The Gospel Witness of Christ's Birth and Resurrection

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Thanks for the additional information, Chap.

The review was interesting and fun to read in it's own right. The closing was a perfect summation:

It has got a bit of everything for everybody and it even has some history!

It sounds interesting, if more romantic than historic. I'm curious enough to check it out at some point if with a high degree of skeptism.

My fascination was specifically with the Jewish traditions that he researched. I haven't seen anywhere where those have been refuted. However, I haven't dug into it, so I could be wrong. At any rate. It gives a very intriguing perspective on the historical side of Christs' conception.

[_huckelberry]

Thanks for the additional information, Chap.

The review was interesting and fun to read in it's own right. The closing was a perfect summation:

It has got a bit of everything for everybody and it even has some history!

It sounds interesting, if more romantic than historic. I'm curious enough to check it out at some point if with a high degree of skeptism.

My fascination was specifically with the Jewish traditions that he researched. I haven't seen anywhere where those have been refuted. However, I haven't dug into it, so I could be wrong. At any rate. It gives a very intriguing perspective on the historical side of Christs' conception.

Jesse, why would anybody want to refute Jewish traditions?

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Jesse, why would anybody want to refute Jewish traditions?

Chap had stated that based on the review he quoted, he didn't know why anyone would want to bother reading the book, or take it seriously. My point was that even though the author's research might be slanted, his research regarding the Jewish traditions surrounding Jesus' birth was not refuted by the critical review. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[_huckelberry]

Jesse, why would anybody want to refute Jewish traditions?

Chap had stated that based on the review he quoted, he didn't know why anyone would want to bother reading the book, or take it seriously. My point was that even though the author's research might be slanted, his research regarding the Jewish traditions surrounding Jesus' birth was not refuted by the critical review. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I am sorry if my skepticism fails to totally block curiosity. I am having trouble imaging what Jewish traditions would have to do with the subject of Jesus birth. I understand Jews favored having both a mom and a dad.
I have heard there have been wags suggesting something about Mary and a Roman soldier. I do not know if that is a Jewish tradition. Do you think Jewish traditions would know anything about Jesus birth?

[_huckelberry]

Hi huckelberry,

I think it's better said that the gospel writers were compelled by the death of Jesus who they believed to be the messiah to find ways to reconcile the prophecies of the Messiah with the death and resurrection of Jesus. Ehrmann dealt with this in his book about how Jesus became God as I recall but it's been a while since I've read it.

We have an explicit example of this use of Messianic beliefs being explained to account for Jesus' death taking place in Acts 2, where Peter teaches:


27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead,
you will not let your holy one see decay.

28 You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.’[e]

29 “Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day.
30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.
31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay.
32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Honorentheos, I see you have a good quote for the expectation of messianic resurrection.

I can see the general point that early Christians sought to fit various prophetic words into the events of Jesus. It was not always an easy fit. I would imagine people would prefer to interpret the phrase, not seeing corruption, to mean not dying. However Jesus died and some sort of hope of resurrection would suggest the possibility that the psalm had resurrection in view instead.

I think how the story got told was a bit of combination of events, sometimes awkward, and how various prophetic images could be used as illustration. Particularly in the birth stories I do not see any way to get behind the story presented in the gospels to untangle just where events leave off and imagination takes over.

[_Bret Ripley]

I have heard there have been wags suggesting something about Mary and a Roman soldier. I do not know if that is a Jewish tradition.

I'm certainly no expert, but If I recall correctly the best source we have for the Roman soldier story comes to us indirectly via Origen's refutation of Celsus' attack on Christianity. Celsus, who was not Jewish, claimed (per Origen) that some Jews believed that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier who called himself Pantera. Celsus would have written this during the latter half of the second century.

I don't know if there are better sources for the Pantera story -- I don't think there are but I could be wrong -- but if this is the best evidence available then proponents of the historicity of this account are left to hang their hats on a mid-3rd century Christian source (Origen's Contra Celsum) reporting that a polemical, late 2nd century Greek source (Celsus) attributed this account of Jesus' paternity to some anonymous Jewish source(s). With this as its basis, I would be uncomfortable labeling the Pantera story as a historically relevant Jewish tradition without multiple caveats and/or several mood-altering beverages.

TLDR: what huckelberry said.

[_honorentheos]

I have heard there have been wags suggesting something about Mary and a Roman soldier. I do not know if that is a Jewish tradition.

I'm certainly no expert, but If I recall correctly the best source we have for the Roman soldier story comes to us indirectly via Origen's refutation of Celsus' attack on Christianity. Celsus, who was not Jewish, claimed (per Origen) that some Jews believed that Jesus' father was a Roman soldier who called himself Pantera. Celsus would have written this during the latter half of the second century.

I don't know if there are better sources for the Pantera story -- I don't think there are but I could be wrong -- but if this is the best evidence available then proponents of the historicity of this account are left to hang their hats on a mid-3rd century Christian source (Origen's Contra Celsum) reporting that a polemical, late 2nd century Greek source (Celsus) attributed this account of Jesus' paternity to some anonymous Jewish source(s). With this as its basis, I would be uncomfortable labeling the Pantera story as a historically relevant Jewish tradition without multiple caveats and/or several mood-altering beverages.

TLDR: what huckelberry said.

Except yours included the potential for "several mood-altering beverages." Could be a game changer.

[_honorentheos]

Honorentheos, I see you have a good quote for the expectation of messianic resurrection.

I can see the general point that early Christians sought to fit various prophetic words into the events of Jesus. It was not always an easy fit. I would imagine people would prefer to interpret the phrase, not seeing corruption, to mean not dying. However Jesus died and some sort of hope of resurrection would suggest the possibility that the psalm had resurrection in view instead.

I think how the story got told was a bit of combination of events, sometimes awkward, and how various prophetic images could be used as illustration. Particularly in the birth stories I do not see any way to get behind the story presented in the gospels to untangle just where events leave off and imagination takes over.

That's fair. My point in beginning the thread isn't that it's possible to disprove the resurrection using the Gospels. It was to point out to some of our partisipants that the Gospel narratives do not make the resurrection or message of Christ risen/mankind redeemed a given. We're still left struggling with the question of where events leave off and our own imaginations/preferrences take over.

I always appreciate your perspective and partisipation, by the way. Not many threads lend themselves to that these days but when we get the chance, I look forward to your contributions.

[_Bret Ripley]

TLDR: what huckelberry said.

Except yours included the potential for "several mood-altering beverages." Could be a game changer.

Consider it my humble contribution to the gentrification of these virtual spaces. In terms of wit, it didn't hold a candle to the "Matthean Appendix" suggested by your OP.