Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

Why should that matter when Nero's persecution of the Christians was supposedly as a result of the Fire?

He blamed the Christians for starting it.

I imagine any records must have been made after the great fire, in that case.

Sorry not to have been clear, Brainache!
My bad.

Whether Nero persecuted Christians or not really doesn't interest me.

What DOES interest me is the reliability of Tacitus as a source for the historicity of Jesus, crucified under Pilate.

This is where Tacitus can be seen as a transmitter of second or fifth hand information, since there were no records from the 30s available to a writer in the second century.

 

[dejudge]

Why should that matter when Nero's persecution of the Christians was supposedly as a result of the Fire?

He blamed the Christians for starting it.

I imagine any records must have been made after the great fire, in that case.

So, are you admitting that HJ was not a little known itinerant preacher but was WELL KNOWN since the time of Pilate and that Christianity had spread to Rome?

What happens to those arguments by Scholars who claim HJ was NOT CHRIST but was a rabbi, a Zealot, a little itinerant preacher, a Cynic?

Of the THOUSANDS of people crucified in the 1st century your little known itinerant preacher's crucifixion was documented and he became the centre of a religion when he was WORSHIPED as God Creator?

When did the little known itinerant preacher become a Messianic ruler of the Whole World--after he was DEAD and resurrected??

 

[maximara]

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.

Yes it is the very issue because as pointed out in Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ:

Jesus as historical myth and The Tabula Rasa Jesus

Remsburg pointed out:

"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the Miner problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views.

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

The fact this keeps happening shows just how little definitive information on Jesus there is in Paul's writings and the Gospels.

Price points out the problem and its result:

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." (Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16)

"My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

------

We have seen this process with King Arthur and Robin Hood where the stories are reinterpreted for each generation to promote a particular view of those people. We have seen it with Jesus with him as the 1st century equivalent of a flower child Guru, a follower of Buddhism, or about any other idea that has come across the deck.

 

[Brainache]

Yes it is the very issue because as pointed out in Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ:

Jesus as historical myth and The Tabula Rasa Jesus

Remsburg pointed out:

"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the Miner problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views.

"The "historical Jesus" reconstructed by New Testament scholars is always a reflection of the individual scholars who reconstruct him. Albert Schweitzer was perhaps the single exception, and he made it painfully clear that previous questers for the historical Jesus had merely drawn self-portraits. All unconsciously used the historical Jesus as a ventriloquist dummy. Jesus must have taught the truth, and their own beliefs must have been true, so Jesus must have taught those beliefs." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

The fact this keeps happening shows just how little definitive information on Jesus there is in Paul's writings and the Gospels.

Price points out the problem and its result:

"What one Jesus reconstruction leaves aside, the next one takes up and makes its cornerstone. Jesus simply wears too many hats in the Gospels – exorcist, healer, king, prophet, sage, rabbi, demigod, and so on. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament is a composite figure (...) The historical Jesus (if there was one) might well have been a messianic king, or a progressive Pharisee, or a Galilean shaman, or a magus, or a Hellenistic sage. But he cannot very well have been all of them at the same time." (Price, Robert (2000) Deconstructing Jesus, pp. 15-16)

"My point here is simply that, even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction." (Price, Robert (1997) Christ a Fiction)

------

We have seen this process with King Arthur and Robin Hood where the stories are reinterpreted for each generation to promote a particular view of those people. We have seen it with Jesus with him as the 1st century equivalent of a flower child Guru, a follower of Buddhism, or about any other idea that has come across the deck.

OK. I accept all of that. The Consensus HJ is just the minimum required for the stories. So we agree as far as that goes.

Personally I favour the idea that Jesus was a Zealot. I think that the NT was written, or rewritten to the form we have now, to intentionally, yet imperfectly, disguise this fact.

The evidence is there in the NT. I also think that the DSS are extremely useful as evidence for this idea, and that not enough Scholars have studied them properly.

 

[Belz...]

My response was that it should be easy to distinguish Jesus from anybody whose claim to fame was something they supposedly did before they died.

