Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[tsig]

I think we can say that there are many people publishing books full of things they pulled out of their arses. We can also say that some of those people are publishing books about Jesus.

Does that make them Jesus Scholars? Maybe. It doesn't make them Historians though...

Of course, what makes them Historians is agreeing with the Consensus, what makes the Consensus is Historians agreeing with it. It's all so clear now.

 

[IanS]

OK. I've seen IanS wave around a Bart Ehrman quote to that effect, but Ehrman knows enough about Ancient History to know that there is no certainty here. If he said that, he was wrong or he has been quoted out of context.

I have Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" on Kindle. On page 143, Ehrman writes:

What I think is that Jesus really existed but that the Jesus who really existed was not the person most Christians today believe in... For now I want to continue to mount the case that whetever else you may want to say about Jesus, you can say with a high degree of certainty that he was a historical figure. In this chapter I will wrap up my discussion of the historical evidence by stressing just two points in particular. These two points are not the whole case for the historical Jesus... But these two points are especially key. I think each of them shows beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that Jesus must have existed as a Palestinian Jew who was crucified by the Romans.​

Ehrman then spends the next 35 odd pages on the two points: Paul knowing Peter and James brother of the Lord and the pre-Pauline claim of Jesus being crucified.

If you read even the opening chapter to Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?", where chapter one begins on page 11, on the very next page (ie page 12) Ehrman says this -


Page 12 - “ …virtually all scholars agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.”

Page-12 - “ This is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet”.


Notice in that quote Ehrman leaves no room for doubt. He says Jesus WAS a preacher and teacher crucified under Tiberius and Pilate. He does not ever qualify any of those statements by saying that Jesus was “probably” or “possibly” a preacher and executed by order of Pilate etc. He simply says flatly and directly with no doubt about it, that that was the case.

Not good enough for you? You don’t think the above is an example actually stating “certainty” about the existence of Jesus? OK, well on the very next page he says the following -


Page-13 - “ But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time. And we can know what he was like.”

Page-13 - “ Schweitzer himself knew full well that Jesus actually existed ”

Page-14 - “ I agree with Schweitzer and virtually all scholars in the field since his day that Jesus existed, ... ”

Page -14 “ I want to stress the most fundamental point of all … Jesus himself was not a myth. He really existed. ”



You still think even those absolutely crystal clear statements of Ehrman saying “he existed” and “he really existed”, are not good enough for you? You still want to take me to task for saying that Ehrman stated that Jesus existed as a matter of “certainty”? Because you want to say the above quotes don’t literally have Ehrman using the word “certainty”? OK, well then here is what he says right at the start of chapter two on page 37 -


Page-37 - " Even though there are innumerable historical problems in the New Testament, they are not of the scope or character to call seriously into doubt the existence of Jesus. He certainly lived. "


Page-37 - " He may have been only semi-literate. But he certainly lived ".



Now that took me precisely 5 mins to find just by flicking through those opening pages of Ehrman’s’ book ( "Did Jesus Exist?, Harper One, Harper Collins, 2013" ). So it was not exactly difficult to immediately confirm that Ehrman most definitely does express flat outright certainty about the existence of Jesus. And notice also from the above, he says that is also the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet.

 

[tsig]

Personally, I'd actually be quite interested to see if there's a difference of opinion between western scholars and Chinese scholars on this issue, given the lack of powerful Christian influences over there. Idem for Japan and other similar countries.

You might get an argument about the existence of Confucius from Chinese scholars, Jesus, not so much.

 

[tsig]

Then you don't understand what Academics mean when they talk about a Consensus of Opinions.



Except for the one that he was: A man, Jewish, A Preacher. That's it. That is all they have a consensus about.

It is that simple.



It is that simple.


Except that he was a Jewish Preacher-man.



Good thing we aren't talking about him then. Phew, that was close!

Quote:
Erhman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was reviewed and found to be a failure of facts and logic which would be completely compatible with guesswork and speculation.

I haven't read it. Any good?

If you read even the opening chapter to Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?", where chapter one begins on page 11, on the very next page (ie page 12) Ehrman says this -


Page 12 - “ …virtually all scholars agree. Jesus was a Jewish man, known to be a preacher and teacher, who was crucified in Jerusalem during the reign of the Roman emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.”

