Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[David Mo]

Just on the highlight, because all the rest you have written is complete garbage (Plato has nothing to do with either Paul or Jesus)-

The case of Plato's letters is similar to Paul's epistles in some relevant features:
1. Both are private or semi private writings. There are some exceptions.
2. They are attributed to two important characters in History.
3. Some letters are considered authentic and others apocryphal.
4. We have no contemporary manuscripts to decide it. Therefore, we cannot appeal to Archaeometry, graphology or similar disciplines and we have to use some alternative methods to determine the authorship and the dates.

I'm surprised that you cannot be able to understand that a comparative study of both series of letters can illuminate us about the methods of dating and decide the authorship.
This kind of comparison is usual in Ancient History and I don’t understand that you consider it “garbage”.

- it's absolutely not a negligible difference. In fact its' completely crucial!

I've explained this to you at least a dozen times before, so this is the last time -

- the gospels would not be admissible as even fit to be considered as evidence in a jury trial, because of their anonymous hearsay nature. But, that does not apply to Paul's letters, because they are claimed not to be either anonymous or hearsay. That is a 100% crucial difference.

I don’t understand this “crucial difference” and I think you have never explained it, but only proclaim it (they are very different things!).
You like the model of justice courts, so I will use it to refute this alleged “crucial difference”. In a court it would be absolutely irrelevant that you present an anonymous document or a document signed “Paul”, if you cannot present any evidence of who is really “Paul”. It will be equally irrelevant if you cannot present some evidence that the alleged “Paul” has actually written this document. It would be equally irrelevant if you aren’t able to present some evidence of the date of this document.

Can you present some evidence on those points? Then, where is this “crucial difference”? Please, stop repeating that there is a “crucial difference” and explain us why this difference is so “crucial”! Because signed or not signed doesn’t make any difference in this case. And both, the Gospels and “Paul” are similar “hearsay” stories, if I understand what you are meaning with “hearsay”.

 

[IanS]

The case of Plato's letters is similar to Paul's epistles in some relevant features:
1. Both are private or semi private writings. There are some exceptions.
2. They are attributed to two important characters in History.
3. Some letters are considered authentic and others apocryphal.
4. We have no contemporary manuscripts to decide it. Therefore, we cannot appeal to Archaeometry, graphology or similar disciplines and we have to use some alternative methods to determine the authorship and the dates.

I'm surprised that you cannot be able to understand that a comparative study of both series of letters can illuminate us about the methods of dating and decide the authorship.
This kind of comparison is usual in Ancient History and I don’t understand that you consider it “garbage”.

We are not going to be drawn into a discussion here about Plato. You tried that before by making analogies to the battle of Thermoplyae. Others here had already tried to make analogies to Socrates and Pythagoras. In other threads the same thing was tried with analogy to Caesar, Alexander, and Crossing the Rubicon, etc.

All those analogies are bogus. They are not analogous to the case of Jesus, where the entire object of the discussion is whether the figure himself existed (Jesus) and whether the NT writing contained actual evidence of any of it's writers knowing Jesus.

None of the other analogies are actually comparable. And it's a blatant abuse of everyone’s time and goodwill to insist that people here must be drawn into endless discussions investigating the history & life’s works of Plato, Thermopylae, Socrates, Pythagoras, Caesar, Alexander etc.

I don’t understand this “crucial difference” and I think you have never explained it, but only proclaim it (they are very different things!).
You like the model of justice courts, so I will use it to refute this alleged “crucial difference”. In a court it would be absolutely irrelevant that you present an anonymous document or a document signed “Paul”, if you cannot present any evidence of who is really “Paul”. It will be equally irrelevant if you cannot present some evidence that the alleged “Paul” has actually written this document. It would be equally irrelevant if you aren’t able to present some evidence of the date of this document.

Can you present some evidence on those points? Then, where is this “crucial difference”? Please, stop repeating that there is a “crucial difference” and explain us why this difference is so “crucial”! Because signed or not signed doesn’t make any difference in this case. And both, the Gospels and “Paul” are similar “hearsay” stories, if I understand what you are meaning with “hearsay”.

Well I have explained the difference to you many times before. So you jolly well should understand it by now!

You were complaining about the legal precedent that I pointed out about a year or more ago, where democratic legal systems have long since determined in law what is credible to put before a jury as reliable evidence. And certain types of testimony have been legally found to be so unreliable that they are not even fit for any jury to consider at all. And that certainly includes anonymous hearsay.

