Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Tentatively yes. I think he has made some legitimate points but I do not care for his posting style.

Could you summarize those for me, because perhaps because of his posting style I can't see them.

What assumption was Carrier making in the video? It's an honest question because I've seen it many of his videos and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Well for instance under his scenario we have to assume that the story of Jesus started out as a divine, celestial and non-human figure who was first turned into a human and then back into a god as the mythology progressed. We have evidence that the human was turned into a god but we don't have anything that gives us the supposed preceding steps. It's all speculation based on, well, not much.

I think that it's better than proclaiming "you lose" every other post.

Since Dejudge doesn't listen to anyone, it's as good a method as any to point out that he does, indeed, lose.

 

[Craig B]

Craig


The question of punishments is different from the question of norms. There are reasons to think that maximum punishments are the convention throughout. As to norms, the point of written law is that it can be taken literally (that is what the adverb means, after all). So, I can't find where it says "The ideal is X, and X is God's actual commandment, but you may live with Y instead, as if it were God's commendment, because rather than expecting you to make sacrifices for the privilege of being his chosen people, God wouldn't dream of asking you to do something which you might find burdensome." What I can find is "Y is the law," accompanied by discussion of how much better Israelites are than the folks who don't keep God's Law.

I'm not sure I mean that. Yes Y is the law. But moral philosophers in many societies have argued that applying the law rigorously in all circumstances is not appropriate. I mean laws such as talion or contracts. As to laws about kosher foods and the like, I'm sure they were rigorously applied, as they are today in orthodox Jewish communities. They are not capable of moral evaluation. That is the point of them.

One Jewish scholar has pointed out, or at least claims, that in settled societies the "eye for an eye" was normally commuted to monetary compensation. That is not to deny the validity of the law.

Compare Paul - he can distinguish between what he thinks is ideal in the way of sex, and what concessions Paul makes to human weakness. That is not remotely like what Jesus is depicted saying about Moses.

I'm sure that is exactly what the "hardness of heart" is all about.

That there is some teaching about divorce from Jesus which differs from Torah is multiply attested. You've beaten me about the head enough with that criterion. There is no doubt that it's a fine line between the legitimate rabbinical function of interpreting the scriptures, and the blasphemous dictation of new law based on the speaker's personal knowledge of God's will. It suffices that somebody with a following thought Jesus crossed the line. That you could have defended Jesus is great, and your defense has its merits, but it's not the issue.

No doubt people did think Jesus had crossed the line. My point is that he believed (assuming he made the statements attributed to him) that he was fulfilling the law and changing not a jot or tittle of it. I think that was perfectly sincere, and he would have been horrified to be told he was accusing Moses of blasphemy. The idea! Moreover I think he had reasonable grounds to regard himself as a supporter of the law, and to impart this idea to his followers who, in the form of James and his "myriads of staunch defenders of the law" certainly upheld it.

 

[moogspaceport]

This has been (and I'm sure will continue to be) a fascinating read. Thanks to all of of you for presenting this information. I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said, only my opinion.

Based on my understanding, it seems that "Jesus" was based on a actual person with a small following who was ultimately executed for seditious activity. Following that, his legend grew and many stories were created around him, turning him into a mixture of an OT prophet/Roman-era miracle worker/healer/magician. The fact that the information we do have about his life is so varied and contradictory leads me to believe that it was not a complete myth made up around a fictitious character. It seems to me that the narrative would have been much cleaner and direct had it been designed to create a mythical messiah tied in to the OT prophecies. Instead we have the odd Bethlehem/Nazareth birth issue, which makes sense if followers are trying to solve problem, but not so much if they were creating a fresh myth.

I do think it's pretty clear that Jesus could not have been as well-known as the Bible attests. It seems obvious that the "miracles" attributed to him are false, either made up after the fact or, perhaps more unsettling for believers, Jesus was just another philosopher/magician rather common in that era (another Apollonius of Tyana). In other words, he was a fraud. I'm not sure which of those is more likely. Magical claims of the kind attributed to Jesus were a dime a dozen during that time period, and one would think that if his abilities appeared to be exceptional in a historical context, that writers of the period would have mentioned him (either to praise or condemn him).

But again, I know these points have already been raised here. I just wanted to put my .02 cents in. It's a topic that interests me greatly (the historicity of the Bible in general). Thanks again for all the great stuff in this very long thread.

