Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge is still flailing at a strawman, addressing the arguments that he wants to oppose, rather than those actually being presented.

 

[Brainache]

Dejudge is still flailing at a strawman, addressing the arguments that he wants to oppose, rather than those actually being presented.

Yes. That has been the case since he got here.

I must say I was amazed to hear that there is a forum out there somewhere where people take him seriously.

Weird.

 

[maximara]

Well, let's see now. People don't come back from the dead, and they don't walk on water. I think it's safe to say that those two elements of the Jesus story are false. As many people have tried to explain, that does not mean that all elements of the Jesus story as recorded in the Gospels are false.

There's nothing inherently implausible about some religious crank getting himself executed back in first-century Judea. It happened to a good many others. It was the dedication of this particular crank's followers that enabled his cult to spread as it did.

While it is true that there is nothing inherently implausible about some religious crank getting himself executed back in first-century Judea none of the details regarding Jesus we can check out hold together and that is where the problems are.

 

[Brainache]

While it is true that there is nothing inherently implausible about some religious crank getting himself executed back in first-century Judea none of the details regarding Jesus we can check out hold together and that is where the problems are.

I think the problem might be from looking for Historical facts in the religious stories. That isn't how I understand Historians do it.

He/She isn't counting the years from when one gospel says something happened and then comparing it with other stories that say differently and then, throwing out the gospel for being "unreliable". That isn't how it works.

A Historian might look at the theological message of a given text and try to put it in its cultural context. Who else was preaching this idea and when? Where did it start, this particular teaching? Was it OT, or new? Does it fit with everything else we know about the culture of the time? Etc, etc.

Throwing out the Bible Evidence for being "hearsay", is like throwing out the Mona Lisa for not being a photograph.

 

[IanS]

I was asked where the evidence was? I stated Now, either they do, or they don't. OK? I say they do. I say that is evidence. Now you can say it's not good evidence or whatever, fine. But I say the gospels contain that. Do they or don't they?

What do you think a biblical crucifixion story is evidence of?

 

[pakeha]

I think the problem might be from looking for Historical facts in the religious stories. That isn't how I understand Historians do it.

He/She isn't counting the years from when one gospel says something happened and then comparing it with other stories that say differently and then, throwing out the gospel for being "unreliable". That isn't how it works.

A Historian might look at the theological message of a given text and try to put it in its cultural context. Who else was preaching this idea and when? Where did it start, this particular teaching? Was it OT, or new? Does it fit with everything else we know about the culture of the time? Etc, etc.

Throwing out the Bible Evidence for being "hearsay", is like throwing out the Mona Lisa for not being a photograph.

Hi, Brainache.
I found an article discussing the NT as midrash that I think touches on this question,

"We know that the authors of the Gospels were creatively re-writing passages in the Jewish Scriptures. We know they created characters and places whose names were clearly puns on the narratives associated with them. We know they were writing in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple when old identities must have been shattered for many and new ones sought — in tandem (and not without controversy) with the emergence of rabbinic Judaism.

Were the Gospels created to serve the same function as rabbinic midrash? Are the Gospels the evangelists’ reconstruction of God’s word to the Jewish people? Were they really reporting on Jesus? Or were they each creating their own view of Jesus as the epitome of the new word of God for a new time?"
http://vridar.org/2014/01/08/why-go...pel-truth-a-plausible-explanation/#more-48234

 

[IanS]

There's nothing inherently implausible about some religious crank getting himself executed back in first-century Judea. It happened to a good many others. It was the dedication of this particular crank's followers that enabled his cult to spread as it did.

Well whether it's plausible or not, what is the evidence that it was true?

We are talking about the need for evidence.

Where is the evidence that any such plausible execution of Jesus ever took place?

It’s plausible that a preacher named “Jesus” walked about in 1st century Jerusalem, and hence existed. But what is the evidence for that? Just because people exist and people do walk, that is not evidence of a biblical Jesus!

 

[Brainache]

Hi, Brainache.
I found an article discussing the NT as midrash that I think touches on this question,

"We know that the authors of the Gospels were creatively re-writing passages in the Jewish Scriptures. We know they created characters and places whose names were clearly puns on the narratives associated with them. We know they were writing in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple when old identities must have been shattered for many and new ones sought — in tandem (and not without controversy) with the emergence of rabbinic Judaism.

Were the Gospels created to serve the same function as rabbinic midrash? Are the Gospels the evangelists’ reconstruction of God’s word to the Jewish people? Were they really reporting on Jesus? Or were they each creating their own view of Jesus as the epitome of the new word of God for a new time?"
http://vridar.org/2014/01/08/why-go...pel-truth-a-plausible-explanation/#more-48234

Very interesting.

That is the kind of thing these threads should be filled with, not endless repetitions of the boringly obvious observation that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Thank you Pakeha for raising the bar.

I have some reading to do.

Carry on IanS...


(That's not a movie I'm waiting to see...)

 

[Belz...]

What do you think a biblical crucifixion story is evidence of?

It's evidence for the crucifixion, I guess. Weak evidence. Inconclusive evidence. Perhaps even unconvincing evidence. But evidence nonetheless.

 

[Craig B]

What do you think a biblical crucifixion story is evidence of?

The crucifixion. Is it adequate evidence? Perhaps. That's discussable. Crucifixion is a very probable occurrence for a religious preacher in these days, so the strength of evidence required to establish it in this case is not enormously high. Resurrection is not, so the standard of evidence required to establish that is both in theory and in practice beyond attainment.

 

[tsig]

The crucifixion. Is it adequate evidence? Perhaps. That's discussable. Crucifixion is a very probable occurrence for a religious preacher in these days, so the strength of evidence required to establish it in this case is not enormously high. Resurrection is not, so the standard of evidence required to establish that is both in theory and in practice beyond attainment.

Do you have any evidence of the Roman crucifying any other Jewish preachers?

 

[tsig]

It's evidence for the crucifixion, I guess. Weak evidence. Inconclusive evidence. Perhaps even unconvincing evidence. But evidence nonetheless.

Why would you expect anyone to be convinced by unconvincing evidence? You know false evidence is also a kind of evidence.

 

[Craig B]

Do you have any evidence of the Roman crucifying any other Jewish preachers?

Josephus, Ant. 20:5.

2. Then came Tiberius Alexander [governor 46-48 AD] as successor to Fadus; the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified.

Jesus is reported to have been charged with being "King of the Jews".

 

[Belz...]

Why would you expect anyone to be convinced by unconvincing evidence?

Where did I show such an expectation ? Again you and IanS and Dejudge seem to be confusing different claims and conclusions. Until you can distinguish them, it's hard to have a conversation or debate about one of them.

 

[tsig]

delete o

 

[tsig]

Josephus, Ant. 20:5. Jesus is reported to have been charged with being "King of the Jews".

The only place Jesus is called "King of the Jews" is the bible so you're using the bible to prove the bible.

 

[tsig]

Where did I show such an expectation ? Again you and IanS and Dejudge seem to be confusing different claims and conclusions. Until you can distinguish them, it's hard to have a conversation or debate about one of them.

If you don't wish to convince anyone then why are you posting and claiming you have evidence, even weak evidence?

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who keeps changing the premise with every post.

 

[Foster Zygote]

They all report the resurrection [a non historical event]

Without the resurrection [a non-historical event] there would be NO remission of Sins, No Christian Faith and NO preaching of the Gospel.

And all Mormon accounts of Joseph Smith's founding of Mormonism report his meeting with the Angel Moroni and his discovery and translation of the golden plates, a non-historic event. Without the golden plates and the Book Of Mormon there would be no preaching of Mormonism. So, did Joseph Smith exist as a real historical personage?

An historical Jesus cannot explain the start of the Jesus story and cult. Only Mythology does.

What is logically impossible about the historical hypothesis? I've asked you this question before and you have consistently evaded it. Perhaps you'd like to have another go of it?

A radical religious figure with a small following goes to Jerusalem with the delusion that he is going to usher in the return of the rule of the house of David and the expulsion of the Roman occupiers. Alas, he is promptly apprehended and painfully executed in the manner of any seditionist. His followers are, understandably, quite shocked by this unexpected turn of events. Yet, like so many other deluded believers, they (or some of them, at least) just can't bring themselves to entertain the thought that they were just plain wrong, so they start rationalizing the execution of their leader. The narrative develops that the leader's death was all part of the plan from the very start and they'd simply missed the clues that he'd given them. And furthermore, they claim, he came back to life and was called up to be with God. He will soon return to finish his commission and fulfill the prophecies, and it is up to his disciples to spread the word to as many righteous Jews as they can. With each successive retelling of the Jesus story, he becomes more and more mythologized. From there the narrative gradually expands and morphs into many forms, eventually evolving into what we think of today as orthodox Christianity.

Please explain why the above scenario is not logically possible.

Myth Jesus fully explains the Jesus story and the teachings of the Jesus cult.

Not really. Why do the accounts all speak of a human preacher who was crucified by the Romans? Why does Paul go out of his way to assure his readers that they should believe his teachings even though they contradict the teachings of those who knew Jesus? Why does Paul describe meeting those who knew Jesus and say that they agreed to let him spread his message as long as it was done among the gentiles? Why do the authors of Luke and Matthew give radically differing genealogies and birth narratives, yet converge on Joseph and Nazareth?

There is much that your scenario doesn't address. In fact, I don't think you've even proffered a plausible scenario for scrutiny.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The only place Jesus is called "King of the Jews" is the bible so you're using the bible to prove the bible.

No, he's not. He isn't claiming proof of anything.

 

[Belz...]

If you don't wish to convince anyone then why are you posting and claiming you have evidence, even weak evidence?

Please keep track of what I'm actually saying, rather than what you wish I were saying.

It's hard to have a conversation with someone who keeps changing the premise with every post.

Please show me changing the premise in every post.