Yes but I still don't get it. The main point is the evidence for Jesus, which is admittedly weak and limited to a few literary works filled with exaggerated claims. A lot of figures of history have this level of evidence, so by the same logic we should exclude them all. I submit that this would leave much of history a great blank.

 

[Belz...]

Yes I deny this because you have not put forth any evidence that such would be the case.

So you're denying that most historical figures have ghastly levels of evidence in their favour, and you want me to demonstrate this to you ?

Also, someone has yet to demonstrate that BT is less effective than the normal historical method. That's basically what you're trying to say here, yes?

I don't give a toss about BT here, quite frankly.

 

[Belz...]

No because the evidence for continental drift was how South American and Africa looked like they fitted together.

Sounds pretty weak to me.

Homer's writings were possible evidence that were simply dismissed out of hand. It was like what happen with challenges to the Clovis First theory...everybody assumed the theory was correct and so didn't bother looking for anything that said otherwise. The Gospels portray a Jesus widely known and widely heard and yet no one known contemporary wrote anything about him or anything related to him. How does that happen in what is now know to have been the most literature Empire of the ancient world... a place where even slaves were expected to read and write?

Again, how does this differ from Troy, which was attested by one work of fiction by a guy who included the machinations of gods in his story ?

No, because the Sagas suggested that you would find physcial evidence of such colonization.

The POINT is that we DIDN'T have that evidence until much later, Max.

I already have. Please reread the highlighted bit above.

I can't make heads or tails of it.

There is nothing in the Gospel stories that suggest they are real history and plenty that suggest they are propaganda.

Yes but I still don't see how that answers my question. What do you think is the conclusion we can draw from the available evidence, and what does this do for the field of history in general ? This isn't a hard question to answer.

 

[Craig B]

Again, we see the double standard argument from HJers.

All of a sudden CHRISTUS in Annals is their little known ITINERANT preacher.

HJers simply are not sticking to their story.

At one time it is claimed that Jesus was hardly known that is why hardly anyone wrote about him but immediately contradicting themselves they conveniently say their HJ was the WELL KNOWN CHRISTUS in Tacitus and Jesus called Christ in Josephus.

The HJ argument is hopelessly flawed.

Why this hostile tone, dejudge? People who do not share your opinion are not necessarily exhibiting double standards.

It is already known that there was no Jewish Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth up to c 70 CE in the same writings of Josephus and Tacitus.

Yes, I think that's right. The references to "our" Jesus in Josephus are probable interpolations. Josephus never mentions Nazareth - not even when he is enumerating the names of towns in Galilee, where he fought during the great uprising.

Tacitus' Histories 5 is evidence that Tacitus Annals with Christus is a forgery.

Nonsense. Your quote from Tacitus is perfectly consistent with the Annals reference. You cite

These mysterious prophecies had pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, with the usual blindness of ambition, had interpreted these mighty destinies of themselves, and could not be brought even by disasters to believe the truth.

and in Annals he derides the Christ religion as a most mischievous superstition. Therefore your

The Jews expected Jewish Messianic rulers c 66-70 CE --NOT 33 CE.

is not sustained by the evidence. Obviously Tacitus and Josephus identified Vespasian and Titus as the prophesied world rulers! What else would they say? These rulers had just suppressed a rebellion in Judaea, and were the sovereigns under whom Josephus lived.

 

[zugzwang]

Yes but I still don't get it. The main point is the evidence for Jesus, which is admittedly weak and limited to a few literary works filled with exaggerated claims. A lot of figures of history have this level of evidence, so by the same logic we should exclude them all. I submit that this would leave much of history a great blank.

Well, history is bunk, sir.

This is the idea which gets Stein in a froth, as he fears an attack on academic history on these grounds - it ain't science, and it ain't the law. I don't see it myself, partly because academic history is so important in many countries, as a kind of political buttress. Also because this kind of attack is mainly an internet amateur phenomenon, isn't it?

 

[maximara]

Indeed. It's the sum total of the evidence they have, however. 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 possible 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 ?

In other words, how would you handle historical research in these cases ?

