Those over there! .... They are not Christians!

[thormas]

Some scholars have held that it was initially the opposite in the earliest (apostolic) period. That there was a good deal of support among the upper classes and educated. I'm pretty sure that was, for example, the view of Wayne Meeks, the Woolsey, Professor Emeritus Religious Studies at Yale, who is known for his research in to the social history of earliest Christianity but I'm not completely certain. There is at least one other that I'm familiar with but the name is much to my frustration currently alluding me.

That I find interesting and I appreciate the Meeks reference. I will try to check it out.

However, it can't be denied what Ehrman cited about earliest Christianity, into the middle (and later) 1st C. Plus it is the case that indeed some of the upper class and educated (pagans) were attracted to the preaching about Christ. Yet again, it can't be discounted that the majority was from the 'lower classes.'

[eider]

Elder, you're reaching which isn't a very good sign for your position.

OK......... let's see what you've got.

We all know about the Popes, the good ones and the scoundrels. But I don't remember about a Pope and Mary ..........which one?

You didn't know that?
That's very surprising.
Mary was branded as prostitute since the 7th century, Pope Gregory.
Pope Francis acquitted her of that.

But I know that you need to read it from scholars. That's a mission for you to undertake.
In the meantime here is good ol' google and a note about some scholars' ideas.

Pope Gregory I
The portrayal of Mary Magdalene as a prostitute began after a series of Easter sermons delivered in 591, when Pope Gregory I conflated Mary Magdalene, who is introduced in Luke 8:2, with Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:39) and the unnamed "sinful woman" who anoints Jesus's feet in Luke 7:36–50.

Pope Francis
Pope Francis took the biggest step yet to rehabilitate Mary Magdalene's image by declaring a major feast day in her honour on 22 June. His 2016 decree put the woman who first proclaimed Jesus' resurrection on par with the liturgical celebrations of the male apostles.1 Apr 2019

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8281731.html
Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute but a devoted disciple who supported Jesus financially and spiritually, scholars say

And with scholars , it is not that they have some position, after all most of us have no idea what someone's position is in a university and care even less. Why we listen to their positions ......

Stop you there! Just read what you wrote.
They mostly all have leanings and agendas. But some change their minds with their searches. Geza Vermes left the church...

Another reason we listen is because they are peer reviewed a.....

Stop you there! Scholars telling us that other scholars are 'OK' does not influence me.
What they write down about their findings does.

Individual Investigation before Institutional Indoctrination.
Eider
You can quote that if you like.

As for Ehrnman, the same is posed to you, what exact ideas and positions are weak and sloppy? Ehrman has a blog and it is relatively inexpensive and there are also scholarships, so go on there (or go to Youtube where many videos are free), identify what you say is weak and sloppy and get back to us.

It's a Tuesday evening. I don't do homework on Tesday or Wednesdays and Thursday is already packed full of itineraries.
What I suggest is that you pick a few points of his about Jesus (not Christianity please) and let's see. Start a Thread?

Elder, first you say your HJ opinions are based on massive research and then you quote Mark, providing no other research. Now you mock Ehrman and make the excuse that you burned his books so you can't back up your words. Not a very good position to be in for you.

I didn't mock him, I just burned his books. I'm not buying any more!
I have studied HJ since 1994. I have never visited Galilee, or learned Eastern Aramaic etc, so my research has been through books until about 2000 when I found IT.

Look, if you ever want to quote Ehrman about anything please go ahead. Then we'll see, OK?

And you are losing credibility: you don't value scholars yet can offer no particulars other than a wayward Pope and general quips as to why we shouldn't value them and now you burn books - never a good sign.

I offered one example, not the only one. I offered that because I thought that you would know about it! Did you still think Magdalene was a whore? Well? Where is the home study in all of that?
And if you didn't think she had been branded then how did you miss that since it was a 1400 year lie?

A man who burns a book had no argument to counter what was written in that book in the first place.

Source please? Who wrote that?
That peice of rhetoric was probably written by a failed author.

I burned that book and others because they were not even wanted by the charity shops!

[eider]

You misread again, I didn't apologize since there was nothing to apologize for or about :+}.............but again, you have given us nothing. I asked for maybe 5 and I got two but you didn't say if you base your position on Mark, on either of them. Where is the massive research?

