Did the Jews really kill Jesus?

[DesertBerean]

Eisenman is the person who draws connections between Paul and the Idumeans and Herodians, by taking circumstantial data and blowing it way out of proportion. Almost exactly in the same way adherents of conspiracy theories tend to latch on to the most minute and irrelevant details and make way too much of a deal out of them.

I'm not all that familiar with Eisenman but I've seen that name along with a sneer or two from people discussing Paul.

[mikewhitney]

Isn't he the guy who bases that conclusion on Paul's calling someone named Herodion his "kinsman" in Romans?

FWIW



Some concept of Paul's life, if memory serves, may derive from this. I think the idea was that Paul's parents (or grandparents) were slaves but had been freed.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The bible is one of the best historical documents we have of the time period.

To which specific period of time are you actually referring ?

Actually one of the ONLY historical documents we have

That is a ridiculous over statement of fact which ignores the plethora of literature from various other ancient near eastern civilisations many of which predate any extant Biblical texts.

Archeology has supported the bible time and time again.

That is nothing but a sweeping generalisation not entirely supported by the known facts. Archaeology has in fact confirmed some historical details contained in the Bible. On the other hand it has cast doubt upon the veracity of many other narrative details.

But you are welcome to your own opinions and beliefs.

As indeed are we all.

But you seem to be trying to use the bible when it suits you and then deny it when it doesn't.

I am not trying to use the bible for anything. I am merely using the tools of historical and literary criticism in an attempt to establish the origins and the contemporary social, historical, and religious backgrounds to these documents.

If the latter, then you really have no leg to stand on when debating biblical threads.

That is a somewhat presumptuous attitude. In no way can these matters be considered in strict isolation. They must be examined against, and within, the contemporary ancient near eastern world within which they originated.

And even assuming it was "revisionist" history, that doesn't mean that isn't internally consistent

In point of fact there is no internal consistency. Paul never calls himself a Jew. Whether in fact he was or not, the salient point is that he never describes himself as such in any of his authentic extant writings.

and that Paul was referring to him self as belonging to one of the remaining tribes of the kingdom of Judah (Benjamin)

These eponymous tribes no longer existed in the first century CE. Any New Testament passages that refers to them as being so, is anachronistic.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That's cool beans. It's fun tossing around other people's opinions...unfortunately it leaves one unable to conclude what is FACT. It's kinda important to know that. Here's one....we got to eat and drink so we don't die.

It is well known that within academia there has always been an element of disagreement, In a discipline such as biblical and NT studies that is often more pronounced. However, the only fact we have is the texts from different documents as they have come down to us. Everything else is interpretation.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

As far as I can tell Eisenman's view on Paul is decidedly in the minority, and for good reasons.

What specific reasons? Citations are required?

IMO the way he reasons in order to come to the conclusions he does is straight up conspiratorial and seriously strained

[Sparko]

To which specific period of time are you actually referring ?

That is a ridiculous over statement of fact which ignores the plethora of literature from various other ancient near eastern civilisations many of which predate any extant Biblical texts.

That is nothing but a sweeping generalisation not entirely supported by the known facts. Archaeology has in fact confirmed some historical details contained in the Bible. On the other hand it has cast doubt upon the veracity of many other narrative details.

As indeed are we all.

I am not trying to use the bible for anything. I am merely using the tools of historical and literary criticism in an attempt to establish the origins and the contemporary social, historical, and religious backgrounds to these documents.

That is a somewhat presumptuous attitude. In no way can these matters be considered in strict isolation. They must be examined against, and within, the contemporary ancient near eastern world within which they originated. You are basically just picking and choosing which parts of the bible you want to use based on whether it agrees with your preconceptions or not. Treating the bible like your personal smorgasbord isn't the mark of a serious scholar.



In point of fact there is no internal consistency. Paul never calls himself a Jew. Whether in fact he was or not, the salient point is that he never describes himself as such in any of his authentic extant writings.

These eponymous tribes no longer existed in the first century CE. Any New Testament passages that refers to them as being so, is anachronistic.

You have just lost all credibility with me. The Jews were very diligent in keeping genealogical records, so of course, Paul would know which tribe he came from. And again you refer to Paul's "authentic" writings while denying the scriptures are in any way historic or reliable. You can't have it both ways.

[JonathanL]

You have just lost all credibility with me. The Jews were very diligent in keeping genealogical records, so of course, Paul would know which tribe he came from. And again you refer to Paul's "authentic" writings while denying the scriptures are in any way historic or reliable. You can't have it both ways.

Aside from that, her view on Paul as having started the process that "hellenized" Christianity and culminated in the appearance of post-Nicene Christianity shows that her knowledge about current scholarship about Paul (and devotion to Christ amongst his earliest followers, although that point isn't really relevant here) is seriously out of date.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You have just lost all credibility with me. The Jews were very diligent in keeping genealogical records, so of course, Paul would know which tribe he came from. And again you refer to Paul's "authentic" writings while denying the scriptures are in any way historic or reliable. You can't have it both ways.

The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus ChristauthenticThe Oxford Companion to the Bible Ed Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan, 1993]

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Aside from that, her view on Paul as having started the process that "hellenized" Christianity and culminated in the appearance of post-Nicene Christianity shows that her knowledge about current scholarship about Paul (and devotion to Christ amongst his earliest followers, although that point isn't really relevant here) is seriously out of date.

