Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Chapter 1 ("Divine Humans in Ancient Greece and Rome") is an overview of defied historical figures in the ancient world. Ehrman outlines examples such as Apollonius of Tyana, Peregrinus, Augustus Caesar and others. He notes that these were mostly kings, and also notes that these deified kings were often called "saviors," bringers of "good tidings" and "peace," and so forth. He draws numerous typological parallels to Jesus (miraculous birth, celestial oracles, miracles, healings and appearances after death), then ends the chapter by saying Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.

Ehrman is trying to show that the deification of kings and perceived holy men was commonplace in the ancient world, and his examples are solid. The only flaw is his insistence that Jesus was executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews, but the general idea that real people got deified after death all the time (as well as claims that such figures had divine earthly powers) is well demonstrated. Ehrman wants to show that if Appollonius and Peregrinus can be deified, then so can Jesus of Nazareth, which is fine as far as it goes, but Ehrman's certainty about the reason for the crucifixion is unwarranted and sticks out awkwardly from an otherwise solid chapter.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Chapter 1 ("Divine Humans in Ancient Greece and Rome") is an overview of defied historical figures in the ancient world. Ehrman outlines examples such as Apollonius of Tyana, Peregrinus, Augustus Caesar and others. He notes that these were mostly kings, and also notes that these deified kings were often called "saviors," bringers of "good tidings" and "peace," and so forth. He draws numerous typological parallels to Jesus (miraculous birth, celestial oracles, miracles, healings and appearances after death), then ends the chapter by saying Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.

Ehrman is trying to show that the deification of kings and perceived holy men was commonplace in the ancient world, and his examples are solid. The only flaw is his insistence that Jesus was executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews, but the general idea that real people got deified after death all the time (as well as claims that such figures had divine earthly powers) is well demonstrated. Ehrman wants to show that if Appollonius and Peregrinus can be deified, then so can Jesus of Nazareth, which is fine as far as it goes, but Ehrman's certainty about the reason for the crucifixion is unwarranted and sticks out awkwardly from an otherwise solid chapter.

That's the simplest explanation of the Jesus story. i.e. that the gospel writers used an euhemerism approach to a flesh and blood Jesus. That's the historicist position. The big question with that approach is that its very difficult to imagine that it's a Jewish approach. Surely, turning men into gods, from a Jewish perspective, would be beyond the pale?

That said, this historicist perspective on the Jesus story cannot be countered by a mythicist perspective that seeks to negate it with a top down theory. Bottom up, earth to heaven, cannot be countered with a top down approach, heaven to earth. New theories, to have any chance of success, have to be able to demonstrate the weakness, the holes, in the theory it seeks to replace. A 'my theory is better than your theory', approach can, in practice result in both sides talking past one another. Which, methinks, is the state of the current historicist v ahistoricist debate.

The historicist theory is based on the gospel story. Consequently, the ahistoricists need to offer an alternative perspective on that gospel story. Offering the JC historicists an interpretation of the Pauline epistles does not cut it. That's like offering oranges when the historicists want apples. It's talking past one another.

JW:
It looks like my copy was hit with a NuTon bomb which destroyed all/almost all/most critical methodology to evaluate the weight of source testimony except for "all/almost all/most critical Bible scholarship". What about other's copies?


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Chapter 1 ("Divine Humans in Ancient Greece and Rome") is an overview of ...

Thank you for your summary, Diogenes. I do not intend to buy his book, but I'm still curious to see what he writes.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote: Ehrman is trying to show that the deification of kings and perceived holy men was commonplace in the ancient world, and his examples are solid. The only flaw is his insistence that Jesus was executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews, but the general idea that real people got deified after death all the time (as well as claims that such figures had divine earthly powers) is well demonstrated. Ehrman wants to show that if Appollonius and Peregrinus can be deified, then so can Jesus of Nazareth, which is fine as far as it goes, but Ehrman's certainty about the reason for the crucifixion is unwarranted and sticks out awkwardly from an otherwise solid chapter.

The trouble with this argument is that Jesus was not simply deified like the emperors or even the mortal sons of Zeus. His exaltation went far beyond such an honorary title or transformation to another deus.

stevencarrwork wrote:

Blood wrote:

And so Pilate ordered Jesus crucified on the spot. According to our records, which are completely believable at this point, the soldiers roughed him up, mocked him, flogged him, and then led him off to be crucified. Evidently, two similar cases were decided that morning. Maybe a couple more the day after that and the day after that. In this instance, they took Jesus and the two others to a public place of execution and fixed them all to crosses. According to our earliest account, Jesus was dead in six hours.

