Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are extremely important in attempting to date the Canonised books of the NT.

Justin's First Apology

And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits...

Justin identifies the writings that were READ in the Churches in "First Apology" and "Dialogue with Trypho".

1. The Memoirs of the Apostles.

ZERO references of books by NAME.


2. The Writings of the Prophets.

About 150 references of books by NAME.


1. The book of prophet Isaiah by NAME at least 95 times.

2. The book of the prophet Jeremiah by NAME at least 10 times

3. The book of the prophet Ezekiel by NAME at least 8 times.

4. The book of the prophet Daniel by NAME at least 12 times

5. The book of the prophet Hosea by NAME at least 2 times.

6. The book of the prophet Amos by NAME 1 time.

7. The book of the prophet Jonah by NAME 7 times.

8. The book of the prophet Micah by NAME 1 time.

9. The book of the prophet Zephaniah by NAME 1 time.

10. The book of the prophet Zechariah by NAME 9 times.

11. The book of the prophet Malachi by NAME 3 times.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Justin Martyr knew NOTHING of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authors of the Memoirs of the Apostles also knew NOTHING of all the named authors of the Canonised Epistles.

Now, Celsus, a Non-Apologetic writer, appears to corroborate the writings of Justin Martyr because he too wrote NOTHING of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and all the named authors of the Canonised Epistles.

The named authors of the Gospels and Epistles were forged or Falsely attributed sometime AFTER the writings of Celsus "True Discourse" or after c 180 CE.

 

[JaysonR]

While it can be pointed out that Justin does not mention a name of a text which we today understand as one of the canonized and thereby named, "Gospel" texts, it should be noted that he clearly is aware of some form of texts which he refers to as being of the same label as gospel texts, and is found citing some content which is found in the texts.

This does not prove that the texts that became the canonical gospels were recognized, nor that they were not.

One thing that is often missed is how scattered and non-uniformed (even among the apologists cited in this thread) the early adherents were.

So it should be of no real surprise if an officially recognized, and therefore then properly named, book of any kind existed until a much later time, for any early iterations would have been scattered and of a variety of theologies and claims to their origins.

I again point out that it is generally a bad idea to treat any two texts found in the canon as if they were indeed at their onset from the same source.

We must also bear in mind that at the time of Justin, no such official outline had been agreed upon in the assessment of authenticity regarding any hagiographic texts relating to this new religious fashion.

It is not very provocative, then, nor unreasonable to agree that no such "gospel" texts were officially recognized by any given name.
Quite to the opposite; any texts that were in circulation bearing reference in citation or collection would not be referred to by a name that either was lacked, or was questionable.

However, certainly some concept of the ideas expressed in the texts which were later canonized were in some form of circulation, as the concept of such types of texts is referred to, in some cases outright judged and compared against each other, and the texts are cited intermittently (though, honestly, I think more needs to be looked into how often later "apocrypha" texts were cited by these same authors as there is probably some interesting finds to be had in that endeavor; it would be extremely remarkable, for instance, if Justin cites only content shared with texts which later became canonical).

 

[dejudge]

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are probably the most significant early Christian texts.

In my last post, it is shown that Justin Martyr knew Nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authors of Gospels and NOTHING of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude as authors of Epistles.

Justin knew of NAMES of the books of the prophets.

But, Justin knew more.

Justin KNEW the NAMES of the so-called Heretical cults since the time of Claudius like followers of Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion, the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians and others.

Justin Martyr knew and acknowledge the names of Philosophies like the Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans.

Justin admitted that he himself submitted to the teachings of a Stoic, a Pythagorean and a Platonist.

Justin acknowledge no known 2nd century teacher of the Jesus cult and relied almost entirely on the Books of the Prophets and the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin knew the history of so-called Heretical cults since the time of Claudius but knew NOTHING of the history of the Jesus cult AFTER the supposed Ascension of Jesus.

Effectively, as soon as the Jesus character ASCENDED, as soon as the Memoirs of the Apostles ended, Justin knew nothing else about the Jesus cult except that they preached the Gospel to the whole world.

Justin's "First Apology"

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours....

The writings attributed to Justin reveal that there was NO history of the supposed Jesus cult AFTER the ascension.

The conception, miracles, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are fictional.

The history of the Jesus cult after the Ascension in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus was INVENTED after the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

 

[Brainache]

The writings attributed to Justin Martyr are probably the most significant early Christian texts.

