Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[JaysonR]

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.

It is not a well established fallacy, as we just began the discussion, and any attempt by me to have you clarify your assertions results in you addressing my person rather than answering questions.
We have not established much at all, aside from what was already known prior to your propositions; that texts of comments upon the subject matter exist across a stretch of time ranging (mostly) from 2nd c CE to 4th c CE and that the canonized texts earliest surviving copies are extant from no earlier than the 2nd c CE.

This information has been widely known for a considerable time, and the field has not arrived at your proposition of Egyptian authorship for the purposes of pulling off a hoax upon the world.

The field has generated several propositions of mixed caliber, but yours is unique in authorship assertion and motive; both aspects you have yet to account for aside from simply citing dates from citations.

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?

I don't know why I continue to engage you in your cited fallacy. (I'm kidding; I couldn't resist the humor of the typo )

Yes, you draw conclusions from what you examine, and this is fine, but you don't really engage with conversation very well.
Instead, if there is a question regarding the accuracy of your conclusion, or that your conclusion causes a disjointing between other known pieces of information, then you (for some reason I don't really understand) refuse to answer for even your own comments.

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.

Yes, and your presentation leaves volumes of material unaddressed and stands in conflict (until you explain some more) with several points of known information.

Again, I am not against you or your proposition, and even still stand willing to help you with flushing it out more if you would like.

 

[smartcooky]

Much of the discussion here seems to have wandered well off the point of the subject line of the OP. Also, much of what I read here is beyond my scope of education, i.e, as a layman, I don't have the foggiest idea what some of you are talking about. However, FWIW, here is my tuppence worth...

It seems to me that the main problem faced by people who are trying to prove that Jesus was an actual historical person is not dissimilar to that faced by people who try to prove that Robin Hood existed. In fact there are some interesting parallels between the two

► Both were allegedly champions of the common people
► Both reportedly pissed- off the local government hierarchy
► Both supposedly had a close band of followers
► Both were seen as a revolutionary by their followers, but as a political nuisance by their rivals
► Both were betrayed by a follower and trapped by a subterfuge perpetrated by the authorities.

But the most difficult problem they face is that there is no contemporaneous evidence that either of them ever actually existed. No real, verifiable person who wrote about them actually knew them in person or even lived at the time time. Every account, without exception, comes from people who wrote about them long after they supposedly existed. This problem is insurmountable. It requires the discovery of new and previously unseen documentation that can be dated to the time period and written by an author whose existence can be independently verified. Until that happens, if it ever happens, all we can say is that Jesus might have existed, Robin Hood might have existed, we will never know for certain.

 

[dejudge]

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.

It is not a well established fallacy, as we just began the discussion, and any attempt by me to have you clarify your assertions results in you addressing my person rather than answering questions.

Again, your claims are blatant fallacies.

I just named at least 24 sources ----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.

I also use the writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Sulpitius Severus, the False Decretals, the Donation of Constantine, the Muratorian Canon, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, The Chronograph of 354, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Paschal Chronicon, Optatus, the Codex Sinaiticus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, Macarius Magnes, the list of New Testament manuscripts, the Septuagint and still more.


I conclude that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of Mythology until new evidence surfaces.
Based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity [ at least 46 sources of antiquity ] the story of Jesus, the Jesus character, the disciples, Paul and ENTIRE Pauline Corpus are ALL 2ND century or later inventions.

The Pauline Corpus has ZERO historical value pre 70 CE and never reflected the state of the Jesus cult UP to at least c 180 CE.

 

[dejudge]

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.

Your claim is a complete failure of MEMORY, LOGIC AND FACTS.

You yourself REJECT the vast amount of Christian Scholars who argue that their HJ was raised from the dead and was really 100% God and 100% man.

You REJECT the claim by the Scholar, Joseph Ratzinger, that HJ was the Son of God born of a Virgin.

Now, there is a REGISTERED LIST of NEW TESTAMENT PAPYRI and details of the DATE of authorship and where they were located[ if available].

All are dated NO EARLIER than the 2nd century and almost all were found in Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

I argue that the Jesus story, Jesus of Nazareth, Paul of Tarsus, the Pharisee are 2nd century or later INVENTIONS and most likely originated in Egypt until new evidence surfaces.

 

[JaysonR]

Again, your claims are blatant fallacies.

I just named at least 24 sources ----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.

I also use the writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Elder, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Sulpitius Severus, the False Decretals, the Donation of Constantine, the Muratorian Canon, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, The Chronograph of 354, the Apostolic Constitutions, the Paschal Chronicon, Optatus, the Codex Sinaiticus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, Macarius Magnes, the list of New Testament manuscripts, the Septuagint and still more.


I conclude that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of Mythology until new evidence surfaces.
Based on the abundance of evidence from antiquity [ at least 46 sources of antiquity ] the story of Jesus, the Jesus character, the disciples, Paul and ENTIRE Pauline Corpus are ALL 2ND century or later inventions.

The Pauline Corpus has ZERO historical value pre 70 CE and never reflected the state of the Jesus cult UP to at least c 180 CE.

I am well aware of your citation sources; again, they are the same sources that have been around for a very long time and widely known.
I am also fully aware of your conclusion; though the above is not the fullness of your conclusion.
Unfortunately, that does not help in answering the questions for which I have asked you to clarify regarding your assertions.

I understand well that you consider Jesus to be Mythology.
That is what causes me to ask my question from which we end up in circles each time I ask it: whose mythology was Jesus?

Are you suggesting that Jesus was a followed Mythology of Egyptians?

We are to hold the axiom from finding and citation that the Egyptians authored these texts.

We are also told that these were done in the 2nd c CE (through 4th c CE) as Hoaxes by these authors.

How are you merging these trains of thought?
Written by Egyptians as a hoax.
Written by Egyptians as mythology.

Did Egyptians worship Jesus; is that what you mean to say?
Or are you suggesting that Egyptians made a figure of mythological stature to convince others to follow who were not Egyptians as some form of social joke?


As a footnote: what do you use the DSS for, and which fragments of the DSS are you reading? I'm curious how the DSS influenced your examination.

 

[Brainache]

...
As a footnote: what do you use the DSS for, and which fragments of the DSS are you reading? I'm curious how the DSS influenced your examination.

Just on this: I suspect it was my bad influence. I kept asking why he only cited non-Jewish Apologists and why he ignored authentic 2nd Temple Jewish documents like the DSS. I wasn't necessarily saying that the DSS were authored by Proto-Christians, more just pointing out that they contain Messianic writings from around the time and place that the NT stories are set. Also that they don't contain anything like Carrier's "Celestial Jesus", but contain a lot about a "Teacher of Righteousness" who was a flesh and blood human being.

I suspect dejudge's reply will simply be that the DSS don't mention the "logos Jesus of Nazareth". Which apparently means that Jesus was an Egyptian myth invented by hoax forgers.

 

[dejudge]

I am well aware of your citation sources; again, they are the same sources that have been around for a very long time and widely known.

Unfortunately you have not shown that you were aware of their contents. You must have forgotten that you have already admitted that you have not done much research of the HJ question and don't really care whether or not Jesus did exist.

1. You did not even seem to know that Scholars have already argued that the author of gMark was most likely not a Jew.

2. You seem to have had no idea that Egyptians of antiquity did know a story of Jesus since at least the 2nd century.

3. You seem to have had NO idea that an Apologetic writer claimed gMark was known in Alexandria.

4. You seem to have forgotten that the Septuagint which was used in the stories of Jesus was FIRST compiled in Egypt.

I am just presenting the evidence from antiquity that Jesus was a Myth until new evidence is found--that is all.

 

[Brainache]

Unfortunately you have not shown that you were aware of their contents. You must have forgotten that you have already admitted that you have not done much research of the HJ question and don't really care whether or not Jesus did exist.

1. You did not even seem to know that Scholars have already argued that the author of gMark was most likely not a Jew.

2. You seem to have had no idea that Egyptians of antiquity did know a story of Jesus since at least the 2nd century.

3. You seem to have had NO idea that an Apologetic writer claimed gMark was known in Alexandria.

4. You seem to have forgotten that the Septuagint which was used in the stories of Jesus was FIRST compiled in Egypt.

I am just presenting the evidence from antiquity that Jesus was a Myth until new evidence is found--that is all.

Where was the "Damascus Document" found dejudge?

