Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

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..

There is no need at all for any sceptics to propose any scenarios to explain claimed events around the figure of Jesus.

As I explained a long way back - that principle has long since been established in legal trials where barristers will often ask a deliberately leading question of the witness, asking for example "what do you think happened then, how can you explain A and B?" ... in which case the judge should (and almost always does) intervene to advise the witness that they must not answer any such question unless they actually know the answer - they must not speculate, because that becomes a way of the barrister deliberately leading the witness astray in order to falsely mislead the jury with what may appear to be an inadequate answer from someone who does not necessarily have any reason why he/she should have known any such answer in the first place.

However, all that said - it should be glaringly obvious to everyone that legends of supernatural messiahs and gods could very easily be created and perpetuated at that time, because they were in fact created and perpetuated by almost every religious group ever known (and there were hundreds of those, if not many thousands). So, far from needing an explanation as if Jewish messiah stories would be an inexplicable surprise, it would have been almost impossible NOT to have had numerous such Jewish messiah beliefs in that region at that time ... such beliefs were thought to be promised by God in the OT as a matter of "certainty" anyway ...

... and its absolutely undeniable from the writing of Paul and the later gospel authors that all of them actually said that they were obtaining their messiah beliefs from those OT sources anyway. And that includes Paul's constant claims to have received knowledge of the messiah through "revelation" from God.

There is no great mystery about how and why deeply religious messiah beliefs arose in 1st century Palestine.

But in view of the impossible and entirely untrue nature of almost all the relevant stories of Jesus, and given that none of the biblical preachers ever knew Jesus, and nor did they even know any informant who knew Jesus, and given that they were all certain that the OT ensured the coming of just such a saving messiah, given that there appears to be no credible evidence whatsoever, etc. etc. etc. (a whole mass of factors like that), given that background to the biblical writing, there is certainly "no mystery" in concluding that such uneducated 1st century superstitious beliefs in an unseen unknown messiah of past legend, were likely to be untrue.

IOW - nobody here has to explain any biblical stories or explain why person A was supposed to have said or written sentences X and Y. It’s more than sufficient to point out that the story itself cannot be true (and people had not understood that for most of the last 2000 years), and that it was clearly derived from ancient superstitious beliefs of the Old Testament, and where such superstitious and entirely fictional religious beliefs in supernatural gods, messiahs, angels, demons and the rest were the daily false beliefs of every single person in that region.


That’s NOT to say that it's impossible for such a person to have existed. But it is saying that no credible genuine evidence has ever been cited by anyone in any of these threads, and nor has anyone ever been able to cite any of their so-called “expert academic historians” producing any such evidence (despite Bart Ehraman and others saying they are “certain” about it). And where in contrast, there is certainly a huge mountain of irrefutable evidence to show that the bible stories of Jesus were untrue, that the stories were taken from beliefs in the OT, and that all religions at that time (and most if not all since that time) have always claimed completely untrue supernatural figures just like this one. So there is overwhelming evidence as to why the Jesus story is likely to be untrue vs. zero evidence of it actually being true.

 

[JaysonR]

There is no need at all for any sceptics to propose any scenarios to explain claimed events around the figure of Jesus.

I agree. I said as much.
I don't expect it, but it does help.

To the rest of your post, I wasn't dismissing Dejudge's ideas based on a lack of anthropological presentation; I only offered that the presentation is weaker than it could be.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

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

I'll happily discuss any passage with anybody who names a chapter and verse. Got one?

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?

My understanding is that Paul took a boat.

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

Paul never says why he persecuted them. According to Acts, Paul's persecution consisted of holding the coats of the killers of Stephen, participating in a riot later that day, followed by a failed attempt to have a sternly worded note read in the synagogues of Damascus. That doesn't give us much to work with, although it does help to explain why few people in the Judean churches had heard of him.

How are you coming on my question to you, first posed in "Nailed?" In your opinion, did John the Baptist have any disciples?

Four.

 

[Belz...]

I assume nothing.

You are hilarious.

 

[IanS]

I agree. I said as much.
I don't expect it, but it does help.

To the rest of your post, I wasn't dismissing Dejudge's ideas based on a lack of anthropological presentation; I only offered that the presentation is weaker than it could be.

Sure, OK. I just want us all to be clear about it. Because as you know, there have been constant demands here saying sceptics must produce some alternative explanation or "myth theory" of how the Jesus stories arose, as if there was some obligation on sceptics to guess how such messiah stories actually arose.

Because there is in fact absolutely no such obligation whatsoever on any sceptics to propose any such myth theories or explanations of biblical stories. In fact the opposite is actually the case, and it’s the constant insistence that sceptics must invent some myth theory, which is actually the fraudulent tactic in use here.

IOW - (a)there is no such obligation. And sceptics should not guess at any such myth theory (unless they think they do have a theory which they themselves wish to state), (b) no genuine evidence has been produced of Jesus as a living human who was the figure of the bible, and no such evidence has been cited from any believing academic such as Bart Ehrman, and (c) in contrast there is abundant and undeniable evidence to show why the bible stories are untrue and why untrue superstitious legends like this have always been told of supernatural figures in religion.

