Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

[ . . . ] The Pauline writers attempted to historicise the RESURRECTION of Jesus. The Resurrection of Jesus is the single most important event in the Pauline Corpus.

1. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV---And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

2. 1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV --Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

3. Galatians 1:1 KJV ---Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead.


4. Romans 1:4 KJV--- And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead

5. Philippians 3:10 KJV --That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death
[ . . . ]

Is there any reason to think the Pauline corpus as we know it bears any resemblance to any possible original texts and not heavily interpolated/rewritten by later authors?

 

[dejudge]

Is there any reason to think the Pauline corpus as we know it bears any resemblance to any possible original texts and not heavily interpolated/rewritten by later authors?

I do not speculate about unknown, never seen, never used texts that may or not have been original.

How would we know an original text? Would it say "original" and "not interpolated"?

I develop a theory based on the Existing evidence and when NEW evidence surfaces then I may review my position.

 

[Belz...]

Vastly different situation.

Again on every major social-political point we can check such as how the Sanhedrin operated, Pontius Pilate's handling of Jewish mobs, the way Romans handled the bodies of the crucified, the way the Roman handled the disappearance of bodies from tombs and so on the Gospels are basically lying through their teeth.

And this has no incidence on whether a specific claim is true or not.

Belz..., is it really necessary to scrape the barrel with an example which is next of kin to a Godwin?

Pakeha, I enjoy discussing this with you, but I would appreciate if you read the post I was replying to as well as mine, because it was Maximara who brought up the Reichstag fire, not I. I was simply using his example. Furthermore, in this case I do not believe it can be called a Godwin, because the connection to the Nazis is not meant to be a shocker that shuts off discussion, but a mere example.

 

[pakeha]

I do not speculate about unknown, never seen, never used texts that may or not have been original.

How would we know an original text? Would it say "original" and "not interpolated"?

I develop a theory based on the Existing evidence and when NEW evidence surfaces then I may review my position.

Fair enough, dejudge.
Off to read more about our earliest manuscripts of the Pauline corpus as well as our earliest references to those epistles.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]Pakeha, I enjoy discussing this with you, but I would appreciate if you read the post I was replying to as well as mine, because it was Maximara who brought up the Reichstag fire, not I. I was simply using his example. Furthermore, in this case I do not believe it can be called a Godwin, because the connection to the Nazis is not meant to be a shocker that shuts off discussion, but a mere example.

Of course I read maximara's post.
Here it is

Sigh, we have already been over why dealing with why comparing Jesus story to anything post printing press is at best shows a piss poor understanding of history.

Your example is on par with the story that Nero himself set fire to Rome (an idea stated by both Suetonius and Tacitus). In fact, the comparison is not that far off as President Bush is on par with the Caesars of Rome who we have large amounts of material on (even the four they went through in one year) Furthermore, the Great Fire of Rome had the primary sources of Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius Rufus, and Pliny the Elder and there is archeological evidence.

There were (and are) many comparisons between Bush's Patriot Act and Hitler's Enabling Act. Given one of the long standing plausible theories about the Reichstag Fire is that Hitler had a few select members of his party (perhaps members of the SA) set the fire themselves (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457) and the claim that both Bush and Hitler said "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland", it doesn't take a genius to see where the idea that Bush was somehow involved in the World Trade Center bombing is coming from.

Given the way people misuse the term "hologram" we can dispense with that part and the thermite part can be traced to Steven E. Jones, a physicist of Brigham Young University and his paper “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?” but you have to go and find other works to find out why he is talking nonsense.

We don't have anything even remotely like that for Jesus. In fact, every time we come to something we can check against history it has problems. The Gospel accounts read less then history and more like the 2nd century equivalent of Forest Gump, Zelig, or Forgotten Silver where totally fictional characters are plugged into history.

It's a reply to the notion you expressed here

[ . . .]

Here's another example: If I say "remember the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center using planes, in which 3000 people died ? President Bush made it happen to justify going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, using holograms and thermite !"

Someone could surmise that President Bush was a real person, and that such an attack probably occured (given a much larger text or context) even if the rest is ridiculous.

Here's my reply

I don't think your example a good one, Belz...
It almostinvites us to suppose the gospels are as good a source of information as that of your memories of the 11 Sept. attack.

No, not for the implausible element, if you're referring to the supernatural and 'miraculous' elements. It's for the preaching and execution elements, which simply make no sense at all.

At the end of the day, is there any point in trying to read history into hagiography, especially when it goes counter to what we know about how things functioned back in the day?

Was I wrong to call your reference a Godwin?
I'll say I was and apologise for my error.

