Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

No, I don't agree with anything of the kind, and I think you know it. I was being ironic. That is my only possible response to the proposition that academics who study ancient texts to elucidate, if possible, the obscure origins of religious movements, are less genuine authorities than nuclear physicists because their findings are less certain. This is such a ridiculous idea that it's hard to believe you're being serious.

Well although the findings of bible scholars may be as you say "less certain", the question is "How Much Less Certain?".

It's not merely "less certain" than theories claimed in science, is it? It's not remotely comparable at all.

What is the value of appealing to the “authority” of bible scholars when, as I just explained, their background is invariably so deeply rooted in religious belief and religious studies, and where their claimed evidence for being “certain” of Jesus, just boils down to them believing what is said in the bible (eg believing that Paul met “the lords brother”, and that Paul in a “faked” letter claimed Pilate was the executioner) ….

… why do you think “scholarship” as obviously partial, self-interested, and accepting of such hopeless evidence as the bible, is worthy of anyone appealing to them as experts who should not be questioned and who should be accepted even though nobody can cite any credible evidence from any of them to support their claims about Jesus?

What use is it appealing to "authorities" as weak & as fatally flawed as that?

 

[maximara]

To match the Bermuda Triangle with Jesus' existence is fallacious.

No it isn't. Qualitywise the match is perfect.

The Bermuda Triangle is a supernatural or mysterious event explained (?) with supernatural facts by non qualified experts.

Last time I checked advanced technology, abnormal magnetic fields, and methane hydrate were all natural things and these have all at one time or another been used to explain the supposed Bermuda Triangle. Sure much of it reads like a bad episode or Doctor Who or Star Trek but it is either poorly applied science or psudoscience not supernatural.

Also last time I check an area (which the Bermuda Triangle is) wasn't an event (the disappearance of Flight 19 or the Cyclops would be an event).

But these extraordinary (not supernatural) means would only be needed if the supposed mysteries but when we go back to record we find the events are not as stated--things have been omitted or altered to create a mystery

Jesus' existence is a natural event explained with natural arguments by scholars.

Actually Jesus existence is a supposed natural event used to explain a supernatural story told by a guy having visions and 4 out of 30+ stories written perhaps as much as a century after the supposed events. Stripped of the supernatural events in terms of details the stories fail miserably and then the Amazing Ad Hoc Machine is pulled out and the nonsense begins.

One of Price's books is titled Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and that is a fair description of the latest effort regarding Jesus--minimize what he "really" did so only somebody like Paul and his followers would notice him while making sure he still gets crucified.
.

 

[Craig B]

... What is the value of appealing to the “authority” of bible scholars when, as I just explained, their background is invariably so deeply rooted in religious belief and religious studies, and where their claimed evidence for being “certain” of Jesus, just boils down to them believing what is said in the bible (eg believing that Paul met “the lords brother”, and that Paul in a “faked” letter claimed Pilate was the executioner) ….

… why do you think “scholarship” as obviously partial, self-interested, and accepting of such hopeless evidence as the bible

I don't, you know I don't, and you are trying to be nasty.

 

[tsig]

You are stating that the consensus of scholarship fudges the date of Thallus in order to use his work as a historical witness to Jesus, and this entails their acceptance of the darkness story. Also, that this propensity of consensus scholarship is attested by the authority of none other than Carrier, moreover in a peer-reviewed work, no less. All this indicates that the majority of modern scholars in this field are nut cases like the Bermuda Triangle people.

OK, I'll look into that. I'll try to find some spare time, perhaps after I attend the Sunday service in the Church of Christ-Believing Atheists.

You do believe in an HJ do you not? If so then you are a Christ Believing Atheist, whether or not you attend regular services.

 

[tsig]

No it isn't. Qualitywise the match is perfect.



Last time I checked advanced technology, abnormal magnetic fields, and methane hydrate were all natural things and these have all at one time or another been used to explain the supposed Bermuda Triangle. Sure much of it reads like a bad episode or Doctor Who or Star Trek but it is either poorly applied science or psudoscience not supernatural.

