Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Actually you are exposing that you have not even read writings attributed to Eusebius, Papias, Hegesippus and Origen.

Do you know how stupid you look when you repeat that James is much better attested that Jesus outside the Bible?

Jesus of the NT may probably the most mentioned character outside the Bible in the history of mankind in writings of antiquity.

Just only two books of Origens' Against Celsus mention Jesus over 300 times and James no more than 15 times.

Your evidence for your unknown dead HJ has evaporated.

You have not read the Fragments of Papias--the Fragments of Papias state that the parents of James was not the parents of Jesus
James was NOT the brother of Jesus in the Papias Fragments.

You ignore Jerome's De Viris Illustribus---James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

You ignore Chrysostom--James was NOT the brother of James.

You have not read Eusebius' Church History--Eusebius confirmed that James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

You don't realize that Hegesippus Agreed with CLEMENT

You don't even realize that CLEMENT wrote to James the Lord's brother c 67-68 CE in the Recognitions.

You don't realize that Origen's claims about James in Josephus have not ever been found in any extant copy.

Please read writings attributed to Eusebius, Papias, Hegesippus and Origen because it is obvious you do not know what they wrote about James.

Outside the Bible, James the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus.

There are more 1st century eyewitness testimonies to the existence of James, than there are for Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

There are more 1st century eyewitness testimonies to the existence of James, than there are for Jesus.

Let's get the list.

Where is the list?

You don't have anything.

Name your 1st century eyewitnesses so that I can cross examine them for perjury.

May I remind you that no 1st century manuscripts have been found with the stories of James the Lord's brother.

 

[Brainache]

Let's get the list.

Where is the list?

You don't have anything.

Name your 1st century eyewitnesses so that I can cross examine them for perjury.

May I remind you that no 1st century manuscripts have been found with the stories of James the Lord's brother.

Yes they have. They are called the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prove me wrong. You'll find it difficult because they are written in code.

 

[dejudge]

Yes they have. They are called the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prove me wrong. You'll find it difficult because they are written in code.

You have not presented anything. Only you have the codes for your own unknown DEAD HJ.

 

[Craig B]

Let's get the list.

Where is the list?

You don't have anything.

Name your 1st century eyewitnesses so that I can cross examine them for perjury.

May I remind you that no 1st century manuscripts have been found with the stories of James the Lord's brother.

No manuscripts of Josephus or Caesar or Tacitus survive from ancient times. This is true also of Suetonius.

The oldest surviving manuscript is the most important. It comes from the early ninth century and it's now in Paris ... [It] was written at Tours (France) about 820. Although over 200 manuscripts are extant, "De vita Caesarum" seems to have survived into the ninth century in a single manuscript, since lost.

 

[dejudge]

No manuscripts of Josephus or Caesar or Tacitus survive from ancient times. This is true also of Suetonius.

Well, you can kiss the HJ argument goodbye. HJers knew all along that they had no evidence from ancient times and knew they had no evidence from the 1st century for their unknown dead HJ.

 

[Brainache]

Well, you can kiss the HJ argument goodbye. HJers knew all along that they had no evidence from ancient times and knew they had no evidence from the 1st century for their unknown dead HJ.

Well, all you have to do is publish your book and the world is the mollusc of your choice...


The HJ argument is on Death Row, I can see that now. I'm done with all this measuring of truth...

 

[Belz...]

I have utterly destroyed your claim

Would that such a thing be possible.

 

[Belz...]

Well, you can kiss the HJ argument goodbye. HJers knew all along that they had no evidence from ancient times and knew they had no evidence from the 1st century for their unknown dead HJ.

Yes, so when ARE you publishing ?

 

[Craig B]

Well, you can kiss the HJ argument goodbye. HJers knew all along that they had no evidence from ancient times and knew they had no evidence from the 1st century for their unknown dead HJ.

Can your eyes not read what your fingers have written? If the NT account of Jesus is dismissed on such grounds, the data in Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus - not only about Jesus but about everything else - have to be dismissed too! More than that: there is a probable early second century fragment of John, as we have seen, and an abundance of later ancient texts. For the authors mentioned above, there is nothing of the kind at all. No extant texts prior to the ninth century. And this is the general state of affairs for ancient works. The earliest extant manuscripts of Petronius are medieval, of Lucretius, Carolingian.