The gospels are anonymous hearsay. They would be ruled unfit even to be considered as credible witness evidence by any jury.

The difference with Paul's letters is that they are claimed not to be either anonymous or hearsay. So, unlike the gospels, they would at least NOT be immediately disqualified on that basis.

Though as I explained before - there are, however, other problems with the extant copies of Paul’s letters, which may mean they too would be legally ruled so completely unreliable as to be unfit even to be considered as evidence before a jury.

 

[DougW]

Justin did not attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John

Justin Martyr does not mention a Gospel of Peter.

Justin Martyr mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles.

The stories of Jesus in writings attributed to Justin are found in the Memoirs of the Apostle.

No manuscript of the Gospel of Peter has ever been found and dated to the time of or before Justin or Marcion.

The earliest manuscript of the Gospel of Peter is from the 8-9th century.

The Memoirs of the Apostles appear to be contain stories of Jesus similar to the Diatessaron which is claimed to have been written by Tatian a supposed disciple of Justin.

Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs of Peter, whereas the Gospel of Peter is also known as the Recollections of Peter, and Justin often uses the word ‘memoir’ instead of ‘gospel’. In fact, the word ‘gospels’ occurs only once in Justin’s entire First Apology and even this looks very much to have been an interpolation.

Neither do have the slightest interest in endless quibbling, as you no know doubt have in mind, over whether Justin’s use of ‘Memoirs of Peter’ is a mistranslation or not, or what have you. Justin in fact makes use of the Gospel of Peter at various times - even his assertion that it was Herod, not Pilate, who crucified Jesus, hails from this gospel.

Besides, my point was simply that Justin relied on many manuscripts that were subsequently discredited and declared apocryphal. I could just as well have cited the Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of the Infancy. Memoirs of the Apostles almost certainly refers to the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (Hebrews). And I have no interest whatsoever in discussing this with you either.

The Gospel of Peter is also mentioned by a number of others, and it’s completely irrelevant whether any manuscript or copy is dated to Justin’s time or not. Tatian’s work post-dates Justin Martyr’s death by at least a decade, his writings probably by two.

I’m disgusted with myself for wasting what little spare time I do have available on defending myself against your never-ending, hogwash assertions, dejudge, time I could and should be spending on far more constructive contributions of my own, or even on commenting on other posters’ entries. As you clearly have no intention of changing tack, this will be my last post in this particular forum.

 

[proudfootz]

Proudfootz states: -

“Yes, gLuke does seem to say there were other stories before his own. He does not name them either good or bad.

It is Jerome who names several heretical works. Perhaps he doesn't mention gMark, gMatthew, or gJohn in this list of heretical works because he didn't consider them heretical?

So, if Marcion followed Paul , that would seem to indicate Pauline materials predate these known 'gospel narrative' forms ("Marcion published his work a few years after arriving in Rome, or around 145")?”


Luke specifically names a number of gospels before his own, Proudfootz – others like Origen, Eusebius, as well as Jerome (including a far more recent Erasmus!), add others to that list.

Do you recall the chapter and verse where gLuke 'specifically names' the gospels that have gone before?

My bible only shows the authors vaguely mentioning the existence of some un-named works.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]There of course also exist numerous other manuscript citations by the early writers, independently of Luke, that is - Justin Martyr but one. Here we strike the bizarre situation of Justin citing particular earlier writings as proper, authentic authorities, only to see these subsequently declared heretical – including the Gospel of Peter.

As I said, by combining all such mentions with the exhaustively detailed manuscript work by early scholars like Schleiermacher, it’s possible to not only trace the Gospels’ prior evolution, but also establish some sort of second-century chronology.

Many of the these earlier gospels were also only declared apocryphal much later (with some of those who previously espoused them subsequently deemed heretical). Clement of Alexandria, for instance, thought highly of the Gospel of the Egyptians (and although one of the fathers engaged in introducing the Gospels, nonetheless subscribed to spiritual resurrection only, as did Origen)

The Gospel of the Hebrews was used by the fathers and others as a ‘prooftext’ or as corroboration of their own writings on the Gospels, even though declared heretical at the end of the fourth century. Venerable Bede still refers to it as one of the “ecclesiastical histories’ as late as the seventh century, whereas the first church Hegesippus considered it unreservedly authentic (and although writing only a few years after 180 AD, he remained unaware of the canonical gospels’ existence).

