Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

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.

That is, again, the tipping point for HJ: parsimony.

Tsig, pay attention.

 

[zugzwang]

One of the odd things about accounts of MJ for me, is that it seems inverted. Whereas HJ proposes a Jewish preacher, who was later mythologized and divinized, or whatever the word is, MJ proposes the reverse, doesn't it? A wholly celestial figure, who was later seen as human.

I'm not saying this is impossible, but it seems odd. The HJ account fits with Jewish and Greek ideas, in that Jews would abhor a divine man, whereas for Greeks it would be fine. So the HJ proposal is that Jesus starts off in Judaism, where a divine messiah is impossible, and then the later adherents move out into the Hellenistic world, where a man/god is perfectly OK.

It seems to mean that MJ has to separate Jesus from Judaism, in order to account for a celestial messiah, which to Jews would be abhorrent.

I know I am only taking one part of the MJ idea, since there is also the idea of the spontaneous growth of an MJ, who is human then divine, not divine then human. Sorry, this is complicated!

 

[Belz...]

One of the odd things about accounts of MJ for me, is that it seems inverted. Whereas HJ proposes a Jewish preacher, who was later mythologized and divinized, or whatever the word is, MJ proposes the reverse, doesn't it? A wholly celestial figure, who was later seen as human.

And then reverted back to divine. It's a lot more complex than HJ, not to mention totally unevidenced, which is ironic. At least the "I don't know" crowd have a leg to stand on.

 

[zugzwang]

And then reverted back to divine. It's a lot more complex than HJ, not to mention totally unevidenced, which is ironic. At least the "I don't know" crowd have a leg to stand on.

Well, it's remarkable in a way that there are so few MJ proposals, with any heft. Give Earl Doherty credit, he has tried to formulate a fully-fledged account of MJ, although it seems to twist and turn all over the place.

But most MJ supporters seem content to make snippy remarks about ghosts, and interpolations, and so on. So we await Carrier's opus with relish!

 

[tsig]

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

So when you say there's evidence of an HJ you don't mean there's proof of an HJ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

So when you say there's evidence of an HJ you don't mean there's proof of an HJ?

Exactly.

 

[manofthesea]

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

I think the NT was exactly that, a NT. God gave up on the Jews, his first born, and turned to the world as a whole. He changed from a jealous hater to "God is love" (1 John 4:16)

As far as evidence goes, the bible states that the Pharisees and Sadducees claimed that Jesus/Yeshua healed and chased spirits by way of Beelzebub. If either of those groups have writings dated to that period then perhaps they mention this. I doubt they would testify in their own writings that he was Son of God.

 

[tsig]

So when you say there's evidence of an HJ you don't mean there's proof of an HJ?

Exactly.

Then what do you mean by evidence?

I"m going by this:

Full Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

 

[zugzwang]

Proof is usually linked to maths and logic, and it seems odd to relate it to evidence. I would say evidence is something that is adduced to support an argument, to give it validity or truth.

I don't agree with IanS's view of it as necessarily like legal evidence or scientific evidence. Fair enough, if he wants to take it like that, but it can be taken in a less restrictive way.

 

[Craig B]

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

What on earth are you talking about? I'm not trying to "prove the Bible". I'm saying that in some of the sources later incorporated into the works we call "the Gospels", it is stated that Jesus was called King of the Jews. I think it is possible that he may indeed have been executed on such a charge.

 

[Belz...]

So when you say there's evidence of an HJ you don't mean there's proof of an HJ?

After eight years on this forum I find it hard to believe that you never noticed the distinction.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Then what do you mean by evidence?

I"m going by this:

Full Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a : an outward sign : indication
b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

a : an outward sign : indication

Taking an example from physical science, look at black holes. Black holes didn't suddenly reveal themselves to us with proof of their existence. They were proposed as being something plausible based on signs from available evidence that they could exist. Many astrophysicists spent years examining the possibility that black holes existed without ever claiming to know that they did.

In the case of ancient history, the simple fact is that so much evidence has simply been destroyed by time that it's likely that we will never find epistemic proof of many historical hypotheses, especially regarding a preacher who was little known in his own time. It would be wonderful to find some document that proves beyond reasonable doubt that a radical preacher from Galilee named Jesus was crucified for sedition, but that's probably never going to happen. It isn't a matter of having to prove the existence or nonexistence of an historical Jesus. It's a matter of constructing plausible explanations based on what we do know.

 

[zugzwang]

Just a point of interest for anyone interested in languages - that a number of scholars in recent years have started to look at Aramaic phrases in the NT, and also at possible Greek translations of Aramaic.

