The Evolution of Jesus in Early Christianity

a reply to: Akragon

I like these sorts of topics. In my own opinion, every religion evolves over time, but that is heresy to many.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

Every other scholar on the planet thinks that is proof the Bible was written by Greek Christians 50+ years later.. rather than eye witnesses in Judea.

Quoting from Wikipedia, "In Jerusalem itself about 40 percent of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) are in Greek. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them".

It isn't just Christian writings, it's nearly everything from the region and the time.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

Then why do none of the critical New Testament scholars think jesus or his diciples spoke Greek??


Because you have to assume the Bible being written in Greek means jesus spoke Greek. Because there isn’t any other evidence of that.

By the time of Jesus, Palestine had been dominated by the Ptolomies and the Selucids for over 300 years. This is known as the Hellenistic period. All of the 'metropolitan' cities were Hellenistic, and Greek would have been required for day to day commerce.

Jesus NATIVE tongue would have been Aramaic, but written 'stuff' would have been in Greek. The Bible is in conflict as to the Jesus social status. Was he of the royal line of David, or just a poor carpenter? If he was a royal, he would certainly have been fluent in the Greek of the upper classes, if a poor carpenter from the boondocks he may have had a rudimentary familiarity with Greek but maybe not very fluent, and probably not able to read or write.

Few people could read or write, thus the dependency on scribes, a grouip of people that Jesus often had conflicts with.

a reply to: chr0naut

Where is the quote and source..

That reminds me of a movie review with the dots on both sides..


... this is the best movie ...


When it really say, “ even my dog doesn’t think this is the best movie he saw today.”

a reply to: rnaa

There is only ONE example of a first century Jewish author who wrote in Greek, and he admits he is not good at it AND WAS EDUCATED IN THE EMPERORS OWN HOUSEHOLD...


So obviously a VERY SPECIAL case..


There are no other examples, period.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rnaa

There is only ONE example of a first century Jewish author who wrote in Greek, and he admits he is not good at it AND WAS EDUCATED IN THE EMPERORS OWN HOUSEHOLD...


So obviously a VERY SPECIAL case..


There are no other examples, period.

Au Contraire: Hellenistic Judaism

Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture. Until the fall of the Roman Empire and the Muslim conquests of the Eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria (Egypt) and Antioch (now Southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa area, both founded at the end of the 4th century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists (sometimes called Judaizers).

The major literary product of the contact of Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koiné Greek, specifically, Jewish Koiné Greek. Mentionable are also the philosophic and ethical treatises of Philo and the historiographical works of the other Hellenistic Jewish authors.[1]

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century CE, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch.

And from that same article see especially: Notable Hellenized Jews This list includes names you may be familiar with including Alexander Maccabeus, Ben Sira author of The Wisdom of Sirach, Simeon the Just, Andrew the Apostle, Josephus the historian, Philo of Alexandria, Saul of Tarsus aka Paul the Apostle founder of Christianity, Saint Timothy.

And yes, few people could read or write in any language and depended on scribes, who would have written in the language of the Ptolemies who had been ruling for 300 years = Greek. The middle east and north eastern Africa at least were Greek for about 500 years during which time Greek was the dominant language for trade and officialdom. Your assertion that there is exactly one Palestinian author who wrote in Greek is simply laughable. Your restriction of the claim to the first century CE limits does give it a little bit of plausibility, because the Romans were by that time ascendant, however the spread of Christianity throughout the Hellenized world means that they would have necessarily used Greek. For example, Antioch and Alexandria were centers of trade and education; they were perhaps the most important cities in the Mediterranean world outside of Rome during the first Century CE; and they were Greek cities.

a reply to: rnaa

How could There not be one single example of a Jewish author in Judea who wrote in Greek, and yet your claiming plenty of them wrote Greek????


There are no examples of a first century Jewish author who wrote in Greek.. except Josephus..



And I have seen erhman corner multiple apologist scholars on this very point..


They all claim “it’s not that weird the Bible was first written in Greek. Even though all jesus’s Followers were lower class Jews”


The erhman replies “please name one Jewish author who wrote in Greek from the time of jesus..”

