Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

Again, I have never been outspoken against folks using BT.
If folks do not like the Historical Method for Jesus, then any person is free to do as they wish.
I have been rather open about not holding a position in either direction, as I think it is impossible to be certain in either direction.

That said, I do not see reason to assume that we can do better than the Historical society, and I see no reason why we should dismiss the Historical Method.

The way to use it is to prove, or show strong convincing indication that Jesus did not exist to the Historical society.
Short of this, Jesus remains existent in the record.

 

[maximara]

That's right. These stories are, among other things, an intrusion of pagan mythology into the gospel material. Some of the earlier people called sons of Gods in this magical pagan sense, like Alexander, were historical persons, but of course the divine paternity stories were untrue.

Right and that is how a pro-HJ work International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J defines Christ Myth in both the 1982 and 1995 editions: "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

As has been pointed out before there stories of George Washington, Davy Crockett, Jesse James, Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley that are pieces "of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

Yet when this point is brought up we jump to the Jesus the man didn't exist strawman.

Richard III in Shakespeare's play is a fictional character... but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real Richard III. However you can reasonably say that even though he is based on a historical character Shakespeare's Richard III didn't exist.

 

[Craig B]

What about Jupiter? What about Romulus? What about Perseus? There are myth characters who are Sons of Gods.

The human father of Alexander the Great is known. Who was the father of the Son of God who walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected?

In normal terms named as Joseph, as in John 1:45, 6;42.

 

[dejudge]

He seems like a pretty smart guy this Celsus.

He doesn't appear to be aware of any "Celestial" Jesus of the sort Richard Carrier has suggested, though.

Celsus did NOT use Josephus, Tacitus or Suetonius to show that Jesus was human when Christian writers argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, the Son of God.

 

[Brainache]

Right and that is how a pro-HJ work International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J defines Christ Myth in both the 1982 and 1995 editions: "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

As has been pointed out before there stories of George Washington, Davy Crockett, Jesse James, Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley that are pieces "of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..."

Yet when this point is brought up we jump to the Jesus the man didn't exist strawman.

Richard III in Shakespeare's play is a fictional character... but that doesn't mean there wasn't a real Richard III. However you can reasonably say that even though he is based on a historical character Shakespeare's Richard III didn't exist.

Then what do you call Richard Carrier's Theory?

Tell me that, and I'll start using that term instead.

Because that "Mythical Jesus" definition you are using includes the HJ, which makes it useless for our purposes in these threads.

Can you please try to understand this point.

 

[Brainache]

Celsus did NOT use Josephus, Tacitus or Suetonius to show that Jesus was human when Christian writers argued that Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, the Son of God.

Why would he?

He would know that they were supernatural BS made up about a bloke called Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Eight Bits,

Again, I have never been outspoken against folks using BT.
If folks do not like the Historical Method for Jesus, then any person is free to do as they wish.
I have been rather open about not holding a position in either direction, as I think it is impossible to be certain in either direction.

That said, I do not see reason to assume that we can do better than the Historical society, and I see no reason why we should dismiss the Historical Method.

The way to use it is to prove, or show strong convincing indication that Jesus did not exist to the Historical society.
Short of this, Jesus remains existent in the record.

You have now shown that you actually care that Jesus existed. You admitted you have no evidence one or the other but now declare that Jesus remains existent in the records.

Well, Jesus exist in the records just like Romulus.

Jesus exists as a figure of mythology.

You cannot deny his description in and out the Bible.

The recovered and dated stories of Jesus show him as a figure of mythology and so he will remain.

One cannot do history WITHOUT data.

The history of Jesus is a Myth. We have hundreds of writings from antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

You have now shown that you actually care that Jesus existed. You admitted you have no evidence one or the other but now declare that Jesus remains existent in the records.

Well, Jesus exist in the records just like Romulus.

Jesus exists as a figure of mythology.

You cannot deny his description in and out the Bible.

