Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

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!

This certainly seems likely to me.

The Iscariot name is very close to Sicarios and if Jesus was associated with Sicarii Zealots, that would be enough to get him crucified.

 

[jhunter1163]

If nothing else, this thread has been quite informative to someone such as myself who has only passing familiarity with early Christian writers. Thanks to everyone for putting the E in JREF.

 

[TimCallahan]

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".

I don't recall that Ehrman went into Judas' motivation.

 

[Brainache]

I don't recall that Ehrman went into Judas' motivation.

No wonder so many people criticised his book, if that is the standard of his Scholarship.

ETA: OK This looks dismissive, but what I mean is that in the Gospel stories, Judas' motivation varies. In some he is disturbed by Jesus' wasting expensive oils on himself when he could have sold it and given the money to "the poor". In other stories he is told to do it by Jesus, he does it for the money or just because he was jealous of Jesus' special status.

I was wondering if Ehrman had his own ideas.

 

[JaysonR]

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

That's fine; I wasn't meaning to repeatedly ask the same questions at you.
I was more making sure that I fully understood your thoughts and wasn't missing anything.

Thank you.

Well, I understand your position, but I'd have to say that it leaves out quite a bit of anthropological explanation as to why things happened, where they happened, and to whom they happened.

I'm not suggesting that you are required to answer those concerns.
Instead, it is more that your explanation for what we have today only addresses one finite corner of the information, and does not address much else.

This is good enough for you, and I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't be OK with what convinces you, but it causes some questions to arise that aren't satisfied in regards to an anthropological explanation and cultural timelines.

It may be that such a timeline could be addressed and that such a timeline may be capable of supporting your position if one was queried to match the paleographic evidence you rest upon, but without it, it does incidentally cause your position to be somewhat weaker than other variations that do have anthropological explanations to go along with the paleographic explanations.

Again, I understand that you are not an official academic, so it is not fair to require you to have all of these concepts satisfied, as such requires quite a bit of work.
Thanks for your explanations.

 

[dejudge]

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

The Pliny letter does not state that the Christians were followers or believers in Jesus even before execution or after torture. Pliny himself did not know what the Christians believed after he executed them.

I have already shown you that it cannot be assumed that all persons called Christians believed the story of Jesus.

There are many writings Against Christian Heretics and some of them did not accept the story of Jesus.

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?

It is not logical at all that if Jews persecuted Christians that those were Jewish Christians of the Jesus cult.

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.

Again, everytime you make statements about what you think happened you present nothing but a bunch of asssumptions WITHOUT any supporting evidence from antiquity.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the Pliny letter mentions nothing of Jesus? It is really a useless exercise for you to repeat assumptions after assumptions.

I longer accept assumptions as evidence--those days are done.

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?

Why didn't the author of gJohn follow the post-resurrection story of gLuke?

Why didn't the author of gLuke follow the post-resurrection story in gMatthew?

The resurrected Jesus met the disciples in Galilee but in gLuke the one who was raised from the dead met them in Jerusalem.

[quote-Tim Callahan]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.[/quote]

Celsus did not mention only what the supposed Jesus said and did in the Gospel. Celsus also mentioned what the supposed disciples said and did in the Gospel.

In fact, Justin mentioned the Revelation of John and wrote what John said in Revelation.

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?

Again, you seem to have forgotten that Justin mentioned the Revelation of John who he claimed was an apostle of Jesus.

Justin believed the teaching of John's Revelation that Christians would live in the new Jerusalem for a thousand years before the final resurrection.

Justin mentioned nothing at all of the Pauline version of the resurrection when he claimed the dead in Christ shall rise to meet Jesus in the air.


1 Thessalonian 4

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

 

[Brainache]

Is that a "No True Jesusman" argument?

 

[TimCallahan]

The Pliny letter does not state that the Christians were followers or believers in Jesus even before execution or after torture. Pliny himself did not know what the Christians believed after he executed them.

I have already shown you that it cannot be assumed that all persons called Christians believed the story of Jesus.

There are many writings Against Christian Heretics and some of them did not accept the story of Jesus.

