Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

What?? How in the world can you be definitive about Paul when you have zero corroborative evidence?

It called giving the best argument. Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon have the consensus of being the writings of Paul. And yet what do they really tell us about Jesus?

Nothing that isn't the equivalent of John Frum.

More over what we do have in that "essential" Paul contradicts the virgin birth story and according his detractors Marcion's Luke started at Luke 3:1 (ie no birth story). Interestingly our oldest copy of Luke (Papyrus 75 at 175-225 CE) has no birth story either. This shoots the whole idea of the Gospels' birth stories as history.

 

[Brainache]

I think tsig was going more along Horace Miner's 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" train of thought.

As Burke pointed out some 20 years later in Day the Universe Changed all research requires you to have a preconceived idea on what to look for and even on what is acceptable evidence.

The Piltdown hoax is a prime example of this blindness. As early as 1913 (David Waterston of King's College London) it was said that the Piltdown find was not what it appeared to be with it being implied a fraud as early 2915 (G.S. Miller) and flat out stated as such in 1923 (Franz Weidenreich a Jewish German anatomist and physical anthropologist).

But because Piltdown fit into the then accepted theory that the brain evolved first it was accepted and finds that didn't not fit into that model got initially rejected. Nationalism and cultural prejudice also played a part.


We know that there were Piltdown like efforts to shows Jesus was historical (The infamous Letters of Pontius Pilate case in point) but if as the apologists claim Jesus was such a well documented person then such forgeries testifying to his existence would not be needed.

The only rational reason for such forgeries is because the evidence at the time was recognized as shaky and curiously much of this appears in the 4th century...just as the New Testament canon is being established. And if the evidence was thought to be so shaky in the 4th century that such forgeries need to be created what does that say about the acceptance of such evidence in the 21st?

Well yes, OK every discipline is subject to that kind of thing. I don't think Ancient History is special in that regard.

My personal hobbyhorse at the moment actually depends on the fact that people have been looking at the evidence wrongly for a long time. So I don't think it's impossible to get things wrong. I just don't think it's possible for them to get it that wrong.

But I may be wrong.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

The Pauline Corpus refers to all letters under the name of Paul in the Canon.

OK, I believe we have sorted out that that is your preferred usage. I didn't say you were wrong, I said that other people use that and similar terms differently than you do. So, when I wished to understand something you wrote, without guidance as to your intended meaning, I needed to ask you. I did, and eventually you got around to explaining your usage. Thank you.

Since I now understand what you wrote, I have no further questions for you at this time. Also, I was already aware that the ever-ripening Christ story had progressed within a few generations to include the notion that the Christ was present at the creation (The preposition at Colossians 1:15 is the versatile en, which can mean "in," or "with," or ... I see you like "by." OK. You've given notice that sometimes other people use English words differently than you do, and that you sometimes omit an explanation of the choices you make. So, it's probably harmless that the same is true of Greek words, too.)

Anyway, as it happens, I don't share your sense of importance that, under those cirucmstances, a letter would be ascribed to Paul which recites with approval a poetic work that places the Christ at the beginning of the world. That's not a disagreement between us, but rather a difference in our respective intensity of interest in this specific observation.

maximara

This is why when talking about Paul's writings I try to say definitive Paul ie Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

Yes, I think that that's an excellent idea.

 

[maximara]

What evidence do Historians actually use and what evidence do they actually use when they claim Jesus was a Zealot compared to those who are agnostic or that Jesus was a figure of mythology or an Apocalyptic preacher?

Ordinary people can examine written statements and come to a conclusion. Historians write books and ordinary people can understand them.

Everybody use data, evidence, to draw a conclusion.

Again what that data and evidence is depends on the model you being with.

As Burke relates in Day the Universe Changes in prerevolutionary France the local peasant reports of "these here stones falling from the sky' were dismissed but in post revolutionary France with said local peasant in charge these reports "became vital astronomical data" and soon after that there was a science book on meteorites.

Wegener's 1912 concept of the continents once fitting together to form one continent he called Pangea were dismissed even though there was less evidence for the land bridges required to make the old theory that the continents were static work is another.