And you keep making the same assumption and mistake. these scholars are not involved in institutional indoctrination: Vermes, Levine and Fredriksen are Jews (and I have read Fredriksen for a few years and only recently discovered she was Jewish (a covert I believe) because it made no difference for what she wrote. Some of the others I mentioned are probably Christians but whether they are practicing or to what Church they belong (if any) I have no idea because it doesn't matter. So too the atheist, Ehrman.

And individual investigation, if it is serious and takes itself seriously, does look to those who have came before, does look to experts in the field and is humble enough to realize, especially without the specific kinds of expertiseI listed above that many biblical scholars have, that they, an amateur needs help.

Your mantra about investigation over indoctrination is catchy but, in addition to being totally off point, is simply an excuse for one who doesn't do research, massive or otherwise.

You started that post with 'I'm Sorry......'
If you don't mean it don't write it........ fair enough?

Does look to what experts in the field? I don't look to names, I look for findings.
These experts if all placed in a room together with pistols could just possibly produce a bloodbath.

I just look at what they find. And some of them talk junk. Honestly.

Pick something that somebody wrote about Jesus and his mission and we'll have a look at it, I promise.

[eider]

To elaborate on what I mean, I must base my opinion here on the book of his I read shortly after it came out a little over a decade ago that a friend of mine, who was quite taken by it, insisted that I read. The basic premise of it was since we don't have the original autograph version of the text (something we don't have for ANY books or written works from that period^[1]) that what we have is therefore stuffed full with later interpolations inserted into the text during the 2nd century or later.

While a case can be made that there are indeed a few such interpolations, the long ending of Mark may be one and the Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8 being one, he uses these to pretty much presume that the rest of the New Testament consists of innumerable such later additions^[2]. In several cases he simply dismisses portions that don't support his contentions as later additions primarily because they contradict his presumptions. He either dismisses or outright ignores scholarship that supports the originality of portions that he calls into question.

That is remarkably shoddy and sloppy argumentation.

Well, in his case I think he is agenda driven, probably two agendas actually. His ideas and Himself.

For instance, from what I remember, he raised questions concerning parts of the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews but ignores the Jewish Wisdom literature and teachings of rabbinical hermeneutics of that period that could have contextualized most of his issues and shown that there is no need to suppose that they need to be seen as something added later. This was something explained earlier in such works as Utley's The Superiority of the New Covenant: Hebrews from 1999.

I don't read Paul's letters, other than on rare occasions when I trawl for mention of the Disciples. My focus is upon HJ. The incidents that Jesus got involved in were never mentioned at all (other than a very few in that last week).

Another thing that stuck out is Ehrman's bringing up of (IIRC) Aulus Cornelius Celsus' mentioning that Christians in his time consisted of mainly "lower, uneducated classes" as some sort of evidence for his claims. FWIU he has brought this up in other works of his and maybe there he explains his reasoning but in the book I read it was pretty much just thrown out there with the expectation that the reader would naturally see the connection.

Although Paul and Luke were Levite class and learned by comparison, I do think that the majority of followers (even just after Jesus death) were from the 5-6 classes of the peasantry.... there was no middle class bar a very few exceptions. No insult, but Celcus may have been correct in that literacy might have been scarce amongst earliest followers.
Strangely imo, I think Celcus is a friend of Christianity's even though a dire enemy.
'We need good friends, but we need good enemies even more'.
Rabbi Lionel Blue.
Celcus helps to scatter the mythers..... he does!

The fact is that back then the world really did consist of the one percenters and pretty much everyone else. There was no real middle class or bourgeois. It's like he ignorantly projects society in modern times back into the first centuries A.D. Ehrman's habit of reading modern understandings into things has been a frequent criticism of his work and this has resulted in his creating issues where there are none.

There! You said it as well...... that is really great.
Excellent.

1. Ehrman's expressed concerns find absolutely no parallel among scholars of ancient and classical secular texts. You will find an absence of hand wringing over the fact that they don't have the original manuscripts or questioning whether all the copies we do have were all 100% totally correct.

2. Another example is the story of the woman taken in adultery found in the Gospel of John. While it is almost certainly not original to John (some early manuscripts place it in Luke, where I think a far better case for it belonging to that author can be made), even many of the most skeptical acknowledge that it reflects an authentic episode in Jesus' life. C.S. Lewis raised a great point in noting that the mention of Jesus writing in the dust bears the earmarks of an eyewitness account and raises the question why note that detail and not mention what was written if it was just a nice story tacked onto Scripture.

