswered. Also, Mark is not a first hand account. Only Mathew and John were probable eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.
Your direct statement that "The ascension was added centuries after the cruxifiction" is even less supported.

[KurtNYC]

11. It is not opinion that the gospels contradict each other

or that the unification of only some of the canons into the Bible happened centuries after Christ. Those are facts. The absence of the ascension in early version of Matthew and Mark clearly proves that it was added later.

Pope Damasus commissioned a unified translation of the canons in 382 AD -- that is 350 years after Christ is cruxified. And after Constantine become the first Roman emperor to practice Christianity.

Yes John the Apostle was a contemporary witness to part of the life of Christ but whether John the Apostle is the author of the book of John in the bible has been debated since 200 AD. Scholars trace the origins of the text of John to Asia Minor.

[humblebum]

12. I never said it was and that is another issue. Also, I

would expect that four different gospels written by four different sources, in an age where information and people traveled at a very slow rate, would vary somewhat about events and chronologies.

Your commentary applied to the validity of the Ascension, not contradictions in the gospels. Regardless of ANY opinions, all is still speculation considering the validity of the gospels.

[laconicsax]

15. Perhaps it's derived from one of those other ways of knowing you're so fond of.

[humblebum]

16. You mean one of those ways you cannot comprehend, therefore

they do not exist?

[laconicsax]

17. No, I understand them just fine. Now, would you like to address what I said?

You rejected KurtNYC's statement that the ascension was added well after the crucifixion saying that it was "pure contrived speculation with no clear empirical evidence."

How do you know he didn't discover that the ascension was added well after the crucifixion through one or more of those other ways of knowing that you're so fond of?

[humblebum]

18. Um? Pretty clear you don't comprehend? nt

[laconicsax]

19. Well, then enlighten me.

As I think back over our many conversations on the subject, all of these so-called "other ways" are potential sources for KurtNYC's claim. If this isn't the case, I'd very much like to know why that is, especially since you've cited them to support similarly evidence-free claims of your own.

[humblebum]

20. Claims are never "evidence-free" as you suggest. You simply disregard subjective evidence. However,

in KurtNYC's case, he contradicted himself with objective empirical evidence.

In post#1, he stated, "The ascension was added centuries after the cruxifiction." Then, in #4 he gave the supposed chronology of the writing of each gospel:

"Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70"

Notice all were believed to be written within the first century.

[laconicsax]

21. You assume that the crucifixion took place in the 1st century AD.

I've read, in this very group, subjective evidence that Jesus could have lived anywhere from the 2nd century BC to the 12th century AD.

If the former is true, then the 1st century AD is indeed centuries later. If the latter is true, the entire point is moot since the Gospels were necessarily written during or after the 12th century.

Can you prove that Jesus was crucified in the 1st century AD?

[humblebum]

22. Pretty strong subjective evidence to suggest that, certainly stronger than anything

you are suggesting here.

[laconicsax]

23. I'm still waiting for that proof. n/t

[humblebum]

24. You never asked for any proof. Only asked if I could prove it. Subjectively and with a

good probability there are some references outside of the Bible itself. For example, Polycarp (69 to 155?) is recorded, by both Irenaeus and Tertullian, as having been a disciple of the apostle John. That of course serves as evidence that knowledge of the Crucifixion existed in the first century. Iraneaus recorded that he heard Polycarp speak in his (Iraneaus) youth.

[laconicsax]

27. I'll add specious arguments and circular logic to that list of "other ways of knowing."

Here's a little though experiment for you:

Suppose Jesus was an allegorical character used by early Christians to teach their values. How would Polycarp's version of events differ? How would Irenaeus' and Tertullian's writtings be different?

While you ponder that, here's another one:

Alice moves to a new town and tells her new friends Betty and Candice a couple stories about a woman called Deidre that she knew in her old town. Years later, Elyse tells her friend Jamal that she met a woman named Betty who was friends with another woman named Alice. Heather, a friend of Jamal is told one of the Deidre stories by Candice. When Jamal tells Heather that his friend Elyse knew Alice's friend Betty, Heather concludes that the story about Deidre is true.

What flaw in reasoning has Heather made?

[humblebum]

28. Always the spin master. Unfortunately, you cannot quite grasp the meanings of

some of the concepts you claim to understand so well. Huge red herring.

[laconicsax]

29. Whatever you say, humblebum.

After all, where I see contradiction, you see confirmation.

[humblebum]

30. You also have a habit of "moving the goalposts" as you so often contend.

You knowingly or maybe even unknowingly shifted the subject of your question, "Can you prove that Jesus was crucified in the 1st century AD?" (after I displayed very plausible evidence placing the subject of Jesus and therefore the crucifixion squarely in the 1st Century) to that of 'did Jesus really exist?' And then claiming that the presented evidence did not adequately answer your second question.