As well, you cannot assume that they were not Christians who believed in Jesus. Yet, you have done so.

It is not logical at all that if Jews persecuted Christians that those were Jewish Christians of the Jesus cult.

Okay, so why were the Jews persecuting them? They certainly were not persecuting the pagans who lived in their midst. The Romans wouldn't have put up with that. They could only have been persecuting deviant religious views within their own belief system.

Again, everytime you make statements about what you think happened you present nothing but a bunch of asssumptions WITHOUT any supporting evidence from antiquity.

Actually, I have supported my arguments. You have rejected them anyway.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the Pliny letter mentions nothing of Jesus? It is really a useless exercise for you to repeat assumptions after assumptions.

I longer accept assumptions as evidence--those days are done.

And yet you are assuming that the Christians Pliny the Younger was prosecuting could not have been Christians who believed in Jesus. So, obviously the sentence I've hilited is a falsehood.

Why didn't the author of gJohn follow the post-resurrection story of gLuke?

Why didn't the author of gLuke follow the post-resurrection story in gMatthew?

The resurrected Jesus met the disciples in Galilee but in gLuke the one who was raised from the dead met them in Jerusalem.

My point, which you have ignored, is that you asserted the Pauline epistles chronologically followed and were to some degree even based on Luke / Acts. Logically, then, we would expect the author of those letters - and those letters considered genuinely Pauline do show signs of common authorship - to have used Luke / Acts as the basis for his version of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Yet, he did not.

JaysonR has also pointed out that the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus is lacking from the Pauline epistles. Had the Pauline letters been written after the gospels, they should have included that particular myth.

Now, at this point, I suppose you will raise the objection that 1 Cor. 11:23 says:

For I have received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread:

This would indeed seem to show that Paul was acquainted with the story of the betrayal by Judas. However, both the the word translated into English as "delivered" and the word translated as "betrayed" are forms of the Greek verb paradidomi, a word that simply means "deliver over."
The Christian believers who translated 1 Corinthinas into English already believed in the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. So, they naturally translated "delivered over" as "betrayed". In any case, Paul later has the risen Jesus appear to "the twelve."

[quote-Tim Callahan]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.

Celsus did not mention only what the supposed Jesus said and did in the Gospel. Celsus also mentioned what the supposed disciples said and did in the Gospel.

In fact, Justin mentioned the Revelation of John and wrote what John said in Revelation.[/QUOTE]

And, once again, this has nothing to do with the Pauline epistles.

Again, you seem to have forgotten that Justin mentioned the Revelation of John who he claimed was an apostle of Jesus.

Justin believed the teaching of John's Revelation that Christians would live in the new Jerusalem for a thousand years before the final resurrection.

Justin mentioned nothing at all of the Pauline version of the resurrection when he claimed the dead in Christ shall rise to meet Jesus in the air.

1 Thessalonian 4

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

And you actually think that Justin's view is authoritative? And you think this despite the fact that John of Patmos most likely wrote the Book of Revelation ca. CE 90 or later and, thus, could not have been the disciple of any Jesus - whose existence you, in any case, deem a myth. Even had Jesus been crucified in CE 50, rather than ca. CE 30. the author of Revelation is unlikely to have known Jesus.

As to the Pauline view of the resurrection at the end-time, it doesn't really directly contradict Revelation and, in fact, is rather vague.

Now, can you answer the question I asked about your view of how the Christian sect arose in Egypt? Was it a creation of Hellenized Diaspora Jews, or was it entirely Gentile in origin?

 

[TimCallahan]

No wonder so many people criticised his book, if that is the standard of his Scholarship.

ETA: OK This looks dismissive, but what I mean is that in the Gospel stories, Judas' motivation varies. In some he is disturbed by Jesus' wasting expensive oils on himself when he could have sold it and given the money to "the poor". In other stories he is told to do it by Jesus, he does it for the money or just because he was jealous of Jesus' special status.

I was wondering if Ehrman had his own ideas.