John 7:53-8:11............
Yes. John had a vast bundle of info and documents to hand.
The original document showing the story of writing in the dust was probably written by an unknown witness but John got hold of it. It looks true for exactly your reasons even if the author is unknown.

John is most helpful in high and low value ways. For example, in a long search for info about Judas John'#s Gospel could tell me about his father so he is either either Juda(s) BarSimeon or Jud(s) BenSimeon. I happen to think that Judas was a low order Levite but that's a few pages of ideas, I'm afraid.

Rogue, I have never held tightly to any ideas that Ehrmann has ever produced.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The demographics of Christianity in the ante-Nicean period are a bit outside my fields of expertise... but I'd gotten the impression from things I've read that it's pretty much universally taken for granted today that Christianity flourished primarily among the lower classes and the less educated, rather than among the elites. Did I get the wrong impression?

Not really.

Celsus was, as far as we know, the first non-Christian author to write a book denouncing Christianity as a movement that appealed to the most ignorant and easily duped members of society.

You are correct in that the general consensus is this cult established by Paul found its membership among the poorer sectors of the cities he visited. Indeed this was part of its appeal. It was open to everyone. It is not impossible of course that a few of Paul’s converts may have had slightly higher social status but for the most this new cult garnered most of its converts from the lower social orders. It took a long time to spread through to the upper echelons of Roman society .

[rogue06]

That I find interesting and I appreciate the Meeks reference. I will try to check it out.

However, it can't be denied what Ehrman cited about earliest Christianity, into the middle (and later) 1st C. Plus it is the case that indeed some of the upper class and educated (pagans) were attracted to the preaching about Christ. Yet again, it can't be discounted that the majority was from the 'lower classes.'

Given that the overwhelming majority of people were from "lower classes," the only way for any movement to expand this would seem to be a demographic prerequisite.

[thormas]

A bit too cute elder. You already admitted you didn't know the Pope so, congrats, you looked it up:+}
I simply wasn't that concerned about Mary's reputation since I knew she was not correctly ID as a prostitute.

Elder, I was talking about their official position, as in title, at their university. It is not simply that one is a professor or a lecturer, but their full, prestigious title, like X is the Professor (the name of a predecessor) of Y (field of study) at Z University. Most people don't know these particulars, don't know who the chair is named after or who that person was - nor do they care. Simple.

As for leanings and agendas, everyone is human but a professional scholar lets the material speak to him or her and tries to avoid preconceived ideas. Plus, as mentioned before, there are peer reviews of their work.

I'm not surprised that a scholarly review doesn't mean anything to you and it is obvious that you don't know what such a review means. It is not simply giving somebody the OK, it is a thorough reading and if/when there is disagreement it is fully explained what the reviewer disagree with, why and his/her alternative position. A review is commentary of what the first scholar wrote and then what the other scholars wrote. i.e their review.

I'll skip quoting your mantra since I think it is ridiculous aa evidenced in your example of Mark, when your 'investigation' about Mark was a referral to Mark.

Sorry but I don't go in for or support book burning. As for HJ, if Mark is an example of your massive research, then you have yet to find IT :+}

Some of us knew abut the real Mary M well before 1994. And I did study at home after classes at grad school:+} Mary is not an area of major concern once one knows her story. Surprised it is so big for you but it seems that it is??

Actually, I suspect it was written by one who knows enough not to burn books. And it's called recycling.

[thormas]

Pick something that somebody wrote about Jesus and his mission and we'll have a look at it, I promise.

You really have to read not only the scholars but what other people write on threads. But I am amused once again as you try to be cute and the feeble attempt to avoid a critique about how to actually do research:+}

We all look for findings and they are typically attached to a name rather than falling whole from the sky. If Mark was an example of your findings...........ruh-roh.

Elder, don't dodge - we're still waiting on you for the massive research - go for it. Then we can talk new threads and quotes.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Given that the overwhelming majority of people were from "lower classes," the only way for any movement to expand this would seem to be a demographic prerequisite.

As has been previously pointed out to you, your view that Roman society "really did consist of the one percenters and pretty much everyone else" is wrong.

[rogue06]

As has been previously pointed out to you, your view that Roman society "really did consist of the one percenters and pretty much everyone else" is wrong.

After doing a brief check I have to admit that Roman society itself had a larger "middle class" than I had recollected, but Roman society did not necessarily exemplify everywhere in the Roman Empire and even then the majority of the people living in it would have been in the lower classes.