Of course, it is well known that there are a few Aramaic phrases, such as Talitha kum (Mark 5: 41), and it has often been said that Jesus spoke it as his first language. However, some scholars, such as Maurice Casey go further, and argue that you can detect Aramaic constructions behind some of the Greek.

Big problem here is that the only people who can follow this argument are people who have fluent Greek and Aramaic, rather a restricted group!

There are further arguments that a particular and early form of Palestinian Aramaic can be detected.

This is difficult stuff, and I am not sure if it lends weight to HJ or not, although Casey argues that it does. More reading required, blast.

 

[Brainache]

I think the NT was exactly that, a NT. God gave up on the Jews, his first born, and turned to the world as a whole. He changed from a jealous hater to "God is love" (1 John 4:16)

As far as evidence goes, the bible states that the Pharisees and Sadducees claimed that Jesus/Yeshua healed and chased spirits by way of Beelzebub. If either of those groups have writings dated to that period then perhaps they mention this. I doubt they would testify in their own writings that he was Son of God.

You could try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

[dejudge]

One of the odd things about accounts of MJ for me, is that it seems inverted. Whereas HJ proposes a Jewish preacher, who was later mythologized and divinized, or whatever the word is, MJ proposes the reverse, doesn't it? A wholly celestial figure, who was later seen as human.

What you say is virtually impossible if you had read the NT and Apologetic writings.

An historical Jesus makes no sense because that would mean that Christians of the Jesus cult were KNOWN Liars, especially Paul, if he did live and preach he was a WITNESS of God that Jesus resurrected.

If Jesus did live and did die his bones may have been in the Family OSSUARY while Paul was LYING about the resurrection.

It is far more likely as the abundance of evidence suggest that the Jesus story and Pauline Corpus were fabricated very late--well after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

None of the books in the NT Canon has ever been recovered and dated by paleography to the time of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Ortho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, Domitian, and Nerva.

If Jesus was really a little known dead man who could NOT have done anything as described in the NT then the HJ argument is NOT Plausible.


Christian writers specifically addressed who their Jesus was, where he came from and where he lived before he died.

Jesus was God who came down from heaven and Lived in the womb of woman.


Ignatius Ephesians

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.

Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High.

And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them...

The argument that the NT books are late is compatible with the fact that Scholars have already deduced that the NT is really a compilation of FORGERIES--Late writings WITH Fake 1st century authors.

No author of the NT has ever been found and none of the accounts of Jesus corroborated outside Apologetics.

 

[Elagabalus]

Just a point of interest for anyone interested in languages - that a number of scholars in recent years have started to look at Aramaic phrases in the NT, and also at possible Greek translations of Aramaic.

Of course, it is well known that there are a few Aramaic phrases, such as Talitha kum (Mark 5: 41), and it has often been said that Jesus spoke it as his first language. However, some scholars, such as Maurice Casey go further, and argue that you can detect Aramaic constructions behind some of the Greek.

Big problem here is that the only people who can follow this argument are people who have fluent Greek and Aramaic, rather a restricted group!

There are further arguments that a particular and early form of Palestinian Aramaic can be detected.

This is difficult stuff, and I am not sure if it lends weight to HJ or not, although Casey argues that it does. More reading required, blast.

You can try here or on crosstalk2

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/crosstalk2/conversations/topics

And again from the amazon review of Nailed - another TON tidbit:

...For example, we find examples of his use of highly Semitic grammatical construction in Wars, II.21.1, Wars, VI.8.3, Antiquities, V.8.1, Antiquities, X.5.2, Antiquities, XI.5.1 and many other places...
...

...It's a linguistic commonplace. But if you want to educate yourself, try James Hope Moulton, Wilbert Francis Howard, Nigel Turner, "A Grammar of New Testament Greek: Volume 2: Accidence and Word Formation" (1963) and read the section entitled "Semiticisms in the New Testament" pp. 413 ff. You'll find a detailed discussion of the use of the *casus pendens* from p. 423 onwards. Anything else I can help you with?

Act now! The book is only 15.49 (without a cover) over at Barnes and Noble! It's usually around 200 dollars!

 

[dejudge]

Just a point of interest for anyone interested in languages - that a number of scholars in recent years have started to look at Aramaic phrases in the NT, and also at possible Greek translations of Aramaic.

Of course, it is well known that there are a few Aramaic phrases, such as Talitha kum (Mark 5: 41), and it has often been said that Jesus spoke it as his first language. However, some scholars, such as Maurice Casey go further, and argue that you can detect Aramaic constructions behind some of the Greek.

Big problem here is that the only people who can follow this argument are people who have fluent Greek and Aramaic, rather a restricted group!

