Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Not at all. No doubt there are hundreds of them who are very sensible and know a great deal about the history of Judeo-Christian religion.

But this is not an objective field of study to begin with. This is a field of study which is based in religious beliefs about the supernatural ... that's what the biblical writing is all about.

You can of course try to study what was said about Jesus in non-Christian more historical writing of that time. But as soon as you do that you find that almost none of the historical writers of the time even mentioned anyone called Jesus. And the few that did mention him, such as Tacitus and Josephus, not only made no more the very briefest of passing mention, but were plainly and unarguably only writing hearsay repetition of what Christians themselves preached and believed at that time (about 100 years after they all thought the messiah had died).

You don't think these religious texts can tell us anything other than Theology? I think there are a lot of people who will disagree with that.

 

[tsig]

But The Mythical Jesus is a positive claim. It claims that the first followers of Jesus worshipped an incorporeal being they called "Jesus". Now all we need to find is evidence of anyone ever anywhere worshipping such a Jesus. So far no evidence of any such group has been found.

No one is being asked to prove a negative.

No, it makes no claim as to the worship of the first followers of Jesus, it just says there is no solid evidence he existed.

 

[Brainache]

No, it makes no claim as to the worship of the first followers of Jesus, it just says there is no solid evidence he existed.

Christ Myth Theory, Richard Carrier. Look it up.

ETA: Oops, I meant: Mythical Jesus.

 

[IanS]

You've had all the answers a hundred times. Just because you refuse to accept them doesn't mean they are wrong.

You still need to convince actual Historians, why waste time on me?

Well their answers just aren't good enough then! ... for all the reasons that I and others have explained here hundreds of times over.

But like all of us here, I'm simply replying to what you & others have said in earlier posts. I'm not in the business of trying to write academic rebuttals to pro-Jesus writers like Ehrman. That would be a waste of my time ... eg Bart Ehrman makes what is no doubt a very good $-living from writing about Jesus and biblical issues, but I make my living outside of any religious stuff.

Though, since you mention it, there are of course now an increasing number of writers and academics who are writing to expose the lack of evidence and the fallacious reasoning of bible scholars who write to claim good evidence of Jesus and other biblical figures and events, so it doesn’t need me to add to that list (no more than it needs anyone contributing to these threads to publish academic comment on any of the issues we discuss on JREF, in either direction, for or against on any topic … that’s why it’s an open public discussion forum and not an academic closed shop).

 

[Robrob]

But The Mythical Jesus is a positive claim. It claims that the first followers of Jesus worshipped an incorporeal being they called "Jesus". Now all we need to find is evidence of anyone ever anywhere worshipping such a Jesus. So far no evidence of any such group has been found.

No one is being asked to prove a negative.

Reversed burden of proof? Yeah, that's usually a clear sign of non-logical thought processes.

The "claim" of fact being made is Jesus (or Bigfoot) existed. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim to provide evidence supporting their claim. There is no evidence Jesus (or Bigfoot existed). Thus the inability for disbelievers to prove a negative.

 

[tsig]

You've had all the answers a hundred times. Just because you refuse to accept them doesn't mean they are wrong.

You still need to convince actual Historians, why waste time on me?

Who are these Historians we have to convince?


(Prediction)
"I've already posted this a thousand times"
with no cite

 

[Brainache]

Reversed burden of proof? Yeah, that's usually a clear sign of non-logical thought processes.

The "claim" of fact being made is Jesus (or Bigfoot) existed. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim to provide evidence supporting their claim. There is no evidence Jesus (or Bigfoot existed). Thus the inability for disbelievers to prove a negative.

There is evidence. It's circumstantial, fragmentary, biased, hearsay evidence, but it is evidence.

The people trying to argue against it have even less.

 

[tsig]

You don't think these religious texts can tell us anything other than Theology? I think there are a lot of people who will disagree with that.

Those Historians that are often cited but seldom seen?

 

[Brainache]

Who are these Historians we have to convince?


(Prediction)
"I've already posted this a thousand times"
with no cite

You don't have to convince anyone Tsig. You can just carry on being your lovable old self. Don't worry about it.

I'm sure that when someone comes up with evidence for this sect of people that Carrier believes existed, we'll all hear about it.

So far we are still waiting.

 

[Robrob]

There is evidence. It's circumstantial, fragmentary, biased, hearsay evidence, but it is evidence.

The people trying to argue against it have even less.