Bart Ehrman

"According to our records," "according to our earliest account" ... it all sounds so verifiable and factual. Gospel writers were historians, full stop.

'According to our earliest account'...'

That must be the Gospel of Mark.

Isn't that a Gospel where Jesus calms a storm - something only a god can do?

Ehrman has that covered...

'Instead, they may be traditions assigned to Jesus by later storytellers in order to heighten his eminence and significance. '

'Our earliest account' suddenly turns into 'later storytellers'....

Tricky business , dating documents. Dating documents is so hard when the same document is both the earliest account, and also contains 'later storytellers'

The stuff that "sounds" believable is, and the stuff that sounds legendary can be written off to "storytellers." Sound method. Just ask Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who used it to reconstruct the life of the historical Romulus.

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:Chapter 1 ("Divine Humans in Ancient Greece and Rome") is an overview of defied historical figures in the ancient world. Ehrman outlines examples such as Apollonius of Tyana, Peregrinus, Augustus Caesar and others. He notes that these were mostly kings, and also notes that these deified kings were often called "saviors," bringers of "good tidings" and "peace," and so forth. He draws numerous typological parallels to Jesus (miraculous birth, celestial oracles, miracles, healings and appearances after death), then ends the chapter by saying Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.

Ehrman is trying to show that the deification of kings and perceived holy men was commonplace in the ancient world, and his examples are solid. The only flaw is his insistence that Jesus was executed for claiming to be the King of the Jews, but the general idea that real people got deified after death all the time (as well as claims that such figures had divine earthly powers) is well demonstrated. Ehrman wants to show that if Appollonius and Peregrinus can be deified, then so can Jesus of Nazareth, which is fine as far as it goes, but Ehrman's certainty about the reason for the crucifixion is unwarranted and sticks out awkwardly from an otherwise solid chapter.

But according to Ehrman, in a polytheistic Greco-Roman culture like the one inhabited by Apollonius of Tyana, being deified shouldn't have been a big deal ... because "pagans" worshipped hundreds of small-g gods.

He needs to prove why/how this could happen in an exclusively monotheistic/Jewish culture. After all, he is saying that Judaism is completely unique in the ancient world, so he cannot bring in examples from outside Judaism to support his apocalyptist-to-God model. The others only prove that such a deification for Jesus would be possible or expected in non-Jewish cultural contexts, and I don't think Ehrman wants to tiptoe into those waters.

“The King, Judah” המלך יהודה in Hebrew or מלכה יהודה in Aramaic.

how would one say "the king,judah" in arabic? al malik yahudha?

This might be the most appropriate place to bring in Euhemerus' POV about the reason why people "deified" mortals. He suggests that it was on account of the benefactions they had bestowed on mankind, either their own subjects or in a more general manner to others. Good kings benefitted their subjects, and sometimes created policies and balances of power that benefitted more than their own subjects. For this they deserved the honor of deification. Jesus, if he was believed to have effected a new form of eternal salvation by means of a self sacrifice, would have benefited all mankind, and might deserve deification for what he did. Jesus was a hero. However, Euhemerus distinguished between REAL (eternal) gods and those who were honored AS IF gods (heroes).

DCH

Chapter 2 "Divine Humans in Ancient Judaism"

In this chapter, Ehrman talks about divine figures in ancient Judaism, both in the Tanakh and in apocrypha. He talks both about divine agents descending from Heaven and humans being exalted. Examples of the celestial descending include angels, Nephilim, the Watchers, 1 Enoch and the son of man in Daniel. Exultations and/or apotheoses of humans include Moses, kings of Israel in general (Ehrman cites examples from Psalms, 2 Samuel and Isaiah of kings being referred to as "God"). He then discusses hypostatic beliefs, particularly in Philonic Logos but also on Jewish hypostatic conceptions of wisdom.

Nothing to object to in this chapter. he doesn't really mention Jesus. He's making the point that Jewish monotheism was not so rigid or monochromatic as it is usually perceived. He presents the "two powers" heresy to further bolster this He relies heavily on Alan Segal for this section).

Throughout this chapter, Ehrman makes the point that there are levels of "divinity" involved here, but that sometimes (examples include Moses and Davidic kings), the exultation level could become almost coequal. He is trying to soften the ground for he plausibility of Jews exulting a human Jesus, but I can't help thinking that he's also softening the ground for a mythic Jesus and doesn't realize it. After all, he extensively cites examples of Moses being elevated to divine status, even (in Philo) to coequal and coexistent status with God. He does this to show that Jews would deify a human, but I wonder if Ehrman has forgotten that Moses is - wait for it - a myth.