Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
dejudge: I've asked you these before. You have not responded. I'll ask once again. Surprise me by actually responding:

1) You seem to be asserting that the Christian religion was begun rather late in the second century, outside Judea. If this is true, why did its founders go out of their way to add onto it all the baggage of a Jewish connection?

2) When I pointed out to you that the letter Pliny the younger sent to Trajan concerning his prosecution of Christians, a letter probably dating from ca. 115, you asserted that the term "Christian" was applied, from the time of Claudius onward, to magicians in general. What specific evidence do you have that this was the case?

I have already answered your questions.

1. I have already stated that the Jesus story and cult started some time after or around c 115 CE or after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger but before 138 CE Based on Aristides Apology.

2. I have already stated that Justin Martyr claimed the followers of Simon Magus and Menander were called Christians. Simon Magus was in the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE. See First Apology
 
Last edited:
TimCallahan

I have already answered your questions.

1. I have already stated that the Jesus story and cult started some time after or around c 115 CE or after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger but before 138 CE Based on Aristides Apology.
To dejudge a statement is the same thing as evidence. And the Jesus cult started at the same time as Pliny and Aristides, or even later, because when these authors refer to Christ and Christians, the reference may not be to Jesus and his followers. All earlier Christian writings are later forgeries of pure fiction, like Baron Munchausen, or Hardouin's "Severus Archontius".

It is impossible to refute such a schema, fantastic though it may be. Its proponent will simply declare his own statements to be evidence, and if an opponent offers contrary evidence backed by documented sources, these will be rejected as mere falsifications.
 
Last edited:
Please, there is something wrong with your math and chronology. Pontius Pilate was not the governor of Claudius.

You do know I am quoting Demonstrations (74) (also c180 CE) by Irenaeus, right?

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

As I have mentioned before aside from the Pontius Pilate reference this puts the crucifixion 42-44 CE as that is when Herod Agrippa I had his "King of the Jews" title (Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94)

Strangely Irenaeus in Against Heresies 1:27:2 stated "But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar"

So if you take Against Heresies and Demonstrations (74) together (as they were both written c180) you are left with the conclusion that Irenaeus believed Pontius Pilate was procurator under Tiberius and became governor under Claudius or that he wasn't sure when Pontius Pilate's rule was.

gLuke In Against Heresies the author claims Jesus was about 30 years of age when he was baptized as stated by the author of gLuke''

The author of gLuke places the baptism at the 15th year of Tiberius.

The problem is "about 30 years" could mean anything from 26 to 34 years old and the 15th year of Tiberius is actually September 18, 28 CE to September 17, 29 CE.

A Jesus born 7 BCE would have been 34 years old in 28 CE and 50 years old in 44...which matches two of the temporal references in Demonstrations (74).

Ergo when you consider Demonstrations (74) and Against Heresies together Irenaeus is saying Jesus was crucified in 44 CE at the age of 50 or 15 to 16 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.

Interestingly Theudas the magician's actions (Jewish Antiquities 20.97-98) are dated 44-46 CE and would have effectively obscured the actions of a leader who had a smaller group.
 
Last edited:
You do know I am quoting Demonstrations (74) (also c180 CE) by Irenaeus, right?

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."
Commentators often suggest that Irenaeus made Jesus reach an advanced age for ideological reasons, not because he had any special historical knowledge. Here is wiki on this topic:
In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, from infancy to old age, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. Although it is sometimes claimed that Irenaeus believed Christ did not die until he was older than is conventionally portrayed, the bishop of Lyons simply pointed out that because Jesus turned the permissible age for becoming a rabbi (30 years old and above), he recapitulated and sanctified the period between 30 and 50 years old, as per the Jewish custom of periodization of human life, and so touches the beginning of old age when one becomes 50 years old. (see Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22).
 
I have already answered your questions.

1. I have already stated that the Jesus story and cult started some time after or around c 115 CE or after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger but before 138 CE Based on Aristides Apology.

Great ! Now stop stating, and prove it.
 
Commentators often suggest that Irenaeus made Jesus reach an advanced age for ideological reasons, not because he had any special historical knowledge. Here is wiki on this topic:

Please note this wiki has Adversus Haereses, book II, chapter 22 as its reference while what I am quoting is from Demonstrations and is therefore irreverent to the point at hand.

