Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Ireanaeus wants to make Jesus old because this requirement derives from his Christology of Jesus as "counter-Adam", an antidote to the Fall. Irenaeus has no special source of historical knowledge about Jesus' age, we may be sure.

Irenaeus argued that Jesus was 50 years old when crucified--not over two thousand years.

Irenaeus was supposed to be a presbyter of the Church so it is completely illogical that Irenaeus would have no knowledge or the teaching of the Church about the age of Jesus.

What is extremely important is that Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church who was supposedly even in Rome publicly documented what was TAUGHT in the Church c 180 CE.

As soon as we understand that at around c 180 CE that the Church TAUGHT that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE then it will be EASILY discovered and deduced that the Pauline Corpus was UNKNOWN and was not yet fabricated in the time of Irenaeus.

Against Heresies 2.22.5

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify..

Against Heresies 2.22. 6

His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

 

[Craig B]

Irenaeus was supposed to be a presbyter of the Church so it is completely illogical that Irenaeus would have no knowledge or the teaching of the Church about the age of Jesus.

What is extremely important is that Irenaeus a presbyter of the Church who was supposedly even in Rome publicly documented what was TAUGHT in the Church c 180 CE.

So the proof that Irenaeus was right is that he was a presbyter. Mmm. I've heard of the infallibility of the Pope, of course; but I think you're taking things a bit far.

ETA If he's right, this must be right. It's from the same work you quote, and the guy was a presbyter after all!

There are four gospels and only four, neither more nor less: four like the points of the compass, four like the chief directions of the wind. The Church, spread all over the world, has in the gospels four pillars and four winds blowing wherever people live.
These four gospels are in actual fact one single Gospel, a fourfold Gospel inspired by the one Spirit, a Gospel which has four aspects representing the work of the Son of God.

These aspects are like the four cherubs described by Ezekiel ... The four Gospels correspond to these symbols. Christ is at the center of them.

By the way, since Irenaeus is referring to four gospels somewhat prior to 180 AD, may we assume he had a hand in forging them? Was he a member of the "Munchausen" fiction-writing collective?

 

[Basilides]

Now, the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE is the event that caused the story of Jesus, the Son of God, "one like the son of Man" to be fabricated.

The Jesus story was not initially fabricated for a new religion but was an EXPLANATION [propaganda] for the destruction of the Temple of the Jewish God.

It was claimed that the Evil Jews KILLED the Son of God and therefore God destroyed Jerusalem and his own Temple.

It was AFTER people started to believed the propaganda that a New Religion was formed and the story was changed to include Salvation and Remission of Sins by Sacrifice when no such thing is in the early story of Jesus in gMark.

I am inclined to agree. Except that I think the "our holy city, temple, religion and way of life were destroyed because we did something wrong" meme was created by Jews. Josephus confirms this.

Contemporaneously with the date of the alleged composition of the gospels, the historian Josephus wrote that the calamity of AD 70 occurred because the then High Priest, Ananus was killed by fellow Jews.

"I should not be wrong in saying that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem." (Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 4.5.2 318)

The Book of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the High Priest.

Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. (Hebrews 3:1)

...and as "the pioneer of their salvation"...

"In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered." (Hebrews 2:10)

So we have the Jewish state and the sacrificial system destroyed because the High Priest, Ananus, was butchered in the heart of the city. And where was the High Priest, Jesus, allegedly flayed and given the death sentence? In the heart of the city.

I say "allegedly" because while the death of the High Priest Ananus as well as the significance of that event is recorded by Josephus, the existence of the Christian sect and the death of its founder didn't rate so much as a footnote from the historian.

But I digress.

Christians say that sacrifices are no longer necessary because Jesus died for us once and for all. But isn't it much more likely that, in response to the ending of the sacrificial system caused by the destruction of the Temple, some 1st century Jews who wanted their religion to maintain some semblance of coherence came up with the idea of a man, a High Priest, who's death served as a final sacrifice rendering all future sacrifices unnecessary?

And isn't it just as likely that these new age Jews also used the death of this High Priest to explain why God had punished them "to the utmost" (1 Thess 2:14-16) by destroying the holy city and the Temple?

Josephus (Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem)
has an account of another Jesus, Jesus ben Ananias who, like Jesus of Nazareth, prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem.

Both Jesus'...

1) were from the lower classes

2) preached a gloomy message about the fate of Jerusalem and it's people.

3) were arrested by the Jewish authorities

4) were then beaten by the Jewish authorities

5) refused to speak or represent themselves

6) after being interrogated and whipped by the Jewish authorities, were then brought to the Roman procurator

7) were then whipped by the Roman Procurator

8) did not cry out in pain during the whipping

9) were asked to identify themselves

10) were identified as madmen

11) were going to be released by the Roman procurator

12) last words were statements of despair about their own fates

13) were killed by the Romans

It would seem that significant plot elements of the gospel story were appropriated from Josephus. Or the story of Jesus ben Ananias was well known in the 1st century, became conflated with stories about the executed high priest and found their way into the gospels. Either way, the idea of the high priest's death resulting in the end of the Temple and the sacrificial system was not unique to Christianity.

All claims that Jesus died for Remission of Sins by Sacrifice and the resurrection was fabricated AFTER the Jesus story in gMark.

The author of the short gMark only knew a story that Jesus would be delivered up by the Jews, that he would be killed and resurrected.

Passages like Mark 4:12 tend to confirm your hypothesis. After all, if Jesus came to save people why did he couch his message in obscure language so as to insure that people would be damned?

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” (Mark 4)

 

[dejudge]

So the proof that Irenaeus was right is that he was a presbyter. Mmm. I've heard of the infallibility of the Pope, of course; but I think you're taking things a bit far.

What is the proof that the Pauline Corpus is history because it is claimed Paul was an apostle??

What is the proof that "Against Heresies" 2.22 did not represent the teachings of the Church c 180 CE?

The question is not really about the actual age of Jesus if he did live but about what was BELIEVED and TAUGHT in the Church c 180 CE.

Once it is understood that the Church TAUGHT that Jesus was FIFTY years old at c 50 CE then in the time of Irenaeus the Pauline Corpus was unknown in the Church.

In the Pauline Corpus, Pauline writers preached Christ crucified c 37-41 CE.

It is virtually impossible for the Church at c 180 CE to have TAUGHT that Jesus was crucified at the age of 50 if they already had the Pauline letters and Acts of the Apostles.

Against Heresies 2.22 has corroborated Justin Martyr that the Pauline Corpus was unknown in the Church.

 

[Craig B]

... Against Heresies 2.22 has corroborated Justin Martyr that the Pauline Corpus was unknown in the Church.

You know that isn't true. Even if you've forgotten the huge discussion in these threads on this topic, I'm certain other interested readers have not. And readers in general are entitled to be warned by you that your opinion is very eccentric. Here is Enc. Britt on the topic:

Justin serves, moreover, as a crucial witness to the status of the 2nd-century New Testament corpus, mentioning the first three Gospels and quoting and paraphrasing the letters of Paul and 1 Peter; he was the first known writer to quote from the Acts of the Apostles.

And we've been through all this before, too. Don't think we'll forget so soon - or at all.

 

[dejudge]

You know that isn't true. Even if you've forgotten the huge discussion in these threads on this topic, I'm certain other interested readers have not.

What you say isn't true. You want to cherry pick your truth.

In Against Heresies 2.22 it is clearly stated that Jesus obtained his fiftieth year and that was also found in the Gospel and preached by the Elders.


At c 180 CE it was TAUGHT in the Church that Jesus was crucified at c 50 CE. The Pauline Corpus was unknown up to the time of Irenaeus.


Against Heresies 2.22

Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years, and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify...

 

[The Norseman]

I don't know how you'd think that my post implies that it does. My point is that the presence of mythological elements does not inform us about the truth value of the rest of the story.

I agree. The issue is then how can we trust what the authors are saying when mythology was routinely believed and stories were routinely made up about mundane things as well as supernatural things.

Because some people that existed had supernatural things made up about them does not mean that it is the case for Jesus, just as the fact that purely mythological people had stories treating the myth as corporeal does not mean that this is the case for Jesus.

However, after reading through many of these Jesus threads, I think that the mythology merits more serious scholarship than it's getting.

 

[Craig B]

What you say isn't true. You want to cherry pick your truth.

In Against Heresies 2.22 it is clearly stated that Jesus obtained his fiftieth year and that was also found in the Gospel and preached by the Elders.


At c 180 CE it was TAUGHT in the Church that Jesus was crucified at c 50 CE. The Pauline Corpus was unknown up to the time of Irenaeus.


Against Heresies 2.22

Fine. You're just going to churn out exactly the same stuff, regardless of the points other posters put to you. Nothing new there, either.

 

[Brainache]

I am inclined to agree. Except that I think the "our holy city, temple, religion and way of life were destroyed because we did something wrong" meme was created by Jews. Josephus confirms this.

Contemporaneously with the date of the alleged composition of the gospels, the historian Josephus wrote that the calamity of AD 70 occurred because the then High Priest, Ananus was killed by fellow Jews.

"I should not be wrong in saying that the capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem." (Josephus, The Jewish Wars, 4.5.2 318)

The Book of Hebrews refers to Jesus as the High Priest.

Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. (Hebrews 3:1)

...and as "the pioneer of their salvation"...

"In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered." (Hebrews 2:10)

So we have the Jewish state and the sacrificial system destroyed because the High Priest, Ananus, was butchered in the heart of the city. And where was the High Priest, Jesus, allegedly flayed and given the death sentence? In the heart of the city.

I say "allegedly" because while the death of the High Priest Ananus as well as the significance of that event is recorded by Josephus, the existence of the Christian sect and the death of its founder didn't rate so much as a footnote from the historian.

But I digress.

Christians say that sacrifices are no longer necessary because Jesus died for us once and for all. But isn't it much more likely that, in response to the ending of the sacrificial system caused by the destruction of the Temple, some 1st century Jews who wanted their religion to maintain some semblance of coherence came up with the idea of a man, a High Priest, who's death served as a final sacrifice rendering all future sacrifices unnecessary?

And isn't it just as likely that these new age Jews also used the death of this High Priest to explain why God had punished them "to the utmost" (1 Thess 2:14-16) by destroying the holy city and the Temple?

Josephus (Book 6, Chapter 5, Section 3 of The Wars of the Jews or History of the Destruction of Jerusalem)
has an account of another Jesus, Jesus ben Ananias who, like Jesus of Nazareth, prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem.

Both Jesus'...

1) were from the lower classes

2) preached a gloomy message about the fate of Jerusalem and it's people.

3) were arrested by the Jewish authorities

4) were then beaten by the Jewish authorities

5) refused to speak or represent themselves

6) after being interrogated and whipped by the Jewish authorities, were then brought to the Roman procurator

7) were then whipped by the Roman Procurator

8) did not cry out in pain during the whipping

9) were asked to identify themselves

10) were identified as madmen

11) were going to be released by the Roman procurator

12) last words were statements of despair about their own fates

13) were killed by the Romans

It would seem that significant plot elements of the gospel story were appropriated from Josephus. Or the story of Jesus ben Ananias was well known in the 1st century, became conflated with stories about the executed high priest and found their way into the gospels. Either way, the idea of the high priest's death resulting in the end of the Temple and the sacrificial system was not unique to Christianity.


Passages like Mark 4:12 tend to confirm your hypothesis. After all, if Jesus came to save people why did he couch his message in obscure language so as to insure that people would be damned?

10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that,

“‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,
and ever hearing but never understanding;
otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’” (Mark 4)

Welcome Basilides!

Thank you for that very interesting and informative post.

It reminds me a lot of some of the ideas in Robert Eisenman's work. Have you read him?

 

[Belz...]

I agree. The issue is then how can we trust what the authors are saying when mythology was routinely believed and stories were routinely made up about mundane things as well as supernatural things.

Nobody here is saying we should trust them, Norseman. They are saying that the existence of the text indicates the presence of a faith that requires an explanation from a historical perspective.

 

[abaddon]

Nobody here is saying we should trust them, Norseman. They are saying that the existence of the text indicates the presence of a faith that requires an explanation from a historical perspective.

Perhaps a slightly different approach might help.

If pressed, I would say I am somewhere between 60/40 to 70/30 in favour of there existing some yahoo of the time who got shanghaied as the holy jebus.

As evidence that such a thing could easily occur, I cast into the arena "The Life of Brian" as proof.

One might be moved to claim that this is a work of fiction, and hence may not be relied upon. But that is the very same argument put forward by dejudge, so it must be accepted as equally valid with dejudge's arguments.

Do not forget..."We are all individuals."

 

[Brainache]

Perhaps a slightly different approach might help.

If pressed, I would say I am somewhere between 60/40 to 70/30 in favour of there existing some yahoo of the time who got shanghaied as the holy jebus.

As evidence that such a thing could easily occur, I cast into the arena "The Life of Brian" as proof.

One might be moved to claim that this is a work of fiction, and hence may not be relied upon. But that is the very same argument put forward by dejudge, so it must be accepted as equally valid with dejudge's arguments.

Do not forget..."We are all individuals."

Have you seen this?:
http://ehrmanblog.org/brian-jesus-members/

Jesus and Brian

Life-of-Jesus-Brian
Or: What have the Pythons done for Us?
A Biblical Studies Conference
King’s College London, The Strand, London WC1
Safra Lecture Theatre
Friday June 20th to Sunday June 22nd, 2014

Monty Python’s Life of Brian provoked a furious response in some quarters when it first appeared in 1979, even leading to cries of ‘blasphemy’. However, many students and teachers of biblical literature were quietly, and often loudly, both amused and intrigued. Life of Brian in fact contains numerous references to what was then the cutting edge of biblical scholarship and Life of Jesus research, founded on the recognition of the historical Jesus as a Jew who needs to be understood within the context of his time. Implicitly, in setting ‘Brian’ within the tumultuous social and political background of his age, Life of Brian sets Jesus within it also. It assumes the audience has some knowledge of the gospel accounts, which directly inform the comedy.

Ever since Philip Davies first wrote on the film 15 years ago, other scholars too have turned their gaze to consider exactly what Life of Brian does in regard to Jesus scholarship, and have increasingly delved into its curious corners to reflect on what it says both about the tumultuous times of Jesus and also contemporary scholarly discussions. Biblical scholarship has moved on greatly in the past 25 years, and various aspects of Life of Brian correlate with themes now intensely explored. Every Bible scholar knows what ‘blessed are the cheese-makers’ means among us!

Looks like fun. If that's your idea of a good time...

ETA: Looking at the agenda just makes me want to fly accross the world to be there for this. I hope they put it online:

Session 1: Chair: Joan Taylor

5.00-5.45 pm : Prof. Martin Goodman, ‘The Life of Brian and the Politics of First-Century Judaea’

5.45-6.30 pm : Prof. George Brooke, ‘Brian as a Teacher of Righteousness’

6.30 pm : Chapters, First Floor, King’s Building, Strand Reception and welcome from Prof. Rick Trainor, Principal of King’s College London.

7.30 pm : Panel discussion with Mystery Guests, hosted by Prof. Richard Burridge, Dean and Prof. of Biblical Interpretation, King’s College London, followed by screening of Monty Python’s Life of Brian (93 mins)

Mystery Guests?

Who could King's College be thinking of, I wonder?

 

[pakeha]

I'm catching up on the fast and furious posting on this thread.

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.



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.

It's a small and tiresome point, but part of Claudius Caesar's name was actually Tiberius.
Is it plausible that caused confusion among those writers?

 

[abaddon]

Have you seen this?:
http://ehrmanblog.org/brian-jesus-members/



Looks like fun. If that's your idea of a good time..

Yep.

I don't like cheese.

 

[Brainache]

Yep.

I don't like cheese.

But what is your opinion of the Blessed Greek?

 

[Craig B]

It's a small and tiresome point, but part of Claudius Caesar's name was actually Tiberius. Is it plausible that caused confusion among those writers?

Tiberius: TIBERIVS IVLIVS CAESAR AVGVSTVS
Claudius: TIBERIVS CLAVDIVS CAESAR AVGVSTVS GERMANICVS
Nero: NERO CLAUDIVS CAESAR AVGVSTVS GERMANICVS

 

[Belz...]

Those Romans really liked multiple names.

 

[Basilides]

Welcome Basilides!

Thank you for that very interesting and informative post.

It reminds me a lot of some of the ideas in Robert Eisenman's work. Have you read him?

I have not. I have read a few reviews of the book and understand that his ideas re: the meaning of the Qumran scrolls in relation to the the NT are considered pretty "out there" by some (most?) other scholars. Anyway, maybe I will buy myself his book for Christmas.

 

[Brainache]

I have not. I have read a few reviews of the book and understand that his ideas re: the meaning of the Qumran scrolls in relation to the the NT are considered pretty "out there" by some (most?) other scholars. Anyway, maybe I will buy myself his book for Christmas.

I started a thread about his stuff here, if you are interested:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

His book might be scholarly, but my thread has jokes!

 

[dejudge]

It's a small and tiresome point, but part of Claudius Caesar's name was actually Tiberius.
Is it plausible that caused confusion among those writers?

Irenaeus claimed Jesus obtained his fiftieth year so there is no confusion.

The time period for the reign of Claudius [c 41-54 CE] would be compatible with a fifty year old Jesus.

Jesus would be fifty years old in the time of Claudius if he was about to be 30 years of age in the 15th year of Tiberius [c 29-30 CE]

There is also another significant point----Irenaeus did not refer to the Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles in AH 2.22 when he argued that Jesus was fifty years old.

He claimed he used the Gospel and the testimony of the elders.

In any event, we have further corroboration by Irenaeus that the Pauline Corpus was unknown by the Church c 180 CE when he argued that Jesus was fifty years old before or at his crucifixion.