Then they sit there and grumble as they admit there are no examples..


I’m guessing you are referring to later writings.. or writings that were not written by Jews.


Apparently there is a big study done concerning first century literacy and the number they care up with was 3% could read ARAMEIC , and less than one percent could write arameic. There are no examples of any Jews writing in Greek to even begin to compare it to.



You gotta watch debates. They go right to the contentious points so you get to see both sides arguments.

After some thought, I believe Dr Ehrman is looking at it the wrong way. We first need to understand Jesus before we can say Yea or Nay to Pauls beliefs.

If you read 1 Corinthians 15:29 Baptism of the Dead you will start realising that Paul was speaking of something quite foreign to Judaism. So did Paul invent Baptism of the Dead or did it have some other roots.

Perhaps the key is John the Baptist, baptising Jesus in a river. That was not a Jewish custom. It was the custom of the Mandaeans. They also baptise the dead (or soon to die).

John the Baptist was a Mandaean as was Jesus. They believed Moses followed the Demiurge. So Jesus went forth to correct the Jewish religion (againsts Johns the Baptist wishes). Which he paid for with his life. The Apocryphon of John is full of Mandaean beliefs.

So perhaps its easier to understand Paul from an Mandaean/Christian viewpoint instead of judging him from a Judiasm/Christian viewpoint.

Mandaean's believe that the Demiurge created Adam. So believe somewhat in redemption.

a reply to: glend

After some thought, I believe Dr Ehrman is looking at it the wrong way. We first need to understand Jesus before we can say Yea or Nay to Pauls beliefs.

I don't think he was necessarily saying yay or nae to Pauls beliefs... only that paul was the earliest writer about Jesus... and he didn't teach what Jesus taught...

The stories about Jesus in the gospels evolved, whereas Paul was straight forward...

but he didn't know Jesus

Yet he is also direct historical evidence that Jesus was a real person...

in any case this lecture was barely about Paul...

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: glend

After some thought, I believe Dr Ehrman is looking at it the wrong way. We first need to understand Jesus before we can say Yea or Nay to Pauls beliefs.

I don't think he was necessarily saying yay or nae to Pauls beliefs... only that paul was the earliest writer about Jesus... and he didn't teach what Jesus taught...

The stories about Jesus in the gospels evolved, whereas Paul was straight forward...

but he didn't know Jesus

Yet he is also direct historical evidence that Jesus was a real person...

in any case this lecture was barely about Paul...

"he didn't teach what Jesus taught" ridiculous!

Paul understood Jesus, you don't! that's why you think Paul didn't teach what Jesus taught

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How could There not be one single example of a Jewish author in Judea who wrote in Greek, and yet your claiming plenty of them wrote Greek????

I am not claiming that, I am asserting it as obvious; though I at no point limited my discussion to Judea, I have consistently talked about Palestine - all of Palestine, not just Judea. Why do falsely put words in my mouth to attempt to make your point?

I have said repeatedly that the language of commerce and governance was Greek. I have linked you to information that showed that Palestine was under Greek influence for 300 years before Jesus walked the earth and that the Greek influence started to decline after the Greeks were replaced by the Romans.

I have also stated that most people, whether Hellenized or not, could not read or write any language, whether Greek or Aramaic or Hebrew. Those people relied on scribes.

It does not take much imagination to recognize that when you need to write something down, but you don't know how to write, you would go to a scribe whose job is to do that for you. Furthermore, you would go to a scribe that would know how to write the language that your audience could understand. By the way, if you dictate something to a scribe, the authorship attribution is yours, not the scribe.

Following so far?

OK, now lets examine your assertion that there is exactly one known Jew writing in Greek. That is just absurdly false.

What hoops do you have to jump through to disqualify everyone from your argument except Josephus. I am sorry, but the elephant in the room is Paul (not to mention every single one of the other New Testament authors). Of the 14 books in the New Testament that are traditionally attributed to Paul, 7 are considered to have been genuinely written by him (i.e. dictated to a scribe by him). Two of those are Corinthians I and II. Corinth is in Greece, has always been in Greece, and its inhabitants would have spoken Greek. Are you honestly trying to say that Paul wrote to the people in Corinth in Hebrew or Aramaic? Really?

Furthermore, your attempt to limit your claim to Judea is insulting. What other criteria are you invoking in order to reduce your claim to 'exactly one'? Do you really mean there is 'exactly one Judean Jew that wrote a historical narrative that mentions Jesus' in order to focus down to Josephus? OK, I guess that leaves out Paul who travelled all over the middle east and came from Tarsus, not Judea, except I dunno if he wrote any of his stuff while he was in Judea, I haven't checked. Heh. I am not convinced that your argument is worthwhile.

Simply put, there are hundreds of writings from Hellenized Jews, there is even a recognized cultural style Koine Greek. The Septuagint was translated from Hebrew to Greek in the 3rd and 2nd century BCE - are you suggesting that that translation was done by Gentile (and necessarily Pagan) Greeks? Doesn't it make more sense that it was the work of Hellenized Jews? The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (see: Language of the New Testament), and that was NOT one author but dozens, and certainly not Josephus. And then there are all the Apocryphal texts, too many to mention. And that is just religious texts, there must be thousands of non-religious texts.

Finally, just to draw a line under this discussion, here is a passage from the link I provided above: 'Language of the New Testament':

The New Testament Gospels and Epistles were only part of a Hellenistic Jewish culture in the Roman Empire, where Alexandria had a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem, and Greek was spoken by more Jews than Hebrew.[7] Other Jewish Hellenistic writings include those of Jason of Cyrene, Josephus, Philo, Demetrius the chronographer, Eupolemus, Pseudo-Eupolemus, Artapanus of Alexandria, Cleodemus Malchus, Aristeas, Pseudo-Hecataeus, Thallus, and Justus of Tiberias, Pseudo-Philo, many Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible itself.

a reply to: Ove38

Paul is about as credible as Joseph smith, David Koresh or ANY other religious leader claiming to have had “revelations “ aka visions.

You don’t believe any of them when they say it. Why would you believe Paul???


Here is the most interesting question concerning Paul.

How did Paul know the guy he met was jesus??? He had never even met him..

This was before pictures and video..

How do you know he didn’t meet a charlatan or fraud??

a reply to: rnaa

Well the smartest most educated people on the subject disagree with you.


The people who actually learn Greek and have access to all the archeological finds..


There is even a big study done that no one thinks is far off claiming less than one percent of the region could even read and wrote arameic let alone Greek..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rnaa

Well the smartest most educated people on the subject disagree with you.

No they don't. See the link I provided above and follow through on the references there and see also the quotes below.

You are simply mistaken. I suspect you are memorializing the words of one author who is in disagreement with 'the smartest most educated people'. That happens sometimes, even to me. You need to remain open to the possibility that even your favorite source can be mistaken, flat out wrong, making a specific assertion that cannot be generalized, or even lying to promote an agenda. I see no profit in anyone lying about this stuff, so I would have to go with you have misinterpreted what you read, or your source was mistaken.

I will grant you this: Josephus is the only author outside the New Testament and the Apocrypha, that mentions Jesus. But the New Testament and the Apocrypha is an enormous volume of text, and it is written, for the most part, in Koine Greek. Furthermore, there is an even greater amount of writings that do not mention Jesus, or have any religious importance. There were more Greek speaking Jews in Alexandria than there were people in Jerusalem. Do you really think none of them were literate in the largest center of learning in the ancient world? Remember also that the Roman Church ordered the destruction of the Greek Churches and caused the burning of the Alexandria library during the Heretic Wars, so a lot of the Greek writings have been lost.

The people who actually learn Greek and have access to all the archeological finds.

OK, how about you learn it for your self and see what you can find: The University of Texas at Austin: Linguistics Research Center: New Testament Greek Online - Series Introduction by Winfred P. Lehmann and Jonathan Slocum

From the course description:

Greek has been important in the intellectual life of western civilization, but not to the extent of Latin, except for ecclesiastical matters where it is obviously of major importance for determining the meaning of New Testament texts. In years past, Latin was introduced in the first year of High School, followed by Greek in the third year. The prominence of Greek for intellectual matters is evident in designations of subjects central to university study, such as philosophy 'love of wisdom', philology 'love of words or more generally study', theology 'study related to God', psychology 'study related to the soul or psyche', and so on.

The Greek in the New Testament is the so-called koine 'common language'. Based originally on the Greek of Athens, it was circulated throughout Alexander the Great's empire. Languages acquired by many non-native speakers are generally simplified, as was the koine. Morphological categories were lost, such as the dual and the optative, though forms of them may occur in written texts. Sentences were greatly simplified, as noted below. Yet many forms remain, especially for verbs.

There is even a big study done that no one thinks is far off claiming less than one percent of the region could even read and wrote arameic let alone Greek..

Please provide a link that supports your claim. I am not doubting it, mind you, because I have been asserting much the same thing constantly. But I would like to see that study.

The fact that few people were literate doesn't change the fact that there were was more than one literate person in the world. Tacitus says that there were 600,000 people in Jerusalem during the first Jewish war, and Josephus claims that 1,100,000 were killed. So using your percentage there were between 6,000 and 11,000 literate person able to read and write in Jerusalem alone.

Furthermore, (once again, quoted from Language of the New Testament)

After the Babylonian captivity, Aramaic replaced Biblical Hebrew as the everyday language in Palestine. The two languages were as similar as two Romance languages or two Germanic languages today. Thus Biblical Hebrew, which was still used for religious purposes, was not totally unfamiliar, but still a somewhat strange norm that demanded a certain degree of training to be understood properly. After Alexander, Palestine was ruled by the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for almost two hundred years. Jewish culture was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture, and Koine Greek was used not only for international communication, but also as the first language of many Jews. This development was furthered by the fact that the largest Jewish community of the world lived in Ptolemaic Alexandria. Many of these diaspora Jews would have Greek as their first language, and first the Torah and then other Jewish scriptures (later the Christian "Old Testament") were therefore translated into standard Koine Greek, i.e. the Septuagint. Currently, 1,600 Jewish epitaphs (funerary inscriptions) are extant from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. Approximately 70 percent are in Greek, about 12 percent are in Latin, and only 18 percent are in Hebrew or Aramaic. "In Jerusalem itself about 40 percent of the Jewish inscriptions from the first century period (before 70 C.E.) are in Greek. We may assume that most Jewish Jerusalemites who saw the inscriptions in situ were able to read them".

and

Most biblical scholars adhere to the view that the Greek text of the New Testament is the original version.[10] However, there does exist an alternative view which maintains that it is a translation from an Aramaic original, a position known as Pe#ta Primacy (also known in primarily non-scholarly circles as "Aramaic primacy"). Although this view has its adherents, the vast majority of scholars dispute this position citing linguistic, historical, and textual inconsistencies.[11] At any rate, since most of the texts are written by diaspora Jews such as Paul the Apostle and his possibly Gentile companion, Luke, and to a large extent addressed directly to Christian communities in Greek-speaking cities (often communities consisting largely of Paul's converts, which appear to have been non-Jewish in the majority), and since the style of their Greek is impeccable,[12] a Greek original is more probable than a translation.

Even Mark, whose Greek is heavily influenced by his Semitic substratum, seems to presuppose a non-Hebrew audience. Thus, he explains Jewish customs (e.g. Mark 7:3-4, see also Mark 7), and he translates Aramaic phrases into Greek (Mark 3:17: boanerges; Mark 5:41: talitha kum; Mark 7:34: ephphatha; Mark 14:36: abba; Mark 15:22: Golgotha; Mark 15:34, see also Aramaic of Jesus and Sayings of Jesus on the cross). In the Aramaic Syriac version of the Bible, these translations are preserved, resulting in odd texts like Mark 15:34:

a reply to: Akragon

TextIs this similar to people that say "you weren't ever a TRUE Christian"? He is a scholar of the NT... and no longer a Christian... And by the way i don't need to learn anything about Christianity... i just found this video very interesting

I don't judge whether or not a person is right or wrong in what or how their mind is fixed. The word Christian is almost so corrupt and embraces so much filth that I am cautious to even use the word. In fact I do not consider myself as belonging to any Roman offshoot. If you would have asked me if I subscribe to the Nazarene Jesus movement, then I would have said yes I do.