Paul’s writings don’t seem to have played any part in the formulation of the canonical gospels, none that’s discernable anyway. Prior to Marcion, versions thereof may only have enjoyed limited circulation among groups in Asia Minor/ northern Syria, but that’s the same sort of evidence-less speculation indulged by our vaunted modern scholars. [ . . . ]

Thanks for such a clear summary of the role those Gospels in the second century.
Off to read more.

[ . . . ] The Memoirs of the Apostles appear to be contain stories of Jesus similar to the Diatessaron which is claimed to have been written by Tatian a supposed disciple of Justin.

Thanks for making my reading list just a bit longer.

The case of Plato's letters is similar to Paul's epistles in some relevant features:
1. Both are private or semi private writings. There are some exceptions.
2. They are attributed to two important characters in History.
3. Some letters are considered authentic and others apocryphal.
4. We have no contemporary manuscripts to decide it. Therefore, we cannot appeal to Archaeometry, graphology or similar disciplines and we have to use some alternative methods to determine the authorship and the dates. [ . . . ]

Please forgive my incision on your on-going discussion.
I only wanted to mention that apparently only one of Plato's letters is now generally considered authentic, the seventh. Even this one, according to Wiki, is now considered spurious by recent scholarship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Letter_(Plato)#Authenticity

Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs of Peter, whereas the Gospel of Peter is also known as the Recollections of Peter, and Justin often uses the word ‘memoir’ instead of ‘gospel’. In fact, the word ‘gospels’ occurs only once in Justin’s entire First Apology and even this looks very much to have been an interpolation. [ . . . ] Justin in fact makes use of the Gospel of Peter at various times - even his assertion that it was Herod, not Pilate, who crucified Jesus, hails from this gospel.

Besides, my point was simply that Justin relied on many manuscripts that were subsequently discredited and declared apocryphal. I could just as well have cited the Acts of Pilate or the Gospel of the Infancy. Memoirs of the Apostles almost certainly refers to the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles (Hebrews). [ . . . ]

The Gospel of Peter is also mentioned by a number of others, and it’s completely irrelevant whether any manuscript or copy is dated to Justin’s time or not. Tatian’s work post-dates Justin Martyr’s death by at least a decade, his writings probably by two. [ . . . ]

What I come away with from reading this post and others of yours, plus outside reading, is the impression the canonical gospels represent a refinement or toning down of an entire gnostic literature. I'd previously thought the chronological order was quite the opposite, with the gnostic literature being later variants on the earlier canonical gospels.

That would fit in with Carrier's (pace, DougW) old article about 1st century beliefs and superstitions in the 1st century.
Off to read more.

 

[dejudge]

Justin Martyr refers to the Memoirs of Peter, whereas the Gospel of Peter is also known as the Recollections of Peter, and Justin often uses the word ‘memoir’ instead of ‘gospel’. In fact, the word ‘gospels’ occurs only once in Justin’s entire First Apology and even this looks very much to have been an interpolation.

No, No, No!!! Justin Martyr did not mention the Memoirs of Peter or a Gospel of Peter. Your claim is an established fallacy.

The phrase "Memoirs of Peter" is NOWHERE in the writings attributed to Justin.

Justin claimed that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter and that it was recorded in the MEMOIRS of His Apostles or the Memoirs of Him.


Justin's Dialogue with Trypho C

For [Christ] called one of His disciples--previously known by the name of Simon--Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power...

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho CVI

And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder...

 

[proudfootz]

Do you recall the chapter and verse where gLuke 'specifically names' the gospels that have gone before?

My bible only shows the authors vaguely mentioning the existence of some un-named works.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1

Just to explicate further, it would appear the authors of gLuke are perfectly happy with the other accounts - he is joining them not criticizing them.

 

[JaysonR]

What I come away with from reading this post and others of yours, plus outside reading, is the impression the canonical gospels represent a refinement or toning down of an entire gnostic literature. I'd previously thought the chronological order was quite the opposite, with the gnostic literature being later variants on the earlier canonical gospels.

That would fit in with Carrier's (pace, DougW) old article about 1st century beliefs and superstitions in the 1st century.
Off to read more.