That does not “prove” Jesus did not exist. But it’s certainly a very full set of objective scientifically valid reasons why educated people should request very clear and solid evidence of his human existence before concluding it’s likely to be true.

 

[Craig B]

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

You gotta pre-fifth century manuscript of the Annals? Hold on to it, it's worth quite a lot, I imagine! The rest of us, we have to make do with this stuff.

The first 6 books of the Annales survive in a single manuscript, now in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence ... This MS was written around 850AD in Germany. The distinctive type of script suggests the event took place in the scriptorium of the Benedictine abbey of Fulda ... [Annals 11-16] All of the late Italian manuscripts - some 31 at the last count - are copies of a single mediaeval manuscript, also in the Laurentian library ...

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/tacitus/

 

[Belz...]

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

That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. You have become so entrenched in your position that you are now saying anything to maintain your view.

You are now dishonestly asking for evidence from people who never claimed that the evidence was convincing, nor that they ever had any to provide. You are asking evidence from people who are telling you that the evidence is too weak to reach a conclusion. You are asking evidence from people who explain to you, slowly and patiently, over and over again, that there are things beside the evidence that may lead one to lean to one side or the other.

But you'll have none of it. You've become a broken record who will not listen to what others tell you and who ignores the real position of people you engage in debate, prefering to invent it as you go along so as to fit them with your black-and-white view of the topic.

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.

That is a lie. I have answered you several times on this point. You ignoring my answer doesn't make it go away.

It must always come down to the requirement for real genuine evidence of whatever is claimed ...

Real genuine awesome evidence, you mean.

You need evidence.

What part of "this scenario raises fewer questions than this other one" is so hard for you to understand ? How old are you, anyway ?

 

[Belz...]

There is no need at all for any sceptics to propose any scenarios to explain claimed events around the figure of Jesus.

Yeah, history is such a bore, anyway.

 

[JaysonR]

Sure, OK. I just want us all to be clear about it. Because as you know, there have been constant demands here saying sceptics must produce some alternative explanation or "myth theory" of how the Jesus stories arose, as if there was some obligation on sceptics to guess how such messiah stories actually arose.

Because there is in fact absolutely no such obligation whatsoever on any sceptics to propose any such myth theories or explanations of biblical stories. In fact the opposite is actually the case, and it’s the constant insistence that sceptics must invent some myth theory, which is actually the fraudulent tactic in use here.

IOW - (a)there is no such obligation. And sceptics should not guess at any such myth theory (unless they think they do have a theory which they themselves wish to state), (b) no genuine evidence has been produced of Jesus as a living human who was the figure of the bible, and no such evidence has been cited from any believing academic such as Bart Ehrman, and (c) in contrast there is abundant and undeniable evidence to show why the bible stories are untrue and why untrue superstitious legends like this have always been told of supernatural figures in religion.

That does not “prove” Jesus did not exist. But it’s certainly a very full set of objective scientifically valid reasons why educated people should request very clear and solid evidence of his human existence before concluding it’s likely to be true.

Right, there is no requirement.
No more than one could say for any position.
More material is never required, but it does tend to help.

 

[pakeha]

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

Yes, indeed!
So, Maccabees it is.

 

[JaysonR]

I'd be interested to read your thoughts once you read Maccabees, in light of the context regarding literary narratives and their devices.

 

[pakeha]

....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.

That's an interesting take on Judas, eight bits.
It's something to mull over as I peel and chop coarsely 5 kilos of pears for mostarda, a gift I'm preparing for a foodie friend.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge, I want to clarify again if you could.

It is your position that Jews did not create nor follow a Jesus cult because the material was found in Egypt, unlike texts we find of Judaism in Judea as we expect.

Do I have this correct?

 

[dejudge]

....Paul never says why he persecuted them. According to Acts, Paul's persecution consisted of holding the coats of the killers of Stephen, participating in a riot later that day, followed by a failed attempt to have a sternly worded note read in the synagogues of Damascus. That doesn't give us much to work with, although it does help to explain why few people in the Judean churches had heard of him.

You made a fatal error. You have exposed that you have not read or do not understand what is in Acts and the Pauline Corpus about the excessive persecution by Saul/Paul.

Saul/Paul agreed to have Stephen Killed. He created havoc and entered the houses of those of the Church and had them imprisoned in Acts 8.

Saul/Paul even threatened to SLAUGHTER the supposed disciples in Acts 9.


Acts 8.

1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem............ 3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.

Acts 9

1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest..

The Pauline writers supposedly confirmed that they excessively persecuted the Church and did waste it.

Galatians 1:13 KJV

For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it...

How are you coming on my question to you, first posed in "Nailed?" In your opinion, did John the Baptist have any disciples?

Four.

Your question is easily answered by reading Antiquities of the Jews 18. Josephus mentioned John the Baptist but did not associate him with any disciple or person called Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Belz...]

You made a fatal error.

Such certainty.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

You made a fatal error.

Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

Saul/Paul agreed to have Stephen Killed.

Paul had no authority in the matter.

He created havoc and entered the houses of those of the Church and had them imprisoned in Acts 8.

Yes, he participated in a riot on the day Stephen was killed and buried. No doubt, he had a busy afternoon. So what?

Saul/Paul even threatened to SLAUGHTER the supposed disciples in Acts 9.

Paul was a good talker.

Your question is easily answered by reading Antiquities of the Jews 18. Josephus mentioned John the Baptist but did not associate him with any disciple or person called Jesus of Nazareth.

Josephus won't tell me what your opinion is. I will also point out again that there is nothing in my question to you about a person amed Jesus.

My question to you is:

In your opinion, did John the Baptist have any disciples?

Five.

 

[maximara]

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

I think the point was that Pliny's letter simply describes his dealings with the followers of some Christ...a title not a name. If could be Jesus...or some other person who (or whose followers) used that title. I should mention that by the time of Pliny's letter you had at least 13 possible candidates other then Jesus to choose from for "Christ".

In fact, "(t)he Bible uses the term "christ" or "messiah" for a variety of figures, including all of the high priests and kings of ancient Israel" (Wright, Stuart A. (1995) Armageddon in Waco University of Chicago Press pg 296)

To say Pliny's letter must refer to Jesus is to ignore historical reality.

It's almost like that joke at the end of Napoleon Bunny-Part:

Hey Romaus, here is another Christ. That's the twelfth one today.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) . . .
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.

I've snipped the material before this argument, since I think we've argued it into the ground and are simply not going to agree.

That later Christian writers, having received Luke / Acts, along with much of the rest of what eventually became the Christian canon, made the assumption that Paul knew of Luke / Acts is irrelevant.

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.

So, your argument is that because a fictional work, set up to whitewash the conflict between Paul and James doesn't mention Paul's letters, he couldn't have written them. Did I miss anything?

Also, consider the conflict presented in Galatians between Paul and James. In Acts, it is rather easily smoothed over, and James accepts that God's grace is extended to the Gentiles. That an earlier conflict would be smoothed over in a later document in plausible. That a picture of harmony between Paul and the Jerusalem church - one that favored doing away with circumcision and the dietary laws - would be replaced by a later story of devision and friction is not plausible.

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.

Again, there's no particular reason Acts would have mentioned the Pauline epistles.

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

Nonsense. There is no reference in the Pauline epistles to the virgin birth.

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

Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1

Eusebius' Church History 6.25.6.

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

Again, this is irrelevant.

. . . (snipped as irrelevant) . . .

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??

Of course, according to the Pauline epistles, Paul underwent a conversion experience. These aren't exactly uncommon in history.

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.

Okay, finally I have a reasonably complete idea of your take on the origin of Christianity. You assert that it began in Egypt in the second century and that it was originated by people who were not Jewish.

Now, my question remains: Why would a non-Jewish cult, originating outside Judea, go out of its way to identify its Christ with a Jewish guy named Jesus and also go out of its way to claim that this Christ Jesus fulfilled all kinds of Jewish prophecies? Also, why would this cult buy into Jewish apocalyptic belief?

 

[IanS]

Right, there is no requirement.
No more than one could say for any position.
More material is never required, but it does tend to help.

Well there most certainly IS a requirement if biblical scholars wish to claim (as they do) that Jesus existed and that, as Bart Ehrman and others claim (Ehrman actually says "almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees with him"), that the evidence makes it "certain".

So those bible scholars, and anyone here who says Jesus was more likely than not, most certainly DO have that requirement to produce the evidence to support their beliefs.

But sceptics who simply ask for a clear elucidation of what the claimed evidence is supposed to be, most definitely do not have any such obligation to invent any myth theory.

So those two positions are most definitely not equal.

 

[jhunter1163]

Well there most certainly IS a requirement if biblical scholars wish to claim (as they do) that Jesus existed and that, as Bart Ehrman and others claim (Ehrman actually says "almost every properly trained scholar on the planet agrees with him"), that the evidence makes it "certain".

So those bible scholars, and anyone here who says Jesus was more likely than not, most certainly DO have that requirement to produce the evidence to support their beliefs.

But sceptics who simply ask for a clear elucidation of what the claimed evidence is supposed to be, most definitely do not have any such obligation to invent any myth theory.

So those two positions are most definitely not equal.

No. The Trvthers are the ones making the extraordinary claim (i.e., that Jesus did not exist). They make this claim in the face of almost all scholarly opinion and almost all accepted historical evidence. They are the ones who need to provide the extraordinary evidence for their claim. Evidence would be something like the names of the people who forged the early Christian works, some plausible motive for their doing so, a late carbon date for an alleged "early" papyrus, etc.