 

[dejudge]

However, the existence at that date of Christian communities is itself evidence for an HJ, though not by any means conclusive evidence.

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of writings of antiquity.

The existence of people called Christians is not evidence of an HJ just like the existence of Rome is not evidence of an historical Romulus.

It has already been shown that it is claimed there were people called Christians who were followers of Simon Magus a magician since the time of Claudius c 41-54 CE.

It has already been show that there were people who were called Christians who did NOT believe in Jesus Christ.

See Justin's First Apology, Theophilus' To Autolycus, Athenagoras' A Plea for the Christians.

 

[Craig B]

You demonstrate a lack of knowledge of writings of antiquity. <snip>
See Justin's First Apology, Theophilus' To Autolycus, Athenagoras' A Plea for the Christians.

Could you please condescend to my alleged lack of knowledge of writings of antiquity by identifying, or better still, citing the passages in the works of these esteemed authors which you wish me to peruse.

 

[H'ethetheth]

As I clarified in post #2690, I was not saying that the case for an historical Jesus is like the case for evolution by natural selection. I was saying that dejudge's tactic of simply ignoring the case for an historical Jesus and declaring that the entire idea was "dead" despite the disagreement with the vast majority of experts, reminds me of the way creationists do the same thing regarding evolution.

Good, then I understood your meaning correctly.

 

[dejudge]

...Based on my understanding, it seems that "Jesus" was based on a actual person with a small following who was ultimately executed for seditious activity.

You have zero evidence for your understanding. We have already gone through the stories of Jesus in the NT.

Jesus was WELL KNOWN by THOUSANDS in the NT.

Paul made the name of Jesus WELL KNOWN in the Roman Empire in the NT

Your claim appears to be deliberately mis-leading because in the NT itself it is claimed THOUSANDS of people were following Jesus on a daily basis and that his fame was known all over Judea.

Mark 1:28 KJV

And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Mark 6:44 KJV

And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

Within 50 days of the crucifixion of Jesus 3000 person were converted to the Jesus cult in Acts.

Acts 2:41 KJV

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

The Pauline writer, a Pharisee and Hebrew, supposedly went all over the Roman Empire since c 37-41 CE, telling people that the Crucified and Resurrected Jesus Christ was God Creator, the Son of God, Lord of all and that every person on earth should bow to the name of Jesus.

By the time Paul wrote his Epistles, the faith of the Romans was known throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:8 KJV

First , I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

 

[Craig B]

... By the time Paul wrote his Epistles, the faith of the Romans was known throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:8 KJV

First , I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Ah, that proves it, eh? Sometimes you use this claim of Paul as if you believed it to be true. On this occasion you're being ironic, I imagine.

ETA The NIV translation uses milder wording suggesting a less extravagant claim.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

In any case being "spoken of" or "reported" doesn't necessarily imply that everybody knew it, as you appear to be stating. Most people ignore reports which may come their way about the faith of tiny marginal groups of sectarians.

 

[maximara]

Well yes. No one on the HJ side as far as I know is arguing for the historical accuracy of the Gospel stories.

Actually they are as far as Jesus lived in the 1st century, preached something that the Powers that Be took objection to and was crucified as a result. King Arthur and Robin Hood by contrast have had historical candidates as much as 200 years away from the time period the stories take place.

In fact, by your definition the HJ crowd here are all in fact arguing for the "Mythical Jesus". But that is only because you are using a definition from 1913 when that was a radical idea.

Things change in a hundred years.

Uh, Ian Howard Marshall's I Believe in the Historical Jesus is from 2004 and basically says the same thing Remsburg said in 1909 and the same is true of Biblical studies professor J. W. Rogerson in his paper "Slippery words: Myth" from 1984 (Dundes, Alan (ed.) (1984) Sacred Narrative: Readings in the Theory of Myth University of California Press ISBN: 9780520051928 62-71)

"A historical myth may be defined as a narrative, fictional by intention or by the standards of historical scholarship, but expressing the perception of the past as meaningful meaningful history, meant to affirm one's, or better: the group's or community's sense of identity." ((2009) Myth in History, History in Myth Society for Netherlandic History (U.S.). International Conference BRILL pg 117)

C. Stephen Evans touches on this aspect of historical myth in his The Historical Christ and the Jesus of Faith Oxford University Press pg 52

N. Hanif in his 2000 Biographical Encyclopaedia of Sufis pg 100 takes a more hardline view with even legend being "a story which is not true"

"a historical myth is ... an account or belief that is demonstrably untrue, in whole or substantial part." (Gerster, Patrick (1989) Myth and Southern History: The New South University of Illinois Press pg xiv)

Some thing do NOT change in a hundred years. Myth and especially historical myth is as broad now as it was hundred years ago. DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Belz...]