Also last time I check an area (which the Bermuda Triangle is) wasn't an event (the disappearance of Flight 19 or the Cyclops would be an event).

But these extraordinary (not supernatural) means would only be needed if the supposed mysteries but when we go back to record we find the events are not as stated--things have been omitted or altered to create a mystery




Actually Jesus existence is a supposed natural event used to explain a supernatural story told by a guy having visions and 4 out of 30+ stories written perhaps as much as a century after the supposed events. Stripped of the supernatural events in terms of details the stories fail miserably and then the Amazing Ad Hoc Machine is pulled out and the nonsense begins.

One of Price's books is titled Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and that is a fair description of the latest effort regarding Jesus--minimize what he "really" did so only somebody like Paul and his followers would notice him while making sure he still gets crucified.
.

HJers constantly sing the refrain "Show me a belief without a real event behind it" yet when shown (John Frum, Bermuda Triangle) change tune to "That ain't like Jesus".

They also have this strawman that an MJ would have to be deliberately invented and the gospels forged as part of that invention but we see beliefs arise with no factual basis.

 

[Mojo]

If what you said is true, one has to wonder why Bart Ehrman says Jesus "certainly existed" in his latest book, and that he does not know of any biblical historian who teaches at a major university who does not believe Jesus existed.

Seriously, DOC? You're still trying to use this argument after all the times people have told you that THE JESUS THAT EHRMAN SAYS EXISTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JESUS THAT YOU CLAIM EXISTED?

 

[eight bits]

max

I take it you have never watched the NOVA/Horizon episode The Case of the Bermuda Triangle because it showed how the whole thing came about. In a nutshell it could be traced to one work with later writers simply trusted what that writer wrote and adding to and-or deleting disappearances.

So, you actually do understand the mechanism by which Theosophist misreadings of Epiphanius came to be picked up over time by others who weren't otherwise devoted to Theosophist doctrines.

This is progress.

The Bermuda Panarion. I love it.

 

[dejudge]

Seriously, DOC? You're still trying to use this argument after all the times people have told you that THE JESUS THAT EHRMAN SAYS EXISTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JESUS THAT YOU CLAIM EXISTED?

DOC's Jesus and Ehrman's Jesus is the very same Myth/Fiction/Faith character.

Both DOC and Ehrman believe their Jesus lived in Nazareth, was baptized by John, was an Apocalyptic preacher, had disciples, had a brother called the Apostle James, and was crucified under Pilate.

DOC and Ehrman use the very same NT as their historical source.

They both must have forgotten that NT Jesus is already established as a Jesus of Faith and that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ.

They both BELIEVE the same Jesus existed without corroborative evidence.

The HJ argument is a known dead end argument initiated by Christians.

 

[Belz...]

HJers constantly sing the refrain "Show me a belief without a real event behind it" yet when shown (John Frum, Bermuda Triangle) change tune to "That ain't like Jesus".

OK then let me be the first to reply that it's POSSIBLE that the Jesus belief started from not-a-man. But that it's the problem here. The problem is that, assuming we want to reach a conclusion at all ("I don't know" is perfectly acceptable), which of the alternatives is more probable ? Dejudge likes to remind us that I said the evidence is terrible. How about MJ with its zero evidence ?

 

[IanS]

I don't, you know I don't, and you are trying to be nasty.

Why on earth do you keep saying such silly things as “you are trying to be nasty"? Nobody on the sceptic side has tried to be nasty to you in any way at all. And you must have made that same complaint at least half a dozen times now (each time with the same absolute denial). You seem to be obsessed with trying to personalise & nit-pick everything.

I thought you had many times in this thread, said we should believe these so-called "expert historians" when they say they believe Jesus was real. Have you not appealed to those people as authorities in that way? Because that exact appeal to authority has certainly been made here at least 50 times or more by various posters in these recent HJ threads.

