Against that background, is the desire to amplify the importance of Hellenization reinforce the replacement idea or under-cut it? — Paine

Neither, though this brings up major questions in the historiography of Early Christianity and its implications in general for the Christian development.

There are a lot of things to consider here regarding the general historiography. There are basically several schools of thought you have to keep in mind:

1) The religious (supersessionist/replacement theology) view: The New Testament is more/less accurate. The history and traditions of the Christian Church are basically correct as they have developed in the Catholic, Protestant, and various Orthodox denomination. This view sees Jesus as part of a trinune godhead whereby Jesus represents the "Son" element was sent from the "Father" element in order to "redeem" mankind through his death and resurrection. The main thing here is his teachings and bodily resurrection were meant to completely change the "Old Covenant" that the Jewish Law represented. Being "right with God" meant, believing in the power and teachings of Jesus, the resurrected Son of God who was with The Father since almost the start of creation. Thus, the "Old Testament" (Hebrew Scriptures) is all discussion of the prelude of these concepts.. Logos, Son of God, redemption through faith without following the law, the deeds and biography of Jesus, it's all "there" in the Old Testament...Prophesizing and extolling this, with Jesus fulfilling these prophesies. That is to say, Jesus would have believed all the things taught by the Church about him and his beliefs as it developed into the proto-Orthodox Church (Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant beliefs mainly).

This religious view is not taken seriously by anyone outside schools of theology and religious adherents. In other words, most secular scholars would never take this to actually be the case. Rather, it is to excavate probabilities based not on dogma, but on the variety of resources available and with the understanding that religions don't come out full-baked but have developments that retroactively create a mythic-history to justify their doctrines and legitimacy as "true".

2) I'll just call this the "mainstream consensus" (Jesus a Jew of His Time) view. That is to say, Jesus the Jewish X (teacher, Pharisee, Essene, am ha-aretz (peasant) Galilean, etc.). That is to say, the Jesus of the first view mentioned is alien to his culture and the historical evidence of the Second Temple Judaism that was actually practiced. That is to also say that Jesus was only interpreting how to follow the Torah/Mosaic Law) and would be horribly aghast at the idea that he was trying to advocate for abrogating or ending it. It takes into account much more heavily what historians like Josephus wrote about, the histories informed by Maccabees, and apocrypha books. It takes into account the historical elements that are directly or indirectly explained in the Talmud, Church Father writings, non-canonical Gospels, Dead Sea Scrolls, understanding Paul's biases in his Epistles, and Acts, Jewish practices and beliefs represented in the Gospels that were downplayed or ignored, Philo of Alexandria and his Hellenistic contrast with traditional Judaic understanding, etc.

Basically, using historical methodologies and using the assumption that just as Greek philosophy is a cultural development out of a place, time, and culture, the same goes for the context for Jesus and the Jesus Movement/Jewish Christians. It must be understood in the greater cultural context of Second Temple Judaism. If Jesus was truly born in a certain place, and to a certain society, that should be the where one looks for how Jesus was representative of a strand of Judaism of that time. Thus, most people try to see to what extent he was representative of an apocalyptic Judaism (like the Essenes or Zealots), or a certain halachic approach (like a certain sect of Pharisee like Hillel.. which is my view), or that he was similar to other miracle workers (like Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who are discussed in Josephus and the Talmud), or a Galilean Jew (versus the southern Judeans around Jerusalem or contra the Pharisees). This would emphasize that Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) had actual brothers (not cousins or step-brothers) such as James (Jacob), and Simeon, Jude, and Joses. That the Ebionites and Nazarenes were Jewish Christian groups that kept the Torah and were rebuked by Church Fathers (which is how we know of them).. That Paul in his writings and Acts seems to be AGAINST the original group headed by James and had more contention than has been discussed (in Galatians, Paul is very angry with James and Peter). The fact that James also killed by high priests associated with Caiaphas.. suggesting perhaps even a familial feud with reformists and entrenched power in Jerusalem. There are so many ways to understand the Jewish context of Jesus and his early following.

Most scholars believe it is Paul who became the pivot point and how Jesus started becoming more "the Christ". Paul represents the beginning of the process of Hellenization. Same with the Book of John, as seeming to be influenced by Philo and Hellenistic ideas of Logos. A resurrecting god-man that dies for your sins seems introduced by Paul, and moves the Jewish messianic redeemer deeper into general Mediterranean "mystery-cult" and away from nationalist messiah that perhaps Jesus was originally seen as..

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Judaism/Hellenistic-Judaism-4th-century-bce-2nd-century-ce
Great article that can explain a lot if you haven't been studying this.

3) The alternate view.. I'll call this a sort of mainstream-consensus reactionary view. That is to say, some scholars try to push the idea that the "hellenistic" elements that were started under Paul and further developed by early Gospel writers and Church Fathers, were actually a part of some strand of Second Temple Judaism in Palestine itself. So Boyarin makes the move, for example, that Logos could have been a concept in certain elements of Judaism.. The most recent debates in this camp, often revolve around the Book of Enoch and how influential that may have been. This I think is the more interesting parts of this view.. That perhaps in certain strands of Jewish thought (even in Rabbinic writing later on as represented by Jewish Mystical texts like Enoch 3), that there was a concept that the messiah is linked to a not only an earthly King and be redemptive in the nationalist sense (Return of the King to restore order politically and metaphysically), but that indeed, somehow this redeemer would be connected to the Son of Man that was described in Daniel. The Son of Man is a vague concept that may have gotten attached with the idea of Enoch becoming an angel (eventually tied with Metatron), and the Metatron was connected as a sort of protector/redeemer of Israel.. And so for someone to claim they are or is the herald for the Son of Man, means they are linked with this redeemer angel in some way.. However, this is very speculative of later developments of the idea of Metatron, and many consider anachronistic to place this idea of Metatron in its full form retrospectively to the time of Jesus when that concept was not quite fully developed yet.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Metatron

Anyways, a ton more can be said.. but I'm giving a lot of broad strokes as to how I am organizing this but are good places to start looking at this.

Yeah you aren't paying attention to what I wrote earlier about similar matters, so not going to speak much on this. I am familiar on Boyarin's ideas on this. There is also the idea of the shekinah, etc. etc. One can try to connect it, and this is very much up for debate. — schopenhauer1

Yeah and you aren't paying attention to I'm saying, are you? What I'm saying is that to get to the truth we need to eliminate the untruth in the form of false assumptions and erroneous beliefs.

So, I'm not talking about you personally, I'm referring to beliefs that are commonly held, like that the Jews of Roman Palestine spoke no Greek, had no dealings with the Greeks, were never influenced by Greek culture and thought, that they passed most of their time trying to hate Greeks as much as they possibly could, and that kind of stuff. And this includes the issue of "Greek-style" reclining at (communal) meals.

Yes, Boyarin and others are making some reasonable points, which is precisely why we need to listen to a broader range of scholarly opinion.

Anyway, what is "traditional Judaism"? Judaism in the time of Jesus was relatively new. As shown by Silverman and Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed), Jews had been polytheistic for most of their history. There probably had been monolatrous and even monotheistic tendencies for some time - as among the Greeks and others - but monotheism proper was relatively recent and only imposed itself after the construction of the Second Temple - which, if we think about it, is pretty late when compared with the supposition that Jews were monotheistic in the 2nd millennium BC or earlier.

In addition, Jews were surrounded by polytheistic populations and, as is well-known, neighboring cultures naturally influence each other.

In any case, it is only when we get rid of preconceived ideas, that we begin to get a clearer picture and we are in a position to see if and how we can connect cultural elements that may otherwise seem totally disparate and unconnected.

Anyway, what is "traditional Judaism"? Judaism in the time of Jesus was relatively new. As shown by Silverman and Finkelstein (The Bible Unearthed), Jews had been polytheistic for most of their history. There probably had been monolatrous and even monotheistic tendencies for some time - as among the Greeks and others - but monotheism proper was relatively recent and only imposed itself after the construction of the Second Temple - which, if we think about it, is pretty late when compared with the supposition that Jews were monotheistic in the 2nd millennium BC or earlier. — Apollodorus

You insult my intelligence by quoting me stuff I already know and then latching into stuff you want to argue about.