One of the main models behind history is the Great Man theory ie that history is the result of the actions of Great men. The Great Moment theory is the very antithesis of that ie general events and culture dynamics are what move history along.

For example the Great Man theory says without Columbus the New World would have not been discovered by the European powers for many years if ever. By contrast the Great Moment theory says "The discovery of the America abound 1500 was inevitable." (Carl Sagan Cosmos)

Great Man theory: Adolf Hitler was the key figure in causing WWII.

Great Moment theory: The tensions in Germany were such that any war mongering scapegoat seeking maniac in the right place and time would have risen to power 1934.

The Christ Myth theory at its heart has always been a Great Moment theory and that annoys the apologists no end.

 

[Brainache]

...
The Christ Myth theory at its heart has always been a Great Moment theory and that annoys the apologists no end.

I'm still not 100% sure I know which definition of "Myth Theory" you are using Maximara. Now, when you say "Christ Myth Theory", what exactly are we talking about here? A human teacher Jesus, or an incorporeal spirit Jesus?

I'm not arguing, I just want to make sure we are on the same page.

 

[maximara]

Well yes, OK every discipline is subject to that kind of thing. I don't think Ancient History is special in that regard.

My personal hobbyhorse at the moment actually depends on the fact that people have been looking at the evidence wrongly for a long time. So I don't think it's impossible to get things wrong. I just don't think it's possible for them to get it that wrong.

But I may be wrong.

Well look at all the the things regarding history we got "wrong" because we wanted to believe them:

The Church of the Middle Ages suppressed all efforts into the endeavors we call science.

Richard I was a great king who loved England, Richard II was a vain, narcissistic, cruel ruler, and Richard III was a mishapen power mad maniac who was the embodiment of evil.

Christopher Columbus sailed west to prove to the narrow-minded Churchmen of his age the world was round.

Spanish Inquisition was an all powerful tyrannical organization composed of sadistic religious zealots answerable to only itself that ruthlessly crushed all opposition to it.

The reality is far different:

During the Middle Ages the Church largely encouraged scientific thought (it was during the Renaissance that things went pear-shaped)

As outlined in Terry Jones Medieval Lives Richard I was in reality a war mongering maniac who saw England as a giant piggybank and could care less for itpeople, Richard II was too forgiving for his own good, and Richard III created a concept that in altered form is considered a right by every citizen of the United States--Trial by a Jury of your Peers

Christopher Columbus sailed west to try and get at the spices out East and everybody agreed the Earth was round (Read Dante's Divine Comedy as he talks about stars in the Southern hemisphere) they could not agree on its size.

The Spanish Inquisition was in reality run by university lawyers who saw it as a stepping stone to better things. In fact, torture so common in secular prisons of the time was a rarity in the Spanish Inquisition with only 3% of all cases and most of that lasted only 15 minutes. Conditions in secular prisons were so bad that people would blaspheme simply to get into the Spanish Inquisition court!

"Ironically, the Spanish Inquisition worked to stop the second thing most connected with it: the burning of witches. It came in the aftermath of the first and only witchcraft trial in 1610. The Suprema (the ruling counsel) was so displeased with the result that they appointed the one Inquisitor who had disagree with his colleagues, Alonso de Salazar Frías, as head of the investigation of the matter. Salazar's 1613 report spared no one in his criticism regarding the procedure of the tribunal, not even himself. Salazar's detailed examination of witchcraft claims and procedure for verification became the go to book for all future handling of Witchcraft claims by the Spanish Inquisition. In a bit of further irony all witch burnings after this were the result of Inquisitors not following the rules or being unable to stop the locals and the Roman Inquisition made Salazar's procedures part of its handling of witchcraft. (Phillips, Perrott (1978) Out of this world : the illustrated library of the bizarre and extraordinary Volume 23 Phoebus Publishing company pg 10-11; Henningsen, Gustav (1980) The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition (1609–1619), Nevada)

In term of people who died to the Spanish Inquisition over the 350 years of its existence the high estimate is 5,000 people." (Spanish Inquisition rationalwiki)
----

If we got it so wrong on these people and organizations which are far more recent how can we say anything is "right" about Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

Well look at all the the things regarding history we got "wrong" because we wanted to believe them:

The Church of the Middle Ages suppressed all efforts into the endeavors we call science.

