Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

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.

That might have been true before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. Also the material from Nag Hammadi has given us a much greater insight into early Christianity and second Temple Judaism.

When all of these things are viewed together along with an understanding of the Historical context provided by Josephus and others, it is difficult to imagine Christianity starting without a Historical Jesus as "patient Zero" as Eight Bits puts it.

Here is an interesting Blog that you might find informative:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/

Or you might like to read my perspective in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

 

[Belz...]

Your post is REPEATEDLY extremely low on logic.

Is that even supposed to mean anything ?

 

[Brainache]

Is that even supposed to mean anything ?

Given the source, I take it as a compliment.

 

[eight bits]

DougW

Welcome aboard.


Brainache

You apparently think that repeating your nonsensical claims will somehow make them convincing.

Ideas haven't died as long as even one voice sings them. I doubt that convincing others is a high priority.


dejudge

I was curious about the chapter and verse for this:

The Pauline writers claimed ... he (Jesus) was crucified before the EYES of people in Galatia.

Your citation of a source in the customary format will be welcome.

 

[David Mo]

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

I had written:

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

Yes at this? I don't think so.


You accept as the unique date reliable the P46 dating. Terminus ante quem, if you like. If you let open the possibility of any date between 45 (post quem) and 200 (ante quem), we don't know the aproximate date of Paul's writtings and we can not infer any substantial fact from them because we don't know if "Paul" is a contemporary of Jesus or a gnostic of the Second Century.

That is why discussing the dating of Paul's writings is prioritary before entering in their content. No more and no less.

 

[IanS]

I had written:

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

Yes at this? I don't think so.


You accept as the unique date reliable the P46 dating. Terminus ante quem, if you like. If you let open the possibility of any date between 45 (post quem) and 200 (ante quem), we don't know the aproximate date of Paul's writtings and we can not infer any substantial fact from them because we don't know if "Paul" is a contemporary of Jesus or a gnostic of the Second Century.

That is why discussing the dating of Paul's writings is prioritary before entering in their content. No more and no less.

Well again; I don't find your above writing at all clear, so I don't know what point you are trying to make there. But in your previous posts you appeared to be accusing me of saying that because P46 is usually dated around c.200AD, that meant I was therefore implying that Paul could not have written his letters earlier than c.200AD ... is that what you were saying?

Because that is certainly not what I have ever said. And as I just pointed out to you, you certainly will not be able to quote me saying any such thing at all.

And, in fact in one of your earlier posts you had already quoted correctly what I have always said about the dates of all these letters and gospels. Namely, that we cannot know what any original writing actually said, because it seems (according to all academics in this field) that we only have copies produced by unknown devotional copyist writers some centuries after the time when the original versions were thought to have been written.

So in the case of Paul’s letters for example - the earliest relatively complete and readable copy we have, is said to be P46. Which is variously said to date most probably from around 200AD. But how close that c.200AD text is to any original much earlier writing of Paul, we cannot know.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]Again: why do you continue to attempt to make this personal ? Have I done something to you in the past ? [ . . . ]

No worries, Belz...
There's nothing personal here.

 

[IanS]

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.

Yes, indeed. The above is almost exactly what I have tried to point out in all these various HJ threads (actually for some years now!). I.e. - I don’t know whether there ever was a real human 1st century preacher named Jesus or not. There might have been. But the religious writing in the gospels and Paul’s epistles is not by any means reliable as evidence showing any such person was ever known to anyone who wrote any of those gospels and letters.

Not only is all of that devotional religious writing thoroughly discredited by it’s constant claims of the supernatural, which renders those writers highly unreliable as accurate recorders of historical fact. But even worse (if that is possible), we don’t have any original writing from any of those people anyway! All we have is devotional copyist writing, which in it’s extant relatively complete and useable form (i.e. the copies which have actually been used to reconstruct the quotes everyone here is relying upon and which bible scholar like Bart Ehrman are also relying upon), apparently dates from around the 4th-6th century and later in the case of the gospels, and from around 200AD in the case of Paul’s letters.