What you quote is also well known. I mean Judaism as reconstructed by Ezra and Nehemiah after Babylonian exile with priests as head of a Temple complex and a belief in the idea of a covenantal Law and commandments.

Another informative, well-written post. There are some here, perhaps most, who prefer historiography to a mythologized history designed to support certain assumptions that have more to do with Christian dogma and Neo-Platonism than historical evidence. As with the Christian apologists, history is distorted or ignored and rational argument buried under misdirection and misrepresentation in favor of some version of transcendental truths they imagine they know something about.

But even though Apollodorus will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of his arguments, others can and do see them for they are.

You insult my intelligence by quoting me stuff I already know and then latching into stuff you want to argue about. — schopenhauer1

What I am arguing is, indeed, well-known. Unfortunately, you chose to deny it:

If you want to look at Hellenistic-influenced Judaism, you should look no further than Philo of Alexandria who married the Torah with Platonic thought, and ideas of the "logos". — schopenhauer1

The truth of the matter, of course, is that Hellenistic influence went far beyond Alexandria and as shown by Scott Greaves and others, it had deeply penetrated Roman Palestine to the extent that Jesus and his disciples must have spoken Greek in addition to Aramaic.

I do realize that Ehrman and his followers will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of their arguments, but the rest of us can and do see them for what they are.

If I were you, I would feel more insulted by Ehrman's preposterous theories, in fact, much more so. So, perhaps you should try changing your intelligence. Or your hat .... :wink:

Olivier for one seems to find the idea "amusing". :smile: — Apollodorus

I'm trying to understand why it matters. What would change, or what's the implication if Jesus had read Plato? Why do you find the idea seducing? What perspectives would it open, dinning manners aside?

Personally, I have no particular interest in demonstrating Greek influence on Jesus beyond language, as I believe that different cultures have sufficient elements in common as to not necessitate external influence in all cases.

For example, the concept of “righteousness” was fundamental to Eastern Mediterranean cultures, including Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and Israel. IMO if we start from basic cultural and religious elements, we begin to see more similarities than differences.

This is why I was arguing against the idea that there was no possibility of influence or similarity of concepts and beliefs. Having said that, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

That statement does not fit in with you saying to Fooloso4:

"anti-Christian activists like yourself cite other anti-Christian activists like Ehrman as their "eminent authority." You aren't fooling anyone."

They are doing a good job of fooling me. I don't see how the differences of opinion about historical conditions are attempts to establish a nefarious narrative in this matter. What part of it is anti-Christian?

They are doing a good job of fooling me. — Paine

Good of you to admit it! :smile:

As to the rest, I've already explained that many times over.

Ehrman doesn't believe in the Christian God and he has made it his mission to argue that Christian texts, including the Gospels, were composed by writers using false names in order to “influence” or “shape” Christianity.

Interview: Bart Ehrman on Forged & Apocryphal Gospels

To me, this sounds more like an anti-Christian than pro-Christian position. Of course, it is entirely possible that he is pro-Christian or even a Christian pretending to be anti-Christian in order to cause controversy and encourage debate.

However, if Christian texts were composed for the purpose of deceiving the public, then they cannot be used as reliable testimony and it is a waste of time to discuss them. This is why I prefer scholars like Scott Greaves who seem to make more sense and whose arguments are more consistent with traditional views and with the historical and archaeological evidence.

What would change, or what's the implication if Jesus had read Plato? — Olivier5

See his earlier post:

What is unquestionable is that the concept of divine knowledge as an enlightening force is central to Christianity as it is in Platonism where the Good, the Source of Knowledge and Truth, is compared to the Sun who illumines the world (cf. "I am the Light of the world", etc.) — Apollodorus

What he leaves out here is what he says elsewhere, that the Good is God. As he sees it, the revelation of divine knowledge goes through Plato to Plotinus to Jesus. Conspicuously absent is the revelations of the Jewish prophets.

What is a Christian?

What he leaves out here is what he says elsewhere, that the Good is God. — Fooloso4

The "Good is God" according to Plato, NOT according to me! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What is a Christian? — Paine

Google it and find out if you don't know.

So, you treat the matter as something that is common knowledge while unable to give your own testimony. In my congregation, we refer to that as cowardice.