Richard I was a great king who loved England, Richard II was a vain, narcissistic, cruel ruler, and Richard III was a mishapen power mad maniac who was the embodiment of evil.

Christopher Columbus sailed west to prove to the narrow-minded Churchmen of his age the world was round.

Spanish Inquisition was an all powerful tyrannical organization composed of sadistic religious zealots answerable to only itself that ruthlessly crushed all opposition to it.

The reality is far different:

...

If we got it so wrong on these people and organizations which are far more recent how can we say anything is "right" about Jesus?

Just a quick question: When you say "The Reality", you actually mean what you've been taught by Historians, rather than the rubbish you pick up in Youtube videos and fringe theories*. Right?

So I'm not sure you are making the point you think you are making. Thanks anyway.

* And works of Theology.

 

[maximara]

Just a quick question: When you say "The Reality", you actually mean what you've been taught by Historians, rather than the rubbish you pick up in Youtube videos and fringe theories*. Right?

So I'm not sure you are making the point you think you are making. Thanks anyway.

* And works of Theology.

What the actual records of the time show.

It was going back to those actual records that showed the historians were simply spouting fictional drivel by trusting what their previous fellows had stated rather then going back and cross checking the material to verify.

"Columbus' ships that braved the Main Sailing west from Palos, Spain To prove the earth is round." (1915 The Kindergarten-primary Magazine - Volume 27 - Page 56)

"Columbus was born in Italy. He liked to watch the boats when he was a boy. He read stories about sailors. He studied maps. He believed the earth was round. People laughed at him. They said, "earth is flat." (1921 Federal citizenship textbook pg 79)

"Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked its edge. Today we know better." (1961 Encyclopedia Britannica)

Many Europeans still believed that the world was flat. Columbus, they thought, would fall off the Earth" (Textbook for fifth-graders; Foresman, Scott 1983 America Past and Present p98)

"In the Middle Ages the earth was thought to be a flat plain surrounded by waters, with Jerusalem at its center and Paradise somewhere in the Far East. Then, in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Europe's conquest of the sea revolutionized man's knowledge of his planet and helped to give Europe a new supremacy in world affairs." (1988 Atlas of the World)

Yes those historians sure knew their stuff. Gads, just how freaking blind and dumb can historians be to let this non factual twaddle in textbooks and the like? And if they screwed that up with evidence staring them in the face how can we trust they aren't doing the same stupid thing with Jesus?

 

[IanS]

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?

You are the person here who has said scores of times that you rely on the opinion of the people you call “historians” who you say have extracted a “historical Jesus” from the supernatural miracle stories of the bible.

Unless you yourself don’t even know what you are saying, you must know what your “historians” did to the supernatural Jesus stories of the bible in order to claim a so-called “historical” Jesus.

So … what’s the answer - how did these “historians” get rid of all the many dozens of supernatural Jesus stories in the bible?

Very simple question. Why are you so reluctant to answer that? Will the answer be something you don’t want to admit?

What do you think they did to those supernatural stories in order to exclude all those supernatural parts?

 

[Brainache]

What the actual records of the time show.

It was going back to those actual records that showed the historians were simply spouting fictional drivel by trusting what their previous fellows had stated rather then going back and cross checking the material to verify.

"Columbus' ships that braved the Main Sailing west from Palos, Spain To prove the earth is round." (1915 The Kindergarten-primary Magazine - Volume 27 - Page 56)

"Columbus was born in Italy. He liked to watch the boats when he was a boy. He read stories about sailors. He studied maps. He believed the earth was round. People laughed at him. They said, "earth is flat." (1921 Federal citizenship textbook pg 79)

"Before Columbus proved the world was round, people thought the horizon marked its edge. Today we know better." (1961 Encyclopedia Britannica)

Many Europeans still believed that the world was flat. Columbus, they thought, would fall off the Earth" (Textbook for fifth-graders; Foresman, Scott 1983 America Past and Present p98)

"In the Middle Ages the earth was thought to be a flat plain surrounded by waters, with Jerusalem at its center and Paradise somewhere in the Far East. Then, in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, Europe's conquest of the sea revolutionized man's knowledge of his planet and helped to give Europe a new supremacy in world affairs." (1988 Atlas of the World)

Yes those historians sure knew their stuff. Gadsm just how freaking blind and dumb can you be? (Looks as Jesus issue) Never mind I think I know.

