Talk:Origins of Christianity

Stanley E. Porter

Bodily resurrection

According to Stanley E. Porter, as referenced in this article, "this belief in bodily resurrection was at odds with the both the pagan and Jewish customs of that time, thus marking Christians off from all their contemporaries." Stanley E. Porter, The Resurrection: The Greeks and the New Testament, page 74.

Yet, in Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Porter argues that "the belief in bodily resurrection was a comparatively recent development within Judaism" (p.91). And according to James Patrick Holding, Defending the Resurrection, p.17, "Porter posits that the) Jewish concept of resurrection may have had origins in the Greco-Roman world." Holding cites Potter as stating "[the Greeks] did have a significant tradition of bodily resurrection," apparently form this article by Porter. See also here.

The same quote can be found in Paul Fulmer, Resurrection in Mark's Literary-Historical Perspective, p.92, which clearly refers this quote to Porter's Resurrection.

Stephen J. Bedard, HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE ON THE IDEA OF RESURRECTION IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, responds to Porter's thesis, quoting Porter as stating

‘It appears that both Jewish thought and then, inevitably, Christian thought came under the influence of Greek and Graeco-Roman assumptions regarding resurrection.’

Porter's article itself, which is contained in an edited work, is unaccessible; it's not at Google Books. I only found a pdf, with the first 20 pages. Which does say, though (Introduction, p.18):

Stanley Porter's paper brings together a body ofliterature, hitherto largely neglected, which highlights the fact that the Greeks, contrary to much scholarly opinion, did have a significant tradition of bodily resurrection, and that the Jewish tradition emphasizes a continued spiritual existence rather than a bodily resurrection. Thus, Paul in the New Testament probably adopted GraecoRoman assumptions regarding the resurrection, although he was not blindly derivative in developing his conceptual framework.

So, I do have questions about the exact text for this specific line; an exact quote would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Further, bodily resurrection was not an idea of Paul, but is an idea that developed in the gospels. See Dag Øistein Endsjø, Greek Resurrection Beliefs and the Success of Christianity, p.169:

The notion of the resurrection of the flesh was, as we have seen, not unknown to certain parts of Judaism in antiquity. But if Paul really is representative of the earliest form of Christianity, we find that the notion of immortal flesh was not anything that Christianity originally brought with it from Judaism. The Judaism that the Pharisaic Paul based himself on did not include any belief in the resurrection of the flesh, as he himself rejected the idea. But we cannot be sure that Paul’s resurrection belief really was the original Christian belief. We are thus faced with two possibilities. Either Pre-Pauline Christians believed in the resurrection of the flesh and continued with this belief in spite of Paul’s ideas, or early Christians picked up the belief after Paul. As we have no sources on whether Christians believed the resurrection to include the flesh prior to Paul, it is impossible to draw any absolute conclusions here. But the way the gospels gradually increased the stress on the physical dimension of the resurrection in general, and the resurrection of the flesh in particular, indicates that these beliefs were not there in the beginning, as in Paul, or were in no way strongly articulated.

Dag Øistein Endsjø p.11-12 summarises Porter (1999) p.71-79:

Combining a number of these various notions, Stanley Porter argues that the Christian idea of resurrection was reflected in philosophical ideas about reincarnation, in ancient reports about people who were resuscitated without becoming immortal, and in miraculous stories about people who were immortalized without having been resurrected.

Dag Øistein Endsjø himself states, p.12:

In spite of these various attempts of finding other explanations, there has been little change in the general image of the Christian resurrection belief representing a beacon of originally Jewish beliefs standing aloof and unscathed in the tempest of religious change, as wild and unruly waves of Pagan ideas smashed relentlessly upon it from all sides. This mighty scholarly tradition, which has tried to keep anyone from seriously looking at any other religious tradition but Judaism in the attempt to understand the development of resurrection beliefs, has, indeed, left a profound mark.

So, Porter does not argue that the Christian belief in (bodily) resurrection set Christianity apart from Greeks and Jews; on the contrary. Maybe he summarised the views of other researchers?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I have rephrased the Porter-subsection, and added additional information; and I've removed it from the lead as being inaccurate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

"Bodily resurrection is not part of such cults and their beliefs." That is the original quote. I wasn't able to anticipate that Porter would argue that case because, as your source says, "much scholarly opinion says that the Greeks did not have a significant amount of literature dedicated to bodily resurrection.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Which cults is he referring to? Full quote, please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Right: Porter (1999) p.74-75 logos.com Christ in Egypt:

During the Graeco-Roman period, there were numerous cults that had their basis in earlier thought and relied to varying degrees on some form of a resurrection story.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Dubious

joshua, Christ in Egypt is a fringe source (and one not even authored by Porter at that!), and that was the full quote. I will remove the failed verification tag as it doe snot aopear to matc the criteria listed in the policy fornfailed verification.17:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk • contribs)