Actually, it is your questionable and overly simplistic interpretation of Plato. Anyone interested can search other threads here. I have no interest in rehashing it.

Even if one were to grant that Plato said this and he meant what you think he did, what are we to make of your silence on the other points I raised?

Actually, it is your questionable and overly simplistic interpretation of Plato — Fooloso4

That's the standard interpretation in Platonism. There is nothing I can do about it. And neither can you .... :grin:

So, you treat the matter as something that is common knowledge while unable to give your own testimony. In my congregation, we refer to that as cowardice. — Paine

What "testimony"??? And how is it my "cowardice" if you are too lazy to look it up???!!!

Are you guys related by any chance?

Right, and you fail to make the distinction between Plato and Platonism. Where did Plato say the Good is God?

But rather than rehash that, what about the rest of what I said? Is your silence an indication that it is accurate?

Some time back you made the extremely tenuous and convoluted argument that Jesus was not a rabbi because he is the Son of God.

Is this god who begat a son the god of Plato? If the good is god then this god is not the god of the Hebrew Bible.

I am a Christian by my understanding of it. I have spent a lot of time trying to understand the texts and my own experience in that light. I don't need to google it. From my point of view, saying what something is against, is a testimony. You wear the garment too lightly.

If the good is god then this god is not the god of the Hebrew Bible. — Fooloso4

That's supposed to be MY fault???

I didn't write the Hebrew Bible, did I???

Plus, you mean the God of the Hebrew Bible is "not good" or "not God"??? :lol:

From my point of view, saying what something is against, is a testimony. You wear the garment too lightly. — Paine

Well, that's your point of view. And why are you speaking in parables? What do you mean by "testimony"???

P.S. As you can see, Foolo is implying that the God of the Bible is not good (or not God). What do you say to that as a Christian?

One common element between the experiences of the Jews and Christians, under the rule of alien empires, is the refusal to swear or submit to gods other than what they actually believed. The Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple because of this refusal. Christians were fed to lions for the same reason.
Those are examples of testimony, when people don't surrender their convictions in the face of terrible consequences.

the God of the Hebrew Bible is "not good" or "not God"??? — Apollodorus

I form the light, and create darkness:
I make peace, and create evil:
I the Lord do all these things.

(Isaiah 45:7)

Evil is a translation of the Hebrew 'rah' - bad, adversity.

Plato in the Republic explicitly denies that the Good is the source of evil.

That's supposed to be my fault???

I didn't write the Hebrew Bible, did I??? — Apollodorus

Another brilliant argument. Right up there with your earlier response to me:

But even though Apollodorus will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of his arguments, others can and do see them for they are. — Fooloso4

I do realize that Ehrman and his followers will never acknowledge the weakness and vacuity of their arguments, but the rest of us can and do see them for what they are. — Apollodorus

Your argumentative prowess are wanting when they mimic the old schoolyard response: I know you are but what am I.

You still have not responded to my questions. An all too common practice of yours.

Those are examples of testimony, when people don't surrender their convictions in the face of terrible consequences. — Paine

You've really lost me now. What has that got to do with Hellenistic influence on Jesus?

Yeah, and you sound like someone who's got nothing to do. Anyway, have a nice day!

I was not making a claim about the 'Hellenistic influence on Jesus', you were, sort of, in a vague and fuzzy fashion.

You seem to want to make a claim upon what is Christian or not but cannot say what it is for yourself.

You seem to want to make a claim upon what is Christian or not but cannot say what it is for yourself. — Paine

You're kidding, right?

It was others that inserted bits of comments from other discussions for their own agendas and started calling me names for no reason. Of course I can say what a Christian is for myself. But it's got nothing to do with the OP here, and I've got other things to do ....

Of course I can say what a Christian is for myself — Apollodorus

Then go for it.

It does have something to do with this thread since you have been saying the scholarship is tainted in the context of it.

Well, I disagree. And if you have such unshakable belief in "scholarship", then you don't need to discuss it here. You can email your favorite scholars direct and discuss it with them. It would save you a lot of time that you could spend reading the Bible instead .... :wink:

I was not testifying to an unshakeable belief in scholarship. You questioned the results of certain studies. You have not presented the standard you measure them by.