There are further arguments that a particular and early form of Palestinian Aramaic can be detected.

This is difficult stuff, and I am not sure if it lends weight to HJ or not, although Casey argues that it does. More reading required, blast.

You keep forgetting that the Gospels are Forgeries or Falsely attributed to Fake authors who have never been found outside Apologetics.

You keep forgetting that the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts.

You keep forgetting that NO 1st century pre 70 CE Gospels have been found.

It is just highly illogical to assume the Jesus character was a figure of history because an UNKNOWN author writing at an unknown time wrote words in Aramaic.

It would be hopelessly absurd to argue that the God of the Jews or Satan the Devil was a figure of history because they both spoke a Hebrew language in the Hebrew Bible.

The HJ argument is probably the worse argument in the history of mankind.

Who would have ever thought that it could be argued that Romulus could be considered an actual Roman because there are LATIN versions of Plutartch's Romulus?

How illogical it would be to argue that God and Satan the Devil were Jews because they spoke in a Hebrew language in the HEBREW Bible!!

Job 1:7 NAS

The LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come ?" Then Satan answered the LORD and said, "From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it."

 

[Craig B]

You keep forgetting that the Gospels are Forgeries or Falsely attributed to Fake authors who have never been found outside Apologetics.

You keep forgetting that the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts.

You keep forgetting that NO 1st century pre 70 CE Gospels have been found.

I forget nothing. I reject your arguments as weirdly-expressed drivel. What are the gospels "forgeries" of? A forged ten pound note is a falsification of a real ten pound note. The gospels contain no indication of who wrote them. The attributions of authorship were made later. They are compilations of various sources, some shared by more than one gospel. If you consider them to be late forgeries, you really must indicate by whom, why and how. You have not done this. I challenge you to do so now.

The HJ argument is probably the worse argument in the history of mankind.

It is surprising, then, that it commands the assent of the majority of scholars. Even the most prominent atheists including Dawkins and Hitchens (although the second of these was not a competent scholar if the first edition of God Is Not Great is anything to go by) agree that Jesus existed as some kind of human being.

 

[dejudge]

I forget nothing. I reject your arguments as weirdly-expressed drivel. What are the gospels "forgeries" of? A forged ten pound note is a falsification of a real ten pound note. The gospels contain no indication of who wrote them. The attributions of authorship were made later.

Are you not arguing that there was most likely an HJ?

Are you not claiming that gMark contains the history of your HJ and disciples?

If Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did actually exist and wrote NO stories of Jesus then it is obvious that the Gospels would be properly classified as forgeries or falsely attribution.

You need to read Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" because he did state that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did NOT write the stories of Jesus in the NT.

Examine "Did Jesus Exist?" page 182 line 4 and 5.

Bart Ehrman did state that the stories of Jesus were not historical accounts.

But, even further, Bart Ehrman also admits that many of the so-called mundane stories about Jesus did not happen as described.

In fact, Bart Ehrman exposed irreconcilable accounts of Jesus.

They are compilations of various sources, some shared by more than one gospel. If you consider them to be late forgeries, you really must indicate by whom, why and how. You have not done this. I challenge you to do so now. It is surprising, then, that it commands the assent of the majority of scholars. Even the most prominent atheists including Dawkins and Hitchens (although the second of these was not a competent scholar if the first edition of God Is Not Great is anything to go by) agree that Jesus existed as some kind of human being.

Jesus existed like Romulus, the Son of God and a Virgin.

Jesus existed like Perseus, the Son of God and a Virgin.

Jesus existed like the God of the Jews with NO birth narrative.

Jesus existed like Satan the Devil with NO birth narrative.

Jesus existed like the angel Gabriel with no birth narrative.


We know NT Jesus was a Phantom because he walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected.


You have not examined the evidence from antiquity but refer to flawed opinion.

If you want to know what Christians claimed about Jesus in antiquity then you must examine the evidence.

1. Show me Ignatius--Jesus was born of a Ghost

2. Show me Justin Martyr--Jesus was born of a Ghost

3. Show me Tertullian--Jesus was born of a Ghost.

4.Show me Hippolytus--Jesus was the Logo-God Creator

5.Show me Aristides--Jesus was God from heaven.

6.Show me Origen--Jesus was born of a Ghost.

7. Show me Eusebius--Jesus was Divine and born of a Ghost.

8. Show me Irenaeus--Jesus was born of a Ghost

9. Show me Jerome--Jesus was born of a Ghost

10. Show me Chrysostom--Jesus was born of a Ghost.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge, none of this has the slightest relevance to anything I wrote. Not the slightest. So I am unable to make any useful comments.