I suspect that in the future, we will find that the category of "Gnostic" is entirely inept and in need of replacement by several sectarian labels.
The term applies only loosely even today, and today we know far less than we will in a few decades regarding the early formations of groups and their various theological and philosophical views.

It is more appropriate to see a diversity without any set council, and strong regional differences combined with the lack of a general printing press and textual distribution contributing to a diversity of textual output and regional traditions.

Indeed, the early orthodoxies all faced considerable vexation over the matter of unification and synthesis; clearly, there are scores of divergent holdings.
I doubt it is actually applicable to hold a near dichotomic view of Gnostic and Orthodox.
Even the texts we have today which are currently labeled, all, as Gnostic have considerable divergences theologically within them.

 

[DougW]

Do you recall the chapter and verse where gLuke 'specifically names' the gospels that have gone before?

My bible only shows the authors vaguely mentioning the existence of some un-named works.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1

I doubt you’ll find any mention thereof in the bible, proudfootz! The passage is by Jerome in his Matthew Commentary. Jerome seems to have gotten his information from Origen (Homily on Luke).

Luke declares: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order, a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among, even as they who from the beginning, were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, delivered unto us; it seemed good to me also.”

As far as I know, no scholars claim that Luke refers to any of the canonical gospels. Why would Luke refer to many unauthorized gospels and not mention those other three accepted as the final inspired word? Answer, they simply hadn’t been written yet. And as you say, Luke’s author(s) readily accept those preceding his as being authentic accounts.

In addition to those earlier Gospels - Egyptians, Thomas, Matthias, Bartholomew, Hebrews (Twelve Apostles), Basilides, and Apelles – Erasmus adds the Acts of Pilate. The Venerable Bede agrees with Jerome’s list.

Anyway, it’s safe to assume that three prominent fathers agree between them that the Gospel of Luke was based on the writings of second-century texts subsequently declared heretical. As for some scholars, I’d include the Gospel of Marcion to the extent of such minor information not common to Luke. What’s more, these writings, more or less, embrace pretty well all of the material relied upon in the composition of the canonical gospels.

As said before, it’s only in the late second century that the Gospels first appear in the historical record. Only then were they compiled: assertions to the contrary by scholars like Erhman, Doherty, Carrier (as equally applies to his forthcoming book), as for many others and also claimed in a multitude of Internet articles, are plain false, without a shred of supporting evidence. The same applied to the numerous conclusions, interpretations, and related scenarios etc, drawn from, or based on a first-century or early second origin.


Not interested, dejudge.

 

[dejudge]

...As far as I know, no scholars claim that Luke refers to any of the canonical gospels. Why would Luke refer to many unauthorized gospels and not mention those other three accepted as the final inspired word? Answer, they simply hadn’t been written yet. And as you say, Luke’s author(s) readily accept those preceding his as being authentic accounts.

Scholars argue that the author of gLuke used gMark and gMatthew or similar sources

There are similar passages in gLuke, gMatthew and gMark.

Plus, the claim that the other gospels were not written before gLuke merely because they were not mentioned is completely flawed.

Using your flawed methodology it can then be argued that gMark, gMatthew and all Epistles were written before gLuke just because they do not mention the gospel according to Luke.

It would be absurd to argue that gLuke was composed before the book of Genesis merely because it does not mention the Creation story or the Tower of Babel.

In order to determine chronology of the Gospels one must EXAMINE what is written--Not what is not mentioned.

We can compare the similar events or stories in gMatthew, gMark, the Epistles and gLuke and logically deduce which is most likely to be earlier or later.

For example, it can be clearly seen that the version of the Last Supper in the Short gMark is an earlier story than those in gMatthew and gLuke.

 

[David Mo]

We are not going to be drawn into a discussion here about Plato. You tried that before by making analogies to the battle of Thermoplyae. Others here had already tried to make analogies to Socrates and Pythagoras. In other threads the same thing was tried with analogy to Caesar, Alexander, and Crossing the Rubicon, etc.
All those analogies are bogus. They are not analogous to the case of Jesus, where the entire object of the discussion is whether the figure himself existed (Jesus) and whether the NT writing contained actual evidence of any of it's writers knowing Jesus.

None of the other analogies are actually comparable. And it's a blatant abuse of everyone’s time and goodwill to insist that people here must be drawn into endless discussions investigating the history & life’s works of Plato, Thermopylae, Socrates, Pythagoras, Caesar, Alexander etc.