Bart Ehrman is considered a scholar by secular standards of a secular institution and nothing more. His knowledge in languages is seriously lacking and his understanding of the Hebrew God is almost moot. My opinion of course. He remains as confused today as he was as a youngster. So much so that he is considered double minded in the circles of advanced academia. I offer this as my own opinion and not as a vendetta against his beliefs. Do as you will. It's your choice and not mine.

Bart was flawed before he even got into hiss o called lecture.

Here he says that he is not going to get into whether Jesus was God because that is a theological opinion and not a historical opinion. He then says he wants to know the historical question of when the apostles started to believe that Jesus was God. This guy has always been confused and he still drives most scholars bonkers with his double mindedness.

Naturally he did not source his lecture with the first Jesus movement of Jacob [James the Just] but then jumped to a novelist author named Dan Brown. Can you imagine a top notch guy like Bart Ehrman using a 54 year old novelist in a scholarly lecture as a source? And what is very disturbing is that his so called historical question is actually a theoretical question that any graduate from most all seminaries should be able to answer with a resounding - Quote “Jesus Was Never God The Most High nor has His literature ever insinuated that He was The Most High El.” Unquote.

That should not even be a scholarly so called historical question. It is a theoretical opinion based upon one’s religious opinions based upon the literature of the first Jesus movement. How could any person know when another person was first convinced of any matter unless one has that autograph of the mind in question?

Ehrman is almost insane in his self grandeur and his lectures are peppered with inconsistencies. In fact that is the reason I quit listening to this man. I started to mark all of the errors but found it too time consuming effort on my part. Your call but really feel for you – My own opinion of course.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Text How did Paul know the guy he met was jesus??? He had never even met him..

And how do you know that Paul had never met Jesus? Tradition tells us that Saul/Paul was on the Jerusalem Sanhedrin of seventy judges under his master Gamaliel who in turn was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin at this time. Simply because the NT does not specifically list the members does not prove your point any more than it is also tradition that Jesus' uncle Joseph of Arimathea was also on the Sanhedrin court of judges. You must consider outside literature which is far more revealing than simply the NT literature. Use all the literature that you can that pertains to the subject and you will get a more honest report. If literature says nothing certain then how can you say that your suppositions are correct?

a reply to: Seede

And how do you know that Paul had never met Jesus?

We know this because of the character of Paul... He loved to boast even though he claims not to... but what he boasts of is Christ... and his beliefs of him.

IF Paul met Jesus we would have most definitely heard about it in at least one of his letters without question

Paul did not ever meet Jesus

I will get to your reply when i get home from work

a reply to: Seede

WHAT?!?!


How is “when did the apostles thought jesus was god? ” not a historical question????


It is just as historical a question as “when did Hitler decide to invade poland?”...



A thologocal question is “were the apostles right about jesus being god?”


WHEN did they start believing that is ABSOLUTELY historical..

a reply to: Seede

That’s easy ...

Because we have no evidence he ever met jesus..

For one thing Paul was what 30 years after the crucifixion??? So he would likely have only been a child to teen ager if he had , but most importantly he doesn’t claim to have met jesus...


In fact he spends VERY little time on relating the facts surrounding that meeting..

Paul’s claim to jesus is no better than David koresh, Joseph smith or the TV psychics who convince family members they have talked to their children..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Seede

WHAT?!?!


How is “when did the apostles thought jesus was god? ” not a historical question????


It is just as historical a question as “when did Hitler decide to invade poland?”...



A thologocal question is “were the apostles right about jesus being god?”


WHEN did they start believing that is ABSOLUTELY historical..

because in order to be He had to be fulfilling prophecy as their proof. Start with the nails in the hand as in Thomas. Thomas wasn't "doubting". He was reassuring prophecy that He was the fulfillment.