The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 73, No.1/2, Dedicated to the Centennial of the Society of Biblical Literature (Jan. - Apr., 1980), pp. 241-249

[mikewhitney]

The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 73, No.1/2, Dedicated to the Centennial of the Society of Biblical Literature (Jan. - Apr., 1980), pp. 241-249

Nothing you say here excludes Jews from recognizing the arrival of their Messiah in the first century. Nor do you have a decent understanding of Romans 6:3-5. Your points may explain common cultural elements which would become the popular statements against Christ, but this does not mean that all Jews failed to recognize Jesus as God incarnate.

The NT texts do not have to have originated in Hebrew. The use of Greek was more useful in the outreach to the broader community. Plus, Paul expressed in Rom 9-11 his sorrow that more Jews had not received their Messiah.

There may be a few insights that a social historian could add. However, it is speculation to say that the 1000s of Jews in Acts did not respond to the gospel of the kingdom of their Messiah. And a pure socio-behaviorial model to predict Jewish behavior in light of their Messiah is purely theoretical. Such models negelect the power of God to change people's hearts -- even your heart.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nothing you say here excludes Jews from recognizing the arrival of their Messiah in the first century.

The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity. This something so many Christians are unable to understand.

Nor do you have a decent understanding of Romans 6:3-5.

With regard to these texts there is no "understanding" there is merely interpretation.

Your points may explain common cultural elements which would become the popular statements against Christ, but this does not mean that all Jews failed to recognize Jesus as God incarnate.

Judaism cannot have a god incarnate. Read the first two commandments.

The NT texts do not have to have originated in Hebrew.

These texts were in Greek because they were directed towards a Greek speaking audience. Not a Palestinian Jewish audience, which would have spoken Aramaic.

The use of Greek was more useful in the outreach to the broader community. Plus, Paul expressed in Rom 9-11 his sorrow that more Jews had not received their Messiah.

For many Jews Jesus had not fulfilled the criteria.

There may be a few insights that a social historian could add. However, it is speculation to say that the 1000s of Jews in Acts did not respond to the gospel of the kingdom of their Messiah. And a pure socio-behaviorial model to predict Jewish behavior in light of their Messiah is purely theoretical. Such models negelect the power of God to change people's hearts -- even your heart.

Conflating personal religious beliefs with the work of a social historian is never a recommended course of action.

[mikewhitney]

The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus ChristauthenticThe Oxford Companion to the Bible Ed Bruce M. Metzger & Michael D. Coogan, 1993]

The basic rejection of these claims about the Pauline letters is that the letters have consistently been found together. The evidence is not of finding one or a few letters in one archaelogical discovery while finding a different set in another find. The discussion on this is built around Three source: early church fathers, Marcion, and the Muratorian Canon (Rediscovering Paul, 367)

[mikewhitney]

The Jewish Messiah is not a divinity. This something so many Christians are unable to understand.

With regard to these texts there is no "understanding" there is merely interpretation.

Judaism cannot have a god incarnate. Read the first two commandments.

These texts were in Greek because they were directed towards a Greek speaking audience. Not a Palestinian Jewish audience, which would have spoken Aramaic.

For many Jews Jesus had not fulfilled the criteria.

Conflating personal religious beliefs with the work of a social historian is never a recommended course of action.

The lack of Jewish response was noted by Paul and by prophecy. So you are confirming prophecy here.

[DesertBerean]

The word Christianity is itself derived from Greek, it is therefore Hellenistic.

It's my understanding that when the Hebrew Scripture was translated into Greek, the root word "Christ" was used for the Hebrew "Mashiach". The word "Christian" were given to the believers at Antioch, where Greek was spoken.

NT texts have come down to us in Greek not Hebrew.

Well yes. And?

Furthermore, anthropomorphic deities have no place in Judaism.

Not sure what to say to this so I'll move on.

Whereas in Judaism the rite of circumcision was the mode of initiation into the spiritual community,

It was actually more of a physical one...harkens back to the Abrahamic promise. The Mosaic code didn't establish it; merely dealt with regulating how it was done.

John the Baptist led Jews to baptism for repentance from sins. Pharisees *and* Sadducees clearly accepted the concept. Jesus commanded baptism for all his disciples. Paul the former Pharisee merely explained the nature of the baptism.

[rogue06]

More avoidance.

Speaking of which:

While he may not use the word "Jew" to describe himself, in Galatians (which I'll assume you accept is an example of "authentic writings" of Paul, he does say at 1:13

"For you have heard of my former life in Judaism"

How else would you take that but as his being Jewish? While he was now a Christian and no longer lived "in Judaism" he was still Jewish.

And in the very next verse he notes that he

"was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers."

Kinda hard to do if you weren't yourself Jewish, don't ya think?

Moreover, if Paul wasn't Jewish then why in the world would he have been so driven to hunt down and persecute early Christians for what he saw as violating Jewish law? Galatians 1:13-14 were in reference to this activity

Scripture Verse: Gal. 1:13

For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers

© Copyright Original Source

He reaffirms this in Philippians 3:6 (another epistle everyone pretty much agrees is an "authentic writing" of Paul's) where he says while describing himself

"as to zeal, a persecutor of the church"

Still avoiding