I went to Bart Ehrman's blog and found this:


Once it is established that Judas betrayed Jesus, the BIG questions are why he did it and even more interesting, what it is he betrayed.

There are lots of speculations about the first question of “why.” In the NT itself numerous explanations are given: he wanted the money (Matthew), he was driven to do so by Satan (Luke); he himself was a “devil” (John). I’ve never found these particularly convincing. But it’s hard to come up with anything else that is definitive either. But there are lots of theories. For example, that Jesus arranged with Judas for it to happen, because he wanted to be condemned (I don’t buy this one for a second. I think the last thing Jesus wanted was to get crucified). Or that Judas had grown frustrated with Jesus because he thought that he was supposed to be the Jewish messiah but he wsa doing nothing to rouse up opposition to Rome and start a rebellion, and out of frustration he turned him in. Or that Judas thought that Jesus needed to be forced to call for the rebellion and he thought that would happen if Jesus had no choice, once he was in his enemies’ hands. And there are other theories, some of which, given this history of this blog, I expect to see very shortly in the comments!

As you can see, he doesn't have much to offer.

 

[Brainache]

I went to Bart Ehrman's blog and found this:


Once it is established that Judas betrayed Jesus, the BIG questions are why he did it and even more interesting, what it is he betrayed.

There are lots of speculations about the first question of “why.” In the NT itself numerous explanations are given: he wanted the money (Matthew), he was driven to do so by Satan (Luke); he himself was a “devil” (John). I’ve never found these particularly convincing. But it’s hard to come up with anything else that is definitive either. But there are lots of theories. For example, that Jesus arranged with Judas for it to happen, because he wanted to be condemned (I don’t buy this one for a second. I think the last thing Jesus wanted was to get crucified). Or that Judas had grown frustrated with Jesus because he thought that he was supposed to be the Jewish messiah but he wsa doing nothing to rouse up opposition to Rome and start a rebellion, and out of frustration he turned him in. Or that Judas thought that Jesus needed to be forced to call for the rebellion and he thought that would happen if Jesus had no choice, once he was in his enemies’ hands. And there are other theories, some of which, given this history of this blog, I expect to see very shortly in the comments!

As you can see, he doesn't have much to offer.

Yes. It seems all very simplistic.

 

[JaysonR]

In considering Judas, from a literary standpoint, the traitor was always going to be Judas as he was the only one from Judah of the group.

It's like Kevin Bacon showed up in a cop movie all chummy; you know it's just a matter of time before he back-stabs someone because it's Kevin Bacon.

One could nearly make the same kind of claim regarding the literary value of one from Judah among a batch from Galilee.

 

[dejudge]

As well, you cannot assume that they were not Christians who believed in Jesus. Yet, you have done so.

I assume nothing. I merely showed you what is written in writings attributed to Justin Martyr that there were followers of magicians like Simon and Menander who were called Christians.

I have even showed that there are writings attributed to 2nd century Christians who did not believe the Jesus and did not acknowledge Jesus, did NOT acknowledge Jesus as Christ, Savior and Lord.

Please refer to "To Autolycus" attributed to Theophilus of Antioch and "Plea for the Christians" attributed to Athenagoras.

Those writings are evidence that there were 2nd century Christians who did not acknowledge Jesus Christ at all which CORROBORATE Justin Martyr.

Okay, so why were the Jews persecuting them? They certainly were not persecuting the pagans who lived in their midst. The Romans wouldn't have put up with that. They could only have been persecuting deviant religious views within their own belief system.

Now, was Justin a Jew? Where is it stated that all Christians were Jews? Were there not people called Samaritans in the 2nd century?

Justin was the son and Grandson of Palestinians.

Examine "First Apology" attributed to Justin Martyr .

Justin's First Apology

......I, Justin, the son of Priscus and grandson of Bacchius, natives of Flavia Neapolis in Palestine, present this address and petition in behalf of those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them.

Justin Martyr claimed he and those from OTHER Nations were wantonly abused and hated..

Actually, I have supported my arguments. You have rejected them anyway.

You have not supported your take with supporting evidence but merely with speculation and assumptions.