You have zero evidence for your understanding.

This is getting ridiculous.

Jesus was WELL KNOWN by THOUSANDS in the NT.

We're talking about reality, here. Now who's taking the bibble at face value ?

 

[maximara]

What basis do you have for assuming that the Gospels are completely historically invalid? That supernatural deeds were attributed to this itinerant first-century preacher? Mythic and near-mythic deeds have been attributed to all of the people I have highlighted; and yet no one questions that they did, in fact, exist.

Of course Jesus didn't walk on water, feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, raise a dead man to life, turn water into wine, or rise to heaven in clouds of smoke and flame. There is much in the NT that needs to be stripped away. But there is also information to be gleaned.

The slaughter of Innocents in Matthew 2:16–18: not recorded by anyone else...not even Luke.

The anachronistic census of Luke 2 no census of this scope occurred until 74 CE and the logistic nightmare of having large numbers of people moving around make the account impossible.

The two trials neither of which follows what we know trial procedure of the time for either court.

The fact that crucified people were left for the vultures as a warning to others...and yet Jesus taken down after he supposedly dies.

Carrier goes into a LONG overview how Acts is spouting nonhistorical nonsense so that goes into the dumpster as well.

On EVERY point that we can cross check the Gospel-Acts account we either can't find anything to support the claims made or what they say is contradicted by known historical facts.

 

[Cayvmann]

Saying Christian doesn't imply Jesus. It implies a Christ. So having Christian communities really doesn't point directly to Jesus. There were many Messianic cults at the time. Saying Messiah did not mean Jesus, either.

 

[jhunter1163]

This has been (and I'm sure will continue to be) a fascinating read. Thanks to all of of you for presenting this information. I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said, only my opinion.

Based on my understanding, it seems that "Jesus" was based on a actual person with a small following who was ultimately executed for seditious activity. Following that, his legend grew and many stories were created around him, turning him into a mixture of an OT prophet/Roman-era miracle worker/healer/magician. The fact that the information we do have about his life is so varied and contradictory leads me to believe that it was not a complete myth made up around a fictitious character. It seems to me that the narrative would have been much cleaner and direct had it been designed to create a mythical messiah tied in to the OT prophecies. Instead we have the odd Bethlehem/Nazareth birth issue, which makes sense if followers are trying to solve problem, but not so much if they were creating a fresh myth.

I do think it's pretty clear that Jesus could not have been as well-known as the Bible attests. It seems obvious that the "miracles" attributed to him are false, either made up after the fact or, perhaps more unsettling for believers, Jesus was just another philosopher/magician rather common in that era (another Apollonius of Tyana). In other words, he was a fraud. I'm not sure which of those is more likely. Magical claims of the kind attributed to Jesus were a dime a dozen during that time period, and one would think that if his abilities appeared to be exceptional in a historical context, that writers of the period would have mentioned him (either to praise or condemn him).

But again, I know these points have already been raised here. I just wanted to put my .02 cents in. It's a topic that interests me greatly (the historicity of the Bible in general). Thanks again for all the great stuff in this very long thread.

This seems an entirely reasonable position based on what we have been able to ascertain about the HJ. Too bad the MJ fundies won't accept it.

 

[Craig B]

Saying Christian doesn't imply Jesus. It implies a Christ. So having Christian communities really doesn't point directly to Jesus. There were many Messianic cults at the time. Saying Messiah did not mean Jesus, either.

That's been discussed. It is agreed that in Pliny's case the Christian group may be identified with the Jesus figure. Suetonius (have we discussed him?) has a "Chrestus" organising disturbances among the Jewish population of Rome. (Claudius 25) That may well not have been Jesus the Nazarene - I agree it's not in the gospels - unless Suetonius got completely muddled, which is by no means impossible.