I tend to think that you don't realize what you are actually asking or saying. You have made the same mistake over and over lately. Even earlier in this thread you asked if I could prove my assertion. i answered in the affirmative. And then you said you were still waiting for the proof, even though you never asked for any. Still stuck in that verbal and mental Twilight Zone, I see.

[laconicsax]

31. Except you didn't provide evidence.

You named people who didn't know Jesus or witness the crucifixion. You've already named hearsay as another "way of knowing," so that wasn't surprising.

You then used that hearsay to make a circular argument.

I pointed all this out to you, and so you start saying that I'm shifting goalposts because you didn't understand a word I wrote and then started rambling.

Go back to my previous comment and take a stab at those thought experiments. You may make a realization about the intellectual poverty of your arguments.

[humblebum]

32. Like I intimated before, subjective evidence is something automatically disregarded

by most atheistic-minded people, but nonetheless is widely used. As far as your thought experiments, I already commented on them. Far too narrow and exclusive. However, it is and has easily been established that the Crucifixion was recognized as a first century occurrence.

And yes, you clearly shifted the goal posts.

[laconicsax]

33. Yes, it is often automatically discarded. Especially by courts.

It's generally accepted that second or third-hand accounts are notoriously unreliable. If hearsay isn't even considered reliable enough to serve as evidence in a case about recent events, what makes it reliable enough to serve as evidence in support of claims concerning events that took place 2000 years ago? This was one thing you could have realized with the second thought experiment.

Your example of subjective evidence in #24 also contains a conclusion that doesn't even come close to following from the premises. This was another thing you could have realized with the second thought experiment.

That John had a disciple named Polycarp, who was at least known about by Irenaeus and Tertullian supports conclusions about John and Polycarp, but says nothing about whether "knowledge of the Crucifixion existed in the first century." That Polycarp possibly played role in assembling the New Testament, which includes (contradictory) accounts of the Crucifixion, could easily provide evidence that "knowledge of the Crucifixion existed in the first century," but this is an unstated premise and therefore not part of the argument you made.

Also, as was hinted at by both thought experiments, if Jesus was an allegorical character used by early Christians to personify their philosophy, the Crucifixion would have still been referenced by all named parties but wouldn't have actually happened.

To use an analogy from your own religion and holy book, that early Christians were aware of the creation narrative in Genesis has no bearing on whether God created the world in six days and Eve was tricked by a talking snake. Another analogy would be that knowledge of story about Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring doesn't imply that any of it ever happened.

This is just one problem with your "subjective evidence"--it's only supportive if the conclusion is true. That can easily lead to begged questions and circular logic and that's the larger problem with your "subjective evidence." Since the evidence is only supportive (or even relevant) if the conclusion is true, you are starting from the conclusion rather than the premises.

[humblebum]

34. You are confusing yourself.

First of all, subjective evidence is used in the courtroom. It's called circumstantial evidence. Secondly, the object of this inquiry was not to determine whether or not the Crucifixion actually happened, but to determine WHEN it was considered to have happened. We can say, with a high degree of certainty from those early writings, that it WAS considered to have happened in the First Century. Subjective though it may be. It eliminates any first mention of a crucifixion of Jesus later than the time periods you mentioned earlier.

It's nice to have objective empirical evidence to eliminate all doubts, all the time. But in the real world, that is not always possible. One must draw the most reasonable conclusion they can with what evidence is available. That's reality.

[laconicsax]

35. Talk about shifting goalposts.

[humblebum]

36. You are still confusing yourself. And yes,

if you want "Talk about shifting goalposts" there is plenty of Objective empirical evidence within this thread to sustain my assertions about that.

[laconicsax]

37. *Yawn*

You need a new playbook. The one you have is really boring.

[humblebum]

38. Um? I believe that the shifting the goal posts is out of YOUR playbook,

so yes it is time and it is indeed boring.

[laconicsax]

42. I'm not convinced you understand what the words you use actually mean.

I'd suggest that you're merely projecting, but that implies a lack of intention.

[humblebum]

43. Always a dodge for diversion nt

[laconicsax]

44. Is it a dodge or is it a diversion?

Those are separate things.

[humblebum]

45. Where did I say or imply that they were the same?

"A dodge for a dodge", or "a diversion for a diversion" would sound a little ridiculous now wouldn't it?

[laconicsax]

46. I never said that you did.

You said "a dodge for a diversion," so I asked which it was.

[humblebum]

47. Perhaps you misread it.

"a dodge FOR a diversion" NOT "a dodge OR a diversion" - slight difference there. It's no wonder you constantly wind up confusing yourself.

[laconicsax]

48. Nope, didn't misread it.

There are two main possibilities for what you meant: That I offered a dodge AS a diversion, or that I dodged your diversion.

Since you aren't usually one to admit to posting diversions, I went with the former.