Page-12 - “ This is the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet”.


Notice in that quote Ehrman leaves no room for doubt. He says Jesus WAS a preacher and teacher crucified under Tiberius and Pilate. He does not ever qualify any of those statements by saying that Jesus was “probably” or “possibly” a preacher and executed by order of Pilate etc. He simply says flatly and directly with no doubt about it, that that was the case.

Not good enough for you? You don’t think the above is an example actually stating “certainty” about the existence of Jesus? OK, well on the very next page he says the following -


Page-13 - “ But there was a historical Jesus, who was very much a man of his time. And we can know what he was like.”

Page-13 - “ Schweitzer himself knew full well that Jesus actually existed ”

Page-14 - “ I agree with Schweitzer and virtually all scholars in the field since his day that Jesus existed, ... ”

Page -14 “ I want to stress the most fundamental point of all … Jesus himself was not a myth. He really existed. ”



You still think even those absolutely crystal clear statements of Ehrman saying “he existed” and “he really existed”, are not good enough for you? You still want to take me to task for saying that Ehrman stated that Jesus existed as a matter of “certainty”? Because you want to say the above quotes don’t literally have Ehrman using the word “certainty”? OK, well then here is what he says right at the start of chapter two on page 37 -


Page-37 - " Even though there are innumerable historical problems in the New Testament, they are not of the scope or character to call seriously into doubt the existence of Jesus. He certainly lived. "


Page-37 - " He may have been only semi-literate. But he certainly lived ".



Now that took me precisely 5 mins to find just by flicking through those opening pages of Ehrman’s’ book ( "Did Jesus Exist?, Harper One, Harper Collins, 2013" ). So it was not exactly difficult to immediately confirm that Ehrman most definitely does express flat outright certainty about the existence of Jesus. And notice also from the above, he says that is also the view of nearly every trained scholar on the planet.

He admits he hasn't read any of it.

 

[dejudge]

Then you don't understand what Academics mean when they talk about a Consensus of Opinions.

Actually you are the one who does not understand the meaning of "consensus".

A consensus would mean that there is UNANIMITY among Academics about Jesus.

You have shown that in Academics that there are Agnostics, those who argue for Myth Jesus and those who argue for multiple characters of history.

Presently, in Academics, people are actively engaged in arguments over the nature of the existence of Jesus.

There is no unanimity of opinion in Academics.

Why are you giving the impression there is unanimity when you yourself has shown that there is none?

1. Robert Eiseman's Jesus is a Zealot.

2. Bart Ehrman's Jesus is an itinerant Apocalyptic Preacher.

3. Richard Carrier's Jesus is a Myth.

4. Some are Agnostic.

There is simply no UNANIMITY in Academics about the nature of the existence of Jesus and who Jesus really was if he existed.

And this lack of UNANIMITY is a direct result of ZERO evidence of antiquity for a character called Jesus of Nazareth in non-apologetic sources.

This lack of unanimity will not change while there is no known evidence for the existence for Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[maximara]

The very fact that there are multiple Jesus characters put forward by Historians must be as a result of NO actual evidence from antiquity.

Historians would all agree that Tiberius was an Emperor of Rome because there is evidence from antiquity.

If some Scholars claim Jesus was a Zealot, another say he was an Apocalyptic preacher, another say he was a Myth and another say he does not know it is obvious that there really is no supporting evidence at all for any of the supposed Jesus characters.

An historical Jesus is at the mercy of the inventor.

Rationalwiki's Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article talks about this issue in the "Jesus as historical myth and The Tabula Rasa Jesus" section:

"So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the Miner problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views."

 

[dejudge]

Rationalwiki's Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article talks about this issue in the "Jesus as historical myth and The Tabula Rasa Jesus" section:

"So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the Miner problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views."

Did researchers assume parts of Plutarch's Romulus was true? Did researchers assume parts of the mythological Gods and Sons of Gods of Greek, Romam,Persian, Egyptian, Jewish mythology was true.

