Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is found only in Luke, and not anywhere else. It is rejected on rational grounds derived from critical analysis of the gospels. This has been referred to several times in recent threads. I doubt if any HJ proponent here accepts either the Lukan or the very different Matthean account of the birth in Bethlehem.

The hardline fundamentalist certainly do and even the more moderate like Eddy-Boyd come up with ways to salvage the Luke narrative as shown on page 142-143 of their 2007 book Jesus Legend:

"A coin has been discovered that mentions a Quirinius who was proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 BC until after 4 BC, thus reigning at the time of Jesus' birth as Luke says. It may be, therefore, that the same man ruled twice, or that there were two rulers with this same name."

The coin in question is the infamous Vardaman's Magic "Coin" as Carrier calls it and nearly everybody has shown the claim to be at best delusional and David Hendlin in "Theory of Secret Inscriptions on Coins is Disputed," The Celator 5:3, March 1991, 28-32 challenged the claims regarding the coin.

I have to ask just where was Baker Academic's Q&A to let this kind of nonsense in one of their publications? Followed by asking just what were Eddy and Boyd doing presenting "evidence" refuted over a decade ago?
 
Last edited:
Stop lying, Dejudge.

He is NOT lying. The efforts to make Luke and Matthew agree (as opposed to dismissing one or the other) has some of the biggest ad hoc nonsense in the whole of HJ theorizing.

Carrier hits on the main ones and why they are nonsense in The Date of the Nativity in Luke (6th ed., 2011)

Dejudge said "Look at a most imaginative theory without a shred of supporting evidence." Well with tongue in cheek let's do that (these are from the APOLOSTIST's point of view):

1) Have Herod the Great and Publius Quinctilius Varus be such stumble bums in doing a census that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius had to called in to help...while he was fighting a war and being Duumvir in a province some two provinces to the east. Great multitasker that one. :hb:

2) Luke didn't mean Quirinius but Quinctilius...let's ignore the fact Josephus expressly states in Antiquities chapter 17 verse 27 that as long as Herod the Great lived, the province of Judea was exempt from Roman taxation or that an oath Herod had 8 BCE would make Jesus too old for Luke's about 30 in 29 CE (he would have been closer to 40). Problem? We don't see a problem. :hb:

3) Herod died in 1 BCE not 4 BCE...let's just ignore the three places in Josephus that taken togather firmly establish a 4 BCE death. Yes, we can add and subtract, why you ask? :hb:

You know for some reason I have a headache... I wonder...oh yeh that (:hb:) is why but it makes defending the Gospels as history so much better. Now if you excuse me I have to work on how Matthew is accurate. :hb: :D
----
I know that is a little harsh but how can anybody suggest (or better defend) this kind of nonsense? The "evidence" presented for the above positions makes that presented in Chariots of the Gods look good by comparison.
 
Last edited:
He is NOT lying.

Is too. What he says is not true, and he's been told so before, so he's aware of it. That's lying.

The efforts to make Luke and Matthew agree (as opposed to dismissing one or the other) has some of the biggest ad hoc nonsense in the whole of HJ theorizing.

Making them agree ? Who does that ? Certainly not on the point where they disagree. Gee, I know Christians try to make it agree, because their faith depends on it. Nothing depends on it, here.

Dejudge said "Look at a most imaginative theory without a shred of supporting evidence."

Yes, and evidence, weak as it is, has been presented. You can say the evidence doesn't convince you, but if you say there is no evidence then you are lying since evidence has been presented over and over. Dejudge keeps doing that: on the one hand he keeps reminding me that I said the evidence was weak, and then says there is no evidence. So which is it ? Dejudge also purposefully "misunderstands" my earlier point that I don't personally have any evidence to present: I'm enjoying the show and trying to determine which hypothesis has the best probability based on the presented evidence or reasoning.

1) Have Herod the Great and Publius Quinctilius Varus be such stumble bums in doing a census that Publius Sulpicius Quirinius had to called in to help...while he was fighting a war and being Duumvir in a province some two provinces to the east.

Who do you see doing that ? No one here has ever claimed that the census happened, to my knowledge. In fact it's generally thought to be a fabrication.