All this has been pointed out dozens of times! Can you not grasp it?

ETA The earliest complete NT is much older that the earliest manuscripts of these other authors. It dates to Imperial Roman times.

Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the fourth century, and sometimes more precisely to the middle of that century. This is based on study of the handwriting, known as palaeographical analysis. Only one other nearly complete manuscript of the Christian Bible – Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican Library in Rome) – is of a similarly early date. The only manuscripts of Christian scripture that are definitely of an earlier date than Codex Sinaiticus contain small portions of the text of the Bible.

And as noted, there are older fragments. The appearance of the CS testifies not to the date of composition of the NT, but to the date when Christianity became the official state religion of the Empire, and numerous copies of the holy texts were commissioned by Constantine and his successors.

 

[GDon]

Come on, you are not that silly or naïve. You must realise perfectly well that this situation is exactly analogous to the case of a witness testimony given before the jury in a court trial.

We are in exactly the same position as a Jury - we are judging the witness testimony of the biblical writing to decide if what it says about Jesus is or is not evidence to show that Jesus was a living 1st century human.

I'm curious. Are you saying that this is how historians approach history now, except for (say) questions around the historicity of Jesus? Or are you saying that this is how historians should approach history, but they aren't doing it that way now? If the former, can you give me an example of how historians approach the historicity of some other ancient figure, on whether he or she existed?

Oh, I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that many people do regard this sort of thing as credible evidence of Jesus. Clearly bible scholars like Bart Ehramn and “almost every trained scholar on the planet”, do regard such words in Paul’s letters not merely as “evidence”, but actually as absolute proof of a human Jesus.

You do seem fixated on Ehrman's claim of certainty. Why keep bringing this up here? Have others on this board expressed that degree of certainty? Why should I care what Ehrman thinks on the level of certainty?

Most people on this board range from "probable Jesus existed" to "highly probable", which is my own view. I think that the sources we have make it very difficult to determine what that Jesus did and said, so we can not recover much about the HJ, to the point that he might as well have not existed. But I don't see the evidence suggesting anything other than that there was a historical person called Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, then apostles claimed they had visions of the risen Jesus, and this resulted in the birth of Christianity.

If you would like to quote the actual passages and ref’s that you are thinking of, then we can discuss what those passages actually say and where Paul actually got such ideas.

OK. Below are some passages. Tell me where he got those ideas.

Paul calls Jesus a "man" (anthropos) and that Jesus came at some point after Moses:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man [anthropos] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men [anthropos], for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, [which is] by one man [anthropos], Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.​

Can you point out where Paul got his idea from in the OT that Jesus was a man who came at some point after Moses?

Also:

1 Cor 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept.
21 For since by man [came] death, by man [anthropos] [came] also the resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming​

Note the "now" and "the firstfruits of them that slept" above, suggesting a recent event. Where did Paul get that information?

Finally, please don't conflate Paul's use of "gospel" with "everything Paul knows about Jesus", unless you want to explain WHY "gospel" should mean that.

Just out of interest - have you read any books from those authors; Ellegard, Doherty, Helms, Wells?

I swapped hundreds of posts with Earl Doherty on the old (now defunct) FRDB board. IMHO Doherty's theories are pretty out there. Even Carrier says J:NGNM is 90% speculation. Most who read his books don't have much idea about ancient beliefs, so they tend to swallow his theories without much skepticism.

You can read my review of "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man" from the link just below. He has a number of pages on his website addressing my review and my other criticisms. Links to his responses can be found in my reviews:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidon/reviews.html

I've read bits by Wells, lots by Acharya S, nothing by Ellegard and Helms. I'm not really interested in the historicity of Jesus. As I wrote above, I don't think much can be recovered with any reliability. But I DO care -- a lot! -- about what ancient people believed about their world and their gods; it is a topic that fascinates me, and I don't like it when mythicists (or anyone else for that matter) misrepresent those beliefs, which is why I have concentrated in the past on Doherty and Acharya S, who are the worst offenders in that regard.

Or does all your belief in Jesus come from reading authors sympathetic to belief in Jesus?

Wow. Let's try that expression out. "Authors sympathetic to belief in Caesar". "Authors sympathetic to belief in Abraham Lincoln". Nope. Doesn't scan. Sounds like a Freudian slip there.