And since Bart Ehrman and his books (one of them) is actually the title subject of this thread, it is perhaps also worth pointing out that whilst Ehrman has repeatedly stressed that it is utterly “certain” that Jesus “definitely” existed (and those quoted words are his), and also that quote “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” agrees with his views on Jesus, the evidence that Ehrman cites to support that “certainty” actually boils down yet again to nothing more than the same hopelessly unreliable late copyist writing of devotional gospels and letters in the NT (Ehrman also discusses non-biblical sources such as Tacitus and Josephus, but iirc it’s fair to say that he admits that for various reasons they are so unreliable that they are of little use as credible evidence of the existence of Jesus … e.g. because in their extant copyist forms they are only known from 1000 years or so after the events, and because most scholars agree they have been substantially altered in the copying).


So although I think this is an important subject with far reaching implications in terms of continuing Christian belief today, I do agree that people should not be getting so worked up about it. And in particular, people should not be getting so worked up about the fact that sceptics are quite correctly pointing out that whereas for most of the past 2000 years almost everyone accepted without question what the church has always insisted upon as the certainty of Jesus and his deeds, it is now very clear that the evidence for that claimed certainty of Jesus is very shaky indeed, to put it mildly.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha

I can see that I liked Belz...'s example better than you did. I am +/- OK with your characterization of gospels as hagiography, but I also think that one propagandist is much like another, and that what hagiographers do is much like what other propagandists do. If so, then the proposed analogy(-ies) would go through profitably.

Of course I see your point about hagiography and propaganda. Isn't this why we look to other sources to confirm h & p? And when there are no sources which confirm the h & p, but rather contradict it, don't we just bin the h & p? Unless we find a juicy subject for a doctoral thesis just begging to be written, of course.

She really is someone like Robin Hood. Nothing in the observable world is known to have been affected by whether either one of them was real. People made up stories in which each one influences history, but we can't find any actual trace of their influence being effective. It was a secret marriage, or a secret teaching, or an irregular guerilla force, don't you know. Like the Mossad agent visiting the WTC with a backpack full of thermite, their activity wasn't supposed to leave traces of their personal involvement, and didn't.

"Historical Jesus" refers to hypotheses in which Jesus not only existed, but also took active steps that turned out to help spread what has become a pandemic. "Historical Magadlene," like "Historical Robin," never leaves the skull of some storyteller, so far as we can tell, and so far as we imagine we ever could tell. So, different problems, IMO.

We could call Mary Magdalene the thermite, then?
On a slightly more serious note, which characters in the Jesus story do HJ proponents take on as historical?

If people want to write their own pseudographs of Paul, why not just start fresh with a clean page?

1 Greetings to you in Christ Lord Jesus who reside now in Pergia! 2 I am now returned from a business meeting with my friends in Jerusalem. Really - no lie! 3 Cephas (known among some of your as Simon Peter) tells me that James, the brother of Jesus, strongly resembles the Lord in face and manner, doubtless because they both take after their Mother. 4 I cannot help but reflect that hearing James and Cephas reminisce about Jesus and the times they had make me jealous sometimes, 5 But I remember the words handed down to us from His Twelve Disciples that Jesus spoke in one of the Parables He is so famous for: "The last shall be first, and the first shall be last." 6 This can also be found in the many oral traditions preserved among us, which will one day be recorded Lord willing.

Nice one.

In Koine Greek the term usually applied to Mary was μιλφ .

TMI, proudfootz.
Though as I think it over, it DOES explain a great deal about religious artwork of the last 1,500 years.

[ . . . ]
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.

I was reading about Cerenthus this morning and can't help wondering if Cerenthus' heresy wouldn't count as notice of an early HJ of sorts. His idea that Jesus was simply the son of Joseph and Mary did seem to upset the author of the Book of Revelation considerably.

[ . . . ] 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.

Thanks for the reminder, tkmikkelsen!

 

[dejudge]

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.

Well, I disagree with you for the reasons I already explained earlier and will continue to expose your error.

Virtually all Apologetics of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God.

1. In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus it is argued that the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus and the author made references to Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

2. In "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian who made references to the Pauline Corpus multiple times it is argued that Jesus was God with the Flesh of Man.

3. In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian the Pauline Corpus is used over a hundred times to argue against Marcion who claimed the Son of God had NO Flesh and NO birth.

4. In "Answer to the Jews" attributed to Tertullian it is claimed the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus.

