Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Judea with scrolls of the 1st century and even Before the Common Era yet we have nothing about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul.


...

Yes we do: Here's Jesus:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

...And as for that which He said, "that he who reads may read it speedily"

Interpreted this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants the prophets...

12 Apostles:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

In the deliberative council of the community there shall be twelve laymen and three priests schooled to perfection in all that has been revealed of the entire Law. their duty shall be to set the standard for the practice of truth, righteousness and justice, and for the exercise of charity and humility in human relations; and to show how, by control of impulse and contrition of spirit, faithfulness may be maintained on earth; how, by active performance of justice and passive submission to the trials of chastisement, iniquity may be cleared, and how one can walk with all men with the quality of truth and in conduct appropriate to every occasion.

So long as these men exist in Israel, the deliberative council of the community will rest securely on a basis of truth. It will become a plant evergreen. Insofar as the laymen are concerned, it will be indeed a sanctuary; and insofar as the priesthood is concerned, it will indeed constitute the basis for a true 'holy of holies'. The members of community will be in all justice the witnesses of God's truth and the elect of His favor, effecting atonement for the earth and ensuring the requital of the wicked. They will be, indeed, a 'tested bulwark' and 'precious cornerstone' (Isaiah 28:16], which shall never be shaken or moved from their place. As for the priesthood, they shall be a seat for the holy of holies, inasmuch as all of them will then have knowledge of the Covenant of justice and all of them be qualified to offer what will be indeed 'a pleasant savor' to the Lord. And as for the laity, they will constitute a household of integrity and truth, qualified to maintain the Covenant as an everlasting pact. they shall prove acceptable to God, so that He will shrive the earth of its guilt, bring final judgment upon wickedness, and perversity shall be no more...

And Paul and his converts:

...Those that have been 'builders of the rickety wall' and 'daubers of veneer upon it'34 have never considered all this, because the man who walks in wind, who raises whirl-winds, who spouts lies-the kind of man against all of whose ilk God's wrath has always been kindled-has kept spouting at them.

Howbeit, what Moses said of old, 'Not for thy righteousness nor for the uprightness of thy heart art thou going in to possess these nations but because of His love wherewith He loved thy forefathers and because He would keep the oath' [cf. Deut. 9.5],85applies equally to those in Israel who in those latter days show repentance and eschew the way of the rabble. The same love which God showed to the men of old who pledged themselves to follow Him will He show also to their successors. The ancestral Covenant shall stand good for them.

But inasmuch as He hates and abominates all that 'build a rickety wall', His anger has been kindled against them; and all who reject His commandments and forsake them and go on walking in the stubbornness of their own hearts will be visited with such judgment as has been described...

All those that entered into the new covenant in 'the land of Damascus' but subsequently relapsed and played false and turned away from the well of living waters shall not be reckoned as of the communion of the people nor inscribed in the roster of it throughout the period from the time the teacher of the community is gathered to his rest until that in which the lay and the priestly messiah [anointed] assume their office.88

The same applies also to all that entered the company of the 'specially holy and blameless'39 but were loath to carry out the rules imposed upon the upright Every such man is, as it were, like 'one molten in the furnace' [Ezek. 22.22]. When his deeds come clearly to light, he shall be cast out of that company as being one who has no share

among the disciples of God. Men of knowledge shall reprove him according to his perfidy until he repent and thereby resume his place among the specially holy and blameless-that is, until it become clear that his actions are again in accordance with the interpretation of the Law adopted by the specially holy and blameless. Meanwhile, no man shall have commerce with him in matters either of property or of employment, for he has been cursed by all the holy ones of God on high...

http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

There you go, links, sources and everything.

That is my assertion. Prove me wrong*.




*This request is for dejudge, not anyone else. Especially JaysonR, Tim Callahan or Stone...

 

[dejudge]

So Justin is suddenly an ultimate authority, even though his assertion that illiterate disciples spread the gospel is patently absurd? Nonsense.

Are you implying that illiterates could not have spread the story of Jesus? How do you think Chinese Whispers and hearsay is spread?