Wow, and I thought the first quote was a Stundie.

 

[Brainache]

Those Historians that are often cited but seldom seen?

Yep, like all those Professors of English constantly making statements that Shakespeare wasn't Francis Bacon.

It just isn't a serious debate amongst Historians. It's only a couple of fringe revisionists who so far haven't made a convincing case.

 

[tsig]

Who are these Historians we have to convince?

(Prediction)
"I've already posted this a thousand times"
with no cite

You don't have to convince anyone Tsig. You can just carry on being your lovable old self. Don't worry about it.

I'm sure that when someone comes up with evidence for this sect of people that Carrier believes existed, we'll all hear about it.

So far we are still waiting.

As I am for an answer to the question I hilited.

BTW it's tsig not Tsig

 

[Brainache]

Wow, and I thought the first quote was a Stundie.

You don't think evidence can be biased, hearsay or fragmentary?

You think that not even having biased, fragmentary or hearsay evidence for your unsupported assertion puts you in a stronger position?

Stundie away, my friend.

 

[IanS]

You don't think these religious texts can tell us anything other than Theology? I think there are a lot of people who will disagree with that.

Well you can always find countless people who will disagree with just about anything. But as far as the writing attributed to "Paul" is concerned - the author specifically tells us, several times over, that he is writing what he has come to believe according to "scripture". So yes, I think that is a very direct admission in Paul's letters that the author is preaching about his theological beliefs from ancient Jewish OT scripture.

The same is clearly true of g-Mark and g-Mathew. As shown in books by Randel Helms and others, the gospel stories of Jesus were quite clearly taken from what the authors believed to have been written in OT scripture.

Check out the short book by Helms (“Gospel fictions“). Because that will disabuse you of any idea that the Jesus stories were unique to (or new to), the gospels.

If you have not read it, see also the book by Alvar Ellegard (Jesus, 100 Years Before Christ). Because that gives a very carefully written fully referenced academic overview of lots of the biblical writing and the earliest non-biblical writing, explaining in detail why none of it truly offers credible evidence of a living Jesus (it also touches quite a bit on your own interest in the Dead Sea scrolls and the beliefs of the Essene people of that region).

 

[tsig]

Who are these Historians we have to convince?

(Prediction)
"I've already posted this a thousand times"
with no cite

You don't have to convince anyone Tsig. You can just carry on being your lovable old self. Don't worry about it.

I'm sure that when someone comes up with evidence for this sect of people that Carrier believes existed, we'll all hear about it.

So far we are still waiting.

As I am for an answer to the question I hilited.

BTW it's tsig not Tsig

 

[Robrob]

You don't think evidence can be biased, hearsay or fragmentary?

You think that not even having biased, fragmentary or hearsay evidence for your unsupported assertion puts you in a stronger position?

Stundie away, my friend.

Your claim of evidence = a claim of fact. The burden of proof is on you to provide validation for your claim of fact, not on those doubting the veracity of your evidence. It's no different than for Bigfoot or UFOs.

Seriously, this confuses you?

 

[Brainache]

As I am for an answer to the question I hilited.

BTW it's tsig not Tsig

I don't happen to know any personally, but I'm sure you could find one online somewhere and ask them.

If you are unconvinced by me, go talk to someone else. You seem to really want to pursue this, I'm not stopping you.

I'm already convinced and it doesn't particularly bother me that I can't convince you.

You are welcome to your opinions, but don't pretend that I should give as much weight to you as I would to a Professional Historian on questions of History.

 

[tsig]

OK, so you are stumped and don't have any answers then. Fine by me .

That's right, every one of them has drunk the Kool aid. Not one of those spineless Historians will stand up for the Truth^tm!

They are all just shills for the Vatican...

Looks like IanS was right.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim of evidence = a claim of fact. The burden of proof is on you to provide validation for your claim of fact, not on those doubting the veracity of your evidence. It's no different than for Bigfoot or UFOs.

Seriously, this confuses you?

What on Earth are you talking about? Have you actually read any serious Histories of the Ancient Near East?

I'll say it again. Why are you more expert on this than people who do it for a living?

Have a look at this Blog by Tim O'Neil:
http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com.au/2013/11/why-history-isnt-scientific-and-why-it.html

Then come back and tell me how you know so much more about it than the Historians.

 

[Brainache]

Looks like IanS was right.

And it looks like you have nothing to add to the debate.

Are we even now?

Can we get back on topic?