In my last post, it is shown that Justin Martyr knew Nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as authors of Gospels and NOTHING of Paul, Peter, James, John and Jude as authors of Epistles.

Justin knew of NAMES of the books of the prophets.

But, Justin knew more.

Justin KNEW the NAMES of the so-called Heretical cults since the time of Claudius like followers of Simon Magus, Menander, Marcion, the Marcians, Valentinians, Basilidians, Saturnilians and others.

Justin Martyr knew and acknowledge the names of Philosophies like the Platonists, Stoics, Peripatetics, Theoretics, and Pythagoreans.

Justin admitted that he himself submitted to the teachings of a Stoic, a Pythagorean and a Platonist.

Justin acknowledge no known 2nd century teacher of the Jesus cult and relied almost entirely on the Books of the Prophets and the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin knew the history of so-called Heretical cults since the time of Claudius but knew NOTHING of the history of the Jesus cult AFTER the supposed Ascension of Jesus.

Effectively, as soon as the Jesus character ASCENDED, as soon as the Memoirs of the Apostles ended, Justin knew nothing else about the Jesus cult except that they preached the Gospel to the whole world.

Justin's "First Apology"

The writings attributed to Justin reveal that there was NO history of the supposed Jesus cult AFTER the ascension.

The conception, miracles, resurrection and ascension of Jesus are fictional.

The history of the Jesus cult after the Ascension in Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus was INVENTED after the writings attributed to Justin Martyr.

That is what passes for "Logic" in your world is it?

How cogent of you...

 

[JaysonR]

Justin was the first Christian, obviously.
There were none before him.

 

[Brainache]

Justin was the first Christian, obviously.
There were none before him.

That appears to be the idea.

I guess Pliny, Tacitus and anyone else before Justin were just crackpot theories too...

 

[dejudge]

Justin was the first Christian, obviously.
There were none before him.

You obviously is not familiar with writings of antiquity or have a very limited memory.

 

[Belz...]

Your argument does not even make it off the ground based on your own words.

What a big lie !!!

 

[JaysonR]

You obviously is not familiar with writings of antiquity or have a very limited memory.

Yeah, it's not like I can read the Greek version or anything...wait...

 

[DougW]

That means the four gospels were most likely composed BEFORE the Entire Pauline Corpus.

As you are aware and as previously demonstrated in another forum, your conclusion is unwarranted and non sequitur, if not entirely bogus - similar applies to most of your associated claims.

 

[DougW]

While it can be pointed out that Justin does not mention a name of a text which we today understand as one of the canonized and thereby named, "Gospel" texts, it should be noted that he clearly is aware of some form of texts which he refers to as being of the same label as gospel texts, and is found citing some content which is found in the texts.

This does not prove that the texts that became the canonical gospels were recognized, nor that they were not.

One thing that is often missed is how scattered and non-uniformed (even among the apologists cited in this thread) the early adherents were.

So it should be of no real surprise if an officially recognized, and therefore then properly named, book of any kind existed until a much later time, for any early iterations would have been scattered and of a variety of theologies and claims to their origins.

I again point out that it is generally a bad idea to treat any two texts found in the canon as if they were indeed at their onset from the same source.

We must also bear in mind that at the time of Justin, no such official outline had been agreed upon in the assessment of authenticity regarding any hagiographic texts relating to this new religious fashion.

It is not very provocative, then, nor unreasonable to agree that no such "gospel" texts were officially recognized by any given name.
Quite to the opposite; any texts that were in circulation bearing reference in citation or collection would not be referred to by a name that either was lacked, or was questionable.

However, certainly some concept of the ideas expressed in the texts which were later canonized were in some form of circulation, as the concept of such types of texts is referred to, in some cases outright judged and compared against each other, and the texts are cited intermittently (though, honestly, I think more needs to be looked into how often later "apocrypha" texts were cited by these same authors as there is probably some interesting finds to be had in that endeavor; it would be extremely remarkable, for instance, if Justin cites only content shared with texts which later became canonical).

Nice post, Jayson.

Many early scholars struggled with the fact that Justin refers to Old Testament writers nearly two hundred times, yet failed to mention any of the supposed authors of the four gospels. (In reality they are not really the ‘authors’ at all, but editors, or compilers, of manuscripts already in existence – as similarly applies to Marcion’s gospel).

Justin’s quotations are in fact readily arrived at by combining passages not only from preceding gospels, but also, in many cases, by joining portions from different earlier ones.

Justin furthermore quotes a number of sayings of Christ, which do not appear in the canonical gospels at all. And his references to various incidents in the life of Jesus, such as also found in earlier writings, differ from the four gospels, not only in the way they’re stated, but also in the facts themselves.

For instance, Justin traces the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, whereas in Luke and Matthew it is traced through Joseph. (In the preceding Book of James (Protevangelion), Mary is said to be of the line of David.)

Justin makes good use of the Protevangelion, as well the Gospels of the Infancy, that of the Hebrews (also Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, and, and as many contend, most likely Justin’s Memoirs of the Apostles), the Gospel of Peter, and the Acts of Pilate (also the Gospel of Nicodemus).

All in all, it is fairly conclusive that the canonical gospels were unknown to Justin.

 

[dejudge]

The Canonical Gospels were Falsely attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John sometime after the writings of Justin.

But, it most important to note that Justin wrote NOTHING of the supposed history of the Jesus cult after Jesus ascended to heaven.

This is exactly what is expected if there was NO actual Jesus cult in the time of Pilate.

Justin wrote about Simon Magus a magician who flourished in the time of Claudius and was worshiped as a God but completely forgot to mention that he was supposedly converted to the Jesus cult.

Justin Martyr wrote NOTHING of the Day of Pentecost.

The Day of Pentecost, about 50 days AFTER the Passover, was supposed to be the most significant day for the early Jesus cult when the disciples were Filled with a Holy Ghost, began to speak in Tongues and preach the Gospel.

Without the Holy Ghost, the disciples would have NO power to preach.

A Pauline writer claimed he spoke in Tongues more that everyone.

Justin Martyr knew nothing about speaking in Tongues and being filled with a Holy Ghost.

Justin knew NOTHING of the thousands of people who were converted on the day of Pentecost. See Acts 2

Justin knew NOTHING of a Persecutor of the Jesus cult called Paul, the Hebrew of Hebrews, the Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin. See Galatians 1

Justin knew NOTHING of Paul as the founder of Churches or as an evangelist of the Jesus cult in the Roman Empire.

Justin's First Apology

For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number, and these illiterate, of no ability in speaking: but by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.

It was 12 illiterate men who proclaimed the story of Jesus to every race of men--NOT Paul.

Justin Martyr knew NOTHING of Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul, Barnabas, Silas and the Pauline Corpus.

But Justin corroborated Aristides .

c 117-138 CE, Aristides also claimed it was the 12 disciples of Jesus preached the Gospel to the world--NOT Paul.

Aristides' Apology

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

Aristides and Justin knew NOTHING of Paul and that he was committed to preach the Gospel to the Uncircumcision.

But, not only Aristides and Justin Martyr but Arnobius also did NOT know of the supposed Apostle to the Uncircumcised called Paul--it was the 12 DISCIPLES who evangelized the whole world.

Arnobius' "Against the Heathen"

.... they saw all these things to be done by Christ Himself and by His apostles, who being sent throughout the whole world carried with them the blessings of the Father, which they dispensed in benefiting as well the minds as the bodies of men.

The evidence from antiquity is overwhelming

Paul the Apostle of the uncircumcised, Acts and the Pauline Corpus were UNKNOWN by Aristides, Justin, Arnobius and Celsus.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus were very late inventions--no earlier than at least c 180 CE.

Origen's Against Celsus

And I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ.

We know why. The evidence adds up.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus was NOT yet fabricated c 180 CE or up to the time Celsus wrote his "True Discourse".

 

[JaysonR]

Why do you repeatedly return to an introductory post as if no one has read it the near one hundred iterations previously?

Also, it is far easier to show a lacking of Jesus cults at the alleged time of Jesus than you are using.

 

[DougW]

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus was NOT yet fabricated c 180 CE or up to the time Celsus wrote his "True Discourse".

As you’re perfectly well aware, neither Origin nor scholars have any firm idea as to when Celsus’ work was originally written, most scholars placing it tentatively between 150 and 180 – in fact, it may easily have been earlier.

There’s also a label for posters who antagonize others by constantly repeating assertions already disproved, merely in order to elicit some kind of response.

In the past you have also displayed some talent in pretending that the information taken from the posts of others are your own original deductions, other than constantly shifting your goal posts accordingly.

 

[DougW]

C.F. Dupuis concluded it was obsolete to think of Jesus as an historical man, with ancient testimonies but secondary hearsay, and historically useless.

David Strauss also deemed the Gospels pure fiction, poetic dressing for religious thoughts in order to underscore Jesus’ messianic qualities, as naturally emerged in early Christian communities. Abraham Loman determined much the same.

Bruno Bauer thought the synoptic gospels mere sophistry, with Christianity not originating in Palestine, but in Alexandria and Rome. And, that Seneca’s Stoic ideals influenced the Paul’s writings to such an extent that Church tradition claimed Paul to be Seneca’s teacher. He identified The Gospel of Mark as thoroughly pagan, one independent from any historical Jesus of Galilee.

For G.I.P. Bolland, Christ represents doctrine and true reason, not authored by Palestinian Jews but of Hellenistic origin, again from Alexandria and Rome.

Edwin Johnson identifies Gnosticism, a pre-Christian religious movement, as the origin of Christianity, and furthermore as a religion apart from Judaism and other forms of pagan cults, and in which doctrines about heaven, earth, and hell, are only to be understood in a spiritual sense. He thinks Simon Magus may have been its originator, under the rule of Claudius. The Redeemer but the epiphany of the good (Chrestos) God to spread the doctrine and teach the mysteries.

J.M. Robertson concluded the teachings of Jesus consisted of a mix of Jewish and Pagan doctrines, the mountain sermon but a patchwork of Jewish aphorisms stuffed into Jesus’ mouth. He also identifies the formation of Christian myths with Gnosticism, and in this sense Gnostic writings, a mixture of event and doctrine driven myths.

Arthus Drews likewise decided Christianity had sprung forth from Gnosticism, an antisocial form of Jewish mystery sectarianism.

Earl Doherty, and others, continue in this tradition, with Earl similarly holding that Jesus never existed in the first instance, for the simple reason that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory sect, not as one founded by any historical person.

The New Testament writings may also be interpreted as narrative theology, a literary form in which fictional characters interact with historical figures in order to make the theology accessible to an illiterate audience, in this case by focusing on pericopes within the Septuagint for its base text.

“Or, it is not with any flesh and blood rebel/rabbi/wonder-worker that the story begins. Rather, its genesis is in theology itself”?

 

[JaysonR]

Doug,

Quite; there are several fascinating explorations into the origins of the diverse sub-cultures that arose. That to me is the enjoyable search for what has been lost. There is a very interesting array still yet to unfold over time.

 

[DougW]

From some of your previous comments, I thought it might interest you, Jayson.

Of course there were scores of other like writers as well, but the idea that ‘Jesus’ is not based on any historical person is clearly hardly novel, with Dupuis going back to the eighteenth century.

 

[pakeha]

C.F. Dupuis concluded it was obsolete to think of Jesus as an historical man, with ancient testimonies but secondary hearsay, and historically useless.

David Strauss also deemed the Gospels pure fiction, poetic dressing for religious thoughts in order to underscore Jesus’ messianic qualities, as naturally emerged in early Christian communities. Abraham Loman determined much the same.

Bruno Bauer thought the synoptic gospels mere sophistry, with Christianity not originating in Palestine, but in Alexandria and Rome. And, that Seneca’s Stoic ideals influenced the Paul’s writings to such an extent that Church tradition claimed Paul to be Seneca’s teacher. He identified The Gospel of Mark as thoroughly pagan, one independent from any historical Jesus of Galilee.

For G.I.P. Bolland, Christ represents doctrine and true reason, not authored by Palestinian Jews but of Hellenistic origin, again from Alexandria and Rome.

Edwin Johnson identifies Gnosticism, a pre-Christian religious movement, as the origin of Christianity, and furthermore as a religion apart from Judaism and other forms of pagan cults, and in which doctrines about heaven, earth, and hell, are only to be understood in a spiritual sense. He thinks Simon Magus may have been its originator, under the rule of Claudius. The Redeemer but the epiphany of the good (Chrestos) God to spread the doctrine and teach the mysteries.

J.M. Robertson concluded the teachings of Jesus consisted of a mix of Jewish and Pagan doctrines, the mountain sermon but a patchwork of Jewish aphorisms stuffed into Jesus’ mouth. He also identifies the formation of Christian myths with Gnosticism, and in this sense Gnostic writings, a mixture of event and doctrine driven myths.

Arthus Drews likewise decided Christianity had sprung forth from Gnosticism, an antisocial form of Jewish mystery sectarianism.

Earl Doherty, and others, continue in this tradition, with Earl similarly holding that Jesus never existed in the first instance, for the simple reason that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory sect, not as one founded by any historical person.

The New Testament writings may also be interpreted as narrative theology, a literary form in which fictional characters interact with historical figures in order to make the theology accessible to an illiterate audience, in this case by focusing on pericopes within the Septuagint for its base text.

“Or, it is not with any flesh and blood rebel/rabbi/wonder-worker that the story begins. Rather, its genesis is in theology itself”?

An interesting post,DougW.
Off to investigate those authors.

ETA
I see they're all 19th century or early 20th century writers.

 

[David Mo]

Paul and Plato

Why are you still arguing about anything? Are you just here to create disputes? What is there left to argue about?

??.

You want to talk about the dates of all these documents?

You have introduced the question of dating the Pauline epistles. But once the issue is laid out, it becomes a priority point.

You don’t want to chuck out Paul as evidence?

It depends of what point we are discussing. In any case, the question of dating is priority. If we can not date some epistles at least in the middle of the First Century, any reference to Jesus, the apostles, etc. is factually irrelevant. The references to Jesus, for example, could have been written by a Gnostic of the Second Century without any real knowledge of actual Jesus.

I don’t suppose you do! Because as I said to you before, that would only leave the completely discredited miracle writing of the gospels.

You suppose badly. I think the Pauline epistles are not very reliable, but for different reasons as yours.

You want to talk about Plato? What criteria do you think have been applied to letters of Plato that are not being honourably and objectively applied in the case of Paul or any of the NT Jesus writing?

I propose Plato, especially his letters, because is a similar case. The authorship of Plato’s dialogues and letters is a greatly discussed subject among philosophers and historians. And this is a secular problem. You can not say that the methods and conclusions are biased by religious beliefs.

Then, I know of no historian that had rejected all the Plato’s letters, only on the basis that the extant manuscripts are dated at the Middle Ages and the author of those manuscripts is unknown. And the conclusion in no way will be “so we cannot know what any original authors such as Plato ever really wrote or what date that really was”.
I think the same criterion ought to be applied to Pauline epistles.

 

[IanS]

??.


You put question marks to show that you don’t know what you are arguing about??


You have introduced the question of dating the Pauline epistles. But once the issue is laid out, it becomes a priority point.

I have not introduced "the question" of dating the Pauline epistles. It's not me who has done that. Countless sceptical authors had argued about the dates when any such letters were actually written.

But the "doubt" that I raised and which you are complaining about, was not about the dates. It was about two other entirely different issues with the content of those letters. And I just spelt that out to you in the previous post.


It depends of what point we are discussing. In any case, the question of dating is priority. If we can not date some epistles at least in the middle of the First Century, any reference to Jesus, the apostles, etc. is factually irrelevant. The references to Jesus, for example, could have been written by a Gnostic of the Second Century without any real knowledge of actual Jesus.


Well who is arguing about any of that?


You suppose badly. I think the Pauline epistles are not very reliable, but for different reasons as yours.


I "suppose" badly? Well I just "supposed" that you did not want to discard Paul entirely. So, in fact you DO actually want to discard Paul then? OK, well that's fine by me - lets chuck out all of Paul.


I propose Plato, especially his letters, because is a similar case. The authorship of Plato’s dialogues and letters is a greatly discussed subject among philosophers and historians. And this is a secular problem. You can not say that the methods and conclusions are biased by religious beliefs.


Plato’s letters are similar to Paul’s? You mean to claim that Plato says he met James as the brother of Jesus? Because it's the origin of, and meaning of, that particular line that we are (yet again) arguing about.


Then, I know of no historian that had rejected all the Plato’s letters, only on the basis that the extant manuscripts are dated at the Middle Ages and the author of those manuscripts is unknown. And the conclusion in no way will be “so we cannot know what any original authors such as Plato ever really wrote or what date that really was”.
I think the same criterion ought to be applied to Pauline epistles.


Well nobody is rejecting either Plato or Paul. Where did you think I claimed we had to discard all of Paul's writing? We were talking only about those few words added in the form of an afterthought at the very end of an otherwise completed sentence which was never again repeated by Paul, where it simply says "other apostles saw I none ... save James ...the lords brother". The question is (a)whether or not we can be reasonably sure Paul actually wrote those words in any original writing, and (b) if he did originally write those words, whether by "brother" he meant only a brother in belief.