[eider]

A bit too cute elder. You already admitted you didn't know the Pope so, congrats, you looked it up:+}
I simply wasn't that concerned about Mary's reputation since I knew she was not correctly ID as a prostitute.

Not true. I already made mention of this. You questioned it. I provided details for you.

Elder, I was talking about their official position, as in title, at their university. It is not simply that one is a professor or a lecturer, but their full, prestigious title, like X is the Professor (the name of a predecessor) of Y (field of study) at Z University. Most people don't know these particulars, don't know who the chair is named after or who that person was - nor do they care. Simple.

You're waffling now, thormas.

As for leanings and agendas, everyone is human but a professional scholar lets the material speak to him or her and tries to avoid preconceived ideas. Plus, as mentioned before, there are peer reviews of their work.

Still waffling.....

I'm not surprised that a scholarly review doesn't mean anything to you and it is obvious that you don't know what such a review means. It is not simply giving somebody the OK, it is a thorough reading and if/when there is disagreement it is fully explained what the reviewer disagree with, why and his/her alternative position. A review is commentary of what the first scholar wrote and then what the other scholars wrote. i.e their review.

And still waffling....

I'll skip quoting your mantra since I think it is ridiculous aa evidenced in your example of Mark, when your 'investigation' about Mark was a referral to Mark.

Sorry but I don't go in for or support book burning. As for HJ, if Mark is an example of your massive research, then you have yet to find IT :+}

I accept your apology. How about just chucking them away? Have you got a quote about that?

Some of us knew abut the real Mary M well before 1994. And I did study at home after classes at grad school:+} Mary is not an area of major concern once one knows her story. Surprised it is so big for you but it seems that it is??

Actually, I suspect it was written by one who knows enough not to burn books. And it's called recycling.

No. You did not know, or you would have accepted my point.
If you DID know then you were being obstructive.

If your next post is as away from the subject matter as this I won't respond to it.

[eider]

A bit too cute elder. You already admitted you didn't know the Pope so, congrats, you looked it up:+}
I simply wasn't that concerned about Mary's reputation since I knew she was not correctly ID as a prostitute.

Oh thormas!!!!

Post 122! Look what you wrote!
But I don't remember about a Pope and Mary ..........which one?

Oh, thormas!

[eider]

You really have to read not only the scholars but what other people write on threads. But I am amused once again as you try to be cute and the feeble attempt to avoid a critique about how to actually do research:+}

We all look for findings and they are typically attached to a name rather than falling whole from the sky. If Mark was an example of your findings...........ruh-roh.

Elder, don't dodge - we're still waiting on you for the massive research - go for it. Then we can talk new threads and quotes.

I don't think that you realise it, but but you have descended in to a continuous cycle of aggressive paragraphs, one after the other on successive posts. This is surely indicative of a someone totally caught out.

Now, I'll ask you again, please pick any point that any scholar has made to you that you treasure. Then we could look at it.

Now, you want to see some findings from my searches, yes?

OK....... Now will you please describe Jesus's home town of Nazareth as it would have been. You start .....

OR........ please describe why you think that esus and the disciples might have run night trips over to the Gadarene shores. I'll take it from there..... any good?

OR...... Were Jesus and his disciples just having a last meal together or was that meal the consumption of a sacrifice? Where did Jews eat their sacrifices?

OR....... Would you like to tell me about the language of the Galilean Boatmen?


OR...... how many Romans were in Galilee?


OR...... it goes on, thormas.......... and on......




Pick one. THis teaching you what I learned over years is going to take......... years, thormas.
Just pick one.

[eider]

Elder, first you say your HJ opinions are based on massive research ..........

Could you just quote any post where I wrote the words 'Massive Research'?
I would like to see that.


waiting.........

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

After doing a brief check I have to admit that Roman society itself had a larger "middle class" than I had recollected, but Roman society did not necessarily exemplify everywhere in the Roman Empire and even then the majority of the people living in it would have been in the lower classes.

Firstly, check your facts before making yourself look an idiot.
Secondly what do you mean by "lower orders"? Be precise.
Thirdly, what specific period in Roman history were you considering when you wrote that "Roman society did not necessarily exemplify everywhere in the Roman Empire and even then the majority of the people living in it would have been in the lower classes"?
Fourthly what do you precisely mean by "exemplify" in that sentence?


Edit: If you do not wish to risk derailing this thread do feel free to start another.