 

[IanS]

However, the existence at that date of Christian communities is itself evidence for an HJ, though not by any means conclusive evidence.

I think you said that before, and I think said the following to you in reply -

- iirc, in Galatians, Paul does not say that those earlier sects who he persecuted before his vision, had named their expected messiah "Yehoshua ("Jesus"), does he? Below are the quotes I am thinking of from Galatians.

I'm not even sure he calls them "Christians", but the term Christians only means follower of the "Christ" ie the "messiah". But they had all believed in a coming messiah from their OT since at least 500BC, and stretching back even to the time of king David and Moses c.1000BC (although apparently there is real doubt over whether David and Moses even existed!) ... but I don’t recall any reliable claim that any earlier Christians had named that same messiah as Jesus?

Afaik, the name of Jesus first arises with Paul.

And afaik, we don’t have any writing from the members of the Corinthian Church of God to say otherwise. Do we?

Against that, we have Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, ie to the leaders of the so-called Church of God who Paul had earlier persecuted for their messiah belief. Where Paul does indeed actually write to them talking about their shared belief in the Christ messiah named Jesus. As if they also were well aware of that name “Jesus”. Again, see the quotes below where I have highlighted those passages.

However, this is of course supposed to be what Paul says in his writing of c.60AD addressed to the Corinthian church. We do not know from what Paul writes there in c.60AD whether the Corinthians themselves would have agreed that they were using the name Jesus long before Paul’s vision of c.35AD (see the passage in 1-Crinthians below for example, where Paul appeals to them not to disagree who they follow and whether that is Christ, or Apollo, or Cephas or Paul, as if they thought all those names were possible messiah's!), and where Paul has to appeal to them not to follow Apollo or merely a "Chrsit" but to all follow him and use the theophoric name "Jesus"/Yehoshua. If they were in fact all following "Jesus" (despite that confusion of names), than afaik we have nothing from them to confirm that. All we have is the implication in letters supposedly written by Paul about 25 years later.

But even then, we only have those letters in Paul’s words from copies written by Christian Jesus believers themselves some 150+ years or so after Paul had died. So it should be obvious that we also have to be cautious over whether or not the word “Jesus” was added in the letters in those few appropriate places around 200AD and later, by which time those religious Christian copyists no doubt did all believe that the messiah had been someone called Jesus.

And finally on all of that, another rather suspicious problem that arises in Paul’s wording of those letters to the Corinthians, is that instead of addressing these Corinthians who were themselves supposed to have personally known and seen Jesus or else at least known fellow older members of their church who had seen Jesus or known first hand witnesses to his various deeds, Paul does not address them saying anything like "you who have known Jesus before me and witnessed his deeds and his death on the cross….". Instead he says to them -

“ God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you ….”

“ … as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. “

“ … so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ “


There (the quotes above, and see full passages with highlights below) Paul seems quite clearly to be telling the Corinthians that they must be patient in waiting for Jesus to appear on Earth, as God has promised to them. Not telling them that they do of course already all know from their own experience of having already seen Jesus 30 years ago … but instead agreeing with them that they all eagerly await his coming by promise of God, and this is supposed to be in 60AD.

If you (anyone) have read the book by Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle), which I’m pretty sure Robert Carrier says was the basis for his forthcoming book where he “threatens” to show that Jesus was not a real figure, Doherty’s book is almost entirely an explanation of how and why Paul thought of Jesus as a purely spiritual figure and not ever a living human person on earth.

I am not saying I agree with Doherty (and/or Carrier) on that. But what I am saying is that even those first few lines in 1-Corinthians do look very much like Paul is talking about them all awaiting the appearance of Jesus (not ever said to be the “return” of Jesus), and not according to what these earlier Christians of Corinth knew from their own earlier experience of Jesus on earth, but instead in Paul’s words, according to the promise of God.

Also, as mentioned above, in those highlights from the opening of 1-Corinthians, it seems quite clear that there are different beliefs amongst those earlier Christians of the Church of God about who they thought was actually the messiah! Eg these quotes


“ I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you. “

“ One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” “


Anyway, see the full quotes and highlighted parts below -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle
Paul's life before conversion
Says Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians:
For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
— Galatians 1:13–14, NIV

In his First Epistle to the Corinthians,[9:1] [15:3-8] he describes having seen the Risen Christ:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV

Paul's Epistle to the Galatians also describes his conversion as a divine revelation, with God's Son appearing in Paul.
I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.— Galatians 1:11-16, NIV




http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=NIV
1 Corinthians 1
New International Version (NIV)

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanksgiving
4 I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. 5 For in him you have been enriched in every way—with all kinds of speech and with all knowledge— 6 God thus confirming our testimony about Christ among you. 7 Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. 8 He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful, who has called you into fellowship with his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
A Church Divided Over Leaders
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Since the term has been misused quite a bit in these types of threads, you might understand how what you wrote could have been misconstrued.

I will leave my post the way it is, but I will withdraw any statement which has any negative connotation to what you said.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

 

[Brainache]

Well just to expand on that; amongst other reasons -

- Bart Ehrman is also by far the best known and most frequently cited "expert historian" on the subject of a historical Jesus. And he has a very recent book specifically on the evidence for Jesus, and directly criticising sceptics as unworthy of doubting the academic "consensus".

And in that very book, published only last year, Ehrman includes all other "expert historians" within his own conclusions on Jesus, saying quote "all other properly trained scholars on the planet" agree with him ... and his view, as he says repeatedly, is that the existence of Jesus is a matter of quote "certainty".

So when people in these threads say they rely on "expert historians" who they say all agree that Jesus did exist, they are whether they realise it or not, actually citing Bart Ehrman and all these "properly trained scholars on the planet" who Ehrman says agree with him. People like JD Crossan who says "the crucifixion of Jesus is just about the most certain fact in all of ancient history".


So just to be crystal clear on that - these are the people who are being talked about here as the “expert historians” who we must believe. They are Bart Ehrman, JD Crossan, John Huddleston, Elaine Pagels, Bruce Metzger, EP sanders and all the others who Ehrman includes when he says “all properly trained scholars on the planet” share his view on the existence of Jesus.

But note, as has been abundantly shown in these threads, those scholars named above are not “historians”. They are all bible-studies scholars of various types. That is - almost all their academic qualifications are heavily in the area of religious studies, most if not all had a younger background of devout Christian belief which led them to study and qualify in biblical studies and theology in the first place, and where almost all, if not literally all of those named individuals teach not in any mainstream university history department, but instead in specifically bible studies departments (many of them also have a history of teaching and studying in theological institutes).

And as a last point on Ehrman - the blogger Tim O’Neil who is the OP subject in another of these three current HJ threads (inc. this one), has relied constantly in his past to cite and quote Bart Ehrman as THE authority “historian” on this subject of Jesus historicity.

So those are the sort of reasons why the name of Bart Ehrman keeps cropping up in these threads, and the sort of reasons why these individuals are actually bible-studies practitioners, and not regular neutral university historians. And they are also the sort of reasons why words like “certainty” keep arising … i.e. because that’s exactly what people like Crossan and Ehrman do in fact claim, and it’s what Ehrman’s own very recent book implied as the view of “all properly trained scholars on the planet”.

Do you really think that the people you name are the only Ancient Historians in the world?

Are you aware that some of the world's Ancient Historians are not Christian at all? They might be Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist or anything, but their arguments have to convince their peers all the same.

Thank you for that very clear instance of the appeal to authority.

An appeal to relevant authority is not fallacious.

I don't have to. As far as I'm concerned, my money is riding on Carrier and his book and the information therein.

Good luck with that. I hope you didn't mortgage the house.

...
Tentatively yes. I think he has made some legitimate points but I do not care for his posting style.

He has made no legitimate points at all.

Prove me wrong.

I like where you're going with this. What assumption was Carrier making in the video? It's an honest question because I've seen it many of his videos and I'm not sure what you're referring to.

He assumes a Cult worshipping a "Celestial Jesus" for which there is no evidence anywhere at all, not even the bible.

I'm probably being tiresome, but I've found an author who has a different view on the Romans having sole charge of capital punishment

"Methods of Execution

For religious crimes (i.e., under Jewish regulation), stoning remained the standard means, although others mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are attested (e.g., burning). Rabbinic literature (specifically in Mishnah Sanhedrin) also specifies strangulation and beheading (7.1). It was by the latter means that the murderer was to be dispatched (9.1), probably because of the precedent set in the Hebrew Bible where the murderer is to be hunted and struck down by the "avenger of blood" (Nun.35; see also chapter 1). For a few crimes in connection with the cult the offender might be clubbed to death on the spot (Mishnah Sanhedrin 9.6).

On the specific methods, it is conspicuous that only beheading will ensure the spilling of blood, a punishment otherwise reserved (in the Hebrew Bible) for the citizens of an apostate city. Israel's aversion to this method relates to the connection between blood and the life-force, a force which was identified with the power of God. It was thus a horrible fate, sanctioned by Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."


For political crimes, death usually came by the sword (Matt. 14:10, in the case of John the Baptist) in the form of beheading (Rev.20:4), or by crucifixion (in the case of Jesus)."



" ...It is important to notice that the death penalty in Judea during the period of the New Testament was carried out by two judiciaries:

(1) the Jewish religious courts (bet-din) for specified violations of torah, and (2) the Roman government, through its local appointees in council (sunedrion), for actions inimical to the peace. ..."
http://www.keithhunt.com/Capital5.html

I don't know how to rate the seriousness of that site, Brainache. What are your sources to indicate only the Romans could inflict the death penalty in the 30's?

A good starting point might be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_in_Judaism
" According to the Talmud forty years before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (i.e. in 30 CE) the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment.[citation needed]"

Alas, citation needed.
Still, the definitions of the various crimes and their punishments are most illuminating.*
I'm off to work and will be hard put not to ponder stoning techniques when confronted with elements associated with the job at hand.


*Who knew what stoning actually entailed? Or burning?

According to Robert Eisenman (yes I am a broken record, sorry), Talmudic Tradition says that for the 40 or so years prior to the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin were not meeting in the "Stone Chamber" in the Temple, like they were supposed to and therefore, the Rabbis later decided that all capital punishments pronounced during that period were illegal.

There is also the issue that Agrippa I didn't have Authority in Jerusalem. The south was under the control of the Roman Governor, not the Jews. Jews were given more power in the south later when Agrippa II was installed as Tetrarch.

The Roman title of "Governor" was then changed to "Procurator" and they were mainly in charge of collecting the taxes, not running the country (disastrously) as they had been.

I suspect it was because Claudius was friends with Agrippa II and thought he'd do a better job than the Roman toadies who had been bungling it til then.

 

[Craig B]

And finally on all of that, another rather suspicious problem that arises in Paul’s wording of those letters to the Corinthians, is that instead of addressing these Corinthians who were themselves supposed to have personally known and seen Jesus or else at least known fellow older members of their church who had seen Jesus or known first hand witnesses to his various deeds, Paul does not address them saying anything like "you who have known Jesus before me and witnessed his deeds and his death on the cross…."

I want to look at this one point for the moment. Why should these Corinthians have seen Jesus or personally met him, even if they were old enough to have done so? Corinth is a considerable distance from Galilee or Jerusalem and Paul's Corinthian followers may not have been recruited mostly from Jews, but from former pagans or at best "God-fearers" who acknowledged the Jewish god as the unique Divinity, but did not convert to Judaism, or obey the full range of dietary and other laws. Why should such a group in that place consist of people who had known Jesus? That Paul's followers in foreign lands were not in immediate constant contact with Jerusalem is indicated in Acts 21

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do?

So Paul's followers, even the Jews among them, were so far removed from the centre that he was able to introduce non-orthodox practices to them, and information about this reached the Jesus gang in Jerusalem only, it would appear, after some time, and caused consternation.

 

[The Norseman]

An appeal to relevant authority is not fallacious.

He didn't name any " relevant authority" at all so there's no evidence of what he's says is true. Prove me wrong.

He has made no legitimate points at all.

Prove me wrong.

I have already posted what I believed to be his legitimate points. It was awhile ago, admittedly, but it is there.

 

[Brainache]

He didn't name any " relevant authority" at all so there's no evidence of what he's says is true. Prove me wrong.

The point is that there are thousands of Historians in the world and the Historicity of Jesus is just not controversial. The silence is deafening on the subject.

Most of the people publishing on the HJ subject are either Apologists, like IanS mentions, or fringe theorists like Carrier and Doherty.

When the Experts start taking those guys seriously, so will I.

I have already posted what I believed to be his legitimate points. It was awhile ago, admittedly, but it is there.

I think that was shot down fairly promptly.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall any sensible arguments from dejudge, just the stupid "it's all fake" nonsense.