.... Where, oh where, did you ever get the idea that I or anyone else posting on this thread really gives a damn what you can or cannot accept? Stop wasting my time with pointless pronouncements such as this.

I said I only deal with evidence, sources. Where is your source for Jesus the rabbi and messianic pretender?

Where did your pretender live? How did he die? How was he born? Your pretender does not have a birth narrative??

Actually, I've given you evidence. You have rejected it out of hand. There's really nothing more to be said.

What evidence was that? I can go back to the post where you laid out your take and there is no supporting evidence. I could not have rejected what you never did present.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You are asserting that a highly questionable work of fiction - your own words - is authoritative because it seems to support your opinions. Did I miss anything?

I have already pointed out to you that in the fiction stories of Acts that there are certain characters and events that are corroborated like Claudius Caesar, the famine in the time of Claudius, Agrippa, Bernice, Pilate, Festus, Gamaliel and others.

The author of Acts did not corroborate the Pauline Corpus.

Which an is absolutely pointless fact, since Paul would have been writing his letters ca. 50 - 62, and there was no Christian canon at that time, since, as we both agree, none of the gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in CE 70. I can't imagine why you even brought this up.

Who told you Paul would have been writing letters 50-62 CE?

1. It is NOT the author of Acts.

2. It is NOT the author of 2 Peter.

3. It is NOT the author of Clement's First Epistle

4. It is NOT the author of the Ignatius' Epistles.

5. It is NOT Aristides.

6. It is NOT Justin Martyr.

7. It is NOT Theophilus of Antioch.

8. It is NOT Minucius Felix.

9. It is NOT Athenagoras of Athens.

10. It is NOT Arnobius.

I hope your authoritative source is not Irenaeus because he claimed Jesus was crucified at the age of Fifty or C50 CE and his authorship, dating and chronology of the Gospels and Pauline Corpus have been rejected by Scholars.

As soon as it was claimed by Irenaeus that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or at least 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius then Paul would not have been writing Epistles c 50-62 about the Crucifixion of Jesus since 37-41 CE.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge,
Thank you for your response:

The questions I asked are highlighted in Yellow.The answers you provided are colored Blue.
My responses and further questions are colored Green.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How did the idea first come about?
Dejudge
The story of Jesus appears to have originated in Egypt since virtually all early manuscripts with the Jesus story was found in Egypt.

The early manuscripts of the Jesus cult were found in EGYPT the same place where the Septugint originated.

The Jesus character was a product of so-called prophecies found in the Septuagint.


Jayson
OK, so the idea started in Egypt and was based on the Septuagint.

How, specifically, did that happen do you think?
How was this accomplished?
How come it was accomplished?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Was it the idea of a single individual to do this, a council, or was it some random entertainment which ended up being picked up by others as real?
Jayson
I am unclear on what your answer is for this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Who were the first Jesus followers? Gentilian Jews outside of Judea, non-Jew Gentiles outside of Judea, or some other answer?
Jayson
Do you think that the originator or originators in Egypt was/were Egyptian, Jew/Jews in Egypt, Gentile Jew/Jews in Egypt, Gentile/Gentiles in Egypt, or something else?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Where were the first groups of Jesus followers? Which part of the Mediterranean had the first followers?
Jayson
I gather from your comment about Egypt that you hold that the first followers were in Egypt.
Is this correct for me to understand of your position?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which text came first?
Dejudge
In the short gMark, The Jews delivered up Jesus, the Son of God to be killed but he resurrected on the THIRD day.

The story was later changed to include a birth narrative, a post resurrection visit, the GREAT COMMISSION, and the Ascension.

From the short gMark to the Pauline Corpus there were many changes in the story. Eventually Jesus became God Creator who was sacrificied by God for the Salvation of mankind.