Demonstrations (74) unlike Adversus Haereses has the equivalent of an actual year for Jesus crucifixion:

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

There is nothing in the Gospel accounts that puts Pontius Pilate as governor during the reign of Claudius Caesar and Herod the king of the Jews (ie Herod Agrippa I). So either Irenaeus either had a work that stated this or he calculated who had be Caeser and ruler of the region when Jesus was about 50 and simply plugged Pontius Pilate into the mix.
 
... So either Irenaeus either had a work that stated this or he calculated who had be Caeser and ruler of the region when Jesus was about 50 and simply plugged Pontius Pilate into the mix.
Or he decided for non-historical reasons, as suggested, that Jesus must have reached a greater age than normally stated, and rearranged the history to suit this ideological requirement.
 
dejudge said:
1. I have already stated that the Jesus story and cult started some time after or around c 115 CE or after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger but before 138 CE Based on Aristides Apology.

Great ! Now stop stating, and prove it.

Your one sentence posts are void of substance.

All that is required is a simple math calculation using the available existing evidence.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger made no mention of the Jesus story and cult up to or around c 115 CE,

Aristides' Apology, written no later than c 138 CE, mentioned the Jesus story and cult.

Plus, it must not be forgotten that NO story of Jesus has been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

The existing evidence fully support the argument that the Jesus story and cult originated sometime between c 115 CE and 138 CE.
 
Last edited:
... Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger made no mention of the Jesus story and cult up to or around c 115 CE
The last three of these refer to a "Christ", or in the case of Suetonius, to a "Chrestus", cult.

ETA Here's the passage from Tacitus, Annals 15:44:
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

ETA 2 Apart from the Chrestus reference, Suetonius has this in his Life of Nero Ch 16, but I think it's an interpolation.
Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
Pliny we've already discussed in these threads.
 
Last edited:
You do know I am quoting Demonstrations (74) (also c180 CE) by Irenaeus, right?

You do know that "Against Heresies" 2. 22 contains the actual argument that Jesus was crucified at about 50 years, right?

You do know that "Demonstration" only claims Jesus was crucified under Claudius WITHOUT any details about the age of Jesus, right?


Why are you using a single sentence in "Demonstration" instead of the 2000 word chapter in "Against Heresies 2.22?"

Please, refer to Against Heresies 2.22 for the argument that Jesus was not yet 30 years old at baptism and was crucified at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius.


The very start of the argument is that Jesus was NOT 30 years old when he was baptized.

Against Heresies 2.22.1
..1. I have shown that the number thirty fails them in every respect; too few Aeons, as they represent them, being at one time found within the Pleroma, and then again too many [to correspond with that number].

There are not, therefore, thirty Aeons, nor did the Saviour come to be baptized when He was thirty years old...

Examine Against Heresies 2.22.5.

For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it...

Against Heresies 2.22 presents serious historical problems for the Pauline Corpus.,

It is claimed Irenaeus was a presbyter of the Church and he is arguing publicly AGAINST Heretics and stating that Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE.

This is absolutely fascinating.

How could an elder of the Church argue that Jesus was crucified around c 50 CE??

The answer is extremely easy to answer.

Neither Irenaeus nor the Heretics had any knowledge of Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus at around c 180 CE.

In Acts and the Pauline Corpus Paul preached Jesus Christ was crucified since at least c 37-41 CE or no later than the time of King Aretas.
 
Last edited:
The last three of these refer to a "Christ", or in the case of Suetonius, to a "Chrestus", cult.

ETA Here's the passage from Tacitus, Annals 15:44:

If there were many Messianic claimants, many persons called Jesus and cults of Christians who did not believe the Jesus story then it is illogical to assume Christ refers to Jesus or the Jesus cult.

The very Bible claims that there would be many FALSE Christ claimants.

Mark 13:6 KJV---For many shall come in my name, saying , I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

Please, do not assume that any character called Christ is Jesus of Nazareth You may have been duped.

Plus, in gMark, gMatthew, and gLuke Jesus was not even known as the Christ to the populace.

Jesus was known as John the Baptist or one of the Prophets---NOT Christ.

Mark 8-----Whom do men say that I am ? 28 And they answered , John the Baptist: but some say, Elias; and others, One of the prophets
 
Last edited:
I have already answered your questions.

1. I have already stated that the Jesus story and cult started some time after or around c 115 CE or after the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger but before 138 CE Based on Aristides Apology.

After the writings of Pliny the Younger? Then who was Pliny referring to in his letter to Trajan? Remember, Pliny the Younger died ca. 113. So, some time before 113 some sect of Christians was already established in Bithynia.

Also, you haven't explained why this cult would have gone out of its way to adopt all the baggage of Jewish associations, if it originated outside Judea.

2. I have already stated that Justin Martyr claimed the followers of Simon Magus and Menander were called Christians. Simon Magus was in the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE. See First Apology

Okay, here's what Justin has to say about Simon Magus in chapter 26 of his First Apology:

And, thirdly, because after Christ's ascension into heaven the devils put forward certain men who said that they themselves were gods; and they were not only not persecuted by you, but even deemed worthy of honours. There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured by you with a statue, which statue was erected on the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this inscription, in the language of Rome:— Simoni Deo Sancto, To Simon the holy God. And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him, and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him.

He says pretty much the same thing in chapter 56. In chapter 26 he says this of Menander and Marcion. I've added bolding to Justin's statement that followers of these men were called Christians.

And a man, Menander, also a Samaritan, of the town Capparetæa, a disciple of Simon, and inspired by devils, we know to have deceived many while he was in Antioch by his magical art. He persuaded those who adhered to him that they should never die, and even now there are some living who hold this opinion of his. And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works. All who take their opinions from these men, are, as we before said, called Christians;

So, there certainly were more than one set of beliefs, more or less allied, called Christianity. That is a far cry from saying that the word "Christian" was synonymous with "magician," which is what you asserted. Now, do you have any evidence that the Christians Pliny the Younger was prosecuting were either Marcionites or followers of Simon Magus?
 
Last edited:
If there were many Messianic claimants, many persons called Jesus and cults of Christians who did not believe the Jesus story then it is illogical to assume Christ refers to Jesus or the Jesus cult.
Yes, and as I've pointed out, that makes your theory absolutely irrefutable. Every early source is either a pure fiction forged many decades later, or if that can't be sustained, it is referring to some other "Christ".
 
Your one sentence posts are void of substance.

That might be because they are requests, not claims.

All that is required is a simple math calculation using the available existing evidence.

I'd like to see your formula, then.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger made no mention of the Jesus story and cult up to or around c 115 CE,

Ok.

Aristides' Apology, written no later than c 138 CE, mentioned the Jesus story and cult.

So you now claim that the cult existed prior to this date ?

Plus, it must not be forgotten that NO story of Jesus has been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

True, which casts doubt on the authenticity of the story, but doesn't prove that it isn't authentic.

The existing evidence fully support the argument that the Jesus story and cult originated sometime between c 115 CE and 138 CE.

The evidence you presented supports this argument, but it is not the totality of the evidence.

Still not seeing your math, here.
 
dejudge: Since you have mentioned Aristides' Apology, which he addressed to Emperor Hadrian (reigned 117 - 138) and since you seem to think his apology was one of the earliest Christian writings, I'd like you to consider this quote from that document:

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it. This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

So, some time before CE 138 Aristides was claiming that Christianity originated from a Jewish source (note the hilited areas). Again, if you're making someone up out of whole cloth, why go out of your way to entangle your new religion with Judaism and all its baggage?

Also, consider all the embarrassing contortions the gospels of Matthew and Luke had to go through to get Jesus born in Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy in Micah 5:2, but at the same time have him come from Galilee? If you're making someone up out of whole cloth, and he's supposed to come from Bethlehem, then you would simply say he came from Bethlehem. The simplest explanation of the gyrations Matthew and Luke have to go through to match a Jesus from Galilee with a messiah who was supposed to come from Bethlehem, is that they were stuck with a real guy who came from Galilee and had to paper over this inconvenient truth with their divergent nativity mythologies.

Bear in mind that any HJ I might refer to is barely historical and may even be a composite of more than one Jesus (or Yeshua - a fairly common name at that time and place). I am not arguing for the historical veracity of any of the gospels or of the Book of Acts. Even the non-supernatural acts of Jesus are clearly not historical. For example, his grand entry into Jerusalem would have been swiftly ended by gratuitously violent intervention on the part of the Romans - as in the case of Theudas.

About the only thing in the gospels that might have been historical - and I stress the word "might" - is that he may have entered the temple and caused a disturbance, overturning the tables of the money-changers. Had he done that, the temple troops would have seized him on the spot and probably handed him over to the Romans, who would then have speedily put him to death. I suspect, if this did happen, that Jesus had complicity in his own arrest under the deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom