Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

We have already debunked your unknown consensus which you yourself do not adhere to.

At this present time there are Agnostic historians, Historian who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology and other multiple characters.

You are actively engaged in promoting an oddball fringe theory that Jesus of Nazareth was a Zealot.

If Jesus was a real Zealot then there is no consensus on the historical Jesus.

Well then. What's your problem? You've won!

Send me a postcard from Stockholm.

 

[jobberone]

I read about half of it and have no major problems with that. I've been thru this long ago and as a scientist tend to have a healthy skepticism and a critical eye with the experience of seeing many facts and theories be tested.

I'm not interested in a debate about the religious aspects of Jesus of Nazareth but more so the idea that the Nazarene is a myth. Without throwing around a number of references, which in these days are mere keystrokes away from those interested, espousing an agenda one side or the other, I would encourage a critical look at why one would debunk the historical reality of Jesus or vice versa. If you insist on refs then look at Blomberg, Crossan, Meier, Ehrman and the like.

Whether you are religious or not you can look at the non-religious historicity of Jesus and most would center on two relatively well accepted facts as certain as history can be. Those are the baptism and the crucifixion of Jesus.

EDIT: sorry still learning the format here. I hit the reply rather than the quote button to Brainache's response to me.

 

[dejudge]

Unless you are a Historian (facts be not with them) you are unworthy to challenge the Consensus.

I am merely repeating what is found in the NT Canon. Historians must read the Bible to get a description of Jesus if they want to look for him.

The Bible contains information about Pilate.

In order for me to find out if Bible Pilate was a figure of history I must first read about Bible Pilate in the NT.

Pilate was a governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius and this is confirmed in Philo and Josephus.

On the other hand, Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost, was God Creator, King of the Jews, the Crucified Savior of all mankind in the time of Tiberius.

No such character can be found either real or imagined in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

In fact, it is multiple attested by Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus' Histories 5 and Suetonius Life of Vespasian that the Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE NOT in the time of Tiberius.

 

[dejudge]

Whether you are religious or not you can look at the non-religious historicity of Jesus and most would center on two relatively well accepted facts as certain as history can be. Those are the baptism and the crucifixion of Jesus.

Thousands of Jews were crucified and an undetermined quantity were baptized and there is no evidence that Jews worshiped the crucified and baptized as Gods.

Plus, you cannot use the Bible to argue for an historical Jesus---you must find a corroborative source.

For example, the Bible contains information about a character called Pilate and that he was governor under Tiberius.

I must FIRST corroborate what is written about Bible Pilate by NON-Apologetic sources before I can argue that Pilate in the Bible is a figure of history.

Philo and Josephus mention Pilate as a governor of Judea under Tiberius.

What is the corroborative non-apologetic source that shows or claims Jesus of Nazareth did exist, was indeed baptized and crucified in the time of Pilate under Tiberius?

There is ZERO corroboration for Jesus of Nazareth in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

This is exactly what is expected when Jesus was a figure of mythology invented in the 2nd century.

 

[tsig]

I read about half of it and have no major problems with that. I've been thru this long ago and as a scientist tend to have a healthy skepticism and a critical eye with the experience of seeing many facts and theories be tested.

I'm not interested in a debate about the religious aspects of Jesus of Nazareth but more so the idea that the Nazarene is a myth. Without throwing around a number of references, which in these days are mere keystrokes away from those interested, espousing an agenda one side or the other, I would encourage a critical look at why one would debunk the historical reality of Jesus or vice versa. If you insist on refs then look at Blomberg, Crossan, Meier, Ehrman and the like.

Whether you are religious or not you can look at the non-religious historicity of Jesus and most would center on two relatively well accepted facts as certain as history can be. Those are the baptism and the crucifixion of Jesus. EDIT: sorry still learning the format here. I hit the reply rather than the quote button to Brainache's response to me.

What is the evidence that they took place?

 

[Belz...]

Again, you present no evidence to support your 60-40 historical Jesus theory.

That might have something to do with the fact that I am making no claim.

I am 100-0 that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

Yes, I already know you are close-minded. You said so more than once. Why you think this is a badge of honour is beyond me.

You are continuing to ignore my analogy. Do you agree, or not, that supernatural features added to a historical character do not make that character mythical ? Your continual avoidance of this question is damning for you.

I have read Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

So, no, then. You calling out other posters is therefore simple hypocrisy.

 

[Belz...]

Again, you display a lack of knowledge of gJohn and ancient mythology.

But I am displaying the ability to spot your fallacies.

In gJohn1-- Jesus is the Logos and God Creator.

In gJohn 1--the Logos, God Creator became Flesh.

Effectively Jesus, the Logos, God Creator made himself a man.

And I should take this myth into consideration, why ?

 

[pakeha]

I haven't read Ehrman on the DSS. I was under the impression that he hadn't studied them.

He was teaching Ancient Near East Studies for a long time at California State University Long Beach. I'm not sure if it counts as historian's qualification, but: "Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Oxford, England." I think you have to be pretty good to get that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Centre_for_Hebrew_and_Jewish_Studies

But I could be wrong.

I daresay you're right.
I've always thought of an historian as having completed an academic formation as such, though.

...Whether you are religious or not you can look at the non-religious historicity of Jesus and most would center on two relatively well accepted facts as certain as history can be. Those are the baptism and the crucifixion of Jesus. ...

jobberone, I'll ask what makes you think that, because as far as I know, the crucifixion is only attested by the devotional literature we know of as the Gospels and the Pauline writings, correct me if I'm wrong.

...The continued insistence that anyone who questions the HJ is a Myther is by now a studied insult rather than a mistake.

I can see what you mean.
At any moment I feel I'll be accused here of thinking Jesus was a mushroom.

 

[dejudge]

In gJohn1-- Jesus is the Logos and God Creator.

In gJohn 1--the Logos, God Creator became Flesh.

Effectively Jesus, the Logos, God Creator made himself a man.

And I should take this myth into consideration, why ?

What?? You appear to be confused or not credible. Did you not claim that you are 60-40? You already have taken into consideration 40% mythology in your Jesus theory.

 

[Belz...]

What?? You appear to be confused or not credible.

I really think it's time you pick up a dictionary.

Did you not claim that you are 60-40?

Yes, and this expresses an estimate of how much weight I give to both hypotheses relative to each other. I didn't calculate them mathematically, just in case you thought I did.

You already have taken into consideration 40% mythology in your Jesus theory.

That's not what I meant. Why should I take the obvious mythological elements of christ into consideration when trying to determine whether or not there is a real man behind the legend ?

I am beginning to suspect that the problem here is you conflating two things.

 

[jobberone]

I am merely repeating what is found in the NT Canon. Historians must read the Bible to get a description of Jesus if they want to look for him.

The Bible contains information about Pilate.

In order for me to find out if Bible Pilate was a figure of history I must first read about Bible Pilate in the NT.

Pilate was a governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius and this is confirmed in Philo and Josephus.

On the other hand, Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost, was God Creator, King of the Jews, the Crucified Savior of all mankind in the time of Tiberius.

No such character can be found either real or imagined in the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

In fact, it is multiple attested by Josephus Wars of the Jews 6.5.4, Tacitus' Histories 5 and Suetonius Life of Vespasian that the Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE NOT in the time of Tiberius.

It's difficult to follow if you're going to mix myth, religion, agenda, and historicity.

If you don't have a problem with the historical fact there was a Pontius Pilatus, how do you reconcile that with the history of the crucifixion of Yeshua or Yeshu. What is the significance of Maimonides statement about Jesus? Is the Testimonium Flavianum's nucleus real or not? What about Tacitus and Philo? What of Judaism's reaction to Jesus and his crucifixion as being real albeit not fulfilling Messianic prophecy?

While there are genuine questions about the Canonical accounts of Jesus, most do not debunk them as pure myth and agree with the basic premise of an historical Jesus. You can raise many questions about the religious aspects of the Canon but its difficult IMO and others to dismiss the historical figure because of the religious claims.

Finally, there is the fact that most of the disciples saw something profound enough to move them from being in hiding to proclaiming they saw a resurrected Jesus. Now, I'm not arguing for or against the resurrection but I am pointing out that a number of people went to their deaths for their beliefs in a real person. You can separate that out from their religious beliefs and writings. It is hard to dismiss the historical existence of John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee and convert to follower of Jesus.

Gotta go take a walk with the admiral. Enjoyed the debate.

 

[pakeha]

It's difficult to follow if you're going to mix myth, religion, agenda, and historicity.

If you don't have a problem with the historical fact there was a Pontius Pilatus, how do you reconcile that with the history of the crucifixion of Yeshua or Yeshu. What is the significance of Maimonides statement about Jesus? Is the Testimonium Flavianum's nucleus real or not? What about Tacitus and Philo? What of Judaism's reaction to Jesus and his crucifixion as being real albeit not fulfilling Messianic prophecy?

While there are genuine questions about the Canonical accounts of Jesus, most do not debunk them as pure myth and agree with the basic premise of an historical Jesus. You can raise many questions about the religious aspects of the Canon but its difficult IMO and others to dismiss the historical figure because of the religious claims.

Finally, there is the fact that most of the disciples saw something profound enough to move them from being in hiding to proclaiming they saw a resurrected Jesus. Now, I'm not arguing for or against the resurrection but I am pointing out that a number of people went to their deaths for their beliefs in a real person. You can separate that out from their religious beliefs and writings. It is hard to dismiss the historical existence of John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee and convert to follower of Jesus.

Gotta go take a walk with the admiral. Enjoyed the debate.

"Finally, there is the fact that most of the disciples saw something profound enough to move them from being in hiding to proclaiming they saw a resurrected Jesus. Now, I'm not arguing for or against the resurrection but I am pointing out that a number of people went to their deaths for their beliefs in a real person. You can separate that out from their religious beliefs and writings. It is hard to dismiss the historical existence of John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee and convert to follower of Jesus."

How does this argue for an historical Jesus?

 

[jobberone]

Thousands of Jews were crucified and an undetermined quantity were baptized and there is no evidence that Jews worshiped the crucified and baptized as Gods.

Plus, you cannot use the Bible to argue for an historical Jesus---you must find a corroborative source.

For example, the Bible contains information about a character called Pilate and that he was governor under Tiberius.

I must FIRST corroborate what is written about Bible Pilate by NON-Apologetic sources before I can argue that Pilate in the Bible is a figure of history.

Philo and Josephus mention Pilate as a governor of Judea under Tiberius.

What is the corroborative non-apologetic source that shows or claims Jesus of Nazareth did exist, was indeed baptized and crucified in the time of Pilate under Tiberius?

There is ZERO corroboration for Jesus of Nazareth in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

This is exactly what is expected when Jesus was a figure of mythology invented in the 2nd century.

Thousands of Jews were crucified and an undetermined quantity were baptized and there is no evidence that Jews worshiped the crucified and baptized as Gods.

I have no idea why you bring this up nor how it is relevant to the person we are discussing. Everyone is born and dies. About half the population is male and the other female. Factual but irrelevant.

Plus, you cannot use the Bible to argue for an historical Jesus---you must find a corroborative source.

That's not true at all. However, the more data you accumulate the better. But you cannot just dismiss the Bible as being irrelevant as an historical source.

For example, the Bible contains information about a character called Pilate and that he was governor under Tiberius.

I must FIRST corroborate what is written about Bible Pilate by NON-Apologetic sources before I can argue that Pilate in the Bible is a figure of history.

Philo and Josephus mention Pilate as a governor of Judea under Tiberius.

What is the corroborative non-apologetic source that shows or claims Jesus of Nazareth did exist, was indeed baptized and crucified in the time of Pilate under Tiberius?

There is ZERO corroboration for Jesus of Nazareth in non-apologetic contemporary writings.

Well, you'd be wrong. Did you look at the names I mentioned such as Philo, Maimonides and Josephus? The Talmud? You can dismiss each fact singularly but to dismiss all the non-Biblical sources of the existence of Jesus is stretching probability to the breaking point. BTW, I'm citing examples and you are citing your opinion.

This is exactly what is expected when Jesus was a figure of mythology invented in the 2nd century.

Of course you have Mysticism but that is not mainstream thought. Most don't argue with the historical fact of Jesus but his significance which is something we are not arguing.

You're entitled to your opinions but they would be better served if you argued the literature rather than your beliefs.

 

[mijopaalmc]

<snipped extensive quotation>

You can copy and paste the initial and final quote tags around each block of text that you are responding to. That way, you don't have to duplicate text.

 

[jobberone]

What is the evidence that they took place?

I've mentioned some of them. I would suggest you read all the variants of the Testimonium and the scholarly debate surrounding them. I would pay particular attention to the Agapius version.

There is a letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan, Tacitus, Talmudic references, Galen, Lucian and others. One can argue each element singularly of course but I find it difficult to dismiss them all including the historical aspects of the Canon.

If you're asking for undeniable 100% certainty then no one can give you that. But the historicity of Jesus has a greater volume of evidence than that of Pontius Pilate.

Instead of asking me to give you evidence you may consider availing yourself of the chance to further your knowledge on this subject by reading the reams of work already done on it by people much more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. I mentioned some names above but you can google the historical basis of Jesus and spend a long time working on it. To keep balanced you may look at Wells for Jesus as myth.

 

[jobberone]

You can copy and paste the initial and final quote tags around each block of text that you are responding to. That way, you don't have to duplicate text.

Thanks. That obviously didn't read as well as I would have liked. I started to put some color on the italics but thought it might be pretentious. I'll try to do better.

 

[jobberone]

"Finally, there is the fact that most of the disciples saw something profound enough to move them from being in hiding to proclaiming they saw a resurrected Jesus. Now, I'm not arguing for or against the resurrection but I am pointing out that a number of people went to their deaths for their beliefs in a real person. You can separate that out from their religious beliefs and writings. It is hard to dismiss the historical existence of John the Baptist, John the Apostle and Saul of Tarsus the Pharisee and convert to follower of Jesus."

How does this argue for an historical Jesus?

Do you think they went to their deaths over a myth? All of them excluding one? While it certainly is possible its long odds.

Most biblical scholars including Christian, Jewish, and Islamic ones as well as most historians don't exclude the Bible as a complete non-historical reference. And there is enough non-Biblical and contemporary evidence for John the Baptist, Saul of Tarsus, and John the Apostle for most to agree as to their existence. If you accept any of the latter especially Paul and John then it is problematic to deny the very existence of Jesus as an historical person.

 

[tsig]

I've mentioned some of them. I would suggest you read all the variants of the Testimonium and the scholarly debate surrounding them. I would pay particular attention to the Agapius version.

There is a letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan, Tacitus, Talmudic references, Galen, Lucian and others. One can argue each element singularly of course but I find it difficult to dismiss them all including the historical aspects of the Canon.

If you're asking for undeniable 100% certainty then no one can give you that. But the historicity of Jesus has a greater volume of evidence than that of Pontius Pilate.

Instead of asking me to give you evidence you may consider availing yourself of the chance to further your knowledge on this subject by reading the reams of work already done on it by people much more knowledgeable about the subject than I am. I mentioned some names above but you can google the historical basis of Jesus and spend a long time working on it. To keep balanced you may look at Wells for Jesus as myth.

I would suggest that if you want to argue here you present your argument here and not expect others to look up your materiel for you.

 

[Brainache]

I would suggest that if you want to argue here you present your argument here and not expect others to look up your materiel for you.

Well if you've got something, let us see it tsig, no need to be so shy...

 

[Belz...]

If neither side has any evidence to present, why don't we all agree that we just don't know ?