Well I have explained the difference to you many times before. So you jolly well should understand it by now!

You were complaining about the legal precedent that I pointed out about a year or more ago, where democratic legal systems have long since determined in law what is credible to put before a jury as reliable evidence. And certain types of testimony have been legally found to be so unreliable that they are not even fit for any jury to consider at all. And that certainly includes anonymous hearsay.

The gospels are anonymous hearsay. They would be ruled unfit even to be considered as credible witness evidence by any jury.

The difference with Paul's letters is that they are claimed not to be either anonymous or hearsay. So, unlike the gospels, they would at least NOT be immediately disqualified on that basis.

Though as I explained before - there are, however, other problems with the extant copies of Paul’s letters, which may mean they too would be legally ruled so completely unreliable as to be unfit even to be considered as evidence before a jury.

You have a mental block that prevents you to face the problem in specific terms.. You restrict yourself to repeat again and again the same broken record.

I have set out several relevant similarities between Paul's and Plato's letters and you refuse to consider them without any reason. They are relevant to debate about the authorship problem that is relevant to the debate about Pauline letters that is a relevant debate to the problem of Jesus’ existence. But you don't like to discuss this. God only knows why.

There is not any difference between anonymous and apocryphal writings in order to establish their authenticity. A name on a text is not guarantee of authenticity in a Court. If you recognize that neither the Gospel nor the Pauline testimonies would be accepted in a court, where is the “crucial” difference??!! It is an irrelevant difference at best.

Yes. If you are unable to reply to my questions better let us leave it. No need to repeat your record. You are tired of saying it and I'm tired of hearing it.

 

[IanS]

You have a mental block that prevents you to face the problem in specific terms.. You restrict yourself to repeat again and again the same broken record.

I have set out several relevant similarities between Paul's and Plato's letters and you refuse to consider them without any reason. They are relevant to debate about the authorship problem that is relevant to the debate about Pauline letters that is a relevant debate to the problem of Jesus’ existence. But you don't like to discuss this. God only knows why.

There is not any difference between anonymous and apocryphal writings in order to establish their authenticity. A name on a text is not guarantee of authenticity in a Court. If you recognize that neither the Gospel nor the Pauline testimonies would be accepted in a court, where is the “crucial” difference??!! It is an irrelevant difference at best.

Yes. If you are unable to reply to my questions better let us leave it. No need to repeat your record. You are tired of saying it and I'm tired of hearing it.

Sorry, but we are not going to be drawn into more time wasting bogus discussions about Plato or the battle of Thermopylae (or Socrates, Pythagoras, Caesar, Alexander ....).

If you have some evidence of anyone ever knowing Jesus, then present it. Because so far, after what must now be a total of tens of thousands of pages of posts, nobody has ever produced even one word of any reliable account of anyone ever credibly claiming to have met Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Sorry, but we are not going to be drawn into more time wasting bogus discussions about Plato or the battle of Thermopylae (or Socrates, Pythagoras, Caesar, Alexander ....).

If you have some evidence of anyone ever knowing Jesus, then present it. Because so far, after what must now be a total of tens of thousands of pages of posts, nobody has ever produced even one word of any reliable account of anyone ever credibly claiming to have met Jesus.

Why do you think that would affect the Historicity of Jesus either way?

Do you think that if someone were to dig up an old manuscript next week that says: "I met Jesus and he was a smashing bloke..." (or ancient Aramaic words to that effect) that that would settle the matter?

I think you probably should try to understand how Ancient Historians reach conclusions on these things, which I believe is what David Mo has been trying to show you.

The study of Ancient History doesn't follow the same rules of evidence as a modern Court Trial, it just isn't possible.

 

[DougW]

Quite correct, Brainache, merely a question of weighing whatever evidence is available, and deciding as to what conclusion seems the most probable. (I suppose it does have some features in common in this respect with a civil trial.)

I refuse to waste time on your nonsense, dejudge, whereas the Last Supper is already mentioned in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Even you endless assertions to the effect that Ephraem failed to mention Paul seem incorrect. In fact, I can’t recall one single relevant assertion of yours that has not been proved incorrect!

 

[pakeha]

I suspect that in the future, we will find that the category of "Gnostic" is entirely inept and in need of replacement by several sectarian labels.
The term applies only loosely even today, and today we know far less than we will in a few decades regarding the early formations of groups and their various theological and philosophical views.

It is more appropriate to see a diversity without any set council, and strong regional differences combined with the lack of a general printing press and textual distribution contributing to a diversity of textual output and regional traditions.

Indeed, the early orthodoxies all faced considerable vexation over the matter of unification and synthesis; clearly, there are scores of divergent holdings.
I doubt it is actually applicable to hold a near dichotomic view of Gnostic and Orthodox.
Even the texts we have today which are currently labeled, all, as Gnostic have considerable divergences theologically within them.

Of course you're right, JaysonR.
Old habits die hard, as do old terminologies.
I'm still coping with pseudo-epigraphy and criteria of embarrassment.
Gnosticism is something I'll get around to, especially as I'm beginning to grasp just how limiting and denigrating it is.

[ . . . ]
I have set out several relevant similarities between Paul's and Plato's letters and you refuse to consider them without any reason. They are relevant to debate about the authorship problem that is relevant to the debate about Pauline letters that is a relevant debate to the problem of Jesus’ existence. [ . . . ]

Did you see my comments on current scholarship's views on the spurious nature of Plato's letters, even unto the seventh?
If not, you owe me a round of decent red wine at A Mi Venta.

 

[IanS]

Quite correct, Brainache, merely a question of weighing whatever evidence is available, and deciding as to what conclusion seems the most probable. (I suppose it does have some features in common in this respect with a civil trial.)

"Quite correct" ? You think it was a good point for anyone to say it would not settle the matter if someone dug up an ancient document that said "I met Jesus" ? What is good about that?

Nobody ever said it would "settle" the matter if anyone claimed to find an account of someone saying they had met Jesus. What I actually said about that was - it would at least be admissible as possible evidence if there was a credible claim from a known & named person at the time writing to describe how he/she had met Jesus.

But if anyone now digs up a manuscript which says "I met Jesus", then whether that claim was believable would depend on whether or not it was supported by genuine independent evidence showing it was likely to be true.

None of which is any kind of objection or rebuttal to what I have said. Namely - there is in fact no credible evidence of anyone ever claiming to have met Jesus. Nobody who wrote about him ever wrote anything else except for their later religious beliefs in a figure they had never known. Without independent external corroboration, that is not reliable evidence of a living Jesus known to anyone. And especially not in the case of gospel writing which is anonymously produced hearsay.

And just in case you did not notice what was going on with David Mo’s last half-dozen posts - he is trying to re-run an argument he pressed here at length about 6 months ago, where he claimed that historians believe in a Battle of Thermopylae upon evidence which is no better (in fact iirc, actually “worse”) than that which we have for the existence of Jesus. He was trying to re-run that argument using Plato instead of Thermopylae, to repeat the standard HJ claim that all of ancient history would collapse if we were to reject the biblical writing as credible evidence of the existence of Jesus


But there is actually no evidence of any living Jesus known to anyone who ever wrote about it. What is being called “evidence” of Jesus, is in fact only evidence of peoples ancient religious beliefs found in the writing of the NT.

There is plenty of evidence of that! Nobody is disputing that people wrote gospels and letters proclaiming belief in a messiah of the past known as “Jesus”. But what appears to be completely absent is any reliable evidence that any of those NT writers had ever known Jesus, or any evidence that what they wrote as their religious messianic beliefs were ever actually true in respect of Jesus (e.g. there in no independent non-biblical confirmation of anyone ever writing to make credible claim that they had ever seen or met Jesus, and no physical evidence of his existence either).

 

[dejudge]

Quite correct, Brainache, merely a question of weighing whatever evidence is available, and deciding as to what conclusion seems the most probable. (I suppose it does have some features in common in this respect with a civil trial.)

I refuse to waste time on your nonsense, dejudge, whereas the Last Supper is already mentioned in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Even you endless assertions to the effect that Ephraem failed to mention Paul seem incorrect. In fact, I can’t recall one single relevant assertion of yours that has not been proved incorrect!

I am OBLIGATED to expose your fallacies and un-evidenced claims about Marcion and your assumed Memoirs of Peter.

1. Justin Martyr did NOT mention the Memoirs of Peter. Justin Martyr mentioned the Memoirs of the Apostles and the Memoirs of Him--NOT Peter.

2. It a failure of logic to assume gLuke was composed before other Gospels merely because it does not mention them.

The other Gospels in the NT do not mention gLuke.