The recovered and dated stories of Jesus show him as a figure of mythology and so he will remain.

One cannot do history WITHOUT data.

The history of Jesus is a Myth. We have hundreds of writings from antiquity.

Still no sign of a convincing argument.

 

[dejudge]

Why would he?

He would know that they were supernatural BS made up about a bloke called Jesus.

How would he know that? In the Gospels it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost since the time of King Herod up c 6 BCE

The son of the Ghost was born about 180 years before Celsus' True Discourse.

If people knew that the Jesus story was a Big Lie why did they believe it?

 

[maximara]

I'm only talking about Richard Carrier's Myth Jesus.

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?")

The bolded books by Wells all accepts a 1st century Historical Jesus being behind the Gospel accounts (he does claim this historical Jesus was not crucified) and yet Carrier himself classifies the works as "Defending Ahistoricity". And he is not alone.

Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000') Free Inquiry magazine classified the first two bolded works as "Christ Myth"

Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143. classified The Jesus Legend as Christ Myth

Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend were labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 The Jesus Legend Baker Academic on pp. 24.

Books that accepted the existence of a 1st century Jesus being behind the Gospel accounts labeled as Christ Myth by both sides...including Richard Carrier! This agrees with John Roberson's 1900 definition of "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Brainache]

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?")

The bolded books by Wells all accept a Historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and yet Carrier himself classifies the works as "Defending Ahistoricity". And he is not alone.

Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Volume 20, Number 1 (Winter, 1999/2000') Free Inquiry magazine classified the first two bolded works as "Christ Myth"

Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143. classified The Jesus Legend as Christ Myth

Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend were labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 The Jesus Legend Baker Academic on pp. 24.

Books that accepted the existence of a 1st century Jesus labeled as Christ Myth by both sides...including Richard Carrier! DEAL WITH IT.

I DON'T CARE. Deal with that.

You still haven't answered my question: What do you call Richard Carrier's "Jesus only ever existed as a celestial being and not a human being" Theory, to distinguish it from the HJ who has almost nothing to do with the Gospel stories?

I really want to know, so you can finally join the debate that everyone else has been having for the past several years.

 

[JaysonR]

You have now shown that you actually care that Jesus existed. You admitted you have no evidence one or the other but now declare that Jesus remains existent in the records.

Well, Jesus exist in the records just like Romulus.

Jesus exists as a figure of mythology.

You cannot deny his description in and out the Bible.

The recovered and dated stories of Jesus show him as a figure of mythology and so he will remain.

One cannot do history WITHOUT data.

The history of Jesus is a Myth. We have hundreds of writings from antiquity.

See...I dislike having people on ignore, but really...that is where you probably are going to end up again.
How in hell did you derive this thought of yours from what I wrote?

 

[maximara]

I DON'T CARE. Deal with that.

Then you are denying reality.

What do you call Richard Carrier's "Jesus only ever existed as a celestial being and not a human being"

"No results found for "Jesus only ever existed as a celestial being and not a human being"" via Google search. Show me where Carrier makes this exact statement.

Sure Carrier says that Christianity started with Jesus as a celestial being but I don't think he is excluding the idea of some followers taking up the name Jesus and causing problems as what happened with John From 1940-47 (see Carrier's own blog July 1, 2013 regarding the Jesus-John Frum connection) but as with the various John Frums that showed up from 1940-1947 those Jesues are not the Jesus the Gospels describe. Odds are they were after Paul started his preaching (wrong time for Gospel Jesus) and may have not even been Jewish.

 

[Brainache]

Then you are denying reality.

Not at all.

I know that the Gospel stories aren't reliable history.

That is not the issue in these threads and never has been.

Why does this have to be explained over and over again?

 

[pakeha]

He seems like a pretty smart guy this Celsus.

He doesn't appear to be aware of any "Celestial" Jesus of the sort Richard Carrier has suggested, though.