Bringing up Unmaksking the Pagan Christ will do no one good either as the book is about a fringe theory Porter appears to be now ciritcal. Regarding the questonable quote, perhaps he may-reflecting general scholarly opinion this time-be referring to the fact that resurrection stories were seldom taken seriously. Sadly, I cannot access the rest of his work, so I am not sure what exactly he is saying.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Joshua Jonathan, I looked into the logos site and it shows me nothing. What is that all about?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It's about what Porter writes, and how you quote him:

• Christ in Egypt is indeed a fringe source, but the source it's referring to, Porter (1999), is not. You're the one who brought it in.
• Unmaksking the Pagan Christ is also written by Porter. It's irrelevant that it is about a fringe-theory; what's relevant is if the author is reliable.
• If you can't access logos.com, change the settings of your browser. Or search for the sentence at Google: "During the Graeco-Roman period, there were numerous cults that had their basis in earlier thought and relied to varying degrees on some form of a resurrection story.".
• But hey, that shouldn't be a problem, because you're the one who referred to him in the first place! So, I expect you to be able to access that source by yourself. Which doesn't seem to be the case. So it's sad indeed, that you "cannot access the rest of his work, so I am not sure what exactly he is saying." How, then, did you access that particular source?
• And probably, yes, did Porter not write what you want him to write: "perhaps he may-reflecting general scholarly opinion this time-be referring to the fact that resurrection stories were seldom taken seriously."

So; I've reverted your last two edits, which

• removed maintenance-tags withour adressing them diff;
• broke-up a reference (same diff);
• removed sourced info, from the source you brough-up yourself diff.

Not to speak of your edit-summary in your second edit: "Broken ref. Also can't access source." You broke the ref. And you brought in the source.

Incredible. You remove the maintenance-tags again, without adressing them. And you do so while the page is In use.

Regarding your edit-summary:

You see, I accessed this source through a non-literary work which quotes only this quote. Either way still does not fir failed verification criteria. Also should you be aslo abel to access this yourself if you are able to cite material from the same page?

• Which non-literary source? If you use another source thatn the original work, you should give that "non-literary work," instead of Porter himself, and add a note that it came from Porter (1999).
• I replaced the "failed verification" by a "dubious" tag; and as long you don't give the real source you're using, I can't verify your quote.
• And no, I can't access Porter (1999) directly; I'm dependent on what other sources offer.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You see, I accessed his work through a non-literary quote quoting that line, and not because I actually have access to that page.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And that's three... Edit-summary:

Very well. Dubious is only used whn doubtimg the SOURCE's accuracy, and neither of us do. We ar eonly alllowed to sue the failed verificatiin template when we have actually checked the source-and it is inaccessible for you, and largely inaccessible for me save for this quote.

You're not using the original source; you're using another source, which you haven't provided. And that source is dubious. Regarding your accessibility of the Porter-source: I've provided you with links to quotes. if you can't access the source, than don't use it. Please self-revert. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Very well. I Will start a discussion about the Orpheus line soon.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your self-revert, though you also removed sourced info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ehrman: "seriously Christian twist"

The article has a line which says:

According to Ehrman, the belief in bodily resurrection was a "seriously Christian twist,"

References

"Seriously Christian twist" comes from p.70, which says:

Paul's message, in a nutshell, was a Jewish apocalyptic proclamation with a seriously Christian twist.

"The resurrection of Jesus" is mentioned as part of this plan, but it does not mention "bodily resurrection"; the twist here refers to Paul's interpretation of Jewish apocalypticism. So, the reference is not in accord with this particular line. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have given the full quote, and moved it to the right place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Using reliable sources to support fringe theories.

We can't use Price to put in the Christ myth theory as if it were the mainstream view;likewise, we cannot use Porter to support the connection between pagan cultic connections to the resurrection-which is not something consensual scholars like Bart Ehrman would agree with.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? That's the source you provided! See WP:CHERRYPICKING and WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:NOTHERE even remotely applies here-I was merely upholding WP:FRINGE out of the desire to build this encyclopedia. About "cherrypicking, was not intentionly doing so, since I accessed the source indirectly. Would picking Ehrman over Price in some areas count as cherrypicking?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, it is not true that I refuse to include contradictory info, since I already self-reverted before removing it.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your "revert", which also removed sourced info for the second time, and your edit-summaryedit-summary:

Self-recerting, and removing pagan cultic connections per talk page. This is not something Bart Ehrman or most other scholars would agree with, as a source you introduced in the article affirms.

It's not relevant what Ehrman argues; point is what Porter argues, and if he is a reliable and relevant source. Porter is an opponent of the Christ myth theory, and has written a whole book against it. Porter's ideas in this regard have been mentioned and discussed by several others, and supported by Bedard in HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE ON THE IDEA OF RESURRECTION IN JEWISH APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. See also ELIEZER GONZALEZ, PH.D (2010), CHRISTIAN AND PAGAN ASCENT IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES:

At both a popular and scholarly level, it has frequently been maintained that Christianity drew its core ideas from the popular beliefs of the day,

The way you edit is very problematic, and not helpfull. You've got very strong, too strong, personal feelings on the topics you edit. You mention a source which you haven't read, insisting on it's inclusion in the lead, and when it turns out that the source actual says the opposite of your personal opinions, you suddenly insist on removing it. That's not how Wikipedia works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That still doe snot make it WP:DUE. As far as I am concerned, we need to insert Ehrman's argument first and foremost. Just the two of us would not suffice; we need other trusted and notable editors to engage in this discussion as well.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 04:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Which argument? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean like here:

Bart Ehrman, noted New Testament scholar, best-selling author of Misquoting Jesus, and former conservative Christian, summarizes: “The alleged parallels between Jesus and the ‘pagan’ savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).”

When there is scholarly debate, you don't WP:CENSOR one author because you don't like his thesis; what you do is to present the various, relevant points of view. See WP:NPOV. It's not about your opinions, it's about the presentation of the relevant scholarly opinions. See also this blog, and Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrman Interpreted, "Myths and Mysteries", for more discussions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason you I chose Ehrman is simple:He is generaly representative of the consensus, so his opinions are pretty much a necessity for these articles. As I said, we need a few more editors here to help us reach the best cosnensus on how much to include.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

He's one, in a spectrum of scholars. Don't forget that this article is about the origins of Christianity; the origins of the belief in resurrection are definitely relevant. And there seem to be strong arguments for Jewish origins of this belief. There's been a lot of scholarly discussion on this; so again, you don't have to censor scholars you don't agree with; you represent the relevant points of view in a neutral way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really trying to censor; only emphasizing the fact that we should put Ehrman first, then we could discuss what content needs to be put-with editors aside from you and me.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! ScepticismOfPopularisation asked me on my talk page if I would engage in this discussion, saying that it "could use [my] wisdom," presumably as a result of my extensive input at Talk:Jesus and minor input Talk:God#Rewriting last two paragraphs of Existence. First, however, I must ask what exactly this discussion is about. This page is not on my watch list and I have not been following the discussion until this point, so I am still trying to figure out what exactly you are talking about. The way that ScepticismOfPopularisation introduced this debate makes it sound like it is about the Christ Myth theory, but, from the course of discussion, it sounds like this debate is really more about whether the belief that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead is rooted in Jewish or Hellenistic beliefs, which is a completely different and unrelated issue. Perhaps ScepticismOfPopularisation is not sure what this debate is about either?

If this debate is about the Christ Myth theory, it can be settled easily; the Christ Myth theory is about as fringe as you can get. It has virtually no scholarly support and there is really no good reason why it should be mentioned in what is currently a 52,857-byte summary of the "Origins of Christianity" according to scholars. While there is plenty of heated debate on the internet and in the general public over whether or not Jesus existed, it is not a scholarly debate; the overwhelming majority of scholars consider Jesus's historicity an issue that was conclusively resolved in favor over a century ago. Likewise, I would definitely also refrain from using Robert M. Price as a source; he is very much on the fringe of New Testament scholarship and, frankly, he has very little authority to even speak on the subject. He is actually an Old Testament scholar without training or experience in the New Testament and, while generally well-informed, his writings on the subject reveal massive overexaggerations and astonishing gaps in his reasoning that lead him to radical and sensationalist conclusions that any more cautious scholar would easily recognize as flawed and untenable. As for Bart D. Ehrman, ScepticismOfPopularisation is right that he is probably one of the best representatives we are likely to find of the prevailing scholarly viewpoint. Ehrman's reputation among scholars for carefulness and accuracy is virtually impeccable.