It's weird that you are arguing this.
 
He is NOT lying. The efforts to make Luke and Matthew agree (as opposed to dismissing one or the other) has some of the biggest ad hoc nonsense in the whole of HJ theorizing.
Who is making that effort? Who among the HJ proponents is trying to reconcile the birth narratives? They are manifestly unhistoric, and are indeed a case where details have been invented to fit supposed scriptural "prophecies", from Isaiah and Micah in these stories.

Now, point me to any HJ theorist in this thread who argues the historicity of the birth stories. For myself, I have stated,
This is found only in Luke, and not anywhere else. It is rejected on rational grounds derived from critical analysis of the gospels. This has been referred to several times in recent threads. I doubt if any HJ proponent here accepts either the Lukan or the very different Matthean account of the birth in Bethlehem.
No HJ supporter has come along to argue with me. Long ago I pointed out that Paul makes Jesus special from the moment of the Resurrection, Mark from the baptism by John, Matthew and Luke from the birth, and gJohn from the creation of the universe. Progressive aggrandisement. Thus, we have birth stories only in M and L, for they alone need them.

So who are you arguing against in your post? A person of straw?

ETA Belz, my post crossed with yours, but I entirely agree that
It's weird that you are arguing this.
 
Last edited:
...
Who do you see doing that ? No one here has ever claimed that the census happened, to my knowledge. In fact it's generally thought to be a fabrication.

It's weird that you are arguing this.

Umm:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar's words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction...

The census is what kicked off the Zealot Movement. Birth of Jesus/Birth Of Palestinian Messianism - 6 of one, half dozen of the other...

But the Census did happen. No one had to travel anywhere to get counted, that would be stupid.
 
_A_ census happened. Of course. Is it the same one that the Gospels talk about ?
The Gospel of Luke gives a garbled account. It applied only to Judaea, not to Galilee. Judaea had that year - 6AD - been annexed by the Romans. So Joseph was not in the area covered by it. Even if he had lived there, it is not possible that he would have been required to travel to Bethlehem to register because his ancestors lived in that town 1000 years previously!

The census is mentioned by Luke also in Acts 5 where he correctly notes that it provoked a rebellion, but this is not mentioned in the gospel.

None of this - not any of it at all - is to be found in the Matthew story.
 
The Gospel of Luke gives a garbled account. It applied only to Judaea, not to Galilee. Judaea had that year - 6AD - been annexed by the Romans. So Joseph was not in the area covered by it. Even if he had lived there, it is not possible that he would have been required to travel to Bethlehem to register because his ancestors lived in that town 1000 years previously!

The census is mentioned by Luke also in Acts 5 where he correctly notes that it provoked a rebellion, but this is not mentioned in the gospel.

None of this - not any of it at all - is to be found in the Matthew story.

Your post is not really news to anyone here. It is already known that the NT is not an historical account of Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

I made a massive error.

I forgot.

HJers and Christians must admit the Gospels and Acts are reliable in order reconstruct the biography of their multiple versions of Jesus.

For example, HJers rely on the NT to claim their Crucified Obscure Criminal was from Nazareth, that he was baptized by John and crucified after creating a disturbance in the Temple.
 
I made a massive error.
Yes. Many massive errors.
I forgot.
No you didn't. Wash your mouth out with carbolic soap for telling a fib. You have decided to repeat stuff concocted by IanS, because I objected to it. Bad boy!
HJers and Christians must admit the Gospels and Acts are reliable in order reconstruct the biography of their multiple versions of Jesus.
I have just stated that
The Gospel of Luke gives a garbled account (of the census)
Hardly an attestation of reliability!
For example, HJers rely on the NT to claim their Crucified Obscure Criminal was from Nazareth, that he was baptized by John and crucified after creating a disturbance in the Temple.
You've got that backwards. HJers note that such statements are more plausible than being born of a virgin and walking on water, and they don't appear to be derived from scriptural "prophecies" so it is not excluded that they may reflect historical events. John is attested in Josephus, execution following disturbances in the temple is very plausible. We know that such disturbances happened during the Roman occupation. HJers don't start by "relying on the NT" and then basing their beliefs on that, in order to arrive at a faith-based closet Christian doctrine.