You think that's the norm?

How do you know any of that is wrong, if it isn't Historians telling you that stuff is wrong?

Do you get my point?

 

[Brainache]

You are the person here who has said scores of times that you rely on the opinion of the people you call “historians” who you say have extracted a “historical Jesus” from the supernatural miracle stories of the bible.

Unless you yourself don’t even know what you are saying, you must know what your “historians” did to the supernatural Jesus stories of the bible in order to claim a so-called “historical” Jesus.

So … what’s the answer - how did these “historians” get rid of all the many dozens of supernatural Jesus stories in the bible?

Very simple question. Why are you so reluctant to answer that? Will the answer be something you don’t want to admit?

What do you think they did to those supernatural stories in order to exclude all those supernatural parts?

No one is reluctant to answer, it has been answered on these threads already several times. You just don't like it.

You want to take the Historical Jesus out of the story, you have to come up with an alternative. I don't know how many times you need to see it written down.

The null hypothesis isn't "Christianity appeared out of nowhere". The null hypothesis is that it was a product of its time. The null hypothesis is that there was a Jewish Preacher because Jewish Preachers were there at that time doing that Jesus type stuff. There is no reason, no evidence to suggest otherwise. If you have it, present it.



(damn that last sentence sounds familiar, where have I heard it before? Why do the numbers 9 and 11 keep popping into my head?)

 

[Craig B]

Again what that data and evidence is depends on the model you being with. <snip> One of the main models behind history is the Great Man theory ie that history is the result of the actions of Great men. The Great Moment theory is the very antithesis of that ie general events and culture dynamics are what move history along. <snip> Great Man theory: Adolf Hitler was the key figure in causing WWII.

Great Moment theory: The tensions in Germany were such that any war mongering scapegoat seeking maniac in the right place and time would have risen to power 1934.

The Christ Myth theory at its heart has always been a Great Moment theory and that annoys the apologists no end.

Therefore the Great Moment theory asserts that Columbus and Hitler didn't exist? If it doesn't, it makes no statements whatever about the existence of a historical Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Therefore the Great Moment theory asserts that Columbus and Hitler didn't exist? If it doesn't, it makes no statements whatever about the existence of a historical Jesus.

Exactly.

 

[Belz...]

Therefore the Great Moment theory asserts that Columbus and Hitler didn't exist? If it doesn't, it makes no statements whatever about the existence of a historical Jesus.

Maximara's just saying that the prevailing theory might be wrong, but that the experts might not see it because they rely on the prevailing theory, rather than reevaluate it.

 

[Brainache]

Maximara's just saying that the prevailing theory might be wrong, but that the experts might not see it because they rely on the prevailing theory, rather than reevaluate it.

Again, the same can be said for any Academic discipline. Without good reason, why should they? No one has come up with a peer reviewed alternative.

That is what Richard Carrier is trying to do, but he hasn't done it yet.

 

[IanS]

Just to go around the merry-go-round one more time... I didn't "inadvertently" agree, I actually DO agree. We only have what Paul regarded or believed. ..

Oh, OK, excellent. So you do in fact agree that we are not talking about evidence of Jesus in any of Paul’s letters, we are only talking about Paul’s belief (or strictly speaking, about what anonymous copyists presented c.200AD+, as the work of what is likely to be an anonymous scribe writing under the name of Paul c.60AD, said were the beliefs of Paul).

OK, right, so we agree that is definitely not evidence of Jesus.

The question then is (as more than just I have pointed out to you repeatedly) what is the best explanation for Paul's belief, taking all the texts into consideration? ..

Well as I have repeatedly pointed out in reply to ideas like that -

- the "explanation" is precisely what Paul himself repeatedly tells you! He specifically says, many times, that he did not get any information about Jesus from any mortal man. He says he got it all front his belief in OT scripture (and from his imagined visions of a spirit Jesus and a spirit Yahweh in the sky). And he absolutely insists on that.

So there is no great mystery, nor any ambiguity, nor any room for argument about that. Because Paul says it with crystal clarity.

And I specifically said it as part of a cumulative case. IF Paul thought that Jesus lived on earth in Paul's recent past, then this raises the possibility that there actually was a Jesus, than if Paul thought that Jesus died (say) 500 years before..

I’m sorry but that is again just Paul’s belief. That’s the exact same point that you just agreed above, ie that it was only evidence of Paul’s belief and not evidence of Jesus!

Paul believed in a Jesus he had never met. A Jesus he knew nothing about, except theologically from scripture and as an imaginary figure of his religious visions. But as we just agreed, Paul’s beliefs are evidence only of what he says he believed … not evidence of Jesus.

"Could not possibly have believed it"? Why speak in absolute terms like that? I've explicitly stated many times that I am talking about "the best explanation". Not "certainty", not "for sure", but best explanation. And I am talking about "cumulative case". Not any one sentence or any one passage, but viewing the texts as a whole...

Why speak in terms like that? Well here’s one good reason - only a few post back I quoted Bart Herman saying that he relies on two main pieces of evidence for saying that “Jesus certainly existed”, one of which is that he believes Paul had met the actual brother of Jesus, and he says of that (paraphrasing from memory) “obviously his brother James would have known that Jesus was real”, and on that basis Ehrman concludes as quoted extensively only a page back that “Jesus certainly existed” … IOW he believes that because it says so in the bible!

And notice also that I quoted where Ehrman said “almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees with that (ie agrees with Ehrman)”. And by the way, Ehrman describes himself as a “historian” … for which people here might like to just check his actual academic qualifications, check what sort of univ. department he teaches in (it’s NOT a history dep’t), and while they are at it (or while Brainache is at it, since this “historian” claim is the one he’s been mostly pushing), check also Ehrman’s religious background and upbringing … you get all that in 5 seconds flat just by Googling “Wikipedia Bart Ehrman”.

It's not that I don't understand where you are coming from, but I simply don't understand why you don't know where I am coming from, despite my repeated statements of my position.

Well look at the above reply re. your own 2nd quote asking “what then is the best explanation for Paul‘s belief?” … see my reply to that where Paul very obviously and unarguable tells us repeatedly what the explanation of his belief is. That’s why I “don’t understand where you are coming from”, ie because that sort of statement from you is clearly just a mistake (or an oversight, missing what Paul actually says).

Seriously, the only reason I've kept at this till now is that I'm fascinated by how many times you can misunderstand what I and others here have been explaining to you.

OK, well look again at the above reply, where, to quote you again on what you have just offered as this so-called “explanation” which you think I should appreciate -

“And I specifically said it as part of a cumulative case. IF Paul thought that Jesus lived on earth in Paul's recent past, then this raises the possibility that there actually was a Jesus, than if Paul thought that Jesus died (say) 500 years before.”


That is, to repeat, very obviously just another example of what Paul “thought”, ie what he believed, about Jesus. But without even the faintest scintilla of any evidence there for Jesus existing! You are just talking again about Paul’s beliefs … and that is not evidence at all of Jesus.

It makes zero difference at all that you say “it raises the possibility that there actually way a Jesus”, because we are not talking about an un-evidenced “possibility”! Anything might be possible … Jesus might have existed as an upside down pigeon riding a squirrel (if pigs might fly), but the question is still "what then is the evidence that such a “possibility” is actually true?" … and as you just agreed, there is actually no evidence there except for Paul’s un-evidenced belief!

Yes, and we have gone through this before as well. No need to go through this again.

OK, good. No argument from me on that.