What I am trying to get you to realise, is that whilst there are indeed academic university departments which employ people like Bart Ehrman to teach NT-bible studies, that subject and its practitioners are not remotely comparable to the sort of academics who you might reasonably appeal to as genuinely objective impartial experts in other fields less overtly and obviously partial and un-objective as studies in Christianity and historicity of Jesus, where almost of all these academic expert authorities who people are appealing to, appear to be people with a one time devout religious belief in Jesus and Christianity, if not still a current religious belief, and where almost all of them appear to have spent their entire lives drowning in religious issues ... that is not at all a typical academic background for lecturers and researchers in other non-religious fields.

 

[Craig B]

that subject and its practitioners are not remotely comparable to the sort of academics who you might reasonably appeal to as genuinely objective impartial experts in other fields less overtly and obviously partial and un-objective as studies in Christianity and historicity of Jesus, where almost of all these academic expert authorities who people are appealing to, appear to be people with a one time devout religious belief in Jesus and Christianity, if not still a current religious belief, and where almost all of them appear to have spent their entire lives drowning in religious issues ... that is not at all a typical academic background for lecturers and researchers in other non-religious fields.

So like me, as well as being non objective

you are a Christ Believing Atheist, whether or not you attend regular services.

And the same as Bermuda Triangle lunatics too. Dear me, what a sorry situation.

 

[zugzwang]

OK then let me be the first to reply that it's POSSIBLE that the Jesus belief started from not-a-man. But that it's the problem here. The problem is that, assuming we want to reach a conclusion at all ("I don't know" is perfectly acceptable), which of the alternatives is more probable ? Dejudge likes to remind us that I said the evidence is terrible. How about MJ with its zero evidence ?

I don't think in any case, that HJ arguments are saying that 'beliefs have events behind them', as clearly many beliefs don't, e.g. that Jesus walked on water.

Rather, HJ is arrived at via a combination of arguments, e.g. multiple sources, parsimony, extra-biblical references, references to Jesus' earthly life in various NT documents, and so on.

There are also counter-arguments to various opposing arguments to HJ, e.g. the argument from silence, the lack of contemporary references, the possibility of a 'celestial Jesus sect', and so on.

So it is quite a complex cluster of arguments and counter-arguments.

 

[dejudge]

OK then let me be the first to reply that it's POSSIBLE that the Jesus belief started from not-a-man. But that it's the problem here. The problem is that, assuming we want to reach a conclusion at all ("I don't know" is perfectly acceptable), which of the alternatives is more probable ? Dejudge likes to remind us that I said the evidence is terrible. How about MJ with its zero evidence ?

You forgot to tell the people that you SCREAMED out that You never claimed to have had evidence for HJ.

May I remind you that Myths have no corroborative historical evidence.

Do you have any idea why people become Atheists?

Do you have no idea that there is no corroborative historical evidence for the God of the Jews?

Do you have no idea that there is NO corroborative historical evidence for his Son, Jesus Christ, the Logos, God Creator?

This a partial list of the Myth characters in the NT.

1. The God of the Jews--without corroborative historical evidence.


2. The Angel Gabriel--without corroborative historical evidence.


3. Satan the Devil--without corroborative historical evidence.


4. The Holy Ghost--without corroborative historical evidence.


5. Jesus, the Son of God--without corroborative historical evidence.


May I remind that Jesus of the NT is all MAGIC and NO history.

Jesus is a pure unadulterated figure of Mythology invented around the 2nd century.

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

... as clearly many beliefs don't, e.g. that Jesus walked on water.

Our earliest account of the incident, Mark's, describes this as the interpretation which some tired men, working in poor light, placed upon their experience. They thought they saw a ghost.

Maybe even that much never happened, but what about it clearly didn't happen in your view?

People report seeing ghosts all the time. Seeing things that aren't there is an inevitable consequence of having a functioning sense of sight. Like other events, mