Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

iskander wrote:The triumph of the Christian messiah was in revaluating the death of a heretic man , This new and totally unexpected task of the messiah was directly contrary to the traditional Jewish messiah , whose definition necessitated the subjugation of the World to the Israelites. The messiah was expected to destroy the walls of a Jericho everywhere , but the trial of the powerless Jesus frustrated many of his early supporters and this frustration turned them into the crowd that demanded the execution of the now proven imposter.

In the story, Judas betrayed Jesus even before he got put on trial, but........ I would be very curious to see what the real story was with Judas and if/why he betrayed Jesus in real life. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2802)

The gospel/ early mainstream tradition seems to make it that Judas loved money and the devil went into him and the temple leaders gave him cash. Afterwards he bought a field with it. He got real fat and burst open. He was the Christians' treasurer, so I can see how money can be an issue for him. They must have thought he was reliable enough to give him that duty.

I don't know that those explanations are good enough though. Is someone going to devote years to following some rabbi and then after doing it for so long, gives it up for 30 pieces of silver? It seems there must have been something else going on with his motives.

For him to be working with the Sanhedrin, it raises the possibility he was already working as their spy before the Passion. Maybe he was like that all along, considering the political importance of messianic contenders. In that case, it wouldn't be hard to guess Judas' motives - he would have the same attitude (secretly) as Jesus' temple and pharisee opponents.

Still, sometimes spies are abused by their handlers - the spy thinks that the handlers won't treat their target particularly badly, and that their target is not all bad. So, theoretically, Judas could be regretful that he gave Jesus up, expecting Jesus maybe to give in to the Sanhedrin and get away with flogging. The story that Judas was regretful therefore might not be totally baseless.

Presuming Judas existed as a real person, it's only natural that Judas didn't show up as one of the apostles later. Judas was replaced by Matthias. The thing about Matthias is that he was also known as Levi or a tax collector. It's only reasonable that Matthias became the replacement because Judas was the treasurer.

Now at some point, at least according to the story, Jesus found out about that and was still OK with Judas being around, and even kind of told or allowed Judas to betray him ("Go quickly"...., He said.) This is part of the idea that Jesus was kind of what troops would call today a suicide mission. That could be true if he understood the prophecies about Messiah's suffering.

It's true that c.100 years later a story appeared, Gospel of Judas, where Jesus told Judas gnostic secrets and the betrayal was part of some gnostic goal by Judas and/or Jesus. I'm skeptical about that because 100 years is a long time for something like that to stay around in the oral tradition especially if the tradition in that case is a fringe one (ie gnosticism). It's not like I disregard its possibility entirely.

Paul writes:

For I received from the Lord that which I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and after giving thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body given for you.” (1 Cor. 11:23–24)

It's just a snippet, but I think it means Paul knows about this story.
Kind of a play on words there. Paul was "hands over" to his audience.... Jesus was "betrayed"/"handed over" (ie. to the Sanhedrin).
Just as Paul is one person handing over to many (the gentiles), Judas was one person handing over to the Sanhedrin. The Corinthians are contrasted with the Sanhedrin.

Ehrman comments:

When Paul says that the information he is now relating is what he also “handed over” to the Corinthians, it is the same word he uses when he indicates that Jesus was “betrayed.” The Greek word is paradidomi—and it literally means “to give or hand someone or something over to someone else.”

Is Paul referring, then, to Judas Iscariot handing Jesus over to the ruling authorities for trial? Probably not, for in every other instance that Paul uses paradidomi with reference to Jesus, it refers to the act of God, who “handed Jesus over” to death for the sake of others. https://realityisnotoptional.com/2016/0 ... s-in-paul/

Ehrman I expect is making a misreading here.

, " Jesus of Nazareth being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:22-23).

It doesn't say God Himself handed Jesus over. It only says that the handing over was according to God's plan. There's a big difference when you want to consider the meaning of the phrase "____ handed Jesus over."

Do any of you have access to B.Ehrman's blog?

He writes:

Does Paul Know about Judas Iscariot?
...
We can say several things for certain: Paul never…

The Rest of this Post is for Members Only.

https://ehrmanblog.org/does-paul-know-a ... -iscariot/

iskander wrote:

rakovsky wrote:

iskander wrote: I much prefer no messiah to any messiah , but victory in death is a beautiful thought experiment to spike with it every executioner . Every revolutionary dreams that the death of his leader will not be wasted; an overwhelming desire to turn the tables on them propels the imagination ever forward . The followers of the man who died saying ,my God why have you forsaken me, answered their despairing leader by making his death the battle cry of freedom.

I think Shia Islam does that too, to some extent.
Which form of Islam do you see as more legitimate?

I dislike Islam . Which one is best? ???.

Selling a convicted criminal as a leader is a hard sell that wants imaginative marketing.

OK. I thought you might be Shia Muslim because your name is Iskander, which is Persian for Alexander.
I don't know Islam in great depth to the extent I know Christianity.

I would say I am pretty familiar with Judaism, but even there, there are things I don't know. I don't know Hebrew. There are tons of Halahic rules. I don't know Kaballah (= "Kaaba + Allah"?) or understand it.

With Islam I just know some basics, like the Quran says "There is no compulsion in religion", but then there have been cases of forced conversion or of killing for apostasy. I don't remember hearing Mohammed was convicted as a criminal.

rakovsky wrote:

iskander wrote:The triumph of the Christian messiah was in revaluating the death of a heretic man , This new and totally unexpected task of the messiah was directly contrary to the traditional Jewish messiah , whose definition necessitated the subjugation of the World to the Israelites. The messiah was expected to destroy the walls of a Jericho everywhere , but the trial of the powerless Jesus frustrated many of his early supporters and this frustration turned them into the crowd that demanded the execution of the now proven imposter.

In the story, Judas betrayed Jesus even before he got put on trial, but........ I would be very curious to see what the real story was with Judas and if/why he betrayed Jesus in real life. (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2802)

The gospel/ early mainstream tradition seems to make it that Judas loved money and the devil went into him and the temple leaders gave him cash. Afterwards he bought a field with it. He got real fat and burst open. He was the Christians' treasurer, so I can see how money can be an issue for him. They must have thought he was reliable enough to give him that duty.

I don't know that those explanations are good enough though. Is someone going to devote years to following some rabbi and then after doing it for so long, gives it up for 30 pieces of silver? It seems there must have been something else going on with his motives.

For him to be working with the Sanhedrin, it raises the possibility he was already working as their spy before the Passion. Maybe he was like that all along, considering the political importance of messianic contenders. In that case, it wouldn't be hard to guess Judas' motives - he would have the same attitude (secretly) as Jesus' temple and pharisee opponents.

Still, sometimes spies are abused by their handlers - the spy thinks that the handlers won't treat their target particularly badly, and that their target is not all bad. So, theoretically, Judas could be regretful that he gave Jesus up, expecting Jesus maybe to give in to the Sanhedrin and get away with flogging. The story that Judas was regretful therefore might not be totally baseless.

Presuming Judas existed as a real person, it's only natural that Judas didn't show up as one of the apostles later. Judas was replaced by Matthias. The thing about Matthias is that he was also known as Levi or a tax collector. It's only reasonable that Matthias became the replacement because Judas was the treasurer.

Now at some point, at least according to the story, Jesus found out about that and was still OK with Judas being around, and even kind of told or allowed Judas to betray him ("Go quickly"...., He said.) This is part of the idea that Jesus was kind of what troops would call today a suicide mission. That could be true if he understood the prophecies about Messiah's suffering.

It's true that c.100 years later a story appeared, Gospel of Judas, where Jesus told Judas gnostic secrets and the betrayal was part of some gnostic goal by Judas and/or Jesus. I'm skeptical about that because 100 years is a long time for something like that to stay around in the oral tradition especially if the tradition in that case is a fringe one (ie gnosticism). It's not like I disregard its possibility entirely.

Paul writes:

For I received from the Lord that which I also handed over to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and after giving thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body given for you.” (1 Cor. 11:23–24)

It's just a snippet, but I think it means Paul knows about this story.
Kind of a play on words there. Paul was "hands over" to his audience.... Jesus was "betrayed"/"handed over" (ie. to the Sanhedrin).
Just as Paul is one person handing over to many (the gentiles), Judas was one person handing over to the Sanhedrin. The Corinthians are contrasted with the Sanhedrin.

Ehrman comments:

When Paul says that the information he is now relating is what he also “handed over” to the Corinthians, it is the same word he uses when he indicates that Jesus was “betrayed.” The Greek word is paradidomi—and it literally means “to give or hand someone or something over to someone else.”

Is Paul referring, then, to Judas Iscariot handing Jesus over to the ruling authorities for trial? Probably not, for in every other instance that Paul uses paradidomi with reference to Jesus, it refers to the act of God, who “handed Jesus over” to death for the sake of others. https://realityisnotoptional.com/2016/0 ... s-in-paul/

Ehrman I expect is making a misreading here.

, " Jesus of Nazareth being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:22-23).

It doesn't say God Himself handed Jesus over. It only says that the handing over was according to God's plan. There's a big difference when you want to consider the meaning of the phrase "____ handed Jesus over."

Do any of you have access to B.Ehrman's blog?

He writes:

Does Paul Know about Judas Iscariot?
...
We can say several things for certain: Paul never…

The Rest of this Post is for Members Only.

https://ehrmanblog.org/does-paul-know-a ... -iscariot/

Judas explains nothing . It is Mark 11 ( and similar passages )the one that requires a good explanation.


Mark 11
7Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. 8Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,
‘Hosanna!
Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our ancestor David!
Hosanna in the highest heaven!’

rakovsky wrote:...

Selling a convicted criminal as a leader is a hard sell that wants imaginative marketing.

OK. I thought you might be Shia Muslim because your name is Iskander, which is Persian for Alexander.
I don't know Islam in great depth to the extent I know Christianity.

I would say I am pretty familiar with Judaism, but even there, there are things I don't know. I don't know Hebrew. There are tons of Halahic rules. I don't know Kaballah (= "Kaaba + Allah"?) or understand it.

With Islam I just know some basics, like the Quran says "There is no compulsion in religion", but then there have been cases of forced conversion or of killing for apostasy. I don't remember hearing Mohammed was convicted as a criminal.

I had in mind Paul 1 Cor 1:23 when I said he died the death of a convicted.
23but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

Nathan wrote:
... If the standard 1st century dating of most books of the NT as well as certain OT Pseudepigrapha is accurate ...

If not, then Matthew's interpretation of Micah 5:2 would not be 1st century; nor would it be "1st century messianic".

And one may not be able to say with confidence that 1st century Jewish eschatology (pharisaic or otherwise) influenced later rabbinic eschatology

MrMacSon wrote:

Nathan wrote:
... If the standard 1st century dating of most books of the NT as well as certain OT Pseudepigrapha is accurate ...

If not, then Matthew's interpretation of Micah 5:2 would not be 1st century; nor would it be "1st century messianic".

And one may not be able to say with confidence that 1st century Jewish eschatology (pharisaic or otherwise) influenced later rabbinic eschatology

There was a ton of apocalyptic Jewish writing coming out in the 1st to mid 2nd c. AD, like 2 Esdras, not to mention the Essene writings. Essenes were maybe one of the main Jewish sects of the time.

Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias - these are well known late 1st/early 2nd c. "Christian" leaders who were part of this apocalyptic Messianic sect. It's not like one can postdate easily Christian apocalyptic beliefs into the late 2nd c.

These beliefs were common in the 1st c., even with a later provenance of the gospel writings.

MrMacSon wrote:

Nathan wrote:
... If the standard 1st century dating of most books of the NT as well as certain OT Pseudepigrapha is accurate ...

If not, then Matthew's interpretation of Micah 5:2 would not be 1st century; nor would it be "1st century messianic".

Agreed. But then working from assumptions about dates tends to be unavoidable; and needless to say, it is generally assumed (for a variety of reasons) that Matthew was authored in the 1st century.

MrMacSon wrote:And one may not be able to say with confidence that 1st century Jewish eschatology (pharisaic or otherwise) influenced later rabbinic eschatology

Of course, the argument for dependence would take a number of texts into consideration, ranging from the various books of the NT but also including works like 1 Enoch—specifically the Similitudes of Enoch—which has several very specific eschatological themes in common with the Babylonian Talmud and related literature. (E.g., 1 Enoch 60:24: "These two monsters [Behemoth and Leviathan] are prepared for the great day of the Lord: they shall be eaten." // Bavli Bava Batra 74a: "What did the Holy One, Blessed is He, do? He castrated the male Leviathan, and He killed the female and salted it [to preserve it for food] for the righteous in the time to come...And also the Behemoth...He castrated the male and cooled the female; and he preserved it for the righteous in the time to come..." In terms of messianism in particular cf.1 Enoch 48:2-3: "...that Son of Man was given a name...even before the creation of the sun...he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits." // Bavli Pesachim 54a: "Seven things were created before the world was created...[including] the name of the Messiah...before the sun Yinnon was his name.")

rakovsky wrote:There was a ton of apocalyptic Jewish writing coming out in the 1st to mid 2nd c. AD, like 2 Esdras, ...

Can you name one securely first century "Jewish writing" that is apocalyptic?

rakovsky wrote:not to mention the Essene writings. Essenes were maybe one of the main Jewish sects of the time.

There are no Essene writings. There is just the conjecture that the Essenes which was a celibate group, wrote some of the DSS which included material about women and hereditary sons of Zadoq/Aaron/Levi.

rakovsky wrote:Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias - these are well known late 1st/early 2nd c. "Christian" leaders who were part of this apocalyptic Messianic sect.

Eusebius's fragments attributed to Papias have no probative value. Eusebius writing at the start of the fourth century had no way to test the veracity of those fragments. Neither Ignatius nor Polycarp can testify to anything in the first century. In fact the dating of both figures cannot be verified and could quite easily be far too early.

rakovsky wrote:It's not like one can postdate easily Christian apocalyptic beliefs into the late 2nd c.

These beliefs were common in the 1st c., even with a later provenance of the gospel writings.

There seem to be no clearly 1st century texts to support your claim. You need something more tangible than this sort of stuff.

Nathan wrote:Of course, the argument for dependence would take a number of texts into consideration, ranging from the various books of the NT but also including works like 1 Enoch—specifically the Similitudes of Enoch—which has several very specific eschatological themes in common with the Babylonian Talmud and related literature. (E.g., 1 Enoch 60:24: "These two monsters [Behemoth and Leviathan] are prepared for the great day of the Lord: they shall be eaten." // Bavli Bava Batra 74a: "What did the Holy One, Blessed is He, do? He castrated the male Leviathan, and He killed the female and salted it [to preserve it for food] for the righteous in the time to come...And also the Behemoth...He castrated the male and cooled the female; and he preserved it for the righteous in the time to come..." In terms of messianism in particular cf.1 Enoch 48:2-3: "...that Son of Man was given a name...even before the creation of the sun...he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits." // Bavli Pesachim 54a: "Seven things were created before the world was created...[including] the name of the Messiah...before the sun Yinnon was his name.")

Given that there is no evidence of the Similitudes found at Qumran and Milik's evidence concerning Roman wars with the Parthians, would you agree with his assessment [The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments form Cave 4, Oxford, 1976, 95-96] that they reflect a third century context? That there were no fragments of the Similitudes among the voluminous remains of Enoch at Qumran, there is no way to date that part of the Enochian pentateuch early.

spin wrote:Given that there is no evidence of the Similitudes found at Qumran and Milik's evidence concerning Roman wars with the Parthians, would you agree with his assessment [The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments form Cave 4, Oxford, 1976, 95-96] that they reflect a third century context? That there were no fragments of the Similitudes among the voluminous remains of Enoch at Qumran, there is no way to date that part of the Enochian pentateuch early.

It's been a long time since I've read any scholarship on the subject. As I recall, though, members of the Enoch Seminar (Boccaccini and co.) tend to part ways with Milik and date the Similitudes early, to the 1st cent. CE.