Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

If you ever read the NT you will discover that it isn't I who say "a miracle happened". It's the NT writers who say it happened. The question is, what miracle? And the answer is: after Jesus died he came alive again and went up into the sky, wounds and all. Bones and all. That's not what I say. It's what the Christians say.

Well that's a miracle "explanation", isn't it! If Christians can claim a miracle explanation for impossibly resurrecting from the dead and floating in the skies to heaven, then they can just as easily claim a miracle explanation for finding bones still left on earth.

Apart from which - how could anyone ever positively attribute any skeletal remains to Jesus? In which case if the current day church decided it wanted to deny these were the bones of Jesus, then they would do just that; they would just deny it. They could say whatever they liked about where the body of Jesus is or ever was, because the resurrection already requires them to invoke impossible unexplained miracles in the first place!

 

[eight bits]

CraigB

Complete with bones, I have no doubt.

Not the issue. The issue is whether outmoded and defective parts (for example, bones that get stuck on one side of locked doors) can be junked - presumably to be replaced with something.



JaysonR

I'm not certain what you are referring to as we have the Talmudic commentaries for one resource from their culture on the matter,

Paul has explained to us his view of the oxymoronic term "spirit body:" it is neither flesh in the sense that you or I have flesh, nor is it spirit. It is, to all appearances, something new, or at least exceptional. Paul seems to feel that Jesus' spirit body was the very first example that had ever existed. That would complicate the prospects that all Judaism except Paul had developed a policy about them, I would think.

The Talmudic material was written centuries later by people whose forebears disagreed with Paul, and it is reasonable to suppose that the Talmudic writers believed that there were exactly zero instances of Paul's spirit body in existence, ever.

 

[Craig B]

Apart from which - how could anyone ever positively attribute any skeletal remains to Jesus? In which case if the current day church decided it wanted to deny these were the bones of Jesus, then they would do just that; they would just deny it. They could say whatever they liked about where the body of Jesus is or ever was, because the resurrection already requires them to invoke impossible unexplained miracles in the first place!

Yes. We're dealing here with a hypothesis, which in practice is difficult to imagine happening. People often create such "what if" hypotheses, for various purposes.

But interesting things can happen. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas and you will see that the tomb of King Midas, or more probably his father, has been tentatively identified. Is this evidence that it is possible to turn things into gold? Or may we not assume more plausibly that Midas had no such powers, but that mythical stories attached themselves to a real historical person. It was at about that time in Lydia, his kingdom, that government-issued coinage was introduced, and Midas accrued great wealth as a result.

By which I mean that the discovery of the tomb in no way supports the myth. Even though proof of Midas' non existence would indeed refute the myth. But even if I am unwilling to give credence to the golden touch, I have no problems about accepting the historicity of the person named in the legend.

 

[maximara]

Yes. We're dealing here with a hypothesis, which in practice is difficult to imagine happening. People often create such "what if" hypotheses, for various purposes.

But interesting things can happen. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas and you will see that the tomb of King Midas, or more probably his father, has been tentatively identified. Is this evidence that it is possible to turn things into gold? Or may we not assume more plausibly that Midas had no such powers, but that mythical stories attached themselves to a real historical person. It was at about that time in Lydia, his kingdom, that government-issued coinage was introduced, and Midas accrued great wealth as a result.

By which I mean that the discovery of the tomb in no way supports the myth. Even though proof of Midas' non existence would indeed refute the myth. But even if I am unwilling to give credence to the golden touch, I have no problems about accepting the historicity of the person named in the legend.

As I said a long time ago this Euhemerisim was the go to for history from nearly the get go:

Herodotus (c484 – 425 BCE), the father of history, had argued that myths were distorted accounts of real historical events. Euhemerus (4th century - 3rd century BCE) took that idea and kicked it up to the next level suggesting that all myths had some basis in historical fact. (Spence, Lewis (1921) An introduction to mythology p. 42)

"The work is of immense importance, for Euhemerus proposes that myth is history in disguise, that deities were originally living men and women who were elevated to divine status because of heroic feats when alive." (Neusner, Jacob; Alan Jeffery Avery-Peck (2007) Encyclopedia of religious and philosophical writings in late antiquity Brill, Page 369)

But we don't even talk about the possibility about Zeus being a mortal king who was buried on Crete as Euhemerus did and the idea Heracles was a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos (accepted by Eusebius in the 4th century CE) would get a hairy eyeball.

"Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Hastings, James; John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray (1919) Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10) was true for a lot of mythology.

 

[JaysonR]

JaysonR


Paul has explained to us his view of the oxymoronic term "spirit body:" it is neither flesh in the sense that you or I have flesh, nor is it spirit. It is, to all appearances, something new, or at least exceptional. Paul seems to feel that Jesus' spirit body was the very first example that had ever existed. That would complicate the prospects that all Judaism except Paul had developed a policy about them, I would think.

Not really; I wasn't isolating the conversation to lean on Hebraic cultural concepts revolving around the physical nature compared against the spirit forms. I only brought that in as a reference to the root for the concept that is the Gospel account of physical resurrection culture and not as a resting point of the conversation.

I rested, instead, on what theological assertions of Christian affiliations are in mass.
As I've highlighted previously; regardless of what logic we can derive ourselves, the various large infrastructures of Christian council hold that Jesus was physically resurrected and rest upon a physical resurrection for the access to their salvation.
I showed above multiple citations of organizations stating that their salvation would not be possible without Jesus having physically resurrected.

The Talmudic material was written centuries later by people whose forebears disagreed with Paul, and it is reasonable to suppose that the Talmudic writers believed that there were exactly zero instances of Paul's spirit body in existence, ever.

No clue on what they thought of Paul, but even the Talmudic commentaries debate regarding spirits.

Again, that was not a resting point or even a secondary or tertiary point of any form of premise for the discussion - it was literally a sympathetic explanation of the root of the culture surrounding the value of physical resurrection and where that is first seen in the relationship between Hebrew and later Christian culture of theology.

It really wasn't intended to be some grand focus claiming that men were gods to the Hebrews, nor that therefore Jesus' physical resurrection is the only interpretation.

No, I state that a finding of Jesus' physical remains would be problematic simply because almost all major Christian factions assert a reliance upon the physical resurrection of Jesus for access to their salvation.

If for no other agency (and there certainly are several others), the Catholic orthodoxy holds this position and the Catholic variation of Christianity accounts for over half (1.2 Billion) of the total Christian population of the world (2.18 Billion).

So even if only the Catholic orthodoxy held this view, it would be a considerable issue if Jesus' remains were found.
Considering that a great number of Christian affiliations hold this same view, it is indeed not a simple wave of the hand and dismissed.

Several faction's articles of faith would have to be entirely rewritten.

For how far this concept reaches; it's also an article of faith for the LDS.

 

[dejudge]

Keep in mind; this began when Dejudge interpreted my original comment to say that Hebrew peoples worshipped men as gods, which was not what I was stating.

Your statement is a fallacy.

I exposed your erroneous claim that "the Hebrew idea that a spirit is a demon and not to be trusted whereas a physical body is divine."

Again, I showed that Jewish writings do contain stories about "Good" spirits.

Even the very God of the Jews is considered a Spirit.

John 4:24 KJV

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[JaysonR]

I will have the discussion with you, Dejudge, when you can answer my questions.

Another, what Judaic practice today is related to the old practices of warding off unclean spirits?

 

[dejudge]

I will have the discussion with you, Dejudge, when you can answer my questions.

Another, what Judaic practice today is related to the old practices of warding off unclean spirits?

I will continue to expose your fallacies.

 

[JaysonR]

OK.

 

[Brainache]

I will have the discussion with you, Dejudge, when you can answer my questions.

Another, what Judaic practice today is related to the old practices of warding off unclean spirits?

Stand-Up Comedy?...

 

[Craig B]

As I said a long time ago this Euhemerisim was the go to for history from nearly the get go:

Herodotus (c484 – 425 BCE), the father of history, had argued that myths were distorted accounts of real historical events. Euhemerus (4th century - 3rd century BCE) took that idea and kicked it up to the next level suggesting that all myths had some basis in historical fact. (Spence, Lewis (1921) An introduction to mythology p. 42)

I think that the proposal that Midas existed, and that the golden touch myth is a distorted recollection of the effect of the introduction of stamped metal currency, is too modest a hypothesis to be described as Euhemerism. It doesn't imply that all myths are based on fact, which seems to be the defining feature of Euhemerus' theory. It is not surely in dispute that at least some myths are based on fact. Moreover, Midas was not a god. He was always stated to be a king. His historicity is less surprising than it would be to discover that YHWH was originally a petty chief of one of the bands of Semitic-speaking "Hyksos" who invaded Egypt during the Bronze Age, or something of that kind.

In terms of your post, the historicity of Midas is more "Herodotism" than full-blown Euhemerism.

 

[IanS]

Yes. We're dealing here with a hypothesis, which in practice is difficult to imagine happening. People often create such "what if" hypotheses, for various purposes.

It’s not just a hypothesis. It’s a physically impossible hypothesis!

Whatever bones anyone found anywhere, they could never be identified as those of Jesus (or of Paul, or Peter or James or any of those people in the Jesus story who have no traceable family lineage).

There is really no value in proposing an impossible scenario like that.

But interesting things can happen. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midas and you will see that the tomb of King Midas, or more probably his father, has been tentatively identified. Is this evidence that it is possible to turn things into gold? Or may we not assume more plausibly that Midas had no such powers, but that mythical stories attached themselves to a real historical person. It was at about that time in Lydia, his kingdom, that government-issued coinage was introduced, and Midas accrued great wealth as a result.

By which I mean that the discovery of the tomb in no way supports the myth. Even though proof of Midas' non existence would indeed refute the myth. But even if I am unwilling to give credence to the golden touch, I have no problems about accepting the historicity of the person named in the legend.

Well that is not comparable in any way at all!

In the example you give of King Midas, the tomb contains all sorts of typical devotional artefacts, such as metal and pottery vessels etc. which can be dated and investigated further. In some similar cases, artefacts like that might be linked to the individual by inscriptions etc. But that is not the case with Jesus, is it. In his case the tomb was supposed to be empty and with no such artefacts … except the “authentic” shroud of Turin!

People have claimed to discover the town of Nazareth as it was said to exist at the time of Jesus. But just because a town exists, that is no evidence of Jesus at all. Just because anyone finds an empty rock tomb said to be that of Jesus, that would be no evidence at all that it really was ever a tomb of Jesus.

But I notice that we are again getting a very long way from ever providing any credible evidence of anyone ever meeting Jesus.

We have spent all these hundreds of pages with people claiming evidence of Jesus. And still all that has happened is that they have produced the NT and claimed the evidence is in the bible.

What happened to this convincing evidence? Why is it never produced in any of these threads or in any of the books written by scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders ….etc.

 

[Brainache]

It’s not just a hypothesis. It’s a physically impossible hypothesis!

Whatever bones anyone found anywhere, they could never be identified as those of Jesus (or of Paul, or Peter or James or any of those people in the Jesus story who have no traceable family lineage).

There is really no value in proposing an impossible scenario like that.






Well that is not comparable in any way at all!

In the example you give of King Midas, the tomb contains all sorts of typical devotional artefacts, such as metal and pottery vessels etc. which can be dated and investigated further. In some similar cases, artefacts like that might be linked to the individual by inscriptions etc. But that is not the case with Jesus, is it. In his case the tomb was supposed to be empty and with no such artefacts … except the “authentic” shroud of Turin!

People have claimed to discover the town of Nazareth as it was said to exist at the time of Jesus. But just because a town exists, that is no evidence of Jesus at all. Just because anyone finds an empty rock tomb said to be that of Jesus, that would be no evidence at all that it really was ever a tomb of Jesus.

Even if it was filled with devotional objects and inscriptions claiming it was the tomb of the Teacher called Jesus brother of James, Judas and Simon. The son of Mary and Cleophas. Bits of the Sermon On The Mount carved into it with: These were his teachings. Or something like that?