Jayson
Is it your position that Mark, out of all texts (not just Orthodox canon), was the very first text?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Were all texts accepted by all followers of Jesus, or were they scattered in their acceptance of which texts they considered to be worthy of veneration?
Jayson
I am unclear on what your answer is for this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Did every group have all gospel texts, or did any group use only one or two gospel texts for their belief and veneration of their mythical savior?
Jayson
I am unclear on what your answer is for this question.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for your time.

Once there is no data for a specific question then you must understand that I will not be able to answer you.

My investigation deals specifically with the existence/ non existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the time period for the Jesus story and cult.

I have found enough evidence to argue without reasonable doubt that, based on the existing evidence, Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a figure of mythology and the story was composed sometime in the 2nd century. The Pauline Corpus played no role at all in the early development of Christianity and was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.

It was the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE that sparked the story of Jesus---Not a character called Jesus or the supposed preaching of Paul.

 

[JaysonR]

Once there is no data for a specific question then you must understand that I will not be able to answer you.

My investigation deals specifically with the existence/ non existence of Jesus of Nazareth and the time period for the Jesus story and cult.

I have found enough evidence to argue without reasonable doubt that, based on the existing evidence, Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a figure of mythology and the story was composed sometime in the 2nd century. The Pauline Corpus played no role at all in the early development of Christianity and was fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE.

It was the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE that sparked the story of Jesus---Not a character called Jesus or the supposed preaching of Paul.

OK, so, what I have for your account is that it was created in Egypt from the Septuagint in the 2nd century, but no information about:

1. Which text was first in your opinion
2. Who the first followers were
3. Where they were located
4. How the creation was accomplished
5. How many people were involved in the original creation
6. Whether or not all groups of followers in the 2nd century had all the same texts or different texts
7. Your thoughts about all of the other texts outside of the Orthodox canon from the 2nd century regarding the same mythical figure

Do I have this correct?
There's no wrong answer here; I'm just trying to understand your thoughts.

 

[dejudge]

OK, so, what I have for your account is that it was created in Egypt from the Septuagint in the 2nd century, but no information about:

1. Which text was first in your opinion
2. Who the first followers were
3. Where they were located
4. How the creation was accomplished
5. How many people were involved in the original creation
6. Whether or not all groups of followers in the 2nd century had all the same texts or different texts
7. Your thoughts about all of the other texts outside of the Orthodox canon from the 2nd century regarding the same mythical figure

Do I have this correct?
There's no wrong answer here; I'm just trying to understand your thoughts.

You are repeating the same questions over and over and do not seem to understand that I am dealing with the existing evidence.

We do not have enough existing evidence to know which texts actually came first and answer all the questions.

Based on Justin Martyr there was a Gospel known as the Memoirs of the Apostles c 150 CE.

In the Canon, gMark is the earliest version of the Jesus story and Acts of the Apostles the Pauline Corpus and Catholic Epistles are the last.

We can tell very easily that the Canonised Pauline Corpus and Catholic Epistles were after the Gospels because it was not until the late 3rd century or early 4th century that virtually all Apologetic writers use the Gospels and the Epistles.

In the 2nd -3rd century, there were many apologetic writers who mention the Gospel Jesus story but never the Epistles.

Again, the start of the Jesus story is directly associated with the Fall of the Temple.

It was believed that the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE was supposedly predicted in the book of Daniel which signified that the Christ had already come.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10

In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel...

Justin's Dialogue With Trypho

"For when Daniel speaks of 'one like unto the Son of man' who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying 'like unto the Son of man,' He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

The start of the Jesus story is very easy to reconstruct.

1. The Temple Fell c 70 CE .

2. The Christ must come before the Temple Fall based on Daniel .

3. Stories are invented that the Jews Killed their Christ and Son of God.

4. People who believe the story are called Christians.

Tertulllians' Answer to the Jews

For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognise that so it has befallen.

Effectively, if the Temple never fell we would have no Jesus story claiming that the Christ had already come.

In other words, the Fall of the Temple would have been the ONLY way to know if the Christ had come.

The Jesus story was simply backdated from the Fall of the Temple using Daniel's timeline.