If I asked you that question 70 years ago, you would be correct to say "only in Egypt". But then another copy was found at Qumran, not far from Jerusalem. I wonder why...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Was it written by Egyptians on vacation?

 

[dejudge]

Where was the "Damascus Document" found dejudge?

If I asked you that question 70 years ago, you would be correct to say "only in Egypt". But then another copy was found at Qumran, not far from Jerusalem. I wonder why...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Was it written by Egyptians on vacation?

Again, your argument is a failure. The finding of the "Damascus Document" has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that virtually all 2nd century stories of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus the Pharisee were found in Egypt.

As soon as you find some early manuscripts of Jesus and Paul then I will review my position.

I am truly sorry. I can only deal with the evidence from antiquity.

Jesus was a figure of MYTH just like Romulus or Adam.

 

[IanS]

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).

No, sorry the above is just wrong.

If dejudge says that all the earliest copies came from Egypt and were not produced elsewhere before that time, and if you then dispute that by saying the writing style is not Egyptian (or any such suggestion or claim), then the burden is definitely upon you to show that (a)the style is not Egyptian, and (b)that the style shows the copies did not originate in Egypt.

 

[Brainache]

No, sorry the above is just wrong.

If dejudge says that all the earliest copies came from Egypt and were not produced elsewhere before that time, and if you then dispute that by saying the writing style is not Egyptian (or any such suggestion or claim), then the burden is definitely upon you to show that (a)the style is not Egyptian, and (b)that the style shows the copies did not originate in Egypt.

You're kidding right?

The corpus of Scholarship over the last 200 years or so just goes out the window because someone on the internet makes an ignorant assertion?

Really?

Surely the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. The claim in this case is that these early texts were written by Egyptian "Hoax Forgers" in the 2nd to 4th centuries. It is up to the claimant to show that these texts were first composed in the locations where they were later found.

The fact that Egypt has a climate which facilitates the survival of ancient papyrus better than other places, is adequate explanation for everyone else.

It is up to dejudge to demonstrate why his claim of Egyptian "Hoax Forgers" is superior to the consensus of Academic Scholars.

 

[Brainache]

Again, your argument is a failure. The finding of the "Damascus Document" has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that virtually all 2nd century stories of Jesus of Nazareth and Paul of Tarsus the Pharisee were found in Egypt.

As soon as you find some early manuscripts of Jesus and Paul then I will review my position.

I am truly sorry. I can only deal with the evidence from antiquity.

Jesus was a figure of MYTH just like Romulus or Adam.

But you aren't dealing with the evidence from antiquity. You are selecting one data point and ignoring everything else. You are totally ignoring cultural and historical context, Anthropology and the Historical Method.

Why should we accept your ideas over those of Professionals in the field?

 

[maximara]

Much of the discussion here seems to have wandered well off the point of the subject line of the OP. Also, much of what I read here is beyond my scope of education, i.e, as a layman, I don't have the foggiest idea what some of you are talking about. However, FWIW, here is my tuppence worth...

It seems to me that the main problem faced by people who are trying to prove that Jesus was an actual historical person is not dissimilar to that faced by people who try to prove that Robin Hood existed. In fact there are some interesting parallels between the two

► Both were allegedly champions of the common people
► Both reportedly pissed- off the local government hierarchy
► Both supposedly had a close band of followers
► Both were seen as a revolutionary by their followers, but as a political nuisance by their rivals
► Both were betrayed by a follower and trapped by a subterfuge perpetrated by the authorities.

But the most difficult problem they face is that there is no contemporaneous evidence that either of them ever actually existed. No real, verifiable person who wrote about them actually knew them in person or even lived at the time time. Every account, without exception, comes from people who wrote about them long after they supposedly existed. This problem is insurmountable. It requires the discovery of new and previously unseen documentation that can be dated to the time period and written by an author whose existence can be independently verified. Until that happens, if it ever happens, all we can say is that Jesus might have existed, Robin Hood might have existed, we will never know for certain.

But there are key differences between Jesus and Robin Hood as well

► The Robin hood stories fit the social political climate of time they supposedly take place in...the Jesus stories do not.
► From 1228 onward variants of the name Robin Hood ( 'Robinhood', 'Robehod' or 'Robbehod') appear in the rolls of several English Justices.
► The earliest ballads about Robin Hood put his actions in the time of a "King Edward".
► By 1262 the name "Robin Hood" became a stock name for an outlaw

The Robin hood setting we generally know did not appear until the 16th century (1521 to be more precise).

 

[Brainache]

But there are key differences between Jesus and Robin Hood as well

► The Robin hood stories fit the social political climate of time they supposedly take place in...the Jesus stories do not.

Are you saying that Second Temple Judaism in the first century wasn't "Messianic" and Apocalyptic? Because from what I've read, that would be wrong.

► From 1228 onward variants of the name Robin Hood ( 'Robinhood', 'Robehod' or 'Robbehod') appear in the rolls of several English Justices.

Are you saying that "Jesus" wasn't a common Jewish name? Again this doesn't agree with what I've read on the subject.

► The earliest ballads about Robin Hood put his actions in the time of a "King Edward".

OK, I'm not sure what this relates to, but the earliest stories we have of Jesus put him squarely in the first half of the first century. I agree that the Jesus stories were not set in the time of "Our Comely King Edward"...

► By 1262 the name "Robin Hood" became a stock name for an outlaw

The Robin hood setting we generally know did not appear until the 16th century (1521 to be more precise).

Yeah, Jesus was a lot earlier than that...

 

[Craig B]

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?

You mean if I don't agree that the gospels were written by

Matthew the tax collector, Mark the attendant of Peter, Luke the attendant of Paul, and John the son of Zebedee

http://adversusapologetica.wordpres...doubt-the-traditional-authors-of-the-gospels/
then I am not permitted to propose that Eusebius added a phony paragraph to Josephus' Antiquities? I'm not going to waste time on arguing that ridiculous point, dejudge. It's a sunny Saturday morning here in an ancient Flemish city: and the beer is cheap too.

 

[Craig B]

Where was the "Damascus Document" found dejudge?

If I asked you that question 70 years ago, you would be correct to say "only in Egypt". But then another copy was found at Qumran, not far from Jerusalem. I wonder why...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

Was it written by Egyptians on vacation?

It is a medieval copy discovered in a synagogue in Cairo in 1896 by a European Jewish scholar Solomon Schechter. It was therefore penned from earlier copies by mediaeval Jewish scribes, working either in Egypt or elsewhere, during the Middle Ages. It is noteworthy that the synagogue in question was used by the Palestinian Jewish community resident in Cairo.

 

[eight bits]

smartcooky

The thread is almost six years old, some drift is to be expected. Its star, Bart Ehrman, has grown, developed, learned more, taught more, shifted and shifted back on some of these issues during that time. It would be disappointng if an ongoing conversation about him did none of that.

Maybe Bart does aspire to "prove" something about Jesus. If so, then it is a nasty failing, and one that is shared by few current participants in the conversation. Personally, I think Bart is just shaky on the fundamental concepts of certainty and uncertainty, and gets confused sometimes.

There is a difference between Robin Hood and Jesus. For all the jaw calisthenics about Robin, nobody has described any observable fact of the world for which Robin's long-ago reality would have explicative force. If he were real, it would be hard to show it now, because he would have left no trace of his passing except stories about how he failed to make an enduring observable difference in the world he passed through, as colorful as those stories are.

An actual Jesus, in contrast, distinguishes among contagion models of a very much observable feature of the contemporary world. About half the human race now kneels or grovels in the dirt at the mention of his name, rendered as Jesus or Isa, depending on the specific religion. Furthermore, we have good records that behavior like this has persisted for centuries. Very little intellectual curiosity is needed to be interested in exploring how such a thing got started.

Is it really the case that no rational person can say anything except that something which is not logically impossible might have happened? No. One can consider whether or not it is seriously possible, a term of art in modern normative uncertainty management. An affirmative finding of serious possibility would typically lead to an assessment of confidence, perhaps expressed in the form of personal probability or odds. Poor quality evidence cashes out as confidence being near equipoise, and 90-10 is "near." Personally, I'm 60-40 in favor.

Is the only possible evidence of a factual situation a witness' statement? No, "evidence," even the narrow subcategory of textual evidence, subtends a much wider variety of observables than witness statements.

Are witness statements reliably persuasive in this domain? The modern Book of Mormon begins with statements from several named individuals that they saw Smith's golden plates. Many living people are unpersuaded that these "witnesses" saw any such thing.

