Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[DougW]

Please, I did not say that the Pauline must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

I have developed a THEORY, a THEORY, a THEORY based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.

The EXISTING evidence from antiquity supports my argument.

Why are you talking about early Pauline writings WITHOUT the supporting corroborative evidence?

This is found in Commentary of John attributed to Origen.

1. In writings attributed to Origen claimed the Pauline writer knew gLuke and was ALIVE after it was composed. [Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1]

2. In writings attributed to Eusebius the same claim is attested. [church history 6.25]

3. In writings attributed to Origen it is claimed Paul wrote no more than a FEW lines to Churches.

4. The author of the Muratorian Canon claimed the Pauline letters to the Churches were composed AFTER Revelation by John his predecessor.

5. Acts of the Apostles shows no influence by the Pauline Corpus and made zero mention of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus]

6. The earliest version of the Canonised Jesus story, the short gMark, does NOT contain post Resurrection Narratives. Such narratives are found in the LATER Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the PAULINE Corpus.

7. Multiple Apologetic writers did NOT show any influence by the Pauline Corpus and knew NOTHING of the Pauline Revealed Gospel [Salvation by the Resurrection of Jesus].

8. The Pauline writers were known as LIARS since at least by the 4th century.

9. No well known writers of antiquity mentioned Jesus and Paul.

10. ALL manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus that have been found and dated are from the mid 2nd century or later.

11. The Pauline Corpus is riddled with Forgeries or false attribution.

Please excuse my confusion, dejudge, but following up on the links to the RationalSkepticism forum provided above by pakeha, I couldn’t help but notice that a poster by the name of dejuror lately pursued a theory in that forum with citations and associated claims to all intents and purposes identical to your own, only to see them repeatedly and thoroughly discredited, and as in no way supported by the existing evidence from antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

Please excuse my confusion, dejudge, but following up on the links to the RationalSkepticism forum provided above by pakeha, I couldn’t help but notice that a poster by the name of dejuror lately pursued a theory in that forum with citations and associated claims to all intents and purposes identical to your own, only to see them repeatedly and thoroughly discredited, and as in no way supported by the existing evidence from antiquity.

Your claim is false. No such thing has happened. It is most fascinating that you would openly make false claims. Your credibility is next to zero.

 

[Brainache]

Please excuse my confusion, dejudge, but following up on the links to the RationalSkepticism forum provided above by pakeha, I couldn’t help but notice that a poster by the name of dejuror lately pursued a theory in that forum with citations and associated claims to all intents and purposes identical to your own, only to see them repeatedly and thoroughly discredited, and as in no way supported by the existing evidence from antiquity.

Welcome to the forum DougW.

Those arguments have been destroyed here too, but they keep being repeated, no matter how stupid they are.

It's hilarious.

 

[dejudge]

The theory that Jesus was a figure of mythology cannot be destroyed because the existing evidence from antiquity supports it.

There is no existing corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

The NT is a compilation of Myth fables, myth characters, forgeries, false attribution, filled with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events that could NOT have happened.

No-one [Scholar or not] can destroy my argument. There is simply no existing evidence from antiquity to do so.

Jesus of Nazareth the Rabbi is a myth.

Jesus called Rabbi was God Creator in gJohn.

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi NEVER had any real existence.

 

[Brainache]

The theory that Jesus was a figure of mythology cannot be destroyed because the existing evidence from antiquity supports it.

There is no existing corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

The NT is a compilation of Myth fables, myth characters, forgeries, false attribution, filled with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events that could NOT have happened.

No-one [Scholar or not] can destroy my argument. There is simply no existing evidence from antiquity to do so.

Jesus of Nazareth the Rabbi is a myth.

Jesus called Rabbi was God Creator in gJohn.

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi NEVER had any real existence.

Yes, we know that is your assertion. No one agrees with it, at least not anybody educated on the subject, or the study of History in general.

By all means continue to repeat it though, it just makes it more obvious that your position is ludicrous.

Keep it up.

 

[David Mo]

Why are you talking about Paul's letters being dated in the second century?

I did not say they must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century. It is dejudge who is saying that.

Perhaps you are mixing up what I posted with what dejudge says about the 2nd century date of Paul's letters.

Sure? Do you accept the dating of about 45-60?

PS: This is not yours?:

"And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that".

I beg your pardon!

 

[dejudge]

The theory that Jesus was a figure of mythology cannot be destroyed because the existing evidence from antiquity supports it.

There is no existing corroborative evidence pre 70 CE for Jesus of Nazareth and Paul the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

The NT is a compilation of Myth fables, myth characters, forgeries, false attribution, filled with discrepancies, contradictions, historical problems and events that could NOT have happened.