Let me put it this way. What is more likely, that a person is born of a virgin, or that a person dies as a result of judicial execution? To you, there is no difference. They are both in the NT, and the NT is a forgery. But that's a crazy mode of thought, if you will pardon my saying so.
 
Craig B wrote:

Let me put it this way. What is more likely, that a person is born of a virgin, or that a person dies as a result of judicial execution? To you, there is no difference. They are both in the NT, and the NT is a forgery. But that's a crazy mode of thought, if you will pardon my saying so.

That's perceptive. It's a kind of conflation or lack of differentiation, which bizarrely, Christians are also prone to. In other words, everything in the NT is treated as having the same provenance, the same tone, the same narrative function, and of course, everything is either true (Christians) or false (dejudge).

A bizarre kind of mirror-image.
 
IanS said:
There is, however, plenty of evidence to the contrary, of course. Eg, there is abundant scientific evidence to show that miracle claims, such as those which fill the whole of that biblical writing, are untrue religious fiction invented by religious fanatics in times of ancient superstitious ignorance.


Mmm. That doesn't leave much space for this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

Not at all!!

Your stuff tell us that the Quest for an historical Jesus reached a DEAD end by the first half of the 20th century.

Thanks!!

I knew it. The HJ argument has been known to be dead for a long time.

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


..... By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, in Germany, Roy Harrisville and others in North America had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end.

Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the kerygma, or message, of the New Testament.....
 
Last edited:
Craig B wrote:

Let me put it this way. What is more likely, that a person is born of a virgin, or that a person dies as a result of judicial execution? To you, there is no difference. They are both in the NT, and the NT is a forgery. But that's a crazy mode of thought, if you will pardon my saying so.

That's perceptive. It's a kind of conflation or lack of differentiation, which bizarrely, Christians are also prone to. In other words, everything in the NT is treated as having the same provenance, the same tone, the same narrative function, and of course, everything is either true (Christians) or false (dejudge).

A bizarre kind of mirror-image.

That was one of my first clues that dejudge is reacting in opposition to a former Christian belief. Not that there aren't many other former Christians on this forum, myself included, but his unwillingness to even comment about it, and his need to conflate the suggestion that there likely was a deluded Jewish preacher named Jesus with an affirmation of Christian supernatural beliefs about him, strongly suggests to me that he has simply latched on to the conclusion that Jesus can only have been a completely mythical construct because it appeals to him emotionally. The irony that his methodology is basically the same as that employed by so many young-Earth creationists seems to be lost on him.

Interestingly, this very issue is discussed in the recently linked piece by R. Joseph Hoffmann.

"The legendary and the “factual” are comingled in all ancient history, from Thucydides onward. But as an axiom, the incredible in ancient literature does not nullify the credible, or if it did we would know almost nothing about anything before the dawn of modernity."
 
Not at all!!

Your stuff tell us that the Quest for an historical Jesus reached a DEAD end by the first half of the 20th century.

Thanks!!

I knew it. The HJ argument has been known to be dead for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
From your source I obtain this, referring to a later period than the quote you have mined.
Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of first-century Palestine (Marcus Borg).
That is right. As you are aware, it is strongly my opinion that if there is a historical Jesus, he is to be understood in these terms. But I am so glad that you have deigned at last to look at the procedures of Biblical criticism.
 
From your source I obtain this, referring to a later period than the quote you have mined. That is right. As you are aware, it is strongly my opinion that if there is a historical Jesus, he is to be understood in these terms. But I am so glad that you have deigned at last to look at the procedures of Biblical criticism.

Do you understand what "dead end" means?

Up to the 1st half of the 20th century there was NO established evidence for an HJ.

That is just about 64 years ago.

The HJ argument is dead because nothing has changed.

The HJ argument is in Dead End mode for decades.
 
That was one of my first clues that dejudge is reacting in opposition to a former Christian belief. Not that there aren't many other former Christians on this forum, myself included, but his unwillingness to even comment about it, and his need to conflate the suggestion that there likely was a deluded Jewish preacher named Jesus with an affirmation of Christian supernatural beliefs about him, strongly suggests to me that he has simply latched on to the conclusion that Jesus can only have been a completely mythical construct because it appeals to him emotionally. The irony that his methodology is basically the same as that employed by so many young-Earth creationists seems to be lost on him.