If this is about whether or not the belief in bodily resurrection originates from Jewish tradition or from Hellenistic religion, then this is more of a serious discussion, because, unlike Jesus's historical existence, this is actually an open debate among scholars and there are equally good scholars supporting the argument that the belief originates from Judaism and others supporting the argument that it originates from Hellenistic religion. I think both perspectives probably ought to be mentioned. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: thank you for your input. The real problem here is that ScepticismOfPopularisation has been using a source, Porter (1999), misrepresenting it as stating the opposite from what it actually says. He found this so important that he even put it in the lead. I've corrected him on this several times. The moment it turned out that this source makes comparisons with cults from the GraecoRoman world, he wanted this info to be deleted, suddenly objecting against this source. It further turned out that he did not have access to the original source, but only to a secondary source, which refers to Porter (1999). What exactly this secondary source is, he did not reveal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I am not surprised. This is not the first time ScepticismOfPopularisation has made this sort of mistake. In the conversation I referenced above at Talk:God#Rewriting last two paragraphs of Existence, he or she complained that the article made mention of Richard Dawkins, but did not discuss the philosophies of "real atheist thinkers" like, among others, Thomas Paine. Then I pointed out to him or her that Thomas Paine was not an atheist at all, but rather a deist and if he or she had actually read Paine's book The Age of Reason, he or she would know that because, in the book, Paine clearly and unambiguously states that he believes that in a Deity who created the universe, but not in any kind of specific revelation. I think ScepticismOfPopularisation would do well to make sure to at least read parts of the works and authors he or she attempts to cite. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Good luck with your resurrection!" (Inscription from the cemetery at Beth Shearim, Galilee). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 09:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Rabbi Yeshua

In response to these two edits:

• The WP:COMMONNAME is Jesus, not Yeshua.
• The Sanders-description is already in a note, and only one of the five most-used characterisations of Jesus. See Portraits of the historical Jesus#Mainstream views.
• The qualification "rabbi" is incorrect; Sanders characterises Jesus as an echatological prophet. Sanders uses the phrase "rabbi" only one time, when he quotes John 1:49
• Sanders does not use the phrase "Second Temple."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Already self-reverted Sanders, and WP:COMMONNAME only applies to article titles. Not sure about rabbi, but I think it may just mean "teacher", and both you and I and everybody else agree that Jesus was a Second Temple Jew.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

When discussing two separate edits, don't get confused and merge them into a nonexistent edit that never happened.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You're pov-pushing here diff diff. Let WP:COMMONNAME apply only to article titles; it doesn't change the simple fact that the topic is Jesus, as he's known throughout the world for 2,000 years, not Yeshua. Your argument, "added Jewish name to emphasze historicity," is agenda-driven, not the subject of this article, and not even covered in this article. So, stop edit-warring. NB: the link to Second Temple Judaism was already inserted here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And, forgot to notice: the title/epiphet "rabbi" is misplaced. You even acknowledge yourself that you're not sure about rabbi. Re-inserting that title/epiphet is even more misplaced than re-inserting "Yeshua." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Helping emphasize historicity is not agenda driven,-it is doing exactly what Wikipedia does:upholding scholarly consensus. What would be agenda driven would be edits like yours: putting "supposed" in "Christianity started with the ministry of Jesus". In short: You like to pretend that the CMT holds equal water with other, and thus you like to pretend that it must be given WP:DUE. And "as he's been known as for 2000 years" is a bullshit argument-Israelis + Jews have been calling and have first known Jesus as "Yeshua" for 2000 years.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 08:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The CMT is not the topic here, not is it treated in the article; that's your personal obessession. The article lists five common characterisations of Jesus:

Five portraits of the historical Jesus are supported by mainstream scholars, namely the Apocalyptic prophet, the charismatic healer, the Cynic philosopher, the Jewish Messiah, and the prophet of social change.

References

Neither "rabbi" not "teacher" are mentioned there, so re-inserting that title/epiphet is even more misplaced than re-inserting "Yeshua." it does not summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). It's strictly your own, unsourced, understanding of who Jesus was. See also WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

At least get your what your opponent was responding to right. I as referring to "Yeshua", not to "rabbi". And please respond to what your opponent actually said. You were talking to thin air. Also, the "personal obsession" card getting real thin, along with the other nonsense spewed here on your comment.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Early Christianity ... started with the ministry of Jesus and his deification after his death." It would be more accurate to say that it ended with his deification - Jews didn't see Jesus as a god, nor did any of the NT authors except perhaps John (certainly not Paul). When he became God, Christianity was a religion distinct from Judaism.PiCo (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@PiCo: that's a great comment! Good observation. Though, Ehrman argues that Paul saw Jesus as an archangel, c.q. a deity. But that doesn't change the point of your argument. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

PS: Alan Saxby (2015), James, Brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Church: A Radical Exploration of Christian Origins, "explores the possibility that James, the brother of Jesus, was leader of a movement in Jerusalem distinct from, yet contemporaneous (or earlier), with that of Jesus in Galilee" (quote from the original doctoral thesis; the link to the PDF is blacklisted, so one will have to Google it [ http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/5560/1/Saxby_thesis.pdf ]). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Merged to

Merged to Jewish Christian per Talk:History of Christianity#Too many pages on the history of Early Christianity, due to the overlap of scope and content. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)