3. In the existing "Against Marcion" 1,2 and 3 attributed to Ephraem there is NO reference to the Pauline Corpus and no claim that Marcion used or mutilated the Epistles.

4. In writings attributed to Hippolytus it is claimed Marcion preached Dualism and did NOT use the Pauline writings but used the teachings of Empedocles.

5. In writings attributed to Justin it is claimed Marcion was of the Devil and preached Another God and Another Son.

6. The teachings of the Pauline writers are CONTRARY to Marcion's Dualism.

7. Marcion preached about CHRESTUS--the GOOD one--NOT Christus [the anointed]

 

[Brainache]

"Quite correct" ? You think it was a good point for anyone to say it would not settle the matter if someone dug up an ancient document that said "I met Jesus" ? What is good about that?

Nobody ever said it would "settle" the matter if anyone claimed to find an account of someone saying they had met Jesus. What I actually said about that was - it would at least be admissible as possible evidence if there was a credible claim from a known & named person at the time writing to describe how he/she had met Jesus.

But if anyone now digs up a manuscript which says "I met Jesus", then whether that claim was believable would depend on whether or not it was supported by genuine independent evidence showing it was likely to be true.

None of which is any kind of objection or rebuttal to what I have said. Namely - there is in fact no credible evidence of anyone ever claiming to have met Jesus. Nobody who wrote about him ever wrote anything else except for their later religious beliefs in a figure they had never known. Without independent external corroboration, that is not reliable evidence of a living Jesus known to anyone. And especially not in the case of gospel writing which is anonymously produced hearsay.

And just in case you did not notice what was going on with David Mo’s last half-dozen posts - he is trying to re-run an argument he pressed here at length about 6 months ago, where he claimed that historians believe in a Battle of Thermopylae upon evidence which is no better (in fact iirc, actually “worse”) than that which we have for the existence of Jesus. He was trying to re-run that argument using Plato instead of Thermopylae, to repeat the standard HJ claim that all of ancient history would collapse if we were to reject the biblical writing as credible evidence of the existence of Jesus


But there is actually no evidence of any living Jesus known to anyone who ever wrote about it. What is being called “evidence” of Jesus, is in fact only evidence of peoples ancient religious beliefs found in the writing of the NT.

There is plenty of evidence of that! Nobody is disputing that people wrote gospels and letters proclaiming belief in a messiah of the past known as “Jesus”. But what appears to be completely absent is any reliable evidence that any of those NT writers had ever known Jesus, or any evidence that what they wrote as their religious messianic beliefs were ever actually true in respect of Jesus (e.g. there in no independent non-biblical confirmation of anyone ever writing to make credible claim that they had ever seen or met Jesus, and no physical evidence of his existence either).

Now you are saying that even if we had the kind of evidence that you have been demanding (unrealistic as those demands may be), that it would still be insufficient.

What would it take to falsify your belief that Jesus was a mythical being?

Is your position falsifiable?

 

[DougW]

Come now, Ian – with respect, you do go on.

‘Quite correct’, only referred to Brainache’s mention as to how historians arrive at their conclusions.

Is it valid to claim that it would not settle the matter if someone produced an ancient script saying they’d met Jesus?

Well, Eusebius asserts he found a letter ostensibly written by Jesus, translating it from the Syriac. But in light of all else that’s known, what historian grants such absurdity the slightest bit of credence?

If on the other hand, we turned up some Roman letter (a private one perhaps, for they were great gossips, one devoid of ulterior motives) that happened to innocently mention Jesus and/or some of the surrounding events, it would certainly alter the situation drastically, as you say. The complete lack of any such evidence, the very kind we might reasonably expect to find, of course bolsters the case for non-historicity no end, again as you say.

I don’t think analogies with other historical events mean much. The swarm of manuscripts leading up to the Gospels, or the Gospels themselves, by their very nature, hardly pass muster as any sort of history per se, as opposed to the development or evolution of a particular creed. Cheers.

 

[dejudge]

Now you are saying that even if we had the kind of evidence that you have been demanding (unrealistic as those demands may be), that it would still be insufficient.

What would it take to falsify your belief that Jesus was a mythical being?

Is your position falsifiable?

We have actual manuscripts and Codices that describe Jesus as a Myth--The Son of God, the Logos, and Creator.

What would it take to falsify your belief that your assumed HJ was a Rabbi?

Is your position falsifiable?