Interestingly, this very issue is discussed in the recently linked piece by R. Joseph Hoffmann.

"The legendary and the “factual” are comingled in all ancient history, from Thucydides onward. But as an axiom, the incredible in ancient literature does not nullify the credible, or if it did we would know almost nothing about anything before the dawn of modernity."

It reminds me of the famous book, 'The God that Failed', which brought together a bunch of former Communists, such as Koestler, Gide, Stephen Spender. I can't remember the specific essays in that book, but after the war quite a lot of such ex-members became vehement anti-Communists, and I suppose, quite a lot of them, pretty right-wing.

There is something about disillusionment with a particular faith or political position, which seems to propel some people into violent opposition, while perhaps also retaining some of the intellectual habits of the original position.

I wonder if anyone has studied ex-fundies, it would be very interesting to see if they retain absolutist ways of thinking.
 
It reminds me of the famous book, 'The God that Failed', which brought together a bunch of former Communists, such as Koestler, Gide, Stephen Spender. I can't remember the specific essays in that book, but after the war quite a lot of such ex-members became vehement anti-Communists, and I suppose, quite a lot of them, pretty right-wing.

There is something about disillusionment with a particular faith or political position, which seems to propel some people into violent opposition, while perhaps also retaining some of the intellectual habits of the original position.

I wonder if anyone has studied ex-fundies, it would be very interesting to see if they retain absolutist ways of thinking.

That's a very interesting question. I think it must depend largely on why someone abandons religious beliefs. In my case, echoed by many others here on the forum, it was precipitated by my exposure to the scientific method and critical thinking. Within a few years I realized that I simply didn't believe any of the tenets of my former religion anymore. I came to regard the historical explanations for the origins of Christianity and other religions as being far more interesting than the dogma they espoused. But I suppose someone who left a religion for emotional reasons; someone who never learned critical thinking practices, might abandon his/her faith without realizing how little he/she had actually changed.
 
Yes, and evidence, weak as it is, has been presented. You can say the evidence doesn't convince you, but if you say there is no evidence then you are lying since evidence has been presented over and over. Dejudge keeps doing that: on the one hand he keeps reminding me that I said the evidence was weak, and then says there is no evidence. So which is it ? Dejudge also purposefully "misunderstands" my earlier point that I don't personally have any evidence to present: I'm enjoying the show and trying to determine which hypothesis has the best probability based on the presented evidence or reasoning.

Plenty here have already assembled the data known to every frigging professional historian which shows the LIKELIHOOD -- not the certainty -- that there was an historical human Jesus, who was a rabbi and got nailed by the Romans. I have submitted this data here --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117203&page=12

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9603160&postcount=443

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9604546&postcount=452

-- others here have -- and have never once had each and every datum point addressed honestly by any MJ-er here -- ever. That is what shows that posters like Craig B and myself are just beating our heads against a brick wall -- or against programmed bots. Too many MJ-ers in general act like programmed zombies whose yob it is to prevaricate and not address anything. Otherwise, they'd apparently lose their standing in whatever "lodge" they've crawled out from.

Stone
 
It reminds me of the famous book, 'The God that Failed', which brought together a bunch of former Communists, such as Koestler, Gide, Stephen Spender. I can't remember the specific essays in that book, but after the war quite a lot of such ex-members became vehement anti-Communists, and I suppose, quite a lot of them, pretty right-wing.

There is something about disillusionment with a particular faith or political position, which seems to propel some people into violent opposition, while perhaps also retaining some of the intellectual habits of the original position.

I wonder if anyone has studied ex-fundies, it would be very interesting to see if they retain absolutist ways of thinking.

You seem to imply that Bart Ehrman was a fundie.

Why are you opposed to fundies when they are on your side--the HJ side--the dead end argument?

You must know that there are Scholars who may be fundies and argue that Jesus did exist.

You may be surprised that the supposed "vast majority" of Scholars are either active fundies or Christians.

Have you been able to get any data or statistics on the quantity of fundies and Christian Scholars who argue that Jesus did exist?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom