Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[JaysonR]

I am extremely happy you have now shown what "face value" means.

Now, this is my position on Jesus in the Bible.

1. Jesus was NOT born of a Ghost and a Virgin--he never existed.

2. Jesus was never baptized by John--he never existed.

3. Jesus was never tempted by the Devil--he never existed.

4. Jesus never had any disciples--he never existed.

5. Jesus never did any miracles in Galilee--he never existed.

6. Jesus was never on trial before the Sanhedrin--he never existed.

7. Jesus was never on trial under Pilate--he never existed.

8. Jesus was never crucified--he never existed.

9. Jesus never resurrected--he never existed.

10. Jesus never ascended--he never existed.

I hope you now understand that I do not accept the Bible stories of Jesus at face value because he never existed.

Now, in the Bible it is claimed Jesus existed---Christians and HJers take it as face value.

In the Bible it is claimed Jesus was from Nazareth, was baptized by John, had disciples,preached in Galilee, and was crucified under Pilate---Christians and HJers take those events at face value.

You missed everything else I wrote...again.

Thinking it may be likely some mundane human once existed whom legends grew around the identity of is not a "face value" reading of the Bible.
Nor is the 'composite Jesus' hypothesis.

You cannot categorically slide HJ propositions into being Fundamentalist Christian propositions; there are incredible differences between these concepts and your only interest in connecting them appears to be for the use of belittlement and begging a question of senselessness by proxy, not by actual validity of argument.

I'm not even certain, however, that you will understand what this post is conveying...I hope you do, but your post history tells me that my hope is unwarranted.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Are you claiming that stories about people who hear the voice of God in the Bible must mean those people are figures of history?

I'm saying that thinking it plausible that the biblical Jesus stories were based on the life of a real, non-magical religious crank is not the same as believing that the Bible is the literally true word of God.

It's like being a detective and investigating a suspect's claim of what he was doing the night of a crime. Just because I conclude that he probably was at the Kwik-E-Mart when he said he was, it doesn't mean that I assume every other part of his story is true. If I conclude that he most likely did commit the crime, but grant that some of his claims are true, it doesn't mean that I'm affirming his innocence.

 

[dejudge]

Inferring that a Jesus or Jesus-type individual existed mundanely, but not as is described in the Bible is not taking the Bible at face value.

Your position demands only a reading of the Bible at face value and you deny any reading which does not accept the entirety of what the Bible has in it.

For example, if someone speaks of a mundane human, you will cite all of the divine birth and holy ghost segments and insist these descriptions cannot be removed in the description of Jesus.

Your claim is openly and blatantly false. I have shown that my position is that Jesus never existed.

A face value reading of the Bible is that Jesus existed.


It is Christians and HJers who claim Jesus of Nazareth existed, that his father was probably Joseph, his mother was Mary, he had a brother named James, he was in Galilee, he was baptized by John, he preached in Galilee, he had disciples, that people came to him to be healed, that he was in Jerusalem, was in the Jewish Temple, was in arguments with the Pharisees and Chief Priests, was before the Sanhedrin and put on trial under Pilate, was crucified and buried sometime around the 15th year of Tiberius.

Those are some of the events in the Bible that Christians and HJers take at face value.

How in the world can I take the Bible at face value when I argue that the entire Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE based on the abundance of evidence?

How in the world can I take the Bible at face value when I argue that the Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically constipated?

Please, please, please!!!

I am not an HJer or a Christian.

Who takes so-called authentic Pauline writings at face value without a shred of corroboration?

Not me!!! You know who??

 

[JaysonR]

You missed the point again, and I wasn't saying you are pro-HJ or Christian.
Stating Jesus, or a Jesus-type person, existed is not taking the bible on face value, as the face value of the bible is to accept every claim in the bible simply because the bible states it.
No one, except for you really, is making that claim.

 

[dejudge]

You missed the point again, and I wasn't saying you are pro-HJ or Christian.
Stating Jesus, or a Jesus-type person, existed is not taking the bible on face value, as the face value of the bible is to accept every claim in the bible simply because the bible states it.
No one, except for you really, is making that claim.