We have hundreds of mythological Gods and Sons of God--Jesus is just one of them.

The very people who should have known the nature of Jesus publicly admitted he was born without a human father and was born AFTER his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

Why are people attempting to historicize a blatant mythological character called Jesus is beyond me?

Why don't they historicize Plutarch's Romulus? He was the mythological founder of Rome born of a woman with a human brother who ascended to heaven after his body vanished when he died. On the day Romulus died there was darkness--the day was turned into night.

Plutarch's Romulus and NT Jesus are similar Myths.

 

[tsig]

Actually you are the one who does not understand the meaning of "consensus".

A consensus would mean that there is UNANIMITY among Academics about Jesus.

You have shown that in Academics that there are Agnostics, those who argue for Myth Jesus and those who argue for multiple characters of history.

Presently, in Academics, people are actively engaged in arguments over the nature of the existence of Jesus.

There is no unanimity of opinion in Academics.

Why are you giving the impression there is unanimity when you yourself has shown that there is none?

1. Robert Eiseman's Jesus is a Zealot.

2. Bart Ehrman's Jesus is an itinerant Apocalyptic Preacher.

3. Richard Carrier's Jesus is a Myth.

4. Some are Agnostic.

There is simply no UNANIMITY in Academics about the nature of the existence of Jesus and who Jesus really was if he existed.

And this lack of UNANIMITY is a direct result of ZERO evidence of antiquity for a character called Jesus of Nazareth in non-apologetic sources.

This lack of unanimity will not change while there is no known evidence for the existence for Jesus of Nazareth.

We've already been told that Historians who don't agree with the Consensus are Not True Historians.

 

[Belz...]

You might get an argument about the existence of Confucius from Chinese scholars, Jesus, not so much.

You wouldn't happen to have references to that, would you ?

 

[Belz...]

Actually you are the one who does not understand the meaning of "consensus".

A consensus would mean that there is UNANIMITY among Academics about Jesus.

You just showed that YOU don't understand what the word means. You do have the ability to google, right ?

Consensus: general agreement.

That is not synonymous with "unanimity".

 

[dejudge]

You just showed that YOU don't understand what the word means. You do have the ability to google, right ?

Consensus: general agreement.

That is not synonymous with "unanimity".

Your response is extremely amusing. I cannot understand why you would want to go on the internet to show that you don't know that consensus also means "unanimity".

There is no general agreement, or unanimity between Richard Carrier, Bart Erhman, Robert Eiseman and Agnostic historians about the nature of the existence of Jesus.

 

[DOC]

But the creationists ARE comparable to the mythers. They both have an undying hatred and bigotry against academia and specialists and would have been in the vanguard of those torching the Library of Alexandria. They are also not interested in data...

Evolution is a theory, but it is accepted as fact by skeptics. And there is not as much data as you think.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

 

[dejudge]

Evolution is a theory, but it is accepted as fact by skeptics. And there is not as much data as you think.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

Actually those who argue for an historical Jesus of Nazareth are like creationists. They all use the Bible as a source of history.

But what is most disturbing to me is that the Creationist believes the Bible where as "historicists" like Bart Ehrman discredits the New Testament yet believes part of it to argue for his historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Incredibly, the very Ehrman has declared that the world wide Taxing of Cyrenius, the Triumphal entry and the Barabbas exchange most likely are fictional accounts.

And even further, he has stated that the four Gospels are not eyewitness accounts and are either forgeries or falsely attributed writings filled with historical problems.

I simply cannot understand why Ehrman would attempt to historicise a character from know admitted fiction and forgeries and do so without any non-apologetic corroborative evidence.

 

[Brainache]

I think people are talking past each other here. On the HJ side we have a few people claiming that Jesus "definitely" existed, to which the MJ side responds by asking for evidence. Piggy tried to address that but failed because we then realised that he didn't support the "definitely" claim. Nick is doing the same thing but to me there was no confusion about his claims to start with. IanS, however, seems to still think that Nick is claiming "definitely" when all he can see in his posts, quite justifiably so, is "probably".

I understand why people claiming certainty would annoy you. I don't do that.

And to be fair, I think those guys usually clarify that with something like: "as certain as we can be for anything in Ancient History", but you'll have to ask them.

This has no place in a serious conversation. Take your labeling somewhere else.

This is the internet. Labels will happen whether you like it or not. I don't particularly like them myself. But I do think these "Mythers" use the exact same tactics as "Truthers". YMMV

You're right, of course. But because you don't contribute to a field doesn't mean you can't expect the experts in that field to explain it to you.

Experts have explained it. Their explanations are dismissed as "not good enough", because they don't meet some arbitrary level of "Certainty". Even though the Historian points out over and over again that the certainty these people want is not possible.

They are like the people who want to rebuild the WTC and fly a plane into it, because it is the "only way to be certain". There are other ways to draw conclusions.

Of course, what makes them Historians is agreeing with the Consensus, what makes the Consensus is Historians agreeing with it. It's all so clear now.

You might get an argument about the existence of Confucius from Chinese scholars, Jesus, not so much.

I don't know. Did you look?

He admits he hasn't read any of it.

Why should I? There are other HJ books you know. Ehrman isn't the only Author in the world.

Actually you are the one who does not understand the meaning of "consensus".
...

See Belz... response. You are on your own here dejudge.

Did researchers assume parts of Plutarch's Romulus was true? Did researchers assume parts of the mythological Gods and Sons of Gods of Greek, Romam,Persian, Egyptian, Jewish mythology was true.

We have hundreds of mythological Gods and Sons of God--Jesus is just one of them.

The very people who should have known the nature of Jesus publicly admitted he was born without a human father and was born AFTER his mother was made pregnant by a Ghost.

Why are people attempting to historicize a blatant mythological character called Jesus is beyond me?

Why don't they historicize Plutarch's Romulus? He was the mythological founder of Rome born of a woman with a human brother who ascended to heaven after his body vanished when he died. On the day Romulus died there was darkness--the day was turned into night.

Plutarch's Romulus and NT Jesus are similar Myths.

Why didn't you pick Pythagoras?:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pythagoras/

Pythagoras wrote nothing, nor were there any detailed accounts of his thought written by contemporaries. By the first centuries BCE, moreover, it became fashionable to present Pythagoras in a largely unhistorical fashion as a semi-divine figure, who originated all that was true in the Greek philosophical tradition, including many of Plato's and Aristotle's mature ideas. A number of treatises were forged in the name of Pythagoras and other Pythagoreans in order to support this view.

The Pythagorean question, then, is how to get behind this false glorification of Pythagoras in order to determine what the historical Pythagoras actually thought and did. In order to obtain an accurate appreciation of Pythagoras' achievement, it is important to rely on the earliest evidence before the distortions of the later tradition arose. The popular modern image of Pythagoras is that of a master mathematician and scientist. The early evidence shows, however, that, while Pythagoras was famous in his own day and even 150 years later in the time of Plato and Aristotle, it was not mathematics or science upon which his fame rested. Pythagoras was famous (1) as an expert on the fate of the soul after death, who thought that the soul was immortal and went through a series of reincarnations; (2) as an expert on religious ritual; (3) as a wonder-worker who had a thigh of gold and who could be two places at the same time; (4) as the founder of a strict way of life that emphasized dietary restrictions, religious ritual and rigorous self discipline.

Your response is extremely amusing. I cannot understand why you would want to go on the internet to show that you don't know that consensus also means "unanimity".

There is no general agreement, or unanimity between Richard Carrier, Bart Erhman, Robert Eiseman and Agnostic historians about the nature of the existence of Jesus.

They agree that he was a human teacher. Except Carrier, of course, but even he is by no means certain. But they aren't the only Scholars in the world.

Evolution is a theory, but it is accepted as fact by skeptics. And there is not as much data as you think.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

Please note: DOC will be arguing for the Gospel Jesus, not the Historical Jesus. There is a difference.

 

[IanS]

Please note: DOC will be arguing for the Gospel Jesus, not the Historical Jesus. There is a difference.

The only known original source, ie the primary source, for any mention of Jesus, is the biblical writing. Where did you get something called "the Historical Jesus" from?

