Bart Ehrman And The Definition Of "the Son Of Man"

[Discern]

I've been reading through the enjoyable "Jesus, Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, but I came across an issue that someone here might have some insight on. Since many of you are familiar with Bart Ehrman I thought I'd ask:

 

In "Jesus, Interrupted" (chapter 5), Bart is investigating which parts of the gospels might relate to the real, historical Jesus, not the miracles and resurrection story and such. He talks about "The Son of Man" and how Jesus never referred to himself as such. Jesus always spoke about the Son of Man in the third person, and Bart suggests that this is because Jesus was not actually referring to himself.

 

Then I remembered this scripture:

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matt 12:40

 

So it seems to throw a spanner in Bart's hypothesis. Anyone have any comments on this?

[mymistake]

I've been reading through the enjoyable "Jesus, Interrupted" by Bart Ehrman, but I came across an issue that someone here might have some insight on. Since many of you are familiar with Bart Ehrman I thought I'd ask:

 

In "Jesus, Interrupted" (chapter 5), Bart is investigating which parts of the gospels might relate to the real, historical Jesus, not the miracles and resurrection story and such. He talks about "The Son of Man" and how Jesus never referred to himself as such. Jesus always spoke about the Son of Man in the third person, and Bart suggests that this is because Jesus was not actually referring to himself.

 

Then I remembered this scripture:

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matt 12:40

 

So it seems to throw a spanner in Bart's hypothesis. Anyone have any comments on this?

 

Friday afternoon until Saturday afternoon is 24 hours.

Saturday afternoon until Sunday morning is about 12 hours, give or take.

 

A day and a half is never three days and three nights. Perhaps the original meaning of the phrase (if any) was lost when Christians hijacked it for their own purpose.

 

I recently came to the suspicion that there never was a historic Jesus. Oh Yeshua was a popular name. So no doubt there were many rabbis named Yeshua. But I believe when Paul invented his religion the Jesus Christ he talked about was not a man who lived on Earth. Paul was talking about a spiritual being. That is why there never was a historical Jesus. Gospel writers confused the issue when Mark's fiction was taken seriously. Matthew is a reworking of the Mark story with many Hebrew sounding ideas tossed in there. The author of Matthew gets a lot of them wrong. He makes up prophesy that doesn't seem to exist. He get Aramaic customs wrong. Perhaps three days and three nights is just something the Author of Matthew hijacked. He did sloppy work.

[Ouroboros]

So it seems to throw a spanner in Bart's hypothesis. Anyone have any comments on this?

Ehrman's point is that Jesus talks about the Son of Man in third person and never makes the claim (at least not explicitly) that he is that person. It could be inferred (or understood implicitly) from your quote that Jesus was talking about himself, but perhaps he wasn't.

[Discern]

I'm aware of the 3-days-not-actually-being-3-days problem, but I can't fathom what else 'Jesus' (ie, Matthew) would be talking about. Bart Ehrman's Son of Man was meant to be some kind of judge in heaven (based on what Jesus said about The Son of Man). Why this Son of Man would spend 3 days and nights in the "heart of the earth" is baffling. It just makes more sense that Jesus is talking about himself. Even Paul said that Jesus rose again "on the third day", despite the day screw-up.

 

I'm wondering if Bart's angle is that the real Jesus talked about a separate Son of Man, but by the time Matthew put pen to paper, people were already thinking that Jesus was talking about himself. Thus Matthew makes up the line about 3 days in the heart of the earth.

 

If that's the case, then I think he's splitting hairs too finely. It's too difficult to prove, and a believer will just throw that argument out the window.

[mymistake]

I'm aware of the 3-days-not-actually-being-3-days problem, but I can't fathom what else 'Jesus' (ie, Matthew) would be talking about.

 

The way I have heard it for some early proto judeo-christian sects they believed that God had a spiritual agent who God made into a king. This king was not God but rather served God in heaven. This king was the son of God and had never been to earth yet but would come to earth someday. They believed that this king had died in heaven as a sacrifice and that this had happened long ago.

 

So imagine a leader of the Nazarene jewish sect teaching that this King had spent 3 days in the belly of the Earth and any minute now that King would come to Earth (for the first time) to usher in the Kingdom of God.

 

IMO the Christians hijacked a lot of idea and melted them into their own religion.

 

Bart Ehrman's Son of Man was meant to be some kind of judge in heaven (based on what Jesus said about The Son of Man). Why this Son of Man would spend 3 days and nights in the "heart of the earth" is baffling. It just makes more sense that Jesus is talking about himself. Even Paul said that Jesus rose again "on the third day", despite the day screw-up.