I have exposed your false claim. You claimed that I take the Bible at face value when you must have known in advanced of posting that your statement was wholly erroneous.

I have argued even with you that the NT is a compilation of fiction, forgeries and events that could not have happened and that the entire Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

Please, desist from your blatant fallacies about my position.

Now, that I exposed that Christians and HJers take certain parts of the Bible at face value you are now changing your story.

You cannot change the fact that Christians and HJers take the existence of Jesus in the Bible at face value.

 

[Craig B]

I have exposed your false claim ... you must have known in advanced of posting that your statement was wholly erroneous ... Please, desist from your blatant fallacies about my position ... you are now changing your story.

And you, dejudge, are being very very naughty again.

 

[JaysonR]

I have exposed your false claim. You claimed that I take the Bible at face value when you must have known in advanced of posting that your statement was wholly erroneous.

I have argued even with you that the NT is a compilation of fiction, forgeries and events that could not have happened and that the entire Pauline Corpus was composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

Please, desist from your blatant fallacies about my position.

Now, that I exposed that Christians and HJers take certain parts of the Bible at face value you are now changing your story.

You cannot change the fact that Christians and HJers take the existence of Jesus in the Bible at face value.

Yes, your position is that Jesus is a mythological figure, and your argument for that position is that the Bible describes Jesus in terms applicable to a mythological figure, and you deny any understanding of the description of Jesus which does not include the divinity of Jesus because denying the divine descriptions of Jesus is not what the Bible describes.

That is more taking the Bible at face value to make your argument than someone who proposes that Jesus was not as described in the Bible and that the Biblical (and more) texts elaborated upon a possibly real person or persons.

It is not applicable to tell someone that they take something on face value when their very position relies on inference from details they believe to be elaborations and false attributions.

To take something on face value, one has to accept what is in the original form without augmentation or denial of its presented form.

You don't even take it completely on face value; you do, however, take it more on face value than anyone else in this discussion, as no one but yourself demands that the Bible is evidence for a particular description of Jesus because the Bible states a given set of verses.

Others infer based on Biblical verses mixed with anthropological information of the social patterns of literatures, theocratic politics, social customs of the time, other examples around the era, and historical events requiring to be considered.

Your presentation, again, simply states Biblical verses and commentator sections and rest your case on what has been written without any considerations of inference from literature forms, theocratic politics, social customs of the time, other examples around the era, and historical events requiring to be considered.

You generally dismiss any form of information which is not either out of the Bible or from a commentator whom you approve of, and even if it is from one of these two categories, you will also only accept your version of understanding or reading them; denying any other possibility from being entertained outside of a nearly directly literal form.

Jesus is 50, why? Because it was claimed that he was 50.
Jesus was of a ghost, why? Because it was claimed that he was of a ghost.
Jesus' father was God, why? Because it was claimed that his father was God.
Paul never wrote letters, why? Because Acts never mentions Paul writing letters.
The Bible was created in Egypt in the 2nd century, why? Because the texts that we have were found in Egypt and the earliest commentators wrote about them in the 2nd century.
etc... etc...

Everything of which you propose is entirely surface level consideration and lacks any considerations for more complexity in human culture than a video game's simulation of society.

As such, I would say that you take things on face value more than any other in the discussion.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, your position is that Jesus is a mythological figure, and your argument for that position is that the Bible describes Jesus in terms applicable to a mythological figure, and you deny any understanding of the description of Jesus which does not include the divinity of Jesus because denying the divine descriptions of Jesus is not what the Bible describes.

That is more taking the Bible at face value to make your argument than someone who proposes that Jesus was not as described in the Bible and that the Biblical (and more) texts elaborated upon a possibly real person or persons.

It is not applicable to tell someone that they take something on face value when their very position relies on inference from details they believe to be elaborations and false attributions.

To take something on face value, one has to accept what is in the original form without augmentation or denial of its presented form.

You don't even take it completely on face value; you do, however, take it more on face value than anyone else in this discussion, as no one but yourself demands that the Bible is evidence for a particular description of Jesus because the Bible states a given set of verses.

Others infer based on Biblical verses mixed with anthropological information of the social patterns of literatures, theocratic politics, social customs of the time, other examples around the era, and historical events requiring to be considered.