Now, back to our discussion.
I'm wondering why you think those preaching and execution elements point to an HJ, though they're only referenced in hagiography/narrative theology and literature derived from those writings.
Not only that but those elements (preaching and execution) appear to contradict what we know about the period.

It's a though we claimed Till Eulenspiegel was an historical personage because he was written about.
Or Ruth. Or Robin Hood. Or Esther. Or John Frum.

 

[Belz...]

I'm wondering why you think those preaching and execution elements point to an HJ, though they're only referenced in hagiography/narrative theology and literature derived from those writings.

I believe I have answered this question many times before, and I don't think answering again at this point would be useful.

Not only that but those elements (preaching and execution) appear to contradict what we know about the period.

Just a couple of years after the event that saw floodings in my home town, I saw a documentary on TV in which the reporters butchered the geography and chronology of the events. And yet they had access to modern information technology and techniques, and certainly to eyewitnesses of the event. I still know the events happened because I was there. So how did the journalists get all this wrong, simply by virtue of being from outside the area ? My guess is that they told their story in a way that made it more compelling or easier to digest. Having an agenda is a very good incentive to lie or twist the truth, and it doesn't mean that the event in question never occured. Of course, it doesn't mean that it did. I am simply addressing the criticism that if X and Y in a story are false, then Z is probably false, too.

 

[pakeha]

I'm wondering why you think those preaching and execution elements point to an HJ, though they're only referenced in hagiography/narrative theology and literature derived from those writings.

I believe I have answered this question many times before, and I don't think answering again at this point would be useful.

Are you saying nothing that's been discussed here has influenced your point of view whatsoever?

Not only that but those elements (preaching and execution) appear to contradict what we know about the period.

Just a couple of years after the event that saw floodings in my home town, I saw a documentary on TV in which the reporters butchered the geography and chronology of the events. And yet they had access to modern information technology and techniques, and certainly to eyewitnesses of the event. I still know the events happened because I was there. So how did the journalists get all this wrong, simply by virtue of being from outside the area ? My guess is that they told their story in a way that made it more compelling or easier to digest. Having an agenda is a very good incentive to lie or twist the truth, and it doesn't mean that the event in question never occured. Of course, it doesn't mean that it did. I am simply addressing the criticism that if X and Y in a story are false, then Z is probably false, too.

A good point about the accuracy of documentaries.
However, aren't we talking about an entirely different genre when referring to the sources for the Jesus story?

Can we compare hagiography/narrative theology with a televised documentary?
Perhaps we can, up to a point. I've seen documentaries on UFOs similar subjects which can only be described as fictitious and I've even posted a link to a documentary on the subject of the annual miracle of the liquefication of st Pantaleon's blood for the amusement value.

Obviously a documentary can be hagiography or it can be an historical document.
Isn't this why one of the first things an historian has to do when analysing a document is to determine it's genre?
In any case, there's a wealth of data outside that documentary you cited to demonstrate to what point it can be taken seriously.

This isn't the case with the Jesus story, is it?
It seems apologists and HJ proponents are reduced to claiming the Romans crucified people, therefore Jesus. Or that there were Jewish preachers in 1st century Palestine, therefore Jesus.


" I am simply addressing the criticism that if X and Y in a story are false, then Z is probably false, too."


Again, in the case of the Jesus story, we're talking about narrative theology, not a piece of historical writing. If we can't establish the veracity of a given document, what value is it in determining if the people mentioned in are anything but fictitious inventions to suit the author's narration?
Is there any reason to believe Mary Magdalen was real, or Ruth or Samson?

No one obliges us to believe in the stories of Till Eulenspiegel or Robin Hood nor insults us if we doubt their historical nature.
Why should Jesus be different?

 

[eight bits]

Belz...

Just a couple of years ...

Much better example. I also can easily believe what you say. One day, I was present at a meeting, which was covered by a local television crew. That night I saw what the reporter had made of the expereince - the actual event and his report about it differed on many simple factual points, never mind the "spin" that the reporter placed on the event. And yet I can attest to not only facts about the event, but that the reporter was physically present, and I saw the crew making the deceptive and misleading images that accompanied the report.


David

Not all inferences are "personally".

But the inferences that are impersonally valid are confined to tautologies, such as are found in mathematics and formal logical demonstrations. With respect to anything that would be on-topic in this thread (except, see below, a display of arithmetical virtuosity), the other poster is correct.

One might wonder why he bothers to labor the obvious, or seems to teach that there is something suspect that a nondemnstrative conclusion would be a personal one.