No-one [Scholar or not] can destroy my argument. There is simply no existing evidence from antiquity to do so.

Jesus of Nazareth the Rabbi is a myth.

Jesus called Rabbi was God Creator in gJohn.

Jesus of Nazareth called Rabbi NEVER had any real existence.

Yes, we know that is your assertion. No one agrees with it, at least not anybody educated on the subject, or the study of History in general.

By all means continue to repeat it though, it just makes it more obvious that your position is ludicrous.

Keep it up.

Your post is REPEATEDLY extremely low on logic.

A Theory is developed from EXISTING data--NOT from a show of hands.

Your argument that HJ was a Rabbi is based on a show of hands NOT on existing evidence from antiquity.

You have NO idea how the past is reconstructed.

You call Paul a Liar but still accept Galatians 1.19 at face value as an historical
account when the same Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God Creator, the Lord from heaven and God's Own Son who was Raised from the dead on the Third Day.

Your Lord Jesus in Galatians 1.19 NEVER had any real existence.

 

[Brainache]

Your post is REPEATEDLY extremely low on logic.

A Theory is developed from EXISTING data--NOT from a show of hands.

Your argument that HJ was a Rabbi is based on a show of hands NOT on existing evidence from antiquity.

You have NO idea how the past is reconstructed.

You call Paul a Liar but still accept Galatians 1.19 at face value as an historical
account when the same Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God Creator, the Lord from heaven and God's Own Son who was Raised from the dead on the Third Day.

Your Lord Jesus in Galatians 1.19 NEVER had any real existence.

Can you tell me how you reconstruct the past?

It looks to me like you just accept the words of apologists without applying any critical thought to them at all. You continually quote third and fourth century Christian Apologists as if they were first century eyewitnesses and accept their ravings as truth. Then you tell me that I don't know how History is done.

As I said before, it's hilarious.

 

[dejudge]

Your post is REPEATEDLY extremely low on logic.

A Theory is developed from EXISTING data--NOT from a show of hands.

Your argument that HJ was a Rabbi is based on a show of hands NOT on existing evidence from antiquity.

You have NO idea how the past is reconstructed.

You call Paul a Liar but still accept Galatians 1.19 at face value as an historical
account when the same Pauline writer claimed Jesus was God Creator, the Lord from heaven and God's Own Son who was Raised from the dead on the Third Day.

Your Lord Jesus in Galatians 1.19 NEVER had any real existence.

Can you tell me how you reconstruct the past?

It looks to me like you just accept the words of apologists without applying any critical thought to them at all.

Did you not accept Galatians 1.19 as an historical account while admitting Paul was a Liar? Well, you accepted the words of apologists without any corroboration.

You continually quote third and fourth century Christian Apologists as if they were first century eyewitnesses and accept their ravings as truth.

You use Galatians 1.19 as truth for your HJ when the very 1st verse introduces Jesus as a Non-historical resurrected character and it is claimed Jesus was the Son of a God.

Then you tell me that I don't know how History is done.

As I said before, it's hilarious.

You need to go to a University to find out how history is done. Some are offering courses on the ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ.

You don't even seem to know that NO HJ has ever been found after at least 250 years with Multiple Failures and Multiple irreconcilable assumed un-evidenced HJ characters.

Your Lord Jesus the Rabbi is a modern myth--a recent un-evidenced development.

 

[IanS]

Did you not post this?



I have merely shown that your statement is in error.

I never said that the Pauline writings must have been written earlier than the 2nd century.

It is extremely important that you state EXACTLY what I argue.

My THEORY can be REVIEWED if NEW evidence surfaces.

My THEORY is based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity.

Examine fragments of Celsus' "True Discourse" found in "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/celsus.html

There is NO mention of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

Celsus' True Discourse" appears to corroborate the writings attributed to Justin Martyr who also mentioned Nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.




I understand that you are arguing that the Pauline Jesus was NOT believed to have been an atual living character who Bodily Resurrected.




Again, I have shown that your statement is in error.

The Pauline writings do claim that the JEWS Killed Jesus.

The Pauline writings do claim Jesus was CRUCIFIED before the EYES of people in Galatia.

1 Thessalonians 2


Galatians 3:1 KJV

Again regardless of the time the Pauline writings were fabricated, in the letters it is claimed people SAW the crucified Jesus with their very EYES, that the Jews Killed Jesus and that people SAW the Bodily Resurrected Body Jesus on the THIRD Day..

The Pauline Corpus is compatible with the NT, Apologetics and the teachings of the Church.

Well I disagree with you.

If you are saying that you have a theory that the Pauline letters were written no earlier than 180AD, which is exactly what you have just said, then you certainly are saying that you believe them to be written no earlier than 2nd century.

Otherwise you are just arguing about what form of words of words you prefer to use. And that is a waste of our time reading and replying to semantic arguments like that.

 

[IanS]

Sure? Do you accept the dating of about 45-60?

PS: This is not yours?:

"And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that".

I beg your pardon!

Yes, precisely that. So you are pardoned (without needing to beg).

 

[Brainache]

Did you not accept Galatians 1.19 as an historical account while admitting Paul was a Liar? Well, you accepted the words of apologists without any corroboration.




You use Galatians 1.19 as truth for your HJ when the very 1st verse introduces Jesus as a Non-historical resurrected character and it is claimed Jesus was the Son of a God.




You need to go to a University to find out how history is done. Some are offering courses on the ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ.

You don't even seem to know that NO HJ has ever been found after at least 250 years with Multiple Failures and Multiple irreconcilable assumed un-evidenced HJ characters.

Your Lord Jesus the Rabbi is a modern myth--a recent un-evidenced development.

No. Unlike you, I look at as much of the ancient writings as I can, read the opinions of Professional Historians and try to piece together a coherent Historical narrative which explains the origins of Christianity.

I don't take any of those ancient writers at face value, but I think that we can get at least some idea of what was going on through understanding the Historical context of these documents and what agenda the Authors were trying to convey.

The fact that Academics disagree about the exact nature of an HJ, doesn't mean that there was no HJ. This has been explained to you many times.

 

[dejudge]

Well I disagree with you.

If you are saying that you have a theory that the Pauline letters were written no earlier than 180AD, which is exactly what you have just said, then you certainly are saying that you believe them to be written no earlier than 2nd century.

Otherwise you are just arguing about what form of words of words you prefer to use. And that is a waste of our time reading and replying to semantic arguments like that.

I now notice that you have removed the word "MUST". You appear to prefer to use words which I did not.

I did not say they must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century. It is dejudge who is saying that.

I am saying based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity that Pauline Corpus were invented no earlier than the 2nd century or later UNTIL NEW EVIDENCE is found.

In any event, your claim that the Pauline writers do not claim any person saw Jesus on earth is completely in error.

The Pauline writers claimed the Jews Killed Jesus and he was crucified before the EYES of people in Galatia.

 

[David Mo]

Sure? Do you accept the dating of about 45-60?

PS: This is not yours?:

"And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that".

I beg your pardon!

IanS:

Let us not fall in a verbal discussion, please. I don't care whether you affirm the Pauline epistles were written after 180 or you don't know when they are written (from 45 to 200).

If you maintain the peculiar doctrine that a text can only be dated by the first known manuscripts, this is a dating problem that affects the problem of reliability because if the text may be dated in the Second Century it has not any reliability.

 

[dejudge]

You need to go to a University to find out how history is done. Some are offering courses on the ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ.

You don't even seem to know that NO HJ has ever been found after at least 250 years with Multiple Failures and Multiple irreconcilable assumed un-evidenced HJ characters.

Your Lord Jesus the Rabbi is a modern myth--a recent un-evidenced development.

No. Unlike you, I look at as much of the ancient writings as I can, read the opinions of Professional Historians and try to piece together a coherent Historical narrative which explains the origins of Christianity.

What a big lie!!

I read the opinions of professional historians and Scholars.

1. Dr. Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

2. Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

3. Dr. Dale Martin, a Professor at Yale, admitted he Believes the real Jesus was 100%God and 100% man--God Incarnate. He also pray to Jesus while repeating the Nicene Creed.

4. Joseph Ratzinger, a Scholar, admits Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin and was raised from the dead.

I don't take any of those ancient writers at face value, but I think that we can get at least some idea of what was going on through understanding the Historical context of these documents and what agenda the Authors were trying to convey.

You did take Galatians 1.19 at face value because there is NO corroborative evidence for an historical apostle James and the Lord Jesus.

Chrysostom admitted James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of your Lord Jesus.

Jerome also attested that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of your Lord Jesus.

The Lord Jesus was God's Son in Galatians.

The fact that Academics disagree about the exact nature of an HJ, doesn't mean that there was no HJ. This has been explained to you many times.

How many times must you repeat the same fallacious claim? It has already been explained to you that Academics also argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

You have NO idea of the disagreements in Academia.

Please, get familiar with Academia.

It is a failure of logic to argue that there was a HJ because Academics disagree about whether or not there was an HJ and disagree about who he was.

Please, you need to get a course in basic logic.

The very fact that there is an ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ for hundreds of years with multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable assumed un-evidence HJ characters is evidence that there was never any established HJ and NO established existing EVIDENCE for an HJ from at least the 2nd century to the this present day.

So far, HJ is un-evidenced--a Myth.

 

[Brainache]

What a big lie!!

I read the opinions of professional historians and Scholars.

1. Dr. Richard Carrier, an historian, argues that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

2. Robert Eisenman, an historian, admitted that NO-ONE has EVER solved the HJ question.

3. Dr. Dale Martin, a Professor at Yale, admitted he Believes the real Jesus was 100%God and 100% man--God Incarnate. He also pray to Jesus while repeating the Nicene Creed.

4. Joseph Ratzinger, a Scholar, admits Jesus was born of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin and was raised from the dead.



You did take Galatians 1.19 at face value because there is NO corroborative evidence for an historical apostle James and the Lord Jesus.

Chrysostom admitted James the Apostle in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of your Lord Jesus.

Jerome also attested that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of your Lord Jesus.

The Lord Jesus was God's Son in Galatians.



How many times must you repeat the same fallacious claim? It has already been explained to you that Academics also argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

You have NO idea of the disagreements in Academia.

Please, get familiar with Academia.

It is a failure of logic to argue that there was a HJ because Academics disagree about whether or not there was an HJ and disagree about who he was.

Please, you need to get a course in basic logic.

The very fact that there is an ON-GOING QUEST for an HJ for hundreds of years with multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable assumed un-evidence HJ characters is evidence that there was never any established HJ and NO established existing EVIDENCE for an HJ from at least the 2nd century to the this present day.

So far, HJ is un-evidenced--a Myth.

You have apparently only read a few words from three Academics and a Pope.

Why you expect this to convince anyone is a complete mystery.

Richard Carrier is alone amongst Historians in his "Mythical Jesus" idea, which by the way is nothing like your "Mythical Jesus" idea.

You apparently think that repeating your nonsensical claims will somehow make them convincing. It isn't working for you.

These arguments of yours remain as ridiculous as they ever were.

 

[IanS]

I now notice that you have removed the word "MUST". You appear to prefer to use words which I did not.



I am saying based on the EXISTING evidence from antiquity that Pauline Corpus were invented no earlier than the 2nd century or later UNTIL NEW EVIDENCE is found.

In any event, your claim that the Pauline writers do not claim any person saw Jesus on earth is completely in error.

The Pauline writers claimed the Jews Killed Jesus and he was crucified before the EYES of people in Galatia.

I disagree with you, for the reasons I already explained in previous posts to eight bits and others.

And I am not going to waste any further time arguing with you about it.

 

[IanS]

IanS:

Let us not fall in a verbal discussion, please. I don't care whether you affirm the Pauline epistles were written after 180 or you don't know when they are written (from 45 to 200).

If you maintain the peculiar doctrine that a text can only be dated by the first known manuscripts, this is a dating problem that affects the problem of reliability because if the text may be dated in the Second Century it has not any reliability.

I have not "maintained that a text can only be dated by the first known manuscripts". Where do you think I ever said that? Can you quote me ever saying that?

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Wow, people are really getting all worked up over this subject.

Most Biblical scholars today agree on, that something like 95% of Gospels are legendary material, that is mostly borrowed from the Old Testament as a form midrash and then padded with some rewritting of Homer's legends, mostly the Odyssey, but also the Iliad.

The epistles contains large number of interpolations and some are out and out frauds, that much is agreed on by just about everyone. Those of Paul's epistles that is believed to have been written before Mark, shows little or no knowledge of the Material that went into Mark or even of a body of Jesus sayings (the fabled Q). Paul is very clear in that he never meet Jesus and that all his knowledge has come through divine revelation.

As it stands today you can have the position that Jesus of the New Testament is based on a historical cult leader that has been greatly mythologized to the point where we today don't know anything about the man behind the legend, this is my own personal view, or you can come from the other side and say that Jesus was a legendary figure from the start that slowly got written into history. It comes out to almost the same. Either we have a shadow figure that is no longer visible behind the veil of myth and legend or there is no figure behind the myth and legend. It makes no real difference.

 

[DougW]

Your claim is false. No such thing has happened. It is most fascinating that you would openly make false claims. Your credibility is next to zero.

I doubt there is much amiss with either my credibility or reading ability.

You claim that Paul’s letters were fabricated ‘no earlier than c 180 CE’.

This clearly ignores the fact that Marcion is said to have published ten of Paul’s Epistles in 144 AD, and which, before 180, were further relied upon by the Valentinians, Tatian and Apelles.

Thanks for the welcome, Brainache.