Your presentation, again, simply states Biblical verses and commentator sections and rest your case on what has been written without any considerations of inference from literature forms, theocratic politics, social customs of the time, other examples around the era, and historical events requiring to be considered.

You generally dismiss any form of information which is not either out of the Bible or from a commentator whom you approve of, and even if it is from one of these two categories, you will also only accept your version of understanding or reading them; denying any other possibility from being entertained outside of a nearly directly literal form.

Jesus is 50, why? Because it was claimed that he was 50.
Jesus was of a ghost, why? Because it was claimed that he was of a ghost.
Jesus' father was God, why? Because it was claimed that his father was God.
Paul never wrote letters, why? Because Acts never mentions Paul writing letters.
The Bible was created in Egypt in the 2nd century, why? Because the texts that we have were found in Egypt and the earliest commentators wrote about them in the 2nd century.
etc... etc...

Everything of which you propose is entirely surface level consideration and lacks any considerations for more complexity in human culture than a video game's simulation of society.

As such, I would say that you take things on face value more than any other in the discussion.

Your post is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. You have not shown the massive amount of evidence from antiquity that I presented to support ALL of my position.

My position is that Jesus never existed--not that he was 50 years old or was a Ghost

It is the Church writers who argued Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost who was crucified at 50 years of age.

 

[JaysonR]

Yes, your antiquity is filled with citations of writers, which I agreed to you citing.
Anthropology of any kind, however, is nearly entirely absent in your proposition.

And, yes, you have stated all of the points which I highlighted.
I never claimed they were your position on the historicity of Jesus; they are some of your supporting positions from which you build your argument for your concluded position regarding the historicity of Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, your antiquity is filled with citations of writers, which I agreed to you citing.
Anthropology of any kind, however, is nearly entirely absent in your proposition.

And, yes, you have stated all of the points which I highlighted.
I never claimed they were your position on the historicity of Jesus; they are some of your supporting positions from which you build your argument for your concluded position regarding the historicity of Jesus.

Where is your citing of anthropology in this thread? There is nothing.

What really is your position? There is nothing.

No position, no anthropology, no evidence.

Do you take the supposed authentic Pauline writings at face value? What is your position?

 

[JaysonR]

My official position on the historicity of Jesus is that I don't absolutely know, but I think it is possible for people to exist and have legends made of them, and the culture of the times is sypathetic with the cultures described in the texts, so nothing inherently informs me out right that the texts could not possibly have been created based off of one or more persons.

As to anthropology, I have given quite a bit; you have yet to respond to most of them, and unreasonably dismissed the paleographic proposition regarding your position that the Pauline corpus copied Justin.

I don't think an entirely mythical Jesus argument is absurd, but I do think that your proposition is absurd due to huge educational gaps in the information and surface level reasonings.

No, I do not take any text of the Judaic or Christian cultures on face value; that includes the Pauline texts.
In fact, I spend my hobby time working on matters which specically would be impossible if I were to take any such texts on face value and negligent of the cultures of the respective times.

 

[dejudge]

My official position on the historicity of Jesus is that I don't absolutely know, but I think it is possible for people to exist and have legends made of them, and the culture of the times is sypathetic with the cultures described in the texts, so nothing inherently informs me out right that the texts could not possibly have been created based off of one or more persons.

I am not really interested in possibilities because you know that it is also possible that Jesus was a figure of mythology as the evidence suggests.

I am interested in the evidence from antiquity. Your repeating of possibilities is not evidence at all.

A Jesus based on multiple characters is still a myth--not a figure of history.

Plus, you have already stated the existence or non-existence is of no interest to you.

You really have no evidence from antiquity to support an historical Jesus.

I don't think an entirely mythical Jesus argument is absurd, but I do think that your proposition is absurd due to huge educational gaps in the information and surface level reasonings.

Well, I do find your reasoning void of logic. I have presented evidence to support my position yet you refuse to admit it. Instead of looking at the evidence that I have presented you now talk about "education gaps".

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters. The evidence suggest the story of Jesus the Son God Killed by the Jews was a Big Lie invented AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Now, I have never claimed to have any superior level of education I just provide the evidence to support my arguments that is all.