5. In "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it is claimed the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus and the author made multiple references to the Pauline Corpus.

6. Lactantius in "How the Persecutors Died" mentioned Paul and Pauline writings yet argued that the Jews killed God's Son Jesus.

7. Optatus in "Against the Donatists" used the Pauline Corpus and argued that the Jews Crucified Jesus God's Son.

8. The author of Acts mentioned Paul and still claimed the Jews killed God's Son Jesus.

9. Chrysostom in "Against the Jews 1" argued that the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus and made hundreds of references to the Pauline Corpus.

10. Augustine of Hippo who used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Jews Crucified Jesus God's Son in the "Catechising of the Uninstructed".

 

[IanS]

Well, I disagree with you for the reasons I already explained earlier and will continue to expose your error.
Virtually all Apologetics of antiquity who used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God.

1. In "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus it is argued that the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus and the author made references to Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

2. In "On the Flesh of Christ" attributed to Tertullian who made references to the Pauline Corpus multiple times it is argued that Jesus was God with the Flesh of Man.

3. In "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian the Pauline Corpus is used over a hundred times to argue against Marcion who claimed the Son of God had NO Flesh and NO birth.

4. In "Answer to the Jews" attributed to Tertullian it is claimed the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus.

5. In "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen it is claimed the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus and the author made multiple references to the Pauline Corpus.

6. Lactantius in "How the Persecutors Died" mentioned Paul and Pauline writings yet argued that the Jews killed God's Son Jesus.

7. Optatus in "Against the Donatists" used the Pauline Corpus and argued that the Jews Crucified Jesus God's Son.

8. The author of Acts mentioned Paul and still claimed the Jews killed God's Son Jesus.

9. Chrysostom in "Against the Jews 1" argued that the Jews Killed God's Son Jesus and made hundreds of references to the Pauline Corpus.

10. Augustine of Hippo who used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Jews Crucified Jesus God's Son in the "Catechising of the Uninstructed".

Well now you are now talking about something else!

You started off by complaining that I had used the word "Must" in a reply to David Mo. And you said that it was your "THEORY THEORY THEORY!", and then you cited various named sources saying they were evidence showing that Paul’s letters were "written no earlier than 180CE" . Did you claim that or not? Yes or No?

Right, ...well if you claim, as you most certainly did, that your evidence shows that Paul’s letters could have been ” written no earlier than 180CE", then that certainly does mean you are claiming that that they "Must" have been written after the 1st century.

... so I will "continue to expose your error" in that!

Lets get that error from YOU, cleared up before you start talking about any other references to people who you think quote "used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God." .

 

[Belz...]

No worries, Belz...
There's nothing personal here.

In that case I don't see why you put words in my mouth that are the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

My point was simply that it's been said before, many times, and that I don't feel like repeating myself at this time. I've changed my mind on this issue over the course of this thread, and in recent years. In fact I explained that a couple of months ago, in this thread or the other. I therefore take issue with your accusation that I have not done so.

 

[dejudge]

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.

It is NOT a fact that Marcion published ten of Paul's Epistles in 144 AD.

Even Scholars argue that there were MULTIPLE authors of letters under the name of Paul.

Scholars argue that at least the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians were not written by the same authors who composed the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians and Galatians.

Essentially, it is virtually impossible that Marcion wrote 10 Epistles if the 10 Epistles had MULTIPLE authors.

Plus, it is not logical at all that Marcion would have written 10 Epistles which completely contradicts his own doctrine of Dualism.

You also ignore writings attributed to Aristides, Justin Martyr, Minucius Felix, Hippolytus, Arnobius and Ephraem the Syrian which show NO mention of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

You forget that Hippolytus specifically claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings but those of Empedocles. See Refutation of All Heresies.

Your speculation has been UTTERLY destroyed.

1. The Pauline Epistles have been deduced to have Multiple authors.

2. Marcion preached Dualism.

3. Marcion Taught people to DENY that the God of the Jews was the Creator and to DENY that Jesus was God's Son.

4. Hippolytus admitted Marcion used the writings of Empedocles.

5. Origen admitted Celsus wrote NOTHING of Paul.

6. Aristides did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

7. Justin Martyr did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

8. Minucius Felix did NOT acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

9. Celsus did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

10. Ephraem the Syrian did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus when he wrote Against Marcion and admitted Marcionites did NOT accept God as the Maker or that Jesus was God's Son.

