Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[eight bits]

Jayson

"overthinking"

That's a curious thing to be accused of, particularly when discussing the confabulation of the accuser (or of the institution that he works for).

In any case, the discourse simply continues to use the phrase the same body without definining it. Keeping the body that hung on a cross on life support for two thousand years is no "victory" for the victim - it is the fulfilment of the torturers' objective, beyond their wildest dreams. Victory for the victim of crucifixion is to die quickly.

So, onto a Greek Orthodox view,

He pointed out that our bodies are made for our souls and our souls made for our bodies; that they are one together and not capable of separation in their eternal form in Heaven.

That substance-and-form ontology is equally available to Catholics. They use it both to explain how bread and wine can be Jesus' body, and also why humans eating that human body is not canniblaism. So, there is nothing "hypothetical" in saying that Catholics already use that ontology.

He then raised the question as to why Jesus would leave old bones behind like car parts when, unlike a car mechanic, he could heal them and take them with the rest of his body.

Because our premise is that we have already observed that the mechanic chose to replace the parts - we have the old ones in hand. Our question is: must we infer that people who told us "The car drove out of the shop" lied?

he asked what the point of the resurrection of the dead would be for at all if we could just get new parts entirely and leave our bodies behind after Judgement - for that matter, why wouldn't Jesus have just left his bones in the tomb if he had left them behind?

Nobody is proposing "leaving our boides behind" in this context. But there seems to be some interest in not being a zombie or a Frankenstein-product forever - a resurrectee, not a reanimated corpse, and especially not a Beetlejuice-style reanimated corpse.

As to the other issue, it is not doctrine, but is tolerated among Catholics, that whatever happened to Jesus made an irreversible molecular change in nearby organic material. This raises the question of whether individual resurrections might be done with precautions to protect living people and animals who will not be resurrecting at that same time.

It is neither in evidence nor part of the hypothetical that Jesus' bones were absent from the tomb after the raised Jesus was first sighted by living people. Nobody checeked afterwards, nor suggested that anybody else should check, so far as we have stories about apostolic behavior.

... he pointed out that if Jesus could not heal his bones and defeat their carnal damage and had to create new bones, then he would not be defeating death but simply cheating it.

Performance of one thing does not imply incapacity to do differently. Beyond that, I do not take the speaker's point. To cheat death is to survive a particular peril, and to die later instead. For example, we could say that Lazarus cheated death. We all understand the Nicene premise is that Jesus really died, and he will not die again on any later occasion (plus, according to Paul, some people will not die at all, which Catholic, buit not Orthodox, doctrine allows that one person may have been transformed without dying).

He basically said that it is referring to a physical body that is not limited by this world's needs, but is instead only reliant upon spiritual food, ...

And so different from, which is ti say not the same in every respect as, the body that died on the cross.

BTW, very astute of you to expand your search to include Protestants. There has been a slow (centuries-scale) but inexorable infusion of "Protestant" ideas into the Western apostolic succession - perhaps first through Anglicanism, then into Roman Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox notice this. But that's a different topic.

 

[dejudge]

Yes that is exactly what he said, or not.

I think the point was more about instant internet experts who want to deny the HJ out of personal biases, rather than actually look at what the Historians are saying.

The evidence for Jesus is poor, but so is the evidence for every other 1st century Jewish Rabbi.

Do we now have to conclude that none of them existed?

Once you admit that your evidence is poor then it logically follows that your HJ argument is poor.

But, you appear to have embellished the evidence. It is NOT poor but non-existing.

No contemporary non-apologetic writer of antiquity mentioned a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

It logically follows that you really have NO HJ argument.

You should have noticed that we don't argue about the existence of Jewish Rabbis for whom there is NO evidence.

Tell us of the Jewish Rabbis that you have come to the conclusion they existed with no existing evidence?

 

[proudfootz]

I think that if people have a background which is a self-interested one, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with recognising that the background may be influencing their views.

That's clearly a risk where devout Christians enter a profession where they are searching for biblical writing which supports the belief which they already had in Jesus. That does seem to be the case with almost all people who enter the academic field of religious studies. And it surely will not help if we deny that?

But the test of that is whether or not they can support their arguments by credible evidence. And in the case of bible scholars who write to say Jesus "definitely" existed, it seems they cannot support that claim with any credible evidence. So you have to wonder why it is that they come to such certainty of belief on such terribly poor evidence. Shrugs ….

I quite agree, the only relevant test is whether there is a credible argument and whether it is supported by the evidence. An argument stands or falls on its own, whether proposed by a theologian or an ordinary civilian.

The sociology of the persons who devote their careers to bible study is also an interesting question.