But I notice that we are again getting a very long way from ever providing any credible evidence of anyone ever meeting Jesus.

We have spent all these hundreds of pages with people claiming evidence of Jesus. And still all that has happened is that they have produced the NT and claimed the evidence is in the bible.

What happened to this convincing evidence? Why is it never produced in any of these threads or in any of the books written by scholars like Ehrman, Crossan, Sanders ….etc.

Don't forget the Apocrypha. Gnostic Gospels etc... There's lots of stuff that didn't make the NT cut.

And dare I say it; The Dead Sea Scrolls talk of a Righteous Teacher, but no one ever, anywhere talks of a "Celestial Jesus" who lived and died in the sub-lunar celestial realm.

So I guess proving he wasn't a real human is just as impossible.

 

[David Mo]

I think that the proposal that Midas existed, and that the golden touch myth is a distorted recollection of the effect of the introduction of stamped metal currency, is too modest a hypothesis to be described as Euhemerism. It doesn't imply that all myths are based on fact, which seems to be the defining feature of Euhemerus' theory. It is not surely in dispute that at least some myths are based on fact. Moreover, Midas was not a god. He was always stated to be a king. His historicity is less surprising than it would be to discover that YHWH was originally a petty chief of one of the bands of Semitic-speaking "Hyksos" who invaded Egypt during the Bronze Age, or something of that kind.

In terms of your post, the historicity of Midas is more "Herodotism" than full-blown Euhemerism.

No need to come to Euhemerism. The Catholic calendar is full of actual men and women that accomplished astonishing miracles. Mythologize a human being is a banal event. Sometimes even when he is still alive.

 

[David Mo]

So I guess proving he wasn't a real human is just as impossible.

Yes. But this only disqualifies some people (as David Fitzgerald and other mythicists) that maintain they are able to demonstrate that Jesus of Galilee never existed.

At any rate, the burden of the proof falls on those that claim Jesus of Galilee existed. And this is not an easy job.

 

[Brainache]

Yes. But this only disqualifies some people (as David Fitzgerald and other mythicists) that maintain they are able to demonstrate that Jesus of Galilee never existed.

At any rate, the burden of the proof falls on those that claim Jesus of Galilee existed. And this is not an easy job.

I agree it requires a lot of reading just to understand the arguments and the evidence is what it is: text based. The conclusion isn't certain, but then again not very much in Ancient History is certain.

We can say that there were people around at that time preaching things very similar to what the NT and the apocrypha attribute to Jesus. We even have an example from Josephus of one of them who was put to death under Pilate:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-4.html

. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain.

2. But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now president of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for that they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

I'm not saying that this "Samaritan" was Jesus, but he was definitely not a "Spirit" dwelling in the heavens.

 

[Belz...]

Another, what Judaic practice today is related to the old practices of warding off unclean spirits?

I will continue to expose your fallacies.

...interesting.

 

[Brainache]

...interesting.

Possibly even "cogent"...

 

[IanS]

This would require more effort in solving an obstacle than is currently employed today where no effort is required as the absence of the remains is already accounted for and plays to the religion's favor.

I am not claiming that it would end Christianity; only that it would require address and that address would not be small - let alone would the opponents to Christianity let the situation just slide by. No, the opponents (such as Sam Harris, or his kin) would drive the point in repeatedly.

Even in your account, the imagined Christian has to change stance and excuse away the evidence rather than embrace it as proof of some form outright.

Your provided imagined Christian just reshaped a rather radical belief system of the Christian theological grant to the authority of salvation, in that a very large reason that the physical remains being brought back and taken up in the likes of Elijah (that is, physically ascended to Heaven) is quite regularly outlined as important because the resurrection of the physical body is part of the domain ownership of what authority the salvation of Jesus has.

Craig used CARM before, and I find no fault in doing so:
"The resurrection of Jesus is so important that without it Christianity is false."

But let's just check around and see what some others think:
"The physical resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of our faith. Without it, Christianity crumbles.
...
Furthermore, the confessions of Christianity are replete with references to the physical resurrection of the Redeemer. Cyril of Jerusalem proclaimed, "Let no heretic ever persuade thee to speak evil of the Resurrection. For to this day the Manichees say that the resurrection of the Savior was phantom-wise, and not real.""
http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resu.../did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead.html

"Virtually all Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus – it should be all Christians, but there are some people who self-identify as Christians who do not actually believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. Obviously, such people are not actually Christians – the physical resurrection of Christ is of paramount importance in Christianity. As Saint Paul says, if Christ was not resurrected our faith is in vain (I Corinthians 15:14) – if Christ did not actually die and was not physically raised from the dead, how can our sins be forgiven by the death of Christ?"http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/6i.htm

"Jesus made a special appearance to Mary Magdalen and to another or other women. The women clung to the feet of Jesus as if to make sure He was real; they did not wish to let Him go. This Gospel detail shows the reality of Our Lord's, risen body, which was not a "ghost" or an apparition. It a real, physically tangible body."
http://www.catholictreasury.info/lord2.php

"PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
...
643 Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p2.htm

"The Resurrection of Christ has much in common with the general resurrection; even the transformation of His body and of His bodily life is of the same kind as that which awaits the blessed in their resurrection. But the following peculiarities must be noted:

Christ's Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.
Christ's body was to know no corruption, but rose again soon after death, when sufficient time had elapsed to leave no doubt as to the reality of His death.
Christ was the first to rise unto life immortal; those raised before Him died again (Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:20).
As the Divine power which raised Christ from the grave was His own power, He rose from the dead by His own power (John 2:19; 10:17-18).
Since the Resurrection had been promised as the main proof of Christ's Divine mission, it has a greater dogmatic importance than any other fact. "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

"The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

"...the belief in Jesus' physical resurrection remains the single doctrine most accepted by Christians of all denominational backgrounds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Resurrection_and_Redemption


This could continue for quite some time, but the basic point is that it is rather central to the general Christian theology.

Without going through all of this again, and explaining again why Christians today, and quite possibly also at the time of biblical writing, are being entirely flexible with their meaning of the word “physical” when they say “physically raised from the dead”, just look at your highlighted quote … I immediately wondered if in fact 1-Corinthinians 15:14 did actually say as your quote says that Paul used the words “physically raised from the dead” , so I checked that. And here is what 1-Corinthians 15:14 actually says -


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians+15:14
1 Corinthians 15:14
New International Version (NIV)
14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.



Notice the sentence is very brief indeed. And it makes no mention of the words “physically raised”.

But notice also, that just a few paragraphs earlier in 1-Corinthians 15:3, Paul makes specifically clear that his entire belief in the resurrection of “Christ” is because he thinks it was stated in the ancient OT scripture, he is taking the entire idea from the OT -


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians+15:14
1 Corinthians 15:14
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,...



But even more specifically, just a few paragraphs further on in 1-Corinthians 15, Paul spells it out with total clarity saying that the earthly body is perishable and mortal and that when it is raised up it is not any longer of the same mortal flesh but is instead specifically a spiritual body, and furthermore that “ that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”. See all the very clear highlights below.


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1corinthians 35:52
1 Corinthians 15:14
The Resurrection Body
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man.
50 I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.




The above with all it’s inescapable highlights is not just a matter of me picking out one quote from your above post and trying show why that quote you gave is totally misleading and actually falsely implies that Paul in Corintians-15 had declared Christ “physically raised from the dead”, but we cannot keep going through completely fallacious arguments like this claiming that Paul’s letters say things where they manifestly say the actual opposite!

In which respect, please also note that those words of Paul in 1-Corinthinans-15, would as I said before be immediately produced by the Christian church to explain away any discovery of diseased bones said to be from Jesus on earth.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,
It does not matter how illogical the perspective is, or how we may prove it wrong; that is the Catholic view and understanding.

The point is regarding the impact upon their belief, not on our logical reasonings from reading the Bible or studying history.

It is irrelevant what we present the texts to actually state, if the Christian mass common belief is that Jesus was a tulip and we point out that the texts states he was a man, then the common Christian belief remains that Jesus was a tulip.

Is the Catholic orthodoxy flexible with the Bible?
Holy Trinity.