My point, which you have ignored, is that you asserted the Pauline epistles chronologically followed and were to some degree even based on Luke / Acts. Logically, then, we would expect the author of those letters - and those letters considered genuinely Pauline do show signs of common authorship - to have used Luke / Acts as the basis for his version of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus. Yet, he did not.

You must have forgotten that I have shown you that it was Christian writers who stated that Paul was AWARE of gLuke and commended it.

Origen and Eusebius did state that the Third Gospel, gLuke, was known to Paul. See Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1 and Eusebius' Church History 6.25.


Whether Paul followed gLuke is irrelevant because I have sources of antiquity that show he was aware of gLuke.

...JaysonR has also pointed out that the story of Judas' betrayal of Jesus is lacking from the Pauline epistles. Had the Pauline letters been written after the gospels, they should have included that particular myth.

Well, the Pauline Corpus is lacking in Acts.

If Acts was written after the Pauline Corpus it should have mentioned that Paul not only preached and evangelized many parts of the Roman Empire but that Paul documented his teachings in letters to the Churches.

The author of Acts wrote about virtually everything about Paul except the Letters.

How can it be explained that in the NT, Paul is mentioned ONCE in 2nd Peter and it is immediately claimed Paul wrote letters yet in Acts Saul/Paul is mentioned over 130 times in what appears to be a post persecution biography of Paul and nothing at all is even hinted that he wrote letters to Churches?

The answer is extremely easy---the author of Acts knew nothing at all of the Pauline Corpus.

There is NO Apologetic writer who mentioned Paul and did not acknowledge his supposed letters EXCEPT the author of Acts.

1. 2nd Peter mentioned Paul once and claimed he wrote letters.

2. Clement First Epistle mentions Paul TWICE and claimed he wrote an Epistle.

Now, at this point, I suppose you will raise the objection that 1 Cor. 11:23 says:

For I have received of the Lord what I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread:

This would indeed seem to show that Paul was acquainted with the story of the betrayal by Judas. However, both the the word translated into English as "delivered" and the word translated as "betrayed" are forms of the Greek verb paradidomi, a word that simply means "deliver over."
The Christian believers who translated 1 Corinthinas into English already believed in the betrayal of Jesus by Judas. So, they naturally translated "delivered over" as "betrayed". In any case, Paul later has the risen Jesus appear to "the twelve."

You keep forgetting that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke. The Pauline writers knew the story of Jesus from Conception to Ascension.

Please, it is documented in writings attributed to Christian writers Origen and Eusebius.

Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1

... And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles...

Eusebius' Church History 6.25.6.

And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts.

The Pauline writers knew the Latest version of the Synoptics based on Origen and Eusebius.

Celsus did not mention only what the supposed Jesus said and did in the Gospel. Celsus also mentioned what the supposed disciples said and did in the Gospel.

In fact, Justin mentioned the Revelation of John and wrote what John said in Revelation.

And, once again, this has nothing to do with the Pauline epistles.

Justin Martyr's writings have nothing about Paul, the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline Teachings , the Pauline Churches---Nothing to do with the Pauline Revelations and Resurrection story

Justin Martyr's writings have something to do with John's Revelation--Christians will live one thousand years in the new Jerusalem BEFORE the final resurrection.

And you actually think that Justin's view is authoritative? And you think this despite the fact that John of Patmos most likely wrote the Book of Revelation ca. CE 90 or later and, thus, could not have been the disciple of any Jesus - whose existence you, in any case, deem a myth. Even had Jesus been crucified in CE 50, rather than ca. CE 30. the author of Revelation is unlikely to have known Jesus.

Many events in writings attributed to Justin are corroborated unlike the Pauline Corpus.

Who told you John of Patmos wrote Revelation? Where are your sources? Did you use Eusebius or Irenaeus?

As to the Pauline view of the resurrection at the end-time, it doesn't really directly contradict Revelation and, in fact, is rather vague.

Why are the Pauline writings so vague? Justin identified the name of his father and grandfather, stated that they originated from Palestine and his First Apology is addressed to Antoninus.

We know nothing of Paul except he claimed to be a Pharisee but there is no evidence that Pharisees worshiped men as Gods.

The Pauline Corpus do not make sense. Jesus hated the Pharisees and they delivered him up to be killed.

Jesus used to curse the Pharisees and Jews and claimed their father was the Devil in gJohn.

Why would a Pharisee called worship the same Jesus as a God whom the Pharisees wanted dead in the first place??

Why would a Pharisee tell Roman citizens and people of the Roman Empire to worship a dead and resurrected man as a God whom the Romans killed??

Now, can you answer the question I asked about your view of how the Christian sect arose in Egypt? Was it a creation of Hellenized Diaspora Jews, or was it entirely Gentile in origin?

The Jesus story and cult appear to have originated from non-Jews because even Christian writers admit that the Jews did not agree that the Christ had already come since the time of Pilate.

Even up to c 133 CE, the Jews were claiming that Simon Bar Kosiba was the Messiah.

 

[Craig B]

In considering Judas, from a literary standpoint, the traitor was always going to be Judas as he was the only one from Judah of the group ...

One could nearly make the same kind of claim regarding the literary value of one from Judah among a batch from Galilee.

And he was even named after the land of Judah. As to names, something funny is going on. Jesus has a brother named James and another brother named Judas. On top of this he has two disciples named James and another two named Judas! And one of the Judases is stated in the pseudonymous Epistle of Jude to have a brother called James.

 

[pakeha]

If nothing else, this thread has been quite informative to someone such as myself who has only passing familiarity with early Christian writers. Thanks to everyone for putting the E in JREF.

I'll second that. Reading and asking questions in these threads has made me a much better informed Jesus skeptic than I was beforehand.

No wonder so many people criticised his book, if that is the standard of his Scholarship....I was wondering if Ehrman had his own ideas.

Great minds think alike, Brainache.
I'm always waiting for Ehrman, in his next book or blog entry, to drop the mask and reveal his true identity.

I went to Bart Ehrman's blog and found this:


Once it is established that Judas betrayed Jesus, the BIG questions are why he did it and even more interesting, what it is he betrayed. ...

Hmmm.
Not that time, anyway.

In considering Judas, from a literary standpoint, the traitor was always going to be Judas as he was the only one from Judah of the group.

It's like Kevin Bacon showed up in a cop movie all chummy; you know it's just a matter of time before he back-stabs someone because it's Kevin Bacon.

One could nearly make the same kind of claim regarding the literary value of one from Judah among a batch from Galilee.

That makes a great deal of sense, JaysonR.
I see literary devises/tropes all throughout the NT. It reads more and more like what you'd expect from an adverting campaign for a crazy cult.

...The Pliny letter does not state that the Christians were followers or believers in Jesus even before execution or after torture. Pliny himself did not know what the Christians believed after he executed them. ...

Thanks for putting your finger on the point of that correspondence that never leaves me in peace.
Even after torturing those unfortunate deaconesses, Pliny hadn't a clue what it was they believed.

Anyway, it's off to a long day's session with angst and pretension and mulling over Pliny's puzzlement will help pass the time.

 

[JaysonR]

That makes a great deal of sense, JaysonR.
I see literary devises/tropes all throughout the NT. It reads more and more like what you'd expect from an adverting campaign for a crazy cult.}

You should read Maccabees.
As it happens, it's celebration season for that right now too.

 

[IanS]

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.

What is deliberate about it is that you really must produce evidence of Jesus if you claim Jesus was real.

You cannot credibly just say you think he was. Because that immediately begs the question of what evidence led you to form your conclusion that you think he was indeed real. It must always come down to the requirement for real genuine evidence of whatever is claimed ...

... that's what the world learned with the advent of science, when we discovered that science works for that very reason of requiring genuine evidence. It showed why earlier methods such as philosophy and theology, which attempted explanations without evidence, always turned out to be wrong and never in fact explained anything at all.

You need evidence.

In the Jesus case there is massive evidence to show why the claims about Jesus are continually untrue. And there is massive evidence to show how and why those sort of untrue claims about religious beliefs have always occurred in every religion throughout history. But there is (apparently) absolutely no evidence at all that Jesus ever existed.

 

[dejudge]

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.

That is precisely what I did not say. I did not say the word ChrEstians was a forgery

I said Tacitus Annals with [CHRISTUS was unknown up to the 5th century.

That is, No Christian writer, not even the supposed Eusebius, used Tacitus Annals to argue that the Christ had already come.

Tacitus Annals with CHRISTUS is a very late forgery.

When the History of the Church was written Tacitus Annals with "Christus" was not yet forged.

Eusebius used the Forgery in the TF in Antiquities of the Jews--never Tacitus Annals.

Justin did NOT use Tacitus Annals with Christus to argue that the Christ had already come.

Tertullian who was aware of the writings of Cornelius Tacitus in his Apology also did not used Tacitus Annals with Christus to prove the Christ had already come.

Origen did NOT use Tacitus Annals with Christus to argue that the Christ had already come.

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.

You have exposed the fundamental problem for the History of the Church--the people referred to as Christians were really called ChrEstians in Tacitus and had nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

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.

Perhaps you have not read the NT or do not understand it . The NT is fundamentally anti-Jewish propaganda.

I will now show you the evidence.

First you must remember that Jesus is God himself in gJohn.

Jesus, God Creator is talking to Jews.

Examine gJohn.

John 8:44 KJV

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

The author of gJohn is hardly likely to be a Jew when he put words in the mouth of his GOD Jesus saying that the father of the Jews is a Devil, a Murderer and a Liar.

The Jesus story is openly of non-Jewish origin.

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

Again, that has already been debunked. There are millions of people who are identified or known by where they are living and not where they were born.

Michael Jordan of the Chicago Bulls was born in Brooklyn, New York and moved to Charlotte when a Toddler but virtually everybody associate Michael Jordan with Chicago because he played for the Chicago Bulls.

It is already known why the authors of the Jesus story claimed he was born in Bethlehem it was because of supposed prophecies in the Sepuagint.

The author of gMatthew directed his readers to the very passage in Micah 5.2

Matthew 2

4 And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together , he demanded of them where Christ should be born . 5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, 6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor , that shall rule my people Israel.

Micah 5:2 KJV

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting .

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 Jesus story is indeed fictional even if you remove Nazareth and replace it with Bethlehem. or vice versa.

1.Jesus was born of a Ghost in Bethlehem.

2. Jesus was born of a Ghost in Nazareth.

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.

Your methodology is extremely strange. Convoluted explanations of a fiction birth narrative where Jesus was born of a Ghost makes it likely Jesus was a figure of history??

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.

Why didn't Paul call it hallucinations? The Pauline Corpus is a product of hallucinations ---NOT history.

We know that Paul was not in the real world when he wrote about Jesus--He was in cloud cuckoo land.

2 Corinthians 12:2 KJV

I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell ; or whether out of the body,[ I cannot tell : God knoweth] ) such an one caught up to the third heaven. [/I]

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.

That is exactly what a forger would do. A forger would want late writings to be accepted as early writings by inserting information to make them appear to be early.

Why do you think all the Gospels appear to end at the time of Pilate?

Why do you think the authors of the Gospels make it appear that they wrote while the Temple was still standing ?

I hope you aware that the Gospels are forgeries written well after c 70 CE.

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.

If the forgeries were so crude how is it that non-apologetic writers did not expose them. It took hundreds of years before it was discovered that the Pauline Corpus is a product of multiple authors--perhaps as much as 7 authors.

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.

You must believe the Bible is a source of history for your Jesus or else you will be devastated.

Ironically, Christians believe the Bible is a source of history for the same reason.

Essentialy, your Jesus is a Jesus of Faith.

 

[Craig B]

The Pliny letter does not state that the Christians were followers or believers in Jesus even before execution or after torture. Pliny himself did not know what the Christians believed after he executed them.

I hope you're not making assumptions here because you have given us an astonishingly bombastic telling off for this.

Again, everytime you make statements about what you think happened you present nothing but a bunch of asssumptions WITHOUT any supporting evidence from antiquity.

How many times do I have to explain to you that the Pliny letter mentions nothing of Jesus? It is really a useless exercise for you to repeat assumptions after assumptions.

I longer accept assumptions as evidence--those days are done.

Done, are they? dejudge you're not our schoolteacher; calm down! Anyway if you're not making assumptions, you can show us Pliny explicitly stating, "I don't know what the Christians believe", I hope. Here is what in fact he has to say about Christian beliefs in Letter 10 to Trajan.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.

These look like plausible early Christian customs to me, because they are Christian practices even today! And the belief that the messiah is a god, which is indeed a feature of Christianity, and ONLY of Christianity, must have struck Pliny as noteworthy.

... Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

So are you making the assumption that Pliny didn't find out what these poor women believed? His expression "nothing else but excessive depraved superstition" is a perfectly accurate characterisation of Christian belief, and indicates that he had no wish or need to trouble Trajan with details of this rubbish.

The starting point of Pliny's investigation was the enforcement of a decree of Trajan banning private clubs or associations, because some people wanted to set up a volunteer fire brigade in the province he governed, and that would have infringed the ban. Seemingly, this drew his attention to the issue.

Were the Christians dangerous? Pliny thought not. Messianic belief might be dangerous, so he mentions it. Who they believed to be the messiah and other details of their weird doctrines were of no interest to him, so he ignores them. None of this indicates that he didn't find out what he needed to know, which wasn't much.

 

[eight bits]

Judas rocks. The ostensible villain is reliably more interesting than any white hat.

As always, what is the story?. All the male disciples betrayed Jesus (all but one in John). They handed him over with only token resistance, being physically unable to sit up after a party (which included bodily intimacy according to John), fled and hid, declined to testify on Jesus' behalf at the Temple trial (although Peter may have been present), and stayed away from Jesus' execution. Celsus is said to have remarked on this unanimous rejection by all of Jesus' closest (male) associates.

Like the rest, Judas' betrayal wasn't fatal. The story is that the Temple couldn't execute Jesus under occupation regulations. Judas betrayed Jesus' whereabouts to Temple authorities, they handed him over to the Romans, telling Pilate that Jesus had said he was "King of the Jews" (which is true, to the extent that Jesus maintained he was the messiah they expected, which he does at trial). Pilate takes the cheap "exemplary punishment" opportunity; splash Jesus.

In American English, then, Judas is a bag holder, not a person especially responsible among the many whose collective action brings about Jesus' death. What distinguishes Judas from his erstwhile colleagues is that they repented. That's sometimes because he promptly died (Matthew and maybe Acts). If all we had was Mark, we wouldn't know that any male disciple repented, except by comparison with Paul.

Although John gives Satan his due, it also gives Judas a straightforward reason to shut Jesus down: the multiply attested "the poor will always be with you." It's from Deuteronomy 15:11, but here divorced from context. A real-life Judas may well have signed up for the social activism that the original passage urged, and then felt keenly the outrageous perversion of the words, as an excuse for "Screw the poor, I want my massage." (From a nubile woman, no less.)

To borrow the phrase for Paul's enlightenment, the scales fall from Judas' eyes, and he sees Jesus for what he really is. It may also help to remember that all the disciples, including Judas, may be very young adult men or even late adolescent boys.

It is interesting, then, to read Ehrman's blog entry in contrast. He can't quite get his head around the possibility of testerone poisoning, fed by resentment at seeing Jesus' mask slip, and especially in John, lover's jealousy, all leading to a flamboyant, dangerous but not inherently fatal, gesture of rejection. We sometimes remark here at JREF R&P on the backgrounds of "biblical scholars" influencing their scholarship. Reputed bad boy Bart could recite his analysis of Judas in Sunday school, and expect his gold star.

And BTW, where are the promoters of the "embarrassment criterion" at this incident? Isn't this the Holy Grail of embarrassing moments, proof positive of a historical, very human Jesus?

The significance of Judas being from Judea may be that (reputedly) John the Baptist was, too. Maybe Judas found Jesus through an earlier association with John. We never see much of John the Baptist, neither in Gospel nor Josephus, but what we do see makes us think that John would never have gone off-message as badly as Jesus does at the Bethany party in John. If so, then it would be impossible for any man to be loyal to both John and Jesus (something about a servant cannot serve two masters?). Judas made his choice.

The human motivations available here lie very near the surface.

 

[dejudge]

Judas rocks. The ostensible villain is reliably more interesting than any white hat.

As always, what is the story?. All the male disciples betrayed Jesus (all but one in John). They handed him over with only token resistance, being physically unable to sit up after a party (which included bodily intimacy according to John), fled and hid, declined to testify on Jesus' behalf at the Temple trial (although Peter may have been present), and stayed away from Jesus' execution. Celsus is said to have remarked on this unanimous rejection by all of Jesus' closest (male) associates.

Like the rest, Judas' betrayal wasn't fatal. The story is that the Temple couldn't execute Jesus under occupation regulations. Judas betrayed Jesus' whereabouts to Temple authorities, they handed him over to the Romans, telling Pilate that Jesus had said he was "King of the Jews" (which is true, to the extent that Jesus maintained he was the messiah they expected, which he does at trial). Pilate takes the cheap "exemplary punishment" opportunity; splash Jesus.

In American English, then, Judas is a bag holder, not a person especially responsible among the many whose collective action brings about Jesus' death. What distinguishes Judas from his erstwhile colleagues is that they repented. That's sometimes because he promptly died (Matthew and maybe Acts). If all we had was Mark, we wouldn't know that any male disciple repented, except by comparison with Paul.

Although John gives Satan his due, it also gives Judas a straightforward reason to shut Jesus down: the multiply attested "the poor will always be with you." It's from Deuteronomy 15:11, but here divorced from context. A real-life Judas may well have signed up for the social activism that the original passage urged, and then felt keenly the outrageous perversion of the words, as an excuse for "Screw the poor, I want my massage." (From a nubile woman, no less.)

To borrow the phrase for Paul's enlightenment, the scales fall from Judas' eyes, and he sees Jesus for what he really is. It may also help to remember that all the disciples, including Judas, may be very young adult men or even late adolescent boys.

It is interesting, then, to read Ehrman's blog entry in contrast. He can't quite get his head around the possibility of testerone poisoning, fed by resentment at seeing Jesus' mask slip, and especially in John, lover's jealousy, all leading to a flamboyant, dangerous but not inherently fatal, gesture of rejection. We sometimes remark here at JREF R&P on the backgrounds of "biblical scholars" influencing their scholarship. Reputed bad boy Bart could recite his analysis of Judas in Sunday school, and expect his gold star.

And BTW, where are the promoters of the "embarrassment criterion" at this incident? Isn't this the Holy Grail of embarrassing moments, proof positive of a historical, very human Jesus?

The significance of Judas being from Judea may be that (reputedly) John the Baptist was, too. Maybe Judas found Jesus through an earlier association with John. We never see much of John the Baptist, neither in Gospel nor Josephus, but what we do see makes us think that John would never have gone off-message as badly as Jesus does at the Bethany party in John. If so, then it would be impossible for any man to be loyal to both John and Jesus (something about a servant cannot serve two masters?). Judas made his choice.

The human motivations available here lie very near the surface.

Then here comes Paul a Pharisee c 37-41 CE telling the Romans that the guy they crucified was God Creator.

The Pharisee Paul tells the Romans that the crucified trouble maker is Lord and Saviour, the Son of God who abolished the Laws of the Jews.

How did a Pharisee manage to go to Rome and tell the Romans that the guy they killed was God Creator and that every knee, even the Roman Emperors should bow to the dead MAN?

The Pauline Epistles makes no sense whatsoever if Jesus was really a man and the Romans killed him.

If Paul persecuted Christians for LYING about Jesus then why did Paul a Pharisee continue to spread the same known lies that a resurrected man was God Creator