 

[Craig B]

Once you admit that your evidence is poor then it logically follows that your HJ argument is poor.

But, you appear to have embellished the evidence. It is NOT poor but non-existing ...

Tell us of the Jewish Rabbis that you have come to the conclusion they existed with no existing evidence?

That's very funny; I mean it really is amusing. But Brainache says the evidence is "poor", not non existent. If he thought it was non existent he wouldn't believe, would he?

 

[proudfootz]

But this blatant hostility points to the possibly of observer bias Horace Miner satirized in his "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" work.

Carl Sagan said using Percival Lowell as an example "when we have strong emotions we are liable to fool ourselves." Percival Lowell 'believed he was seeing a world networked with canals bringing water to the dry equatorial regions. He believed that planet was Earthlike. All in all, he believed too much.'

By comparing the Christ Myth theory as a whole to UFOs and 'holocaust denial' Bart Ehrman blows his credibility out the window.

I agree Ehrman does his cause harm by trying to poison the minds of his readers against his critics. Going on and on and on about how atheists mythicists hate God are anti-religious and just want to wallow in their sins make a lot of money publishing doesn't appear to be a sound argument.

UFOs are not ETV (Extraterrestrial Transport Vehicles) but "any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object." (USAF) so top secret experimental craft would be "UFOs".

The holocaust denial comparison as I have stated previous has to be IMHO one of the dumbest morally bankrupt comparisons to Jesus ever put out.

Going Godwin right out of the gate just trivializes an outrageous crime against humanity. For that Ehrman owes an apology to every thinking person.

For the record there were 3,000 tons of truly contemporary (i.e. between 1938-1945) records presented at the 1945-1946 Nuremberg Trials.[ The 1958 finding aids (eventually the index to the Holocaust evidence) was 62 volumes--just 4 books shy of the number of books (66) traditionally in the entire Bible! Then between 1958 and 2000 they added another 30 volumes, bringing the total to 92.

So Bart Ehrman is effectively claiming:

1) there were 3,000 tons of written records dating from 6 BCE to 36 CE showing Jesus existed

2) the most powerful government of the world (i.e. Rome) collected said evidence no later then 36 CE

3) the evidence was presented no later then 37 CE; AND

4) there was a 62 volume index of this evidence dating no later than 44 CE and a 92 volume index of this evidence dating from no later then 92 CE.

Ehrman doesn't exactly cover himself with glory as a would-be historian when he makes such an idiotic comparison.

The totally insanity of such a position makes the paranoid hiding in his basement in fear of the black helicopters piloted by gray aliens lead by Elvis who call Area 51 home look rational by comparison!

An editor could have helped Ehrman by suggesting massive cuts of all this irrelevant junk.

 

[maximara]

Yes that is exactly what he said, or not.

I think the point was more about instant internet experts who want to deny the HJ out of personal biases, rather than actually look at what the Historians are saying.

The evidence for Jesus is poor, but so is the evidence for every other 1st century Jewish Rabbi.

Do we now have to conclude that none of them existed?

The flaw in that argument is that none of those "other 1st century Jewish Rabbi" have pick that decade/century for when they lived, have had evidence of people tampering with the writings of writers like Josephus to lend credence to their existence, nor do you have claims of supposed eyewitness being written down within living memory who can testify to all the fantastical supernatural events surrounding them.

It is the difference between saying King Arthur Pendragon really existed and that stories of him are based on a living person.

The minimal Jesus does nothing for the HJ position other that put it on par with the various candidates for the "historical" King Arthur and Robin Hood--an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows they have a single person at the core of the mythology.

 

[pakeha]

...Under Living Kami there is this curious comment: "The Emperor is considered a kami during his reign (but not after he retires and becomes a Buddhist priest)" This reinforces the idea that the term kami is less like deus and more like numen.

Interesting.
It sounds rather like being a professional musician- you're only as good as your last (paid) performance.

...The minimal Jesus does nothing for the HJ position other that put it on par with the various candidates for the "historical" King Arthur and Robin Hood--an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows they have a single person at the core of the mythology.

Good point.

 

[dejudge]

That's very funny; I mean it really is amusing. But Brainache says the evidence is "poor", not non existent. If he thought it was non existent he wouldn't believe, would he?

It has already been explained to you and Braianache that there is NO evidence that has been recovered and dated for Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish Rabbi in the time of Pilate.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

It is an established fallacy that there is "poor" evidence for an HJ.

Essentially, it is an embellishment to claim there is "poor" evidence when there is none.

Jesus of Nazareth as just a Jewish Rabbi is not found at all in any writings--Jesus is a transfiguring Water walking God Creator the son of a Ghost.

