Ehrman's "How Jesus Became a God" is now out.

[theomise]

For anyone interested, this project by Ehrman is now available as a Great Courses (aka The Teaching Company) video lecture series. 24 half-hour lectures.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=6522

I've watched/listened to most of the Great Courses lectures on Judaism and Christianity now. Really excellent stuff.

You're not seriously endorsing Ehrman's work, or most recent book... are you?

[toejam]

^Ooops, my bad. Sorry for being under the impression that people here were interested in the history of Christianity.

[theomise]

^Ooops, my bad. Sorry for being under the impression that people here were interested in the history of Christianity.

Hey! no need to be sarcastic (and OK, maybe I was too - fair enough ).

But seriously, do you read Bart E's reasoning and think "Yeah, that makes sense." ?

[toejam]

^Like most scholars I read, I find myself in agreement with Ehrman on some points, indifference / unknown on others, and disagreement on others. Although I tend to see Ehrman's reasoning as fairly sound most of the time. And this project in particular I found to be a good resource for exploring what early Christians were claiming about Jesus and how that fit within the wider context of the times.

[theomise]

^Like most scholars I read, I find myself in agreement with Ehrman on some points, indifference / unknown on others, and disagreement on others. Although I tend to see Ehrman's reasoning as fairly sound most of the time. And this project in particular I found to be a good resource for exploring what early Christians were claiming about Jesus and how that fit within the wider context of the times.

Wow, OK.

Let me ask you this: how would you describe your background in mathematics (including logic & philosophy) and the physical sciences?

I ask because (let's be honest) even the best of NT "scholars" are not exactly the most methodologically rigorous or rational thinkers in academia.

Casey, Ehrman, Hurtado, et. al. - I'm sure these folks kicked ass within their respective areas of competence. But it should be clear to anyone with half a brain (or more!) that all three of them suffered/suffers impairment with respect to elementary logical reasoning.

Or could I have missed something? Maybe rationality is for the birds, and "faith" is the only way to understand this stuff on a guttural level.



In any case, Ehrman is not what I would call a logical thinker.

[toejam]

^Is there something in particular about Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" that you find particularly illogical, irrational or "faith"-based (other than that he starts with a historical figure which is fairly irrelevant to the larger topic)? The book is primarily about the perceptions and beliefs about Jesus from Paul's time to Nicaea.

[theomise]

^Is there something in particular about Ehrman's "How Jesus Became God" that you find particularly illogical, irrational or "faith"-based (other than that he starts with a historical figure which is fairly irrelevant to the larger topic)? The book is primarily about the perceptions and beliefs about Jesus from Paul's time to Nicaea.

Let's start from the beginning ... : Do you think "Paul" believed in a historical Jesus?

If so, why?

[toejam]

^I suspect so. "Born of a woman under the law", "descendant of David" etc. does it for me. Bernard Muller has an excellent list of 10-15 Pauline references that I mostly agree with that seem to me to be best understood as referring to an Earthly Jesus (in Paul's eyes). I think Ehrman's thoughts are pretty sound here - Paul thought Jesus was some kind of incarnated angel / heavenly being.

[theomise]

^I suspect so. "Born of a woman under the law", "descendant of David" etc. does it for me. Bernard Muller has an excellent list of 10-15 Pauline references that I mostly agree with that seem to me to be best understood as referring to an Earthly Jesus (in Paul's eyes). I think Ehrman's thoughts are pretty sound here - Paul thought Jesus was some kind of incarnated angel / heavenly being.

OK good - this is a perfect illustration of the methodological divide here.

(I have to admit, I intuit a distinctly C.P. Snow "The Two Cultures" vibe at play here ( http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/2cu ... ltures.pdf ) ... but anyway.)

Let me ask you this: is it POSSIBLE that the letters of "Paul" may have been interpolated or otherwise redacted so as to better conform with orthodox doctrine at some later point in time?

[toejam]

^Sure it's possible. Ancient history is not about certainty. But such "possibilities" cut both ways - could you acknowledge that it is POSSIBLE that what was edited/interpolated out of the Pauline corpus were more direct references to Jesus' family and specific earthly times and places that contradicted orthodox doctrine? Or that it's POSSIBLE that your proposed interpolations were really minimal, most being the result of the occasional disgruntled scribe as opposed to orthodox conspiracy? Are those not also POSSIBLE? Do you think that Paul thought Jesus was an exclusively heavenly being?