Now, the supposed prediction in Daniel that the Fall of the Temple signified that the Christ had already come is evidence against early pre 70 CE Pauline writings.

Paul, if he did live, could not have known the Christ had already come BEFORE the Temple Fell.

The Temple must first fall before Paul preached that the Christ had already come.

Paul, if he did live, preached Christ AFTER C 70 CE.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge, One (among very many) of the oddities of your arguments is that Paul could not have written any letters at all, because Acts never explicitly states "and now Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians about nasty James" or the like. You absurdly infer from this that Paul never wrote any letters, even though some of these letters refer to matters also discussed in Acts.

Are you being serious about this argument, and have you really thought it through? If the answer is yes, then fine; and I will trouble you no more about it. But it really is very strange, and I have asked you about it before, without receiving a response iirc.

 

[Brainache]

I think he is ignoring this. I wanted to see the response to a different argument using different sources and erm, logical constructions...

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in Judea with scrolls of the 1st century and even Before the Common Era yet we have nothing about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul...

Yes we do: Here's Jesus:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html


12 Apostles:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm


And Paul and his converts:


http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

There you go, links, sources and everything.

That is my assertion. Prove me wrong*.




*This request is for dejudge, not anyone else. Especially JaysonR, Tim Callahan or Stone...

Will you prove me wrong dejudge?

I bet if you ask nicely, Jayson might help walk you through all my glaring mistakes.

 

[Belz...]

I said I only deal with evidence, sources.

In the absence of this, do you accept valid reasoning over problematic reasoning ?

You are repeating the same questions over and over

That tends to happen when you don't get an answer.

We do not have enough existing evidence to know which texts actually came first and answer all the questions.

Maybe your conclusion is a myth, then.

 

[maximara]

That's odd. I had thought it had writing on both sides clearly from Jesus' interview with Pilate. That leaves us with, IIRC, the Bodmer Papyri, ca. CE 200, as the earliest clear manuscript evidence of the Gospel of John. As I recall, Irenaeus insisted, though for essentially numerological reasons, that there had to be four canonical gospels and that there were other allusions to John by his contemporaries writing ca. 180.

Well there is Papyrus 75 (175-225) - Luke 3:18-24:53 + John 1-15 which may be older.

Of course these are all paleography dates.

"Paleographic dating of papyri is never a simple matter and because of the constant accumulation of new evidence the dating of manuscripts--even more than other aspects of our discipline--is an ongoning process" (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.)

In fact, paleography is considered "last resort dating" and that a 50 year span minimum is the best that can be expected. (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.)

Since many times the earliest data possible is given a good rule of thumb is the simply add 50 to any date and do it as a range ie Bodmer Papyri is 200-250 CE. Since Papyrus 75 is already a range then it is likely the older of the two.

However this brings up Egerton Papyrus 2 which at (150-200) is our oldest manuscript but it is of no known Gospel!

 

[dejudge]

I bet if you ask nicely, Jayson might help walk you through all my glaring mistakes.

Your links have nothing at all about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul. In terms of misrepresentation your post is probably the worst that I have seen.

Please identify the names of Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 apostles and Paul in any of your links and that those event happened in the time of Pilate.

 

[IanS]

You have not given any reason why a cult existing outside of Judea would go out of its way to link its Christ with a mythical or real) Jew named Jesus, or why the gospels would go out of their way to claim this person to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies.

Tim - it is really not the job of anyone here to invent possible scenarios for any such claimed happenings.

If you make the positive and PRIOR claim that there is reliable evidence of Jesus, then the PIOR responsibility is entirely upon you (not upon dejudge or any sceptics here) to present credible evidence supporting your prior claim that Jesus existed as a 1st century human who was the figure described in the bible.

You have to support any such claim of Jesus with clear and reliable evidence, before requesting anything from anyone else. Because if you cannot produce any such evidence, then there is nothing to debate and you have nothing to defend except a faith position.

It comes down, as it always must, to the need for genuine reliable evidence (of which, so far, there appears none at all).