As it happens, you and I do agree wbout this

And the hypothesis that Paul spoke about Jesus in their journeys to Jerusalem is a very plausible one. Nothing extraordinary on it. It would be extraordinary if he had not done it.

If the other poster doesn't, then that's all there is to be said about it. Until and unless the poster sees that another person of good will could estimate something so simple differently than he does, then it hopeless that he would ever agree about it.


proudfootz

Yes, if we had a similar situation with the Reichstag Fire or the WTC attacks and someone attributing the destruction either to angels disguised as humans we might accept that the buildings existed and were perhaps destroyed but have strong reservations about the angels...

And perhaps we might think that the culprits were actually human, and that's why they appeared to be humans.

...your personal take on it ...

There is no way to read natural language both impersonally and also with comprehension. Nor would there be much traffic on discussion boards were it not that persons often differed in what they take from their reading.

There are certain hypothesized features of the text, things present and things absent. For example, there is no statement by Paul that he had no natural source of information about Jesus' biography. On the other hand, there is a statement by Paul that a man died, his corpse was buried, and later he was seen by living people. Once their presence or absence has been pointed out, there is little more to be said about that. If their presence or absence is disputed, then until and unless the dispute is resolved, there won't be profitable discussion of the meaning of the texts of which they are crucial parts.

We have pointed out to one another some of these features that interest us. What feature-level disagreements we have appear to be unresolvable at this time. Resolution of any larger disagreement depends on the resolutions of the smaller ones, which aren't going to happen any time soon. The discussable vein, then, has been mined out in my view, at least for things that have already been aired.

I have no idea what point your final display of arithmetic serves. The list includes Paul, and nobody here proposes that Paul had an earlier relationship with Jesus, although you have disputed my interpretation of some of his verses by which I reach that conclusion.. That one kind of person appears on a list doesn't refute that another kind of person also appears on the same list. For most of the people on the list, Paul doesn't comment on their earlier situation, neither there nor elsewhere in his letters.


Ian

Eight bits - this is getting ridiculous. Paul’s letters actually do NOT say any of the following, which I quote as your exact phrasing -

Actually Paul does tells us that a dead man was buried and rose from the dead. "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." That, and the rest, has already been discussed.

You read the letters differently? That's great. Is it ridiculous for another person to disagree with your reading? No discussable issue arises. The topic is not what provokes you to giggles.

 

[Belz...]

I believe I have answered this question many times before, and I don't think answering again at this point would be useful.

Are you saying nothing that's been discussed here has influenced your point of view whatsoever?

No, this is not at all what I am saying, and I don't understand how you can possibly understand this from my post above.

A good point about the accuracy of documentaries.
However, aren't we talking about an entirely different genre when referring to the sources for the Jesus story?

We are talking about people reporting stories with an agenda in mind. I don't see an important difference, even with religion involved. Of course the style and genre differ, but I don't think this significantly undermines my example.

In any case, there's a wealth of data outside that documentary you cited to demonstrate to what point it can be taken seriously.

But let's assume that you live in a post-apocalyptic world, and find the documentary. You happen to have a functional DVD player, and plug it in to watch the documentary. You have zero evidence outside of this video for this flood event. What can you conclude from it ?

It seems apologists and HJ proponents are reduced to claiming the Romans crucified people, therefore Jesus.

Can you cite someone making such an argument ?

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz

There is no way to read natural language both impersonally and also with comprehension. Nor would there be much traffic on discussion boards were it not that persons often differed in what they take from their reading.

There are certain hypothesized features of the text, things present and things absent. For example, there is no statement by Paul that he had no natural source of information about Jesus' biography.

If by 'natural sources' we mean interpreting scriptures and experiencing visions. Going by the text alone, we have no reason to think Paul has any meaningful notion of a 'biography' of Jesus at all. Once the absence of that is pointed out, there is little more to be said on that score.

On the other hand, there is a statement by Paul that a man died, his corpse was buried, and later he was seen by living people. Once their presence or absence has been pointed out, there is little more to be said about that. If their presence or absence is disputed, then until and unless the dispute is resolved, there won't be profitable discussion of the meaning of the texts of which they are crucial parts.

We have pointed out to one another some of these features that interest us. What feature-level disagreements we have appear to be unresolvable at this time. Resolution of any larger disagreement depends on the resolutions of the smaller ones, which aren't going to happen any time soon. The discussable vein, then, has been mined out in my view, at least for things that have already been aired.

It's likely we've reached an impasse, but so long as my contributions to the discussion are to be met with corrective posts that begin

In fact? No, in your personal take on the text in hand....

it seems that not all the discussable elements have been exhausted.

I have no idea what point your final display of arithmetic serves.

I should have made it clear it is a discussion of what the text in question lays out in an unmistakable manner - 'Paul' does not link visions of Jesus to any 'previous association' with Jesus, and why it is very reasonable to differ with a reading that appears to assert otherwise as the words on the page seem to run strongly in the direction I have indicated.

The list includes Paul, and nobody here proposes that Paul had an earlier relationship with Jesus, although you have disputed my interpretation of some of his verses by which I reach that conclusion. That one kind of person appears on a list doesn't refute that another kind of person also appears on the same list. For most of the people on the list, Paul doesn't comment on their earlier situation, neither there nor elsewhere in his letters.

Yes, indeed. As far as the actual text goes, which we can objectively share as a source of information about what 'Paul' wrote, there is no connection between experiencing visions of Jesus and 'recent' events of 'past association' with a pre-death Jesus on the part of visionaries.

 

[IanS]

Ian


Actually Paul does tells us that a dead man was buried and rose from the dead. "that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures." That, and the rest, has already been discussed.


You read the letters differently? That's great. Is it ridiculous for another person to disagree with your reading? No discussable issue arises. The topic is not what provokes you to giggles.

You are not merely reading it differently. You are just inventing a real human corpse and grieving survivors where the words of the letter say no such thing.

 

[proudfootz]

Fair enough, dejudge.

Off to read more about our earliest manuscripts of the Pauline corpus as well as our earliest references to those epistles.

Here is a link which shows why I think there is good reason to suppose the 'blaming of the Jews' attributed to Paul to be spurious:

***

But in the case of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, attempts to defend its authenticity simply make no sense. They require us to believe too many improbable things. Which is exactly what a delusional person finds convincing, but not an objective critical mind. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is very unusual in several ways. Not in any of Paul's 20,000 words, and dozens of discussions of the Jews, is anything like it. That immediately casts it into doubt. Paul blaming the Jews for the death of Jesus is simply unprecedented. Paul also never talks about the Jews as if he wasn't one of them (see: Galatians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 9:20; Romans 9:1-5, 11:1; Philippians 3:4-5). And Paul acknowledged Jews as members of his own church, so he wouldn't damn them as a group like this, and never does (see: 1 Corinthians 1:24, 12:13; 2 Corinthians 11:12; Romans 9:24, 10:12; on how this interpolation is undeniably--and uncharacteristically for Paul--Antisemitic, see the analysis again at Vridar).

Instead, Paul says things like... "Did God cast off his people? God forbid! For I also am a Jew, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin" (Romans 11:1). "Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? So am I" (2 Corinthians 11:22). That Paul actually taught the Jews would be saved, not damned, is clear throughout his letters, for instance in Romans 11:25-28:

For I would not have you ignorant of this mystery, lest you be wise in your own conceits, that a hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written...and as touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sake.

That Paul believed God's wrath would come only at the future judgment is likewise a constant drumbeat for him (see: Romans 2:5, 3:5-6, 4:15; even 1 Thessalonians 1:10).

...

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html

***

 

[proudfootz]

You are not merely reading it differently. You are just inventing a real human corpse and grieving survivors where the words of the letter say no such thing.

But then Paul supposedly met Jesus's own blood brothers and hobnobbed with the Disciples.

 

[IanS]

But then Paul supposedly met Jesus's own blood brothers and hobnobbed with the Disciples.

Well if it comes to that, Paul himself actually met Christ! He saw him! Paul could not have seen an imaginary vision of a non-living dead and buried Christ, could he? Because real dead human’s don’t rise up from under the ground and appear to people, do they?

Why Paul should have been experiencing clinically shocked grief for a person he never knew and who he was certain was not a messiah, is apparently just one of life’s mysteries.

 

[proudfootz]

Well if it comes to that, Paul himself actually met Christ! He saw him! Paul could not have seen an imaginary vision of a non-living dead and buried Christ, could he? Because real dead human’s don’t rise up from under the ground and appear to people, do they?

Why Paul should have been experiencing clinically shocked grief for a person he never knew and who he was certain was not a messiah, is apparently just one of life’s mysteries.

I think we can infer that Paul thought Jesus's mother's home cooking was the best he'd ever had.

 

[dejudge]

Here is a link which shows why I think there is good reason to suppose the 'blaming of the Jews' attributed to Paul to be spurious..

The argument is completely flawed. Every Epistle must have claims that are not found in any other Epistle [Pauline and Non-Pauline] unless you are suggesting that all the Epistles must have the very same details.

Apologetic writers admitted the Pauline writers knew of gLuke and Revelation by John.

Plus, it cannot be assumed that the Pauline Corpus was written before Acts of the Apostles or before the stories of Jesus were already composed.

1. In Acts of the Apostles it is claimed that the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God .

2. Aristides claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God .

3. Justin Martyr did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus but mentioned stories of Jesus in the Memoirs and Revelation of John and claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God.

4. Irenaeus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

5. Tertullian claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

6. Hippolytus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

7. Origen claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God .

8. Lactantius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

9. Eusebius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

10. In the very Gospels, the Son of God, claimed he would be KILLED by MEN.


Mark 9:31 KJV

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them , The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed , he shall rise the third day

 

[proudfootz]

The argument is completely flawed. Every Epistle must have claims that are not found in any other Epistle [Pauline and Non-Pauline] unless you are suggesting that all the Epistles must have the very same details.

Apologetic writers admitted the Pauline writers knew of gLuke and Revelation by John.

Plus, it cannot be assumed that the Pauline Corpus was written before Acts of the Apostles or before the stories of Jesus were already composed.

1. In Acts of the Apostles it is claimed that the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God .

2. Aristides claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God .

3. Justin Martyr did NOT mention Paul and the Pauline Corpus but mentioned stories of Jesus in the Memoirs and Revelation of John and claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God.

4. Irenaeus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

5. Tertullian claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

6. Hippolytus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

7. Origen claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God .

8. Lactantius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

9. Eusebius claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the son of God.

10. In the very Gospels, the Son of God, claimed he would be KILLED by MEN.


Mark 9:31 KJV

Sadly, the only one missing is Paul.

We have but one reference in Paul, and it is most likely spurious.

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

If by 'natural sources' we mean interpreting scriptures and experiencing visions.

No, by "natural sources," I meant consulting, having business meetings, arguing and interacting with other living human beings, which Paul reports doing.

we have no reason to think Paul has any meaningful notion of a 'biography' of Jesus at all.

In the sentence you quoted, the noun phrase in which the word appears, information about Jesus' biography, is a unit, and does not refer to a book review, or a library shelving location. I think you knew that already, so I'll just leave it there.

it seems that not all the discussable elements have been exhausted.

On the contrary. If you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between a fact and your personal opinion, then opportunities for profitable discussion wouldn't even arise in the first place. You are sometimes visibly shaky on the distinction, and that does limit the usefulness of discussing with you matters of uncertainty, which are necessarily matters of personal opinion. Still, we have had better and worse exchanges in the past.

Thank you for your clarification of your arithmetic demonstartion. You and I seem to agree that if Paul discusses some listed people's relations with a living Jesus, then he does that elsewhere, and not there in the list itself. We disagree wbout whether Paul does that.

Ian

You are not merely reading it differently.

Quite so. It takes two to differ. We are reading it differently.

As I mentioned recently to another poster, and didn't mean at all to exclude you, to disagree with somebody else's reading of a text doesn't constitute "invention."

 

[IanS]

Ian


Quite so. It takes two to differ. We are reading it differently.

As I mentioned recently to another poster, and didn't mean at all to exclude you, to disagree with somebody else's reading of a text doesn't constitute "invention."

No. Completely untrue. I am reading the words that are in the letter. And quoting them here repeatedly.

Whilst you are claiming to read words such as corpse, grieving and survivors, which are most certainly not there.

You are inventing your own personal Jesus belief, contrary to the factually existing evidence written in P46. I am not doing any such thing.

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz

No, by "natural sources," I meant consulting, having business meetings, arguing and interacting with other living human beings, which Paul reports doing.

Yes, Paul interacts with other people. He distinguishes this from sources for any information he gets about Jesus. But you knew this already.

In the sentence you quoted, the noun phrase in which the word appears, information about Jesus' biography, is a unit, and does not refer to a book review, or a library shelving location. I think you knew that already, so I'll just leave it there.

But since Paul does not apparently have any notion of a 'Jesus biography' it's a moot point where he might have gotten information we don't know he was in possession of.

On the contrary. If you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between a fact and your personal opinion, then opportunities for profitable discussion wouldn't even arise in the first place. You are sometimes visibly shaky on the distinction...

Now that is ironic, surely?

...and that does limit the usefulness of discussing with you matters of uncertainty, which are necessarily matters of personal opinion. Still, we have had better and worse exchanges in the past.

Thank you for your clarification of your arithmetic demonstartion. You and I seem to agree that if Paul discusses some listed people's relations with a living Jesus, then he does that elsewhere, and not there in the list itself. We disagree wbout whether Paul does that.

Yes, we do seem to differ on what is in the text and what it might mean.