How did you get from that Biblical writing to produce some other notional figure you call "the Historical Jesus"?

 

[Brainache]

The only known original source, ie the primary source, for any mention of Jesus, is the biblical writing. Where did you get something called "the Historical Jesus" from?

How did you get from that Biblical writing to produce some other notional figure you call "the Historical Jesus"?

It's something Historians do. I don't do it. I just respect their ability to draw conclusions from the data. That's where I got my Historical Jesus.

Where did you get the idea he didn't exist? Youtube?

 

[dejudge]

They agree that he was a human teacher. Except Carrier, of course, but even he is by no means certain. But they aren't the only Scholars in the world.

Agnostic historians do not agree that Jesus was a human teacher.

Carrier and similar Historians who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology do not agree that Jesus was a human teacher but a literary concept.

Robert Eiseman and similar Historians will argue that Jesus was a Zealot and possibly attempted to or Killed Romans or trained others to kill.

The fact that there are multiple differences of opinion on the existence was a direct result of no actual evidence for an historical Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Agnostic historians do not agree that Jesus was a human teacher.

Carrier and similar Historians who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology do not agree that Jesus was a human teacher but a literary concept.

Robert Eiseman and similar Historians will argue that Jesus was a Zealot and possibly attempted to or Killed Romans or trained others to kill.

The fact that there are multiple differences of opinion on the existence was a direct result of no actual evidence for an historical Jesus.

OK.

When is your book coming out?

 

[dejudge]

It's something Historians do. I don't do it. I just respect their ability to draw conclusions from the data. That's where I got my Historical Jesus.

Where did you get the idea he didn't exist? Youtube?

Where is the story of Jesus found? It must be the data about Jesus that must be used to determine his historicity.

The data provided in the Bible and Apologetic writings is that Jesus was the product of a Holy Ghost and God Creator.

Unless some new historical data surfaces Jesus was a Myth character like Romulus.
Now, why are you always giving the impression that all Historians support an historical Jesus when no such thing has happened?

Do you not understand that people who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology may also get it from Historians?

Plus, you seem not to realise that ordinary people can examine written statements and draw conclusions from those statements. This is done universally and at every level.

We would have no courts with jurors if ordinary persons were incapable of reconstructing the past from evidence.

 

[Brainache]

Where is the story of Jesus found? It must be the data about Jesus that must be used to determine his historicity.

The data provided in the Bible and Apologetic writings is that Jesus was the product of a Holy Ghost and God Creator.

Unless some new historical data surfaces Jesus was a Myth character like Romulus.
Now, why are you always giving the impression that all Historians support an historical Jesus when no such thing has happened?

Do you not understand that people who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology may also get it from Historians?

Plus, you seem not to realise that ordinary people can examine written statements and draw conclusions from those statements. This is done universally and at every level.

We would have no courts with jurors if ordinary persons were incapable of reconstructing the past from evidence.

Please read this blog posted by Richard Carrier:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Philosopher (and FtB alum) Dan Fincke has written a good, concise piece on why atheists need to don a little more sense and humility when claiming Jesus didn’t exist. In his article On Atheists Attempting to Disprove the Existence of the Historical Jesus, Fincke makes a sound case for two basic points: (1) amateurs should not be voicing certitude in a matter still being debated by experts (historicity agnosticism is far more defensible and makes far more sense for amateurs on the sidelines) and (2) criticizing Christianity with a lead of “Jesus didn’t even exist” is strategically ill conceived–it’s bad strategy on many levels, it only makes atheists look illogical, and (counter-intuitively) it can actually make Christians more certain of their faith.
I think his piece is a must-read. I’ll only briefly comment on some of its key arguments here.
I quite agree with (1) and (2). I’ve made both points myself over the years. But Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.” (There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.) Meanwhile, Fincke explains, “we should either be agnostic on the issue,” as Fincke is, or “defer to historical consensus,” or, “if we really find [e.g.] Carrier’s arguments compelling” then we should “still be cautious and qualified in our declarations, acknowledging that we are agreeing with a minority view (and one that even Carrier seems far from certain about).”...

TL: DR version: "Please stop what you are doing. It just makes you look foolish".