 

[TimCallahan]

You will still not be able to answer any of my questions after I answer all your questions repeatedly.

Again, I answer all your questions

My position is that the Jesus story and cult began sometime in the 2nd century around or after c 115 CE and before 133 CE or before the time of Simon Barchochebas.

So, who was Pliny the Younger prosecuting in Bithynia before CE 115, and why was he prosecuting them?

Based on Justin Jews were persecuting Christians in the time of Simon Barchchebas--See Justin's Dilaogue with Trypho.

For the entire 1st century, there is no evidence at all of any cult in Judea who worshiped a man called Jesus of Nazareth as a God or started of any new religion in Galilee or Jerusalem in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the elder, and Pliny the younger.

Note the two hilited areas. In the first you say the Jews were persecuting the Christians. In the second you say there's no evidence of any Judean Jesus cult. So, why were the Jews persecuting the Christians?

All NT manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus that have been recovered and dated are from the 2nd century or later.

And these are likely copies of copies. If the Christian cult stared in the latter part of the first century, it would not have begun full-blown with a set of scriptures. Rather, all they would have had was the Septuagint and various books, such as 1 Enoch, that formed the basis of an apocalyptic belief system. The earliest possible date for Mark would have been CE 70 or slightly after, i.e. not long after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. So, we wouldn't expect even original copies of it from any earlier than from late in the first century. If we were to take the most conservative the most conservative view, Mark would have been written a bit after CE 70 and there wouldn't likely be surviving originals of this transmitted document. We also wouldn't expect to find originals of the Pauline epistles if they were written ca. CE 50 - 60. In fact, the writings of a cult that Pliny the Younger described as a superstition wouldn't have gelled until after that superstition had been around a while and begun to develop more sophisticated doctrines.

The first arguments against the Jesus story and cult do not contain any arguments against Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus in Celsus "True Discourse" based on Origen.

What we have of Celsus' True Discourse is largely from Origin (184/185 – 253/254), who writing probably in the early third century, mounts a rebuttal to Celsus, who, he says lived in the second century. Celsus alludes to material mainly from Mark or Matthew, a bit possibly from Luke and possibly an allusion to John. All of these are in regard to either what Jesus taught or is rising from the dead. About all that the Pauline epistles say about Jesus rising from the dead is found in 1 Corinthians and is more a summary of those to whom Jesus appeared - a summary BYW that differs from all the gospels. Had this letter been written after the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts had been written, as you have asserted, why did the author of 1 Corinthians not follow the order of appearances of the risen Christ that appears in Luke?

Since the allusions by Celsus, according to Origen only dealt with what Jesus said and did, we wouldn't expect to find anything in Celsus about the Pauline epistles.

Also, in Dialogue with Trypho the Jew Justin Martyr did not mention Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus when he argued that the Christ had already come.

The stories of Jesus of Nazareth that have been recovered and dated to 2nd century and later show Jesus as a Myth.


What other questions do you have?

As to Justin's dialogue with Trypho, he mainly quotes from the Septuagint. His quotes from Matthew are the words of Jesus. Again, we wouldn't expect to find anything from the Pauline epistles in this work. Thank you for outlining what you see as the origin of Christian belief. My main question remains this: Do you see the cult beginning in Egypt as being Jewish, i.e. begun by Hellenized Jews, or as being begun by Gentiles? If the latter is the case, how and why did this new religion adopt the baggage of Jewish apocalyptic belief and the need to validate Jesus as being predicted by the Jewish prophets. Why, also did the Jews persecute the Christians?

 

[Craig B]

... Note the two hilited areas. In the first you say the Jews were persecuting the Christians. In the second you say there's no evidence of any Judean Jesus cult. So, why were the Jews persecuting the Christians?

When confronted with material of this kind, dejudge simply says: that's forged too, or: the "Christians" referred to are merely some other kind of messianic sect, unconnected with the Nazarene Jesus.

You can't win. Like many speculative theories it is absolutely irrefutable. All loopholes have already been surveyed--and plugged!