 

Well you have to remember that the four gospels are not a unified story. They are more akin to how the King Author legend grew over time. The first time King Author was written there was no Lancelot. That came later as the story was reworked and expanded. So each Jesus author had his own agenda. Ask yourself which author wanted Jesus to be talking about himself. I find that the Gospel of John is the one where Jesus talks about himself the most.

 

 

I'm wondering if Bart's angle is that the real Jesus talked about a separate Son of Man, but by the time Matthew put pen to paper, people were already thinking that Jesus was talking about himself. Thus Matthew makes up the line about 3 days in the heart of the earth.

 

If that's the case, then I think he's splitting hairs too finely. It's too difficult to prove, and a believer will just throw that argument out the window.

 

If there was a historical Jesus he probably did not think of himself as being anything special aside from being a teacher. He was just the leader of a sect. That stuff about him being God the Son was invented later. Early Judeo-Christian sects (and Hebrew for that matter) believed that all men were sons of God. So it they had a theology about a son of God it would have been that every member becomes a son of God.

[mcdaddy]

I'm aware of the 3-days-not-actually-being-3-days problem, but I can't fathom what else 'Jesus' (ie, Matthew) would be talking about.

 

The way I have heard it for some early proto judeo-christian sects they believed that God had a spiritual agent who God made into a king. This king was not God but rather served God in heaven. This king was the son of God and had never been to earth yet but would come to earth someday. They believed that this king had died in heaven as a sacrifice and that this had happened long ago.

 

So imagine a leader of the Nazarene jewish sect teaching that this King had spent 3 days in the belly of the Earth and any minute now that King would come to Earth (for the first time) to usher in the Kingdom of God.

 

IMO the Christians hijacked a lot of idea and melted them into their own religion.

 

Bart Ehrman's Son of Man was meant to be some kind of judge in heaven (based on what Jesus said about The Son of Man). Why this Son of Man would spend 3 days and nights in the "heart of the earth" is baffling. It just makes more sense that Jesus is talking about himself. Even Paul said that Jesus rose again "on the third day", despite the day screw-up.

 

Well you have to remember that the four gospels are not a unified story. They are more akin to how the King Author legend grew over time. The first time King Author was written there was no Lancelot. That came later as the story was reworked and expanded. So each Jesus author had his own agenda. Ask yourself which author wanted Jesus to be talking about himself. I find that the Gospel of John is the one where Jesus talks about himself the most.

 

 

I'm wondering if Bart's angle is that the real Jesus talked about a separate Son of Man, but by the time Matthew put pen to paper, people were already thinking that Jesus was talking about himself. Thus Matthew makes up the line about 3 days in the heart of the earth.

 

If that's the case, then I think he's splitting hairs too finely. It's too difficult to prove, and a believer will just throw that argument out the window.

 

If there was a historical Jesus he probably did not think of himself as being anything special aside from being a teacher. He was just the leader of a sect. That stuff about him being God the Son was invented later. Early Judeo-Christian sects (and Hebrew for that matter) believed that all men were sons of God. So it they had a theology about a son of God it would have been that every member becomes a son of God.

 

^^^^^THIS. I've read a shitload about xianity and Judaism over the last year, and this theory, to me, makes absolutely the most sense. I doubt there ever was a historical Jesus in any real capacity. I could be wrong but I don't think paul ever thought of him as coming to earth, at least not before Paul's time. He thought he would be arriving for the first time at any moment. Paul never had a Damascus road experience. That was made up by Luke. Paul himself said Jesus was revealed to him by study of the scriptures, not by some dude that roamed Jude's a few years earlier. He only got the concept thru reading the tanak.

[mcdaddy]

*Judea

[oddbird1963]

Interesting topic, indeed. Reading this thread reminded me that Ehrman has a new, related book out called Did Jesus Exist? . . . Richard Carrier did a book review of it at Freethought Blogs. I'm about to read the review and maybe buy the book and download it to my phone. Carrier takes Ehrman to task for his scholarly failures in taking the position he takes, I must warn our diehard Ehrmannites.

 

My impression of Ehrman for some while has been that he has spent too long around other evangelical New Testament scholars and accepts a lot of the false premises that his colleagues accept and it shows up in his positions about whether Jesus existed.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I believe Earl Doherty is one who promotes the theory that there was no historical Jesus because even Paul's Jesus was a spiritual figure who was sacrificed and rose all in a spiritual realm - what you spoke of, MM. Carrier criticizes many of Doherty's formulations as amateurish but agrees that his overall thesis is very persuasive.

[Discern]

I thought Ehrman made one interesting point regarding the historicity of Jesus. He mentioned how the "real" Jesus must've come from Nazareth, because that fact actually detracts from Jesus' credibility. The Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, not Nazareth.

Yet both Matthew and Luke make up stories in order to get both Nazareth and Bethlehem in the mix (Matthew's Herod story, and Luke's census story). They could've edited out the Nazareth angle, but they didn't. They both had different ways of ensuring Jesus had a link to Bethlehem, but still insisted that Jesus was "Jesus of Nazareth".

[mymistake]

I thought Ehrman made one interesting point regarding the historicity of Jesus. He mentioned how the "real" Jesus must've come from Nazareth, because that fact actually detracts from Jesus' credibility. The Messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem, not Nazareth.

Yet both Matthew and Luke make up stories in order to get both Nazareth and Bethlehem in the mix (Matthew's Herod story, and Luke's census story). They could've edited out the Nazareth angle, but they didn't. They both had different ways of ensuring Jesus had a link to Bethlehem, but still insisted that Jesus was "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

That certainly is an interesting anomaly. I agree it could mean that the writers were forced to deal with a real "Jesus or Nazareth". In the past I thought it meant that the writers were trying to discredit the Nazarenes when there had been a real "Jesus of the Nazarenes". However it could also mean that the author of Matthew misunderstood the Nazarite rules and thought it was an OT prophesy he needed to tie in and then the author of Luke just ran with it. Matthew messed up a lot of OT tie ins. Unfortunately we will probably never know.

[mcdaddy]

Did mark not call him "of Nazareth"? From what I've heard 1) it's supposed to be "the Nazarene" or "nazirite" , a sect of Judaism, and 2). There's no proof at all a town called Nazareth ever existed at that time.

[Ouroboros]

Did mark not call him "of Nazareth"? From what I've heard 1) it's supposed to be "the Nazarene" or "nazirite" , a sect of Judaism, and 2). There's no proof at all a town called Nazareth ever existed at that time.

I think there's some evidence that there were a farm, but not a city, in the 1st century. (If I remember it right.)

[mcdaddy]

Did mark not call him "of Nazareth"? From what I've heard 1) it's supposed to be "the Nazarene" or "nazirite" , a sect of Judaism, and 2). There's no proof at all a town called Nazareth ever existed at that time.

 

 

I think there's some evidence that there were a farm, but not a city, in the 1st century. (If I remember it right.)

 

So did mark ever call him J of N? Maybe he just used a random village in his name to suit his literary needs. Those types of surnames were needed back then. Everyone was "of some town". But if mark didn't call him "of Nazareth" then they other writers wouldn't have needed to call him "of Nazareth". It would have just been "of bethlehem". Unless they assigned surnames based on where you lived, not where you were born.

[Ouroboros]

Did mark not call him "of Nazareth"? From what I've heard 1) it's supposed to be "the Nazarene" or "nazirite" , a sect of Judaism, and 2). There's no proof at all a town called Nazareth ever existed at that time.

 

 

I think there's some evidence that there were a farm, but not a city, in the 1st century. (If I remember it right.)

 

So did mark ever call him J of N? Maybe he just used a random village in his name to suit his literary needs. Those types of surnames were needed back then. Everyone was "of some town". But if mark didn't call him "of Nazareth" then they other writers wouldn't have needed to call him "of Nazareth". It would have just been "of bethlehem". Unless they assigned surnames based on where you lived, not where you were born.

There's the possibility that the cult Jesus belonged to had the name Nazareen and that they had their cult farm at a place called Nazareth.

[Rev R]

What is it with cults and farms?

[Ouroboros]

What is it with cults and farms?

And firearms... and a distiller...

[mwc]

So did mark ever call him J of N? Maybe he just used a random village in his name to suit his literary needs. Those types of surnames were needed back then. Everyone was "of some town". But if mark didn't call him "of Nazareth" then they other writers wouldn't have needed to call him "of Nazareth". It would have just been "of bethlehem". Unless they assigned surnames based on where you lived, not where you were born.

A quick search of G.Mark turned up four mentions of "Nazarene" (in the Greek) [1:24, 10:47, 14:67 and 16:6] but nothing of "Nazareth" (although most translations use "Nazareth" instead of "Nazarene"). Anyhow, I'm no expert but it's written so simply the language used easily supports "Jesus the Nazarene" in these verses. I also saw the same term in G.Luke 4:34 and 24:19 (for completeness).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Maybe it was meant to say Jesus the Nazi?