So which is it? A dodge or a diversion? A dodge acting as a diversion? A diversion in the form of a dodge?

Please make a coherent post, even if it's just this once

[humblebum]

49. Yep. You definitely misread it, which is becoming increasingly common with you.

And diversions. Well, that is where you really excel. Straw men and red herrings are your stock-in-trade.

[laconicsax]

50. You realize that you're contradicting yourself, right?

On edit: Never mind...I forgot that where I see contradiction, you see confirmation.

[humblebum]

51. you realize you're still doing it, don't you?

[laconicsax]

52. I'll take that as a "no." n/t

[humblebum]

53. So, that's a "no." You don't realize it. Gotcha.

[laconicsax]

54. Whatever you say, humblebum.

[humblebum]

25. "I'm still waiting for that proof." - that is such a common line with you. Let's see your evidence

for the 12th century.

[laconicsax]

26. Why should I provide evidence to support someone else's claim?

All I said is that in this group, I've read subjective evidence "that Jesus could have lived anywhere from the 2nd century BC to the 12th century AD." That evidence was part of Fomenko's Revised Chronology. While I think Fomenko is batshit crazy when it comes to history, his Revised Chronology is about as valid as the notion that the synoptic gospels contain an accurate account of Jesus' life.

[struggle4progress]

9. Well, that fell flat as documentary

[KurtNYC]

10. That one drags a little

The better ones explore Jesus' missing years. This one jumps to the period after the cruxifiction and goes through some of the less favored theories before returning to the Kashmir theory.

[rug]

3. Peter Schäfer recently published a through critique in The New Republic.

http://www.tnr.com/article/103373/books-and-arts/magazine/jewish-gospels-christ-boyarin

[struggle4progress]

8. Thanks for that link!

[dimbear]

13. There actually is a Jewish gospel It's not very flattering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toledot_Yeshu

You will see that name spelled in a nearly infinite variety of ways.

[daaron]

39. Fascinating! How is it I haven't come across this, before? Thx, dimbear!

Two things interest me about this tradition: (1) that it may have originated from oral traditions (sim. to Kabbalah) in the 2nd-4th c. CE, the same era that saw a proliferation of Christian texts, most of which were rejected by the councils of Nice (and few of which still exist, since they were considered heresy ever after); and (2) that it places Yeshu in 'The Land' in a period compatible with the 'Christian myth' thesis of the late Dr. Allegro of Copper Scroll fame (less incompat. than the Nicene Bible, at a min.).

Could the oral tradition of "La Vie de Je'sus" be oral history? Does this ancient text validate the primary thesis of the single non-religious scholar on the International Team that translated the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Don't you love it when authors ask leading questions?

[dimbear]

41. It is an enlightening text, well worth a read, but nobody has heard of it because

it's anti-Christian. The conjecture that it contains the traces of a real ancient text is just the icing on the cake.

Of course there were anciently other more Jewish gospels also, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the conjectural Hebrew or Aramaic vorlag to Matthew. All lost in the early days. The undeniably true historical fact that the early church fathers didn't take the trouble to preserve them is telling.

I can't recall exactly which leader sent a delegation the the Holy Land to collect early documents and concluded they had nothing of value, since what they had disagreed with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You make an interesting comparison to the Dead Sea Scrolls scandal. Good point.

[Adsos Letter]

14. "...common (though not universal) Jewish notions in the pre-Christian and early Christian era."

Jacob Neusner wrote a very good book on the differing concepts of "Messiah" prior to, and contemporary with, the time of Jesus:

Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era

Quoted from the Book Description:

While Jews in ancient Israel had much in common, in fact there existed no such thing as an orthodox Judaism. Diverse Judaisms, each with its own way of life, world view, and definition of the social entity (or Israel) to whom it spoke, flourished. Since there was no single Judaism, there was no single Messiah-idea or Messianic doctrine. Various readings of the Messiah theme reached definition in the various unrelated religious systems or Judaisms produced by those Jews--hence "Judaisms" and "their Messiahs." In this book, distinguished specialists in late antiquity Judaisms, including Christian scholars, take up the differing place and role of the Messiah-idea. Dealing with the best-documented Judaic systems--the Essene community at Qumran, Christian Judaisms represented by Matthew and Mark, the nascent rabbinic Judaism portrayed in the Mishnah, the Judaic system implicit in the writings of Philo--each author works out how a given system treats the Messiah theme.

http://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-their-Messiahs-Turn-Christian/dp/0521349400/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1339548213&sr=1-1

[daaron]

40. One thing all these Jewish messianic traditions had in common -->

was that the messiah would be Melchizadok - lit. "King-Priest". The debate was between Hellenized and Judean Jews over whether he had to be an actual King of The Land, for the most part. There are of course the finer points of what constitutes a Prophet, and prophecy fulfillment requirements, as well as blood-lineage, but the question of the messiah was as much political, at the time, as it was religious.