 

[Brainache]

Your links have nothing at all about Jesus, the 12 apostles and Paul. In terms of misrepresentation your post is probably the worst that I have seen.

Please identify the names of Jesus of Nazareth, the 12 apostles and Paul in any of your links and that those event happened in the time of Pilate.

You didn't say anything about "names".

Why are the people I cited not Jesus, The Disciples and Paul and his followers?

I need sources!

How can you dismiss this without citing any evidence?

I don't accept your baseless speculations, I want evidence. I've provided mine, where's yours?

ETA: I'll even support my contention that the official dating of the DSS is wrong:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/james-the-just-as-righteo_b_4133599.html

And:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

So now tell me Why Jesus couldn't be the "Teacher of Righteousness" and Paul isn't "The Spouter of Lies"...

If you can make confident assertions, so can I.

 

[IanS]

I believe we've been through this more than once, Ian. Your pretending to not be aware of past posts is getting tiresome.

Tiresome or not, the bottom line here is you cannot produce any credible evidence of a living HJ.

All you can produce is biblical preaching from authors (or rather their copyists some centuries later) none of whom knew Jesus in any way at all, and all of whom were doing no more that writing about earlier religious legends of a messiah from their OT.

That's evidence of legendary superstitious beliefs in an uneducated 1st century swamped in supernatural beliefs about gods. It's not evidence of any living person called Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Tiresome or not, the bottom line here is you cannot produce any credible evidence of a living HJ.

All you can produce is biblical preaching from authors (or rather their copyists some centuries later) none of whom knew Jesus in any way at all, and all of whom were doing no more that writing about earlier religious legends of a messiah from their OT.

That's evidence of legendary superstitious beliefs in an uneducated 1st century swamped in supernatural beliefs about gods. It's not evidence of any living person called Jesus.

How is that different to Pythagoras? Or many of the Greek Philosophers generally?

 

[Belz...]

Tiresome or not, the bottom line here is you cannot produce any credible evidence of a living HJ.

Why are you asking ME for evidence for this ************ ? Where did I claim to have evidence for this idiot preacher ? I said that I find the scenario more convincing because it fits the history we have and raises fewer questions, and then you fire back with requests for things that I never mentioned as a reason for my leaning towards one scenario, as if this were the first time we ever engaged in conversation.

So, yeah. Tiresome.

And at this point, after this much repetition, I think it's deliberate.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (mega-snip) . . .

Here is my take on the origins of Christianity: Jesus, a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender - a very minor one - generated a small cult. Alternatively, this Jesus might be a composite of two or more people, or may have been entirely invented by this cult. Paul, at first persecuting the cult, had some sort of conversion experience, hallucinated his revelatory Christ Jesus and essentially created a new religion, albeit one with roots in Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief, as demonstrated by the Revelation of John of Patmos. This new religion took hold mainly among Hellenized Jews and others in the Aegean region and western Asia Minor.

The gospels were generated - as we both agree - after the destruction of the Temple in CE 70. As I have said many times before, they are almost entirely, if not completely, fiction The Synoptic Gospels and Acts seem to have been in existence by the middle of the second century. John may date from as late as 180.

What I see as a Pauline creation melded Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief with aspects of dying and rising gods, such Osiris and Dionysus, replete with a virgin birth, etc. I believe this synthesis was achieved by the end of the first century or at least by ca. 125. . . . (snip) . . .

Now, as to my defense of my take on the development of early Christianity, quoted above, though dejudge insists that the reference to Christians and Christ in Tacitus is a forgery, most experts accept it as true. It's interesting that Tertullian (ca. 150 - 220) complained that those critical of Christian belief couldn't even get the name right, and called Christians "Chrestians," which is how Tacitus referred to them. Tacitus also mentioned Christ. So, I am assuming that in the time of Nero the Christian sect was already in existence.

I can't see any cult originating outside of Judaism going out of its way to link itself with either Jewish apocalyptic belief or trying to justify its Christ as fulfilling Jewish prophecies unless it had a Jewish base. As to whether or not there was a minor figure to whom the myths of the gospels adhered, consider the lengths to which both Matthew and Luke have to go to get Jesus born in Bethlehem, yet having him come from Galilee. If they were making the guy up from whole cloth there would be no reason to do this: If he was supposed to come from Bethlehem to fulfill the prophecy of Micah 5:2, then you would simply have a fictional character come from Bethlehem. End of story. The only possible explanation I can see for the convoluted nativity explanations of Matthew and Luke is that they were stuck with a real guy who came from Galilee. I see Jesus as a very minor messianic pretender, probably too minor even for Josephus to bother mentioning.

We see in the Gospels, Acts and Revelation a mix of material from the Jewish scriptures, Jewish apocalyptic works, pagan myths of Osiris and Dionysus and Greek literature. This melding requires a Hellenized form of Jewish belief. There would be no reason for a Gentile cult to go out of its way to incorporate Jewish material.

As to Paul basing his version of the Christ myth on hallucinations, consider what he says in Galatians; that he didn't get his gospel from men nor did he even consult with those who knew Jesus. He says he got it from a direct revelation of Jesus. Today we would call that a hallucination.

As I've said, Paul's mention of Jerusalem as being in existence lacks the hallmarks of forgery and interpolation that are found in the TF in Josephus, the penultimate verse of the Gospel of John and insertion of a mini-tirade telling women to shut up in church inserted into 1 Corinthians. These forgeries were so crude because they were aimed at a credulous audience that already wanted to believe them to be true. Therefore, I accept the Pauline references to Jerusalem as being genuine, dating these genuine Pauline epistles as antedating the destruction of Jerusalem in CE 70.

Now, should it turn out that Jesus was entirely mythical, rather than mostly mythical, it would be particularly devastating to me. In fact, I see the argument as moot. I was rather surprised that Bart Ehrman insisted in in his latest book that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was historical. To his credit, he did say that the whole bit about Judas fingering Jesus for the authorities was nonsense. However, as far as I could see, his case that Judas revealed to the Jewish authorities that Jesus was secretly claiming to be the king of the Jews, lacks any merit.

 

[Brainache]

...
Now, should it turn out that Jesus was entirely mythical, rather than mostly mythical, it would be particularly devastating to me. In fact, I see the argument as moot. I was rather surprised that Bart Ehrman insisted in in his latest book that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was historical. To his credit, he did say that the whole bit about Judas fingering Jesus for the authorities was nonsense. However, as far as I could see, his case that Judas revealed to the Jewish authorities that Jesus was secretly claiming to be the king of the Jews, lacks any merit.

I haven't read his book, does he say what Judas' motive for this was in his scenario?

Did Jesus put him up to it?

Or was it a ruthless power-grab?

I'm interested in his take on the character of "Judas".

 

[Craig B]

... I was rather surprised that Bart Ehrman insisted in in his latest book that the betrayal of Jesus by Judas was historical. To his credit, he did say that the whole bit about Judas fingering Jesus for the authorities was nonsense. However, as far as I could see, his case that Judas revealed to the Jewish authorities that Jesus was secretly claiming to be the king of the Jews, lacks any merit.

I agree entirely with everything in your post. The Galilee argument is very telling in favour of a real Jesus, however insignificant. Also I reject the Judas story too. It has been argued that "Judas" represents the Jewish people, and is an early anti-semitic accretion. Jesus is given a brother and another disciple both called Judas - the same person in reality? - and the author of the Epistle of Jude claims to be a brother of James, which would make him a brother of Jesus too, presumably the same person in yet another guise. To add a further traitor Judas to this is to stretch probability too far. And what did he betray? The whereabouts or, even less probable, the mere identity of a person who had engaged in very public activities, if there is any truth whatever in the Gospel accounts? Finally, Paul says nothing about any disciple who betrayed Jesus. Given Paul's disputes with the disciples and James, could he possibly have abstained from making use of such information to discredit these figures, if the Judas story had been known to him. And known it must have been, if true, to an ex-agent of the High Priest!