Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Neither question was rhetorical, and if you cannot answer to anthropological context, then many will continue to pass on accepting your proposition, as several have mentioned issues with it.

Again, your questions have little or no value. I am dealing with the evidence from antiquity that support my argument. You seem to be promoting your knowledge of anthropology.

Stating that I do not spend much time on the HJ issue, does not mean I am unversed on the subject, either.
It means that I have not yet spent enough time to soundly offer a full proposition.That said, I lean more toward a compilation Jesus than an historical Jesus figure.

You need to get familiar with the evidence from antiquity. Where you lean have zero effect on my argument.

My argument is based on the existing evidence from antiquity.

However, this neither means that I accept your proposition simply by your assertion of selected citations and an admitted obstacle of lacking familiarity with cultures involved in the discussion.

You have NO obligation to accept my theory. My obligation is to present an argument that is based on the existing evidence from antiquity.

I'm sorry, I do not have a proposition, but I find your's inept and instead more confused than a solution.

What you say is not logical at all and premature. You really have no idea of the abundance of evidence from antiquity.

Your knowledge of anthropology is really of little value in this discussion. I find that you have not resolve anything on the question of the HJ.


You are engaged in a discussion which requires evidence not knowledge of anthropology.

You seem not to understand that there are hundreds examples of Myth characters in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

 

[JaysonR]

I understand well that I am under no obligation to accept your proposition.
The weight is on the proposition to convince others.

We do not need a proposition to refuse to accept the HJ proposition, but you gave one anyway, so the responsibility is on you to provide a reasonable and full account.

Simply citing the earliest surviving commentaries and texts and drwaing a conclusion off of their words alone does not really best what is offered by other propositions; it falls short, in fact, as other propositions at least offer a reason for the context where your proposal offers none and rests on the position that it was written so it was so.

I have even offered to help you on the cultural context, but you don't even seem interested in that either.

If you don't want people to be convinced, then I don't know what you are doing offering a proposition.

 

[JaysonR]

Also, Dejudhe, I don't ask these questions to prove that you are errant.
I ask because I want to know and you are the presenter.

If you say Egyptians, then I want to know how.
If you say that the Mark authorship was ignorant of Decapolis, then I want to know why that authorship was ignorant.
If you say that 3 days after death annointment was not Hebrew culture, then I want to know why you think that.

 

[Brainache]

Also, Dejudhe, I don't ask these questions to prove that you are errant.
I ask because I want to know and you are the presenter.

If you say Egyptians, then I want to know how.
If you say that the Mark authorship was ignorant of Decapolis, then I want to know why that authorship was ignorant.
If you say that 3 days after death annointment was not Hebrew culture, then I want to know why you think that.

Good luck with that...

 

[dejudge]

Simply citing the earliest surviving commentaries and texts and drwaing a conclusion off of their words alone does not really best what is offered by other propositions; it falls short, in fact, as other propositions at least offer a reason for the context where your proposal offers none and rests on the position that it was written so it was so.

You don't understand what evidence is. I can only examine the EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity are 2nd century or later manuscripts of the Jesus story.

Every person, Scholar or not, MUST use the surviving commentaries and texts to draw conclusions.

I am afraid that you have exposed that you really don't know what you are talking about.

You yourself rely on ancient texts to draw conclusions about ancient culture.

You don't make any sense.

 

[dejudge]

Also, Dejudhe, I don't ask these questions to prove that you are errant.
I ask because I want to know and you are the presenter.

If you say Egyptians, then I want to know how.
If you say that the Mark authorship was ignorant of Decapolis, then I want to know why that authorship was ignorant.
If you say that 3 days after death annointment was not Hebrew culture, then I want to know why you think that.

You ask me questions because you are not familiar with the commentaries and texts of antiquity.

Please, get familiar with the writings of antiquity about the Jesus story. Anthropology cannot help you as is evident.

 

[Craig B]

You don't understand what evidence is. I can only examine the EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity.

The EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity are 2nd century or later manuscripts of the Jesus story.

Every person, Scholar or not, MUST use the surviving commentaries and texts to draw conclusions.

I am afraid that you have exposed that you really don't know what you are talking about.

You yourself rely on ancient texts to draw conclusions about ancient culture.

You don't make any sense.

So because the EXISTING EVIDENCE of Josephus is tenth century, in the earliest extant texts, we must draw the conclusion that Josephus' works are hoax forgeries by medieval monks? Tosh.

 

[dejudge]

So because the EXISTING EVIDENCE of Josephus is tenth century, in the earliest extant texts, we must draw the conclusion that Josephus' works are hoax forgeries by medieval monks? Tosh.

I am delighted you mention hoax forgeries by monks. Tell us who FORGED the "TF"--Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3?

 

[Craig B]

I am delighted you mention hoax forgeries by monks. Tell us who FORGED the "TF"--Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3?

Probably Eusebius. The passage is unknown to Origen. Hey, are you suggesting that Eusebius wrote the whole of Josephus, and the TF isn't an interpolation at all? Give me your reasons for that conclusion, please.

 

[proudfootz]

I have issues with the 2nd/4th c CE hoax hypothesis too as it just adds a unneeded level of complexity to what is an already messy situation. In fact, if you take the dating of Paul as proper it actually raises more questions--like why he gives so few real details regarding Jesus as a person. John Frum shows that oral tradition can total eradicate any possible leader history records and replace him with a more desired leader.

Similarly, we have a lot of tap dancing around the issue but at the end of the day we still don't have an real explanation as to why no Church Father quotes anything out of our Gospels until c130 CE and those are one sentence blurbs as it is. By c180 if Against Heresies is any guide there were dozens of Gospels of which Irenaeus claimed four and only four were "real".

The simplest explanation is that these tales weren't in circulation until the 2nd century, and the simplest explanation of that is that they didn't exist until that time.

For Occam fans this would be viewed as a slam dunk.

 

[Belz...]

The simplest explanation is that these tales weren't in circulation until the 2nd century, and the simplest explanation of that is that they didn't exist until that time.

That is a rather simple explanation, isn't it ?

So where do the stories come from ?

 

[dejudge]

Probably Eusebius. The passage is unknown to Origen. Hey, are you suggesting that Eusebius wrote the whole of Josephus, and the TF isn't an interpolation at all? Give me your reasons for that conclusion, please.

Hey, are you suggesting Eusebius is a hoax forger? Give me the reason why Eusebius probably forged the "TF"

Now who forged or falsely attributed the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?

 

[IanS]

Now, if you propose that Egyptians wrote a hoax in the 2nd c CE that is the Gospel texts, can you demonstrate Egyptian cultural writing style, prose, and values in the Gospel texts matching other known Egyptian texts from the 2nd c CE era?

Actually to be fair, in the above issue the "burden of proof" falls upon you, and not on dejudge. That is - if you say those gospel texts (which ones? "original” ones? which ones are they??) were not written in what you call "Egyptian cultural writing style, prose, and values", then it's you that has to show in those gospels where they are not of that style.

Until that time, all dejudge has to do is to show that Egypt was the location of all the earliest known copies of those gospels, and that no other earlier location was known to have produced that gospel writing outside of Egypt.

 

[JaysonR]

You don't understand what evidence is. I can only examine the EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity.

But you haven't examined it.
Even Carrier offers contextual support for his positions.
You offer very little and what you have offered, when questioned due to an assertion you offer raising question, you do not answer.

The EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity are 2nd century or later manuscripts of the Jesus story.

Every person, Scholar or not, MUST use the surviving commentaries and texts to draw conclusions.

I am afraid that you have exposed that you really don't know what you are talking about.

You yourself rely on ancient texts to draw conclusions about ancient culture.

You don't make any sense.

Again, even Carrier offers cultural context and does not just simply cite from commentaries and call it a sufficient.

Your proposition is simple, true, but questions have been raised about the accuracy of the proposition considering the contextual role of Alexandria.
This concern has not been addressed.

 

[JaysonR]

You ask me questions because you are not familiar with the commentaries and texts of antiquity.

Please, get familiar with the writings of antiquity about the Jesus story. Anthropology cannot help you as is evident.

I ask questions to you because your proposition itself is what I am not familiar with; I am familiar with several other propositions, the texts, and cultures.

 

[JaysonR]

Actually to be fair, in the above issue the "burden of proof" falls upon you, and not on dejudge. That is - if you say those gospel texts (which ones? "original” ones? which ones are they??) were not written in what you call "Egyptian cultural writing style, prose, and values", then it's you that has to show in those gospels where they are not of that style.

Until that time, all dejudge has to do is to show that Egypt was the location of all the earliest known copies of those gospels, and that no other earlier location was known to have produced that gospel writing outside of Egypt.

If that is the case, then we should be holding that Jesus is extant and divine for the proposition needs no cultural context and no further evidence outside of the text asserting that such is the case.

OK, for a real answer: What you say would be true if Dejudge's proposition was the first proposition ever produced and there were no standing propositions held as accepted.
However, we are in this thread specifically to debate over the commonly accepted proposition, so there already is a proposition (several) extant.

Why should we choose Dejudge's proposition over any other presented to us by the field (all of them)?

All have the same texts he is citing, yet his stands unique in not even offering any contextual support for his propositions.
By that comparison, his proposition is deficient among the other propositions within the field (again, even Carrier offers this).

 

[dejudge]

You don't understand what evidence is. I can only examine the EXISTING EVIDENCE from antiquity.

But you haven't examined it.
Even Carrier offers contextual support for his positions.
You offer very little and what you have offered, when questioned due to an assertion you offer raising question, you do not answer.

Your statement is a well established fallacy. I have presented my sources at ALL TIMES.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of mythology based on the DSS, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Arnobius, Eusebius, Rufinus, Clememt of Alexandria, Jerome, Chrysostom, Augustine of Hippo, Ephraem the Syrian, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, gMatthew, the Pauline Corpus, Acts of the Apostles, the non-Pauline letters, Revelation and other writings.

Again, even Carrier offers cultural context and does not just simply cite from commentaries and call it a sufficient.

I draw conclusions from what I examine. It is a fallacy that I cite commentaries and call it sufficient.

Why are you engaged in open fallacies?

Your proposition is simple, true, but questions have been raised about the accuracy of the proposition considering the contextual role of Alexandria.
This concern has not been addressed.

I have already presented evidence from antiquity for my theory that the Jesus story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century or later and most likely in Egypt.

 

[Brainache]

...
I have already presented evidence from antiquity for my theory that the Jesus story and cult was initiated in the 2nd century or later and most likely in Egypt.

All you have done is point out that most of the oldest manuscripts were discovered in Egypt. You have offered no justification for your assertion that they were the product of 2nd to 4th century Egyptian "Hoax Forgers". You have offered no justification for rejecting the vast amount of scholarship which contradicts your assertion.

If your aim is to convince people that you are just spouting pseudo-historical crackpot nonsense, you are doing a splendid job. Congratulations.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Do "Hoax Forgers" forge hoaxes or hoax forgeries?

 

[Brainache]

Do "Hoax Forgers" forge hoaxes or hoax forgeries?

I'm not entirely sure, it seems to be a moving feast. One thing we know for sure is that they are "forgeries". What they are forgeries of is never made clear.

Maybe there was a cult that venerated someone called Larry as the Messiah, but the Egyptian fake hoax forgers changed the name to make it sound more "Jewish".

Well the joke's on them, because now Jesus just sounds Mexican and there's no one more "Jewish" than Larry...