Shhh.
I'd rather read Celsus than Carrier, whose dress style is...inadequate.
And I'd rather read Carrier than Philo, who bores and irritates me beyond charity.

...Jesus would be non-historical if the Gospel accounts were not more reliable then the stories of King Arthur (2004 Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall).

I can go with this definition, maximara, as one to go with till a better arises in academia.

...That said, I do not see reason to assume that we can do better than the Historical society, and I see no reason why we should dismiss the Historical Method.

The way to use it is to prove, or show strong convincing indication that Jesus did not exist to the Historical society.
Short of this, Jesus remains existent in the record.

I can see what you mean, but I have to question whether the historical method has actually been applied to the Jesus story and not the methodology involving Criterion of Embarrassment, Criterion of Multiple Attestation and the Criterion of Dissimilarity.
I'd be glad to be shown wrong in that.

"What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

How can any poster here think that someone who agrees with the above deserves to be called a trvther?

 

[eight bits]

Jayson

That said, I do not see reason to assume that we can do better than the Historical society, and I see no reason why we should dismiss the Historical Method.

Straw man. My position is that the historical method be recognized as a heuristic approach to one kind of inference abiout the past. The approach values consensus, avoidance of false negatives, and success as its users define success measured over a large number of cases, rather than concern with a small number of crucial cases.

None of these are features of my inference problem with respect to whether or not there was a historical Jesus who counts. Reason compels me, then, not to "dismiss" anything (What have I refused to discuss, Jayson?), but rather to seek heuristic guidance suitable for the actual inference problem which I aspire to solve.

The "historical method" solves a different problem from the one I have. I value rationality. I look elsewhere.

The way to use it is to prove, or show strong convincing indication that Jesus did not exist to the Historical society.
Short of this, Jesus remains existent in the record.

Of what concern is that to me? The "record" is constructed to include more hypothetical people than actually existed. OK. There are some here who (apparently) allege that Jesus couldn't even possibly exist. I'm not one of them. I'm 60-40 that he did exist. I cannot possibly aspire to expunge him him from any list designed to include the real along with the fanciful.

 

[JaysonR]

Eight Bits,

I already said each is free to their own.
I do not own you, nor your mind.

If the Historical Method does not help your personal interest, then do what you need to to be happy about it.

I was involved in a discussion that had nothing to do with personal ambitions of pursuit, but validity of the field itself for its general purposes.

 

[Belz...]

I believe this post is a good way to highlight the issue that is starting to get annoying -- why would anyone ever think that because BT is used, history is being "blanked" or tossed aside as several posters have now said?

Perhaps it is because I do not yet fully understand BT and its applications to history and these other posters do.

The reasoning is that if a change to the historical method would exclude Jesus, it would exclude a lot of other figures of history we assume existed because they have been concluded (tentatively) to exist based on similar or even weaker evidence.

I thought that had been made quite clear.

 

[Belz...]

Going back to historical...how historical are we talking here? Just enough to show that there likely was some preacher-philosopher named Jesus in Galilee between c100 BCE - 70 CE who was executed by the local authorities for causing problems? More than that? How much more?

I'm a bit dissapointed with your answer, given that my original question contained parameters that answered your question above:

The question is, what's the conclusion we can derive, in terms of history, from that evidence ? Can we conclude that Jesus was a myth ? Or possibly a man ? And, if so, do what degree does that man correspond to the story ? Or do we simply not know, and leave it at that ? And if we take that last one, what does it say about similar historical figures ?

 

[Belz...]

OK, then post the links, claiming the evidence has been posted but refusing to link to it is a well known tactic.

Claiming evidence has not been presented at all is another.

Why do you feel that we have to come to a conclusion?

First of all, not reaching a conclusion at all was PART of the post you quoted. Did you read it in full ? Or did you skip chunks of it in your haste ? I asked Maximara what conclusion he thinks we should reach, and the list includes "None".

However, if one concludes that one cannot conclude, this raises the question of what to do with much of recorded history.