The Jesus case is worse, because any surviving example of such a statement would be a copy of a copy of ... a copy of a copy of the original. In other words, the gravely dreaded "hearsay." So, it is obvious that having such evidence would not change opinions. There is no point in somebody complaining that (s)he doesn't have what they wouldn't use if they did have it.

By all means, decline to assess whether Jesus' historicity is seriously possible. It is unclear, however, that you have any basis to criticize others who do assess it as seriously possible, and so they discuss the matter as what Bart Ehrman shows it to be: despite the heat, a fairly straightforward problem in uncertain inference with little high-quality evidence either way.

 

[Brainache]

It is a medieval copy discovered in a synagogue in Cairo in 1896 by a European Jewish scholar Solomon Schechter. It was therefore penned from earlier copies by mediaeval Jewish scribes, working either in Egypt or elsewhere, during the Middle Ages. It is noteworthy that the synagogue in question was used by the Palestinian Jewish community resident in Cairo.

Not the only other extant copy which was found amongst the DSS in caves that were untouched for 2000 years or so...

So we only have these manuscripts from the caves at Qumran and some fragments from the Cairo Genizah.

It is full of Messianic/Apocalyptic teachings from a religious community in Palestine before 70 CE. I doubt very much that it was left there by Egyptian Hoaxers trying to establish plausibility for their hoax about a "Messiah", or whatever.

For twenty years, however, they remained like blind men groping their way,2 until at last God took note of their deeds, how that they were seeking Him sincerely, and He raised up for them one who would teach the Law correctly,8 to guide them in the way of His heart and to demonstrate to future ages what He does to a generation that incurs His anger, that is, to the congregation of those that betray Him and turn aside from His way...
...

All that enter the covenant with no intention of going into the sanctuary to keep the flame alive on the altar do so in vain. They have as good as shut the door. Of them God has said: 'Who is there among you that would shut the door, and who of you would not keep alive the flame upon Mine altar?' In vain [Mal. 1.10] [are all their deeds] if, in an era of wickedness, they do not take heed to act in accordance with the explicit injunctions of tile Law; to keep away from men of rn-repute; to hold themselves aloof from rn-gotten gain; not to defile themselves by laying hands on that which has been vowed or devoted to God or on the property of the sanctuary; not to rob the poor of God's people; not to make widows their prey or murder the fatherless; to distinguish between unclean and clean and to recognize holy from profane; to keep the sabbath in its every detail, and the festivals and fasts in accordance with the practice laid down originally by the men who entered the new covenant in 'the land of Damascus';23 to pay their required dues in conformity with the detailed rules thereof; to love each man his neighbor like himself; to grasp the hand of the poor, the needy and the stranger; to seek each man the welfare of his fellow; to cheat not his own kin; to abstain from whoredom, as is meet; to bring no charge against his neighbor except by due process, and not to nurse grudges from day to day; to keep away from all unclean things, in accordance with what has been prescribed in each case and with the distinctions which God Himself has drawn for them; not to sully any man the holy spirit within him.

Howbeit, for all that perform these rules in holiness unimpaired, according to all the instruction that has been given them-for them will God's Covenant be made good, that they shall be preserved for a thousand generations, even as it is written: 'He keepeth Covenant and loyalty with them that love Him and keep His commandments, even unto a thousand generations' [Deut. 7.9].

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm
My bold and italics.

 

[pakeha]

... It's a sunny Saturday morning here in an ancient Flemish city: and the beer is cheap too.

Enjoy!

 

[dejudge]

Is it really the case that no rational person can say anything except that something which is not logically impossible might have happened? No. One can consider whether or not it is seriously possible, a term of art in modern normative uncertainty management. An affirmative finding of serious possibility would typically lead to an assessment of confidence, perhaps expressed in the form of personal probability or odds. Poor quality evidence cashes out as confidence being near equipoise, and 90-10 is "near." Personally, I'm 60-40 in favor.

You have INVENTED your own 60-40 probability figure out of thin air. You do not have and never had any data to produce such a probability.

Why have you resorted to such inventions? It is already known that there is ZERO evidence of Jesus of Nazareth pre 70 CE. Philo, Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT mention Jesus of Nazareth at all.