Yes but I still don't get it. The main point is the evidence for Jesus, which is admittedly weak and limited to a few literary works filled with exaggerated claims. A lot of figures of history have this level of evidence, so by the same logic we should exclude them all. I submit that this would leave much of history a great blank.

Define "similar historical figures" because as has been pointed out before many of the ancient figures and events compared to Jesus are in better shape or fail to measure up:

Leukippos (shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE): very existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).

Socrates (c469 – 399 BCE): written about by contemporaries Plato, Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE), and Aristophanes (c446 – 386 BCE).

Hippocrates (c460 – c370 BCE): written about by contemporary Plato.

Plato (428 – 347 BCE): written about by contemporaries Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE): official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus where all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Then you have mosaics and coins also contemporaneous with Alexander.

Hannibal (247 – 182 BCE): Written about by Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Never mind the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.

Julies Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julies Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.

Boadicea (d. 60 CE): Tacitus himself would have been a 5-year old boy when she poisoned herself c. 60 CE making him contemporary to her. Furthermore, his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary, but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

Muhammad (570 – c. June 8, 632 CE): Unlike the New Testament, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime and there are some that say it was compiled shortly before his death. Moreover there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary to Muhammad.


Now compare those to Jesus:

1) The only known possible known contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.

2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.

Contrary to your claims many of the go to apologists us are in better shape then Jesus...which just shows how weak their argument really is.

 

[The Norseman]

So you're denying that most historical figures have ghastly levels of evidence in their favour, and you want me to demonstrate this to you ?

Yes, at least a little bit. It's not as self-evident to me as it is to you. But, that's fine if you decline to produce this evidence.

My point is that I fail to see why it is the least bit of an issue of we say "the Emperor Circumlocutus probably didn't exist, but there is no evidence that anyone else wrote his 167 volume biography. We base this on the evidence we currently have and applied through Bayes' method."

I don't give a toss about BT here, quite frankly.

Why then are you participating in this particular segment of the conversation?

 

[pakeha]

Well, history is bunk, sir.

This is the idea which gets Stein in a froth, as he fears an attack on academic history on these grounds - it ain't science, and it ain't the law. I don't see it myself, partly because academic history is so important in many countries, as a kind of political buttress. Also because this kind of attack is mainly an internet amateur phenomenon, isn't it?

As far as I know, Stein isn't a member of this forum, so why mention the fellow's fears?

 

[zugzwang]

As far as I know, Stein isn't a member of this forum, so why mention the fellow's fears?

Sorry, he's called Stone here.

 

[pakeha]

Oh, really?
I directly asked Stone if they posted as Stein elsewhere and they refused to confirm that.
Are you quite certain of that identification?

 

[The Norseman]

Oh, really?
I directly asked Stone if they posted as Stein elsewhere and they refused to confirm that.
Are you quite certain of that identification?

I am.

I, by happenstance, saw a post signed "stein" which later had been edited to read "stone" in this poster's normal style.

 

[Craig B]

Define "similar historical figures" because as has been pointed out before many of the ancient figures and events compared to Jesus are in better shape or fail to measure up: <snip>

Thank you for that study, which I agree with in every part except that I think the Koran was compiled a bit later than you suggest. However your last sentence seems rather garbled. Can you clarify?

Contrary to your claims many of the go to apologists us are in better shape then Jesus...which just shows how weak their argument really is.

It is because of these defects in the record that there is even any possible argument about the historicity of Jesus. As I have pointed out, there are two kinds of mythicism: those who say, we don't really have enough evidence so probably he was a "myth" i.e. not a real person. A weak but acceptable meaning of the word. Then there are others who say, Jesus was never believed to have lived on earth in recent times but all this was thought to be a spiritual manifestation of activities in a "mythical" or non-material sphere of existence, like Osiris dwelling in the Underworld. I don't think there's any evidence for the pre existence of such a myth, and I simply reject this version of MJ.

It boils down then to a balance of probabilities, and I believe that the complexity and character of the gospel material, as well as the emergence of belief in a Jesus figure at that time is best accounted for by a core of historical reality. There are things in the gospels that do not fulfil any imaginable mythical purpose, and there are contradictions that suggest that material was at the disposal of early writers that was not as tractable as it would have been if it was entirely made up.

 

[zugzwang]

Craig B wrote:

It boils down then to a balance of probabilities, and I believe that the complexity and character of the gospel material, as well as the emergence of belief in a Jesus figure at that time is best accounted for by a core of historical reality. There are things in the gospels that do not fulfil any imaginable mythical purpose, and there are contradictions that suggest that material was at the disposal of early writers that was not as tractable as it would have been if it was entirely made up.

Yes, I was thinking recently about the discussion of Peah in some of the gospel texts, for example, Mark 2: 23. By Peah I mean the Jewish injunction to keep the edge of fields not harvested, so that the poor could glean (summarized in Lev. 19: 9). Anyway, Jesus is challenged on this, partly because the disciples do the gleaning on the Sabbath. This is part of a series of complex discussions about purity, in which Jesus sometimes preserves the normal rules, and sometimes, goes beyond them.

My point is this: why would the creation of a mythical Jesus require such complex and detailed discussions of Jewish law? I suppose you might say that it gives credibility, for a Jewish audience - this mythical character really knows his Torah! Or if the mythical figure grew spontaneously (i.e. not forged), then the idea of a mythical preacher who could hammer those Pharisees in debate, would be appealing.

On the other hand, the discussions about Peah strike me as eminently non-supernatural and credible, since presumably various Jewish sects were arguing with each other about such details of law.

 

[Belz...]

Define "similar historical figures" because as has been pointed out before many of the ancient figures and events compared to Jesus are in better shape or fail to measure up:

Define "many", then, if you want to play that game. Do you think that most historical characters have any amount of evidence in favour of their existence or of the actions associated with them, or that they are rather attested by a single literary source ?

Of course if you cherry pick the ones with a lot of evidence in their favour and ignore the rest, it sounds like a great case for you.

1) The only known possible known contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.

I'm well aware of the weakness of the Jesus evidence, as I've explained before. It all comes down to this: Christianity exists. Now, most people would like to have some explanation for that, if only out of curiosity, but mostly because we are a species who likes things tidy and known. So what's the solution ?

 

[Belz...]

Yes, at least a little bit. It's not as self-evident to me as it is to you. But, that's fine if you decline to produce this evidence.

I was under the impression that several of these historical people had been named again just a couple of days ago. Socrates gets trotted out, though I understand the differences between him and Jesus. We basically have people's word that he existed. IanS would never accept what we have on Socrates as credible reliable awesome evidence. Or if he did, he would be inconsistent in his standard.

My point is that I fail to see why it is the least bit of an issue of we say "the Emperor Circumlocutus probably didn't exist, but there is no evidence that anyone else wrote his 167 volume biography. We base this on the evidence we currently have and applied through Bayes' method."

I'm not sure it's worth me repeating myself a third time, then, since I was quite clear why that was a problem.

Why then are you participating in this particular segment of the conversation?

You count the number of posts in this thread making reference to the theorem, and get back to me if you hit anywhere close to 25%.

 

[Craig B]

My point is this: why would the creation of a mythical Jesus require such complex and detailed discussions of Jewish law? I suppose you might say that it gives credibility, for a Jewish audience - this mythical character really knows his Torah!

If that's the intention it fails lamentably anyway. Jesus' knowledge of, in this case, Samuel, is defective. he makes a mistake. Mark 2

25 He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? 26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”

Which contradicts 1 Sam 21

1 David went to Ahimelech the priest in Nob. Ahimelech was shaking with fear when he met David, and said to him, “Why are you by yourself with no one accompanying you?” ... 6 So the priest gave him holy bread, for there was no bread there other than the bread of the Presence. It had been removed from before the Lord in order to replace it with hot bread on the day it had been taken away.

On the other hand, the discussions about Peah strike me as eminently non-supernatural and credible, since presumably various Jewish sects were arguing with each other about such details of law.

Yes. This is not a virgin-born water-strolling self-transfiguring Logos-style creator such as dejudge tries to scare us with from time to time.