And by the way - this post of yours is by far the most sensible and reasonable of all the pro-HJ posts here, and unlike others here you do evidently at least realise why Paul’s beliefs are not evidence of Jesus.

The only problem seems to be that you have a contradiction where in the next breath you say (as already explained above) -

“ IF Paul thought that Jesus lived on earth in Paul's recent past, then this raises the possibility that there actually was a Jesus,…”

But that statement is just obviously the exact same statement saying Paul believed in Jesus … but as you have (top of the page here) the sense and decency to admit, it is just plain wrong for anyone to think that any belief attributed to Paul is actually evidence of Jesus. Tbh, I think you must have just overlooked that, because it’s a glaring error (but we are all capable of that in a messy thread and very messy issue like this).

I agree. But the claim that Jesus was a Jew who was crucified and around whom beliefs that he was God is hardly an extraordinary one, and I believe is the best explanation based on the texts we have of Paul and the Gospels.

It’s not an extraordinary claim to say that a person claiming to be the messiah, had been executed. But the fact that it’s believable does nothing to change the fact that there appears to be no evidence of this person ever being alive on earth. And as explained countless times, the biblical description of Jesus is a very extraordinary one to say the least! It’s a description of a figure who is now known, by 21st century science, to be utterly impossible. But, key point - that is the ONLY description anyone ever gave of him! There is no description of anything called a “historical Jesus” …

… the historical non-supernatural Jesus, is something which modern day bible scholars have created by simply taking an eraser to all the parts of the biblical writing that they don’t like and which would make their belief in Jesus absurd, and actually erasing it all! What is their justification for doing that?

And even after doing that, even if you think a process as drastic as crossing it all out, leaves you with what you just called a remaining picture of Jesus as an ordinary Jew which is not any longer “extraordinary” (to quote your word), the question still remains - what then is the evidence of this Jesus as ever living on earth? And the answer is certainly not Paul’s vision of him as a figure from OT scripture, nor the gospel picture also drawn from OT scripture.

Anyway, I'll drop off this merry-go-round now. Thanks for your time.

Well that’s a shame, because your reply here was vastly more reasonable than most if not all the pro-HJ posts here, and was clearly getting very close to what I have been saying all the way through.

So, maybe you’d like to reconsider that departure, then at least you and I might get to the bottom of any remaining difference of opinion we may have on this.

But apart from that, thanks for a non-evasive and direct open and honest post, which is unfortunately is more than I can say for some of the posts on the HJ side of the Jesus divide.

So well, done for that .

 

[dejudge]

If you weren't so combative, maybe you'd have an easier time interacting with people here. Would you please calm down ? Right now you're flailing your arms about and it isn't helping.

I came to COMBAT and DESTROY the fallacy called the historical Jesus of Nazareth. I came to stop once and for all the historising of known admitted fiction and mythology.

It has already been established that Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of Faith over a hundred years ago so I cannot understand why people today are using the same Bible, a compilation of Myths, to argue that Jesus was a human being when Christians themselves argued PUBLICLY that he was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

If Jesus was a human being then it should be obvious that the Bible is NOT credible.

There is now no credible source, no credible data to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being.

 

[Craig B]

I came to destroy the fallacy called the historical Jesus of Nazareth. I came to stop once and for all the historising of known admitted fiction and mythology.

My, my! I wish you luck.

 

[dejudge]

My, my! I wish you luck.

I have already destroyed the fallacy called the historical Jesus of Nazareth.

You will notice that the posters here who support an HJ of Nazareth are incapable of producing any evidence for their argument and spend all of their time talking about an UNKNOWN consensus which they themselves do not respect.

Do you want to argue that there was an historical Jesus of Nazareth?

What DATA are you going to use?? The Bible or Forgeries?

Your sources are extremely limited.

 

[IanS]

No one is reluctant to answer, it has been answered on these threads already several times. You just don't like it.

No I don't think it has been answered, and you certainly never even attempted to answer it.

Can you quote the post where it was answered?

I am asking you -

Who took those parts out of the biblical writing?

What was the justification for doing that?

And what date did the wholesale removal of all the miracles and all the supernatural happen?