 

[proudfootz]

Yes, indeed. The above is almost exactly what I have tried to point out in all these various HJ threads (actually for some years now!). I.e. - I don’t know whether there ever was a real human 1st century preacher named Jesus or not. There might have been. But the religious writing in the gospels and Paul’s epistles is not by any means reliable as evidence showing any such person was ever known to anyone who wrote any of those gospels and letters.

Stories about a character does not imply require that there was any such person in real life, any more than there need be an historical Moses, and historical Abraham, or and historical Noah. 'Patient zero' for these stories would be the person who wanted to tell the story.

Not only is all of that devotional religious writing thoroughly discredited by it’s constant claims of the supernatural, which renders those writers highly unreliable as accurate recorders of historical fact. But even worse (if that is possible), we don’t have any original writing from any of those people anyway! All we have is devotional copyist writing, which in it’s extant relatively complete and useable form (i.e. the copies which have actually been used to reconstruct the quotes everyone here is relying upon and which bible scholar like Bart Ehrman are also relying upon), apparently dates from around the 4th-6th century and later in the case of the gospels, and from around 200AD in the case of Paul’s letters.

It's well known that christians were addicted to tampering with the texts they received. Even the 'authentic' Paulines show evidence of redactions and interpolations.

And since Bart Ehrman and his books (one of them) is actually the title subject of this thread, it is perhaps also worth pointing out that whilst Ehrman has repeatedly stressed that it is utterly “certain” that Jesus “definitely” existed (and those quoted words are his), and also that quote “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” agrees with his views on Jesus, the evidence that Ehrman cites to support that “certainty” actually boils down yet again to nothing more than the same hopelessly unreliable late copyist writing of devotional gospels and letters in the NT (Ehrman also discusses non-biblical sources such as Tacitus and Josephus, but iirc it’s fair to say that he admits that for various reasons they are so unreliable that they are of little use as credible evidence of the existence of Jesus … e.g. because in their extant copyist forms they are only known from 1000 years or so after the events, and because most scholars agree they have been substantially altered in the copying).

It seems the reasons Ehrman gives for dismissing the non-christian 'sources' for Jesus is that even if genuine they must ultimately rely on christian sources - they are not independent.

Of course there will always be a few bitter-enders citing Josephus and whatnot even though these are thoroughly discredited.

So although I think this is an important subject with far reaching implications in terms of continuing Christian belief today, I do agree that people should not be getting so worked up about it. And in particular, people should not be getting so worked up about the fact that sceptics are quite correctly pointing out that whereas for most of the past 2000 years almost everyone accepted without question what the church has always insisted upon as the certainty of Jesus and his deeds, it is now very clear that the evidence for that claimed certainty of Jesus is very shaky indeed, to put it mildly.

I think the vehemence of bible scholars like Ehrman doesn't show him off in a very good light. If he could at least pretend in public to be a thoughtful and dispassionate scholar he could be seen as a more unbiased investigator.

 

[dejudge]

Well now you are now talking about something else!

You started off by complaining that I had used the word "Must" in a reply to David Mo. And you said that it was your "THEORY THEORY THEORY!", and then you cited various named sources saying they were evidence showing that Paul’s letters were "written no earlier than 180CE" . Did you claim that or not? Yes or No?

Right, ...well if you claim, as you most certainly did, that your evidence shows that Paul’s letters could have been ” written no earlier than 180CE", then that certainly does mean you are claiming that that they "Must" have been written after the 1st century.

... so I will "continue to expose your error" in that!

Lets get that error from YOU, cleared up before you start talking about any other references to people who you think quote "used the Pauline Corpus claimed the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God." .

Why do you continue your absurdities? Why can't you even repeat what I am saying? I have already stated my position.

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.

I am also showing that the PAULINE writers did claim that people OF Galatia SAW Jesus crucified before their EYES and that the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God made of a woman.

See 1 Thessalonians and Galatians.

Plus, I am showing that Pauline writers claimed God's Own Son Jesus BODILY resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER he Died.

See 1 Corinthians 15.

A Pauline writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee.

In Josephus, Pharisees believed ONLY the Body could die.

See Wars of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews 18.

 

[dejudge]

...It's well known that christians were addicted to tampering with the texts they received. Even the 'authentic' Paulines show evidence of redactions and interpolations.

It is virtually impossible to claim Pauline writings are authentic when Scholars themselves have deduced the Pauline Corpus is riddled with multiple authors under the name of Paul and there is NO corroboration that Paul wrote Epistles in the very NT itself.

There are two Canonised writings which mention Paul outside the Corpus.

1. The author of Acts did NOT corroborate a single Pauline letter to Churches up to c 64 CE when Festus was governor of Judea.

2. 2 Peter is regarded as a forgery but still does not corroborate a single letter to Churches.

 

[proudfootz]

Of course I see your point about hagiography and propaganda. Isn't this why we look to other sources to confirm h & p? And when there are no sources which confirm the h & p, but rather contradict it, don't we just bin the h & p? Unless we find a juicy subject for a doctoral thesis just begging to be written, of course.

Yes,we do want to do the best we can to verify the claims with outside and independent sources - especially with sources like the ones under discussion here. It's not enough to throw out the scientifically impossible (miracles) but we must also be wary the stuff that remains that sounds 'plausible'.

We could call Mary Magdalene the thermite, then?

At least thermite exists.

On a slightly more serious note, which characters in the Jesus story do HJ proponents take on as historical?

It probably varies according to who you ask. There are a ton of characters, but even a main character such as Judas can be doubted.

[Maurice] Casey laments that some scholars (he singles out Hyam Maccoby) reject the historicity of all of this betrayal story. One reason they do so is the name of Judah being, of course, related to “Jew” itself. The anti-semitism in the choice of name is scarcely subtle.

http://vridar.org/2010/11/29/historical-judas-iscariot-casey/

Originally Posted by tkmikkelsen
[ . . . ] 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.

Thanks for the reminder, tkmikkelsen!

Yes, even if a Jesus did exist he is apparently the least important influence on its development. The first thing the supposed disciples did when this fellow was dead was start lying about him (Jesus rose from the dead, etc).

Probably the most important element in the origin of christianity is the invention of the dying-and-rising god and the religious syncretism of the post-Alexandrian world. These are things that cannot be attributed to any single person - there is no 'patient zero'.

 

[David Mo]

And, in fact in one of your earlier posts you had already quoted correctly what I have always said ….

Thank you, thank you! Very kind of you!

(Sorry, but I don't go to follow you in the game of "I haven't said exactly this").

I have said:

"If you let open the possibility of any date between 45 (post quem) and 200 (ante quem), we don't know the aproximate date of Paul's writtings"

You "exactly" precise:

"That we cannot know what any original writing actually said" and "So in the case of Paul’s letters for example - the earliest relatively complete and readable copy we have, is said to be P46. Which is variously said to date most probably from around 200AD"

I precise:

We can not infer any substantial fact from the epistles because we don't know if the existent content of "Paul" epistles is written by a contemporary of Jesus or a Gnostic of the Second Century. ("We don't know what any original writing said", in your words).

Have you any problem with that conclusion? (It would be strange, because my conclusion matches exactly yours).

Therefore, if we don't know what really said an alleged "Paul" in the First Century I don't know why you have maintained an endless discussion with some people in this forum about if Paul spoke or not of "the brother" or Lord, the vision of Isaiah, and other similar subjects.

You should have said to us that you didn't know if Paul had actually said those things and the discussion had finished immediately. Why discussing about things that anyone could have wrote at any time?

 

[IanS]

Why do you continue your absurdities? Why can't you even repeat what I am saying? I have already stated my position.



I am also showing that the PAULINE writers did claim that people OF Galatia SAW Jesus crucified before their EYES and that the Jews Killed Jesus the Son of God made of a woman.

See 1 Thessalonians and Galatians.

Plus, I am showing that Pauline writers claimed God's Own Son Jesus BODILY resurrected on the THIRD day AFTER he Died.

See 1 Corinthians 15.

A Pauline writer claimed he was a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee.

In Josephus, Pharisees believed ONLY the Body could die.

See Wars of the Jews and Antiquities of the Jews 18.

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.

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.

.

The above quotes (and there are many others) prove that you have been saying that your “THEORY THEORY THEORY ” (as YOU call it), is and I quote you from the above -

“Paul and ENTIRE Pauline Corpus are ALL 2ND century or later inventions.”
“the EXISTING evidence from antiquity that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE”.

The only thing I said at all about your assertion that “the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE” and that “Paul and ENTIRE Pauline Corpus are ALL 2ND century or later inventions.”, was a reply to David Mo in which I said he seemed to be mixing me up with you if he thought it was me who had been saying that Paul's letters must have been written no earlier than the 2nd century, where the following is the actual full reply I made to him on that -

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.

So to quote you;- “I will continue to expose your error”. Thank you.

 

[IanS]

Thank you, thank you! Very kind of you!

(Sorry, but I don't go to follow you in the game of "I haven't said exactly this").

I have said:

"If you let open the possibility of any date between 45 (post quem) and 200 (ante quem), we don't know the aproximate date of Paul's writtings"

You "exactly" precise:

"That we cannot know what any original writing actually said" and "So in the case of Paul’s letters for example - the earliest relatively complete and readable copy we have, is said to be P46. Which is variously said to date most probably from around 200AD"

I precise:

We can not infer any substantial fact from the epistles because we don't know if the existent content of "Paul" epistles is written by a contemporary of Jesus or a Gnostic of the Second Century. ("We don't know what any original writing said", in your words).

Have you any problem with that conclusion? (It would be strange, because my conclusion matches exactly yours).

Therefore, if we don't know what really said an alleged "Paul" in the First Century I don't know why you have maintained an endless discussion with some people in this forum about if Paul spoke or not of "the brother" or Lord, the vision of Isaiah, and other similar subjects.
You should have said to us that you didn't know if Paul had actually said those things and the discussion had finished immediately. Why discussing about things that anyone could have wrote at any time?

Why the puzzlement?

The answer to your highlighted question has always been obvious, and nobody here has ever suggested otherwise! The answer is -

- we (e.g. eight bits and I) were discussing only that which is apparently written in the extant translated copies, such as P46.

That's all anyone can do - to discuss what has been discovered as the earliest writing said to be copies of Paul's letters.

What eight bits was saying (he can correct me if he does not like this summary) was that those copies do say that Paul spoke about a "corpse" and about "survivors", who he said were exhibiting some form of personal shocked grief in their visions of Jesus. He says that is his "reading of it".

All that I said in reply to eight bits was to point out that words like that, and therefore also the sentiments implied by such words, are not actually to be found anywhere in any of those copies of Paul’s letters.

The letters do not describe any of those people as survivors of ever knowing Jesus, and they do not make any mention of any visions being the result of a medically identifiable example of grief resulting from the shock of seeing or knowing the crucified death of a personally known leader.

As far as I know from what has been presented as the translations of what are said to be Paul’s letters in mss such as P46:- all that the writer says about those "visions" is that the "Christ" (i.e. the “Messiah”) appeared to him after his supposed death as "to one abnormally born" (but see footnote), and that this was an experience granted to Paul by God who “was pleased to reveal his Son in me“, according to which experience Paul then understood that the scriptures had foretold that this Christ had died but risen again on the third day … and that before his own experience of this apparition (“appearance”), Paul said that many other people had also experienced a similar religious apparition which Paul then declared to be an apparition of the same “Christ”, i.e. the same Messiah”, that he himself had experienced … though iirc, in that particular passage which is 1-Corinthinas 15:3-8, Paul does not actually say this “Christ“ was anyone called “Jesus“, he just says it was the “Christ“ who appeared to them all, i.e. the long awaited “messiah” = “Christ“ foretold in ancient OT scripture …

… it is only in the supposedly slightly later written Galatians 1:11-16 that the author “Paul” says that his believed “Christ=Messiah” was a figure named “Jesus=Yehoshua”, where he says -

“I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” Galatians 1:11-16 .




Footnote - afaik there may be some variation in how people have translated those words about “one abnormally born”. E.g., iirc, Ellegard gives that quote as “one born out of time”.