As explained previously, my belief in the historicity of Jesus as a Jew who was crucified under Pontius Pilate comes from the credible evidence that is available to us involving Paul's letters and the Gospels. If Paul's letters were shown to be forged, or the Gospels were shown to be written as fiction, I would need to re-evaluate my conclusion. At the moment, it seems sound.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I think I can conclude that the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek has nothing to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No manuscripts of Josephus or Caesar or Tacitus survive from ancient times. This is true also of Suetonius.

Dejudge's arguments break down when they are applied to other situations.

The "no first century textual witnesses" also applies to the ancient sources he quotes to support his position.

The "his followers attributed magical qualities to him" argument also applies to confirmed individuals who's existence he does not dispute.

But when this is pointed out to him, he resorts to special pleading or simply ignores the facts. Then he again declares that our arguments are ridiculous and that he's destroyed them, then repeats his mantra about how we have no evidence.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, seeing as we've established that the Koine Greek composition of various Jesus narratives is in no way indicative of complete mythology, perhaps you could turn your attention to my question regarding the source passages indicating that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius stated that 1st Century apocalyptic Jews had been expecting the messiah to arrive no sooner than 66 CE.

 

[dejudge]

It is clear that the HJ argument is exposed as hopelessly flawed. The Church writers themselves admitted THEIR James the Lord's brother was NOT really the brother of Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Not only have they admitted their James was NOT the brother of their Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost but THEIR James was ALIVE c 67-68 CE which would 5-6 years AFTER Josephus' James was stoned to death.

And what is more amusing is that HJers seem not to remember Romulus the myth founder of Rome.

Romulus the Myth founder of Rome was born of a woman and had a human brother called Remus.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

When Romulus was alive in Plutarch's Romulus he did MUNDANE things but is still considered a Myth.

In the NT Jesus the Son of God virtually did all MAGICAL things and have no known history.

Jesus in the NT who was the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator was a Myth just like Romulus.

The authors of the Gospels were merely writing the Myth fables that people in antiquity BELIEVED--they were not writing history.

The massive amount of discrepancies, chronological confusion, blatant fiction, implausibility, and historical problems in the Gospels are evidence that the authors were NOT writing history but only intended to show what was BELIEVED in antiquity as the story of Jesus the Son of God evolved.

In the early gMark ---Jesus was the Son of God who was a Sea Water Walker before he Transfigured and Resurrected.

By the Later gJohn--Jesus was God himself and the Creator who made heaven and earth.

The NT is merely a compilation of the Myth Fables of Jesus the Son of God that were BELIEVED in antiquity. The NT is not history.

 

[dejudge]

...I swapped hundreds of posts with Earl Doherty on the old (now defunct) FRDB board. IMHO Doherty's theories are pretty out there. Even Carrier says J:NGNM is 90% speculation. Most who read his books don't have much idea about ancient beliefs, so they tend to swallow his theories without much skepticism.

I am extremely happy that you respect the views of Carrier.

You must know that Carrier declared that Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was a failure of facts and logic and that he would not recommend it.

Have you swapped any posts with Bart Ehrman after he wrote "Did Jesus Exist?"

Even HJers cannot swallow "Did Jesus Exist?"

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, please provide the source passages indicating that Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius stated that 1st Century apocalyptic Jews had been expecting the messiah to arrive no sooner than 66 CE.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I am extremely happy that you respect the views of Carrier.

You must know that Carrier declared that Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was a failure of facts and logic and that he would not recommend it.

So, GDon disagrees with Doherty, and Carrier disagrees with Doherty, therefor Ehrman is wrong?

 

[Belz...]

Dejudge's arguments break down when they are applied to other situations.

Which is why he avoids the questions about these altogether. And then proudly announces things like:

It is clear that the HJ argument is exposed as hopelessly flawed.

Gee, maybe I should start all my posts with such confidence.

I wonder when his paper is coming out for review.

 

[Craig B]

Romulus the Myth founder of Rome was born of a woman and had a human brother called Remus.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

Plutarch is more rational than you, by far.

Others think that the first rise of this fable [that Romulus and Remus were suckled by a she-wolf] came from the children's nurse, through the ambiguity of her name; for the Latins not only called wolves lupae, but also women of loose life; and such an one was the wife of Faustulus, who nurtured these children, Acca Larentia by name.