I think, based on the abundance of evidence that the HJ argument is absurd.

It is not the level of education that matters is the evidence from antiquity and it is for that very reason Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist? was a total failure.

There may have been a high level of education but no evidence to support his argument.

The HJ argument is virtually dead, not because of lack of education, but lack of evidence from antiquity.

No, I do not take any text of the Judaic or Christian cultures on face value; that includes the Pauline texts.
In fact, I spend my hobby time working on matters which specically would be impossible if I were to take any such texts on face value and negligent of the cultures of the respective times.

When I examine a thread entitled "Paul The Herodian" you certainly took parts of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus at face value.

In fact, you accepted much of the NT at face value when you made references to the culture of the time period.

I noticed in that thread you did not consider that Jesus was a mythological figure but took at face value, for the sake of argument, that he did exist.

Why didn't you, for the sake of argument, assume that Jesus was a figure of mythology like Romulus?

You should know based on the study of anthropology that there was a culture of mythology in the time period.

 

[Craig B]

I am not really interested in possibilities because you know that it is also possible that Jesus was a figure of mythology as the evidence suggests.

I am interested in the evidence from antiquity. Your repeating of possibilities is not evidence at all. <snip>
Why didn't you, for the sake of argument, assume that Jesus was a figure of mythology like Romulus?

You should know based on the study of anthropology that there was a culture of mythology in the time period.

Why should anyone assume things and then believe them "for the sake of argument"? What an odd idea! Is that how you arrive at your beliefs? It would explain some of them, to be sure, but I don't think you really mean what you have written there.

You tell us that you don't have a superior level of education, but that what counts is evidence, all of which is fine. Why, then is there not even a scintilla of evidence in your post?

 

[IanS]

You missed the point again, and I wasn't saying you are pro-HJ or Christian.
Stating Jesus, or a Jesus-type person, existed is not taking the bible on face value, as the face value of the bible is to accept every claim in the bible simply because the bible states it.
No one, except for you really, is making that claim.

Jayson - I think the point that dejudge keeps making to you, and it's point that I have made repeatedly, is that if you believe that Jesus probably existed (put any figure on it you like), then you are inevitably drawing your belief from assuming that some of the biblical claims are true.

That has to be the case, because there is certainly no other independent source of anything about of Jesus outside of that biblical writing. The biblical writing is the sole and entire primary source for any mention at all of anything about Jesus. All other later writing, such as 11th century copies of Tacitus and Josephus etc., is as far as we know dependent entirely on that biblical writing of 1st century Christian belief.

Either you have to be claiming that something in the bible is actually genuinely verifiable evidence of a living Jesus (in which case - what is that true “evidence”???), or else you are assuming there can be "no-smoke-without-fire" here and that surely there must be something in the bible which shows Jesus was probably real … in which case, what is that then? … what sentences anywhere in the bible are said to be believable to show Jesus was indeed a real figure?

That’s why it always comes down to the need to for genuine real reliable evidence. Otherwise, if you cannot cite any such genuine evidence of Jesus as a living person (not evidence of peoples beliefs, but evidence of Jesus as a living person), then any belief that Jesus was probably real means you are in fact relying on the religious faith expressed by 1st century biblical writers.


And before anyone says that is an unreasonable request or using an unusual definition of “evidence” not being used by anyone else here, it most certainly is not any such thing. What it asks for is at least some of the sort of genuine evidence that is accepted for countless other historical figures - such as physical artefacts, or properly dated contemporary eye-witness writing which can be checked against other known reliable records of the time. But what is not evidence is mere religious preaching of belief in the bible … that may be evidence of peoples religious belief in a past Jesus, but it is certainly not in itself evidence that the past Jesus of their beliefs was ever a real person.

 

[JaysonR]

I am not really interested in possibilities because you know that it is also possible that Jesus was a figure of mythology as the evidence suggests.

I am interested in the evidence from antiquity. Your repeating of possibilities is not evidence at all.

A Jesus based on multiple characters is still a myth--not a figure of history.

Plus, you have already stated the existence or non-existence is of no interest to you.

You really have no evidence from antiquity to support an historical Jesus.

I never claimed evidence in either direction.
I did comment in both directions on other propositions; note that I equally commented on how the proposition regarding Bethlehem could be motivated purely from a literary want due to symbolism and not related to an inherent standing of any actuality to the account from which writers needed to just live with and work around.

I don't believe there is enough evidence in either direction to fully push the matter to a final conclusion, but yet, I equally don't personally care whether the individual existed or not.
If the individual or individuals never did exist, then it would still have the same net effect anthropologically and that is the area I am far more interested in.

Where your comments cause me to remark is where they lack in either making sense logically, or in not aligning with known anthropological contexts, or not aligning with known paleographic material.

Well, I do find your reasoning void of logic. I have presented evidence to support my position yet you refuse to admit it. Instead of looking at the evidence that I have presented you now talk about "education gaps".

No, you have presented several pieces of evidence in the form of citations, and I have admitted that continually; however, you entirely lack (by your own admission) any anthropological support for your position and as such, your position stands rather weak in several manners where it needs to grow and bolster.
The way that you do so is through educating yourself on the anthropology and revising your argument based on that learning.

It is the evidence from antiquity that matters. The evidence suggest the story of Jesus the Son God Killed by the Jews was a Big Lie invented AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

A large portion is clearly created afterwards, but the entirety of the legend - we cannot be entirely certain of such, as even if we do not accept the dates for texts paleographically into the 1st c CE, oral tradition was very high within the Hebrew culture, so it is not an absolute given to suggest that simply by a lack of textual presentation that such did not exist in varying form previously. Equally we cannot make such an outright claim while knowing that nearly all Judaic texts and monies of the 1st c CE were destroyed by the Romans on purpose.

I think, based on the abundance of evidence that the HJ argument is absurd.

There's hardly an abundance of evidence; there is instead a massive lacking of material entirely.
You haven't even accounted for the massive amounts of other texts beyond the Orthodox canon, and that amount of text being considered should radically reshape a large portion of your argument.

When I examine a thread entitled "Paul The Herodian" you certainly took parts of the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus at face value.

In fact, you accepted much of the NT at face value when you made references to the culture of the time period.

I noticed in that thread you did not consider that Jesus was a mythological figure but took at face value, for the sake of argument, that he did exist.

Why didn't you, for the sake of argument, assume that Jesus was a figure of mythology like Romulus?

You should know based on the study of anthropology that there was a culture of mythology in the time period.

As I explained in that thread, when I work within a thread such as that, I grant the axiom of the originator of the thread.

That thread wasn't about whether Paul was or was not real, or whether James was or was not real, or whether Jesus was or was not real.
Such addresses were not valid in that thread, nor on tangent.

I addressed the figures as if they were real and offered my assessments based on anthropology and paleography, comparing what was being charged of the figures with those considerations and offering whether or not those actions by such figures (or types of figures) could be reasoned without conflict based on those anthropological and paleographical considerations.

 

[JaysonR]

Jayson - I think the point that dejudge keeps making to you, and it's point that I have made repeatedly, is that if you believe that Jesus probably existed (put any figure on it you like), then you are inevitably drawing your belief from assuming that some of the biblical claims are true.

That has to be the case, because there is certainly no other independent source of anything about of Jesus outside of that biblical writing. The biblical writing is the sole and entire primary source for any mention at all of anything about Jesus. All other later writing, such as 11th century copies of Tacitus and Josephus etc., is as far as we know dependent entirely on that biblical writing of 1st century Christian belief.

Either you have to be claiming that something in the bible is actually genuinely verifiable evidence of a living Jesus (in which case - what is that true “evidence”???), or else you are assuming there can be "no-smoke-without-fire" here and that surely there must be something in the bible which shows Jesus was probably real … in which case, what is that then? … what sentences anywhere in the bible are said to be believable to show Jesus was indeed a real figure?

That’s why it always comes down to the need to for genuine real reliable evidence. Otherwise, if you cannot cite any such genuine evidence of Jesus as a living person (not evidence of peoples beliefs, but evidence of Jesus as a living person), then any belief that Jesus was probably real means you are in fact relying on the religious faith expressed by 1st century biblical writers.


And before anyone says that is an unreasonable request or using an unusual definition of “evidence” not being used by anyone else here, it most certainly is not any such thing. What it asks for is at least some of the sort of genuine evidence that is accepted for countless other historical figures - such as physical artefacts, or properly dated contemporary eye-witness writing which can be checked against other known reliable records of the time. But what is not evidence is mere religious preaching of belief in the bible … that may be evidence of peoples religious belief in a past Jesus, but it is certainly not in itself evidence that the past Jesus of their beliefs was ever a real person.

I have never offered such as you are referring to.
I have commented on the evidences provided by both sides.
Dejudge's evidence, however, has more issues to me than other folks' presentations.

There are multitudes of accounts where we only have one source (the Bible is not a singular source, however) to work from (most of Egypt, or Hittites for example), and we work from those sources as best as we can - full well understanding that what they are providing are entirely bias and often exaggerated.

This does not prevent us from inferring some basic history or (more reliably) anthropology from these texts.
It is not odd to carefully consider the texts which discuss Jesus; biblical and otherwise.

I might, however, think the entire matter is overly fixated upon, but I don't think it is errant.

 

[Craig B]

... But what is not evidence is mere religious preaching of belief in the bible … that may be evidence of peoples religious belief in a past Jesus, but it is certainly not in itself evidence that the past Jesus of their beliefs was ever a real person.

Yes it is evidence. It is not conclusive evidence but it is evidence. Why do people believe things? Because the things suit the prejudices or dispositions of the believers? Yes. Because the thing believed in is rewarding to, or promises a reward to, the believer? Because the thing believed in is true? All of these are possible motives for belief. Therefore the occurrence of belief is evidence of the presence of one or another of these things.

May I stress again that evidence is not proof, and it may be strong or weak. But it IS still evidence.

Now there are certain features of the NT account which suggest a non-negligible possibility that a historical Jesus existed. If you get tired of repetition (though there's ample evidence that you don't) please forgive me for going over this again.

The Gospels do not have mundane and supernatural things scattered through them at random. The latter increase in frequency as we move from earlier to later material. Plausible reason? Few of them were in the accounts, if any, from which the gospel writers drew their material. Other things are not likely to have been invented willingly by forgers: the baptism by John, the declaration by Jesus of the imminence of the parousia, and so on. None of these things has to do with the acceptance of the NT as true. They have to do with an analysis of masses of disparate and often contradictory material. The Creator of all things (John) most assuredly didn't have a mother and brothers who thought he was insane (Mark). And so forth.

Now you may well reject all this, but the approach is a reasonable one, and it would appear that most scholars, on the basis of such considerations, do accept a historical Jesus, even if of minimised dimensions compared to the baroque splendours of his traditional biography.

At the very least, the characteristics of the gospel material rule out completely the notion that the whole thing was invented as a deceptive exercise in fictional composition in the later second, or early fourth, centuries.

 

[Belz...]

Your claim is openly and blatantly false. I have shown that my position is that Jesus never existed.

A face value reading of the Bible is that Jesus existed.

And yet you manage to take a face value reading of the bible to argue the opposite.

Can't you keep track of this stuff ?

 

[Belz...]

Your post is a blatant misrepresentation of my position. You have not shown the massive amount of evidence from antiquity that I presented to support ALL of my position.

The only evidence you have presented is that which shows that you don't understand this topic.

I am not really interested in possibilities

And yet you specifically deny said possibilities.

I am interested in the evidence from antiquity.

No, you are interested in a subset of the evidence that supports your view.

The HJ argument is virtually dead

You have not the credibility to make this assertion.

Why didn't you, for the sake of argument, assume that Jesus was a figure of mythology like Romulus?

Did you just slip, there ?

 

[Belz...]

Jayson - I think the point that dejudge keeps making to you

Dejudge has no point.

if you believe that Jesus probably existed

See, NOW you get that right. Progress.

then you are inevitably drawing your belief from assuming that some of the biblical claims are true.

Not necessarily.

That has to be the case, because there is certainly no other independent source of anything about of Jesus outside of that biblical writing.

So you've missed everything else that people posted on this ? No progress, then.