 

[dejudge]

The minimal Jesus does nothing for the HJ position other that put it on par with the various candidates for the "historical" King Arthur and Robin Hood--an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows they have a single person at the core of the mythology.

The speculation that Jesus was a man is not evidence.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

While I don't really have much to disagree with in your responses to their logic, I think it is shown that the given demographic find that prospect troubling or simply impassable by their way of belief; that such would require, at the very least, a radical alteration to their form of belief - or in some, a cessation of the same.

I agree with the idea that one could argue out of the situation rather easily; just as easily as it is to argue nearly anything out of these texts one wishes.
And yet, when we look at the Christian demographic, while some newer branches seem to take this less rigid approach, the large traditional demographics appear quite fixed and unwilling to alter their belief and, instead - in their view, have built their belief around a very specific a finite idea they have collectively read-out of the texts, or have been taught those same ideals which have been read-out of the texts.

Remembering for a moment that my point was that a physically found evidence of an historical Jesus, not a divine one which cannot be found historically, would cause considerable issue and as such is hardly of pursuing interest to these groups' ends.

The type of Christian group that does really want to find an historical Jesus over a divine Jesus not found in history is the kind similar to (neo)Ebionites (who equally proclaim not to be Christian as they follow the ascribed teachings of Jesus as they understand a Rabbi would be followed).
Where we find such concepts being expressed as, "Our view regarding theology is based on historical Jesus studies. Jesus is dead." (http://ebionite.org/)


As just an add-on: Orthodoxy was my expansion in life, as I grew up in a Protestant setting (of several variations...and, yes, also sent to Catholic school while at the same time attending Protestant Church).

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

Well, the matter is unresolvable, because it is a hypothetical.

What isn't hypothetical is that the money phrase the same body has no specific meaning. If bones are found, the phrase will be refined, if not defined. Maybe "defining terms" is a radical problem for some people. Generally speaking, though, people seem to manage it when they have to. I have confidence that the bosses will work it out, since it is falling-off-a-log easy to accommodate Jesus' bones, and the crappier condition they are in, the easier it will be.

In my opinion, of course.

 

[Brainache]

It has already been explained to you and Braianache that there is NO evidence that has been recovered and dated for Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish Rabbi in the time of Pilate.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

It is an established fallacy that there is "poor" evidence for an HJ.

Essentially, it is an embellishment to claim there is "poor" evidence when there is none.

Jesus of Nazareth as just a Jewish Rabbi is not found at all in any writings--Jesus is a transfiguring Water walking God Creator the son of a Ghost.

The evidence emerges when one critically analyses the texts. You haven't done that with anything. You seem to think that all we can do is read the texts at face value and just believe whatever they say, or reject it entirely. The study of History is a lot more complicated than that.

Education is not a bad thing, I urge you to give it a try.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

I agree that it would most likely be worked, but it would mean a rather critical change in the core belief assertion.

It would be like the Nicene creed; a marking point of before and after and would define an historic shift in their creed and theology.

 

[dejudge]

The evidence emerges when one critically analyses the texts. You haven't done that with anything. You seem to think that all we can do is read the texts at face value and just believe whatever they say, or reject it entirely. The study of History is a lot more complicated than that.

Education is not a bad thing, I urge you to give it a try.

Your own words are applicable to you "Education is not a bad thing, I urge you to give it a try.

You think the existence of universities and Scholars are evidence of an historical Jesus.

How illogical!!!


Based on your own words then You have not and cannot critically analyse the texts.

You are NOT an historian.

You take Galatians 1.19 at face value even though you admit Paul is a Liar which is confirmed by multiple sources of antiquity.

It is absurd that you openly reject claims made by Paul yet ridicule others for doing the very same thing.

I reject Paul since he is a confirmed Liar and cannot accept anything in the Pauline Corpus at face value without external corroboration especially when Church writers also Reject Galatians 1.19.

Chrysostom, Jerome and Papias admitted that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 is NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus.

Rufinus admitted that James the brother of the Lord was ALIVE c 69 CE so was NOT James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 who was stoned to death c 62-64 CE.

You have no idea how history is done.

You have NO evidence for Your Lord Jesus. It is an embellishment to claim the evidence is Poor. Your LORD Jesus in Galatians 1 is an established Myth--a Non-historical character.

The Lord Jesus in Galatians and the Pauline Corpus was non-human, God Creator, the Lord from heaven, the resurrected Son of God.

 

[Brainache]

Your own words are applicable to you "Education is not a bad thing, I urge you to give it a try.

You think the existence of universities and Scholars are evidence of an historical Jesus.

How illogical!!!


Based on your own words then You have not and cannot critically analyse the texts.

You are NOT an historian.

You take Galatians 1.19 at face value even though you admit Paul is a Liar which is confirmed by multiple sources of antiquity.

It is absurd that you openly reject claims made by Paul yet ridicule others for doing the very same thing.

I reject Paul since he is a confirmed Liar and cannot accept anything in the Pauline Corpus at face value without external corroboration especially when Church writers also Reject Galatians 1.19.

Chrysostom, Jerome and Papias admitted that James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 is NOT the brother of the Lord Jesus.

Rufinus admitted that James the brother of the Lord was ALIVE c 69 CE so was NOT James in Jiosephus who was stoned to death c 62-64 CE.

You have no idea how history is done.

You have NO evidence for Your Lord Jesus. It is an embellishment to claim the evidence is Poor. Your LORD Jesus in Galatians 1 is an established Myth--a Non-historical character.

The Lord Jesus in Galatians and the Pauline Corpus was non-human, God Creator, the Lord from heaven, the resurrected Son of God.

Please get educated on how Historians study ancient texts.

Why are you accepting the words of fourth century Apologists as if they were the result of modern Historical research? Those guys were pushing an agenda of the perpetual virgin Mary, of course they are going to say Jesus didn't have brothers.

Your argument is stupid and facile; it ignores context and and the stated bias of the Authors.

It is just laughably inept.

Keep it up, you are driving people away from your position by the sheer stupidity of your arguments.

 

[Craig B]

It has already been explained to you and Braianache that there is NO evidence that has been recovered and dated for Jesus of Nazareth as a Jewish Rabbi in the time of Pilate.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not mention a Jewish Rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth.

It is an established fallacy that there is "poor" evidence for an HJ.

Essentially, it is an embellishment to claim there is "poor" evidence when there is none.

Jesus of Nazareth as just a Jewish Rabbi is not found at all in any writings--Jesus is a transfiguring Water walking God Creator the son of a Ghost.

Yes, you have stated this very many times. And as often, others say they don't accept what you say, because many of your beliefs are nonsensical; for example that the entire NT is a second or fourth century fabrication designed as a hoax.

 

[maximara]

Yes, you have stated this very many times. And as often, others say they don't accept what you say, because many of your beliefs are nonsensical; for example that the entire NT is a second or fourth century fabrication designed as a hoax.

I agree with this. Even in his pre-Jesus Myth days Wells said that Paul and his contemporaries felt the Jesus they were talking about was once a living person.

Dejudge's view seems to be in the Joseph Wheless (1930) Forgery in Christianity vein of Christ Myth theory and it's a little hard to take seriously as it presents Christianity as this Illuminati scale conspiracy (with all the problems that involves).

 

[JaysonR]

I consider the idea of 2nd and 4th c CE fabrication as a hoax just about as evident and sensible as an Historical and Divine Jesus.

It is an extreme conclusion, indeed.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, you have stated this very many times. And as often, others say they don't accept what you say, because many of your beliefs are nonsensical; for example that the entire NT is a second or fourth century fabrication designed as a hoax.

You have stated that many times. Others don't accept what you say because what your HJ argument is a failure of logic and facts.

You claim Jesus in the NT is NOT DEPICTED as a Myth but as a real person yet you don't use those very supposed real description for your HJ.

Based on your absurd beliefs, Jesus of the NT was really born of a Ghost, was really God Creator and was really a transfiguring sea water walker.

Dr. Richard Carrier, an historian, admitted the HJ argument is void of logic. I agree with him.

 

[dejudge]

...Dejudge's view seems to be in the Joseph Wheless (1930) Forgery in Christianity vein of Christ Myth theory and it's a little hard to take seriously as it presents Christianity as this Illuminati scale conspiracy (with all the problems that involves).

It is most fascinating how you can openly invent your own conspiracies and then believe them.

I have not even mentioned Joseph Wheless and have made no reference to his writings.

My position is fundamentally based on writings of antiquity from the 2nd century or later.

I regard the HJ theory as a massive conspiracy theory totally unsupported by contemporary evidence. Even the heavenly never-on-earth theory Jesus is un-evidenced.

Unless you can find NEW evidence from antiquity I will use the existing manuscripts, Codices, and Apologetic writings that show Jesus was a Myth from Conception to Ascension.

I have no problems at all. Jesus was God Creator--A myth.

It is those who claim Jesus of Nazareth was really a man or that he was NEVER believed to be on earth and was crucified in some kind of heavenly sub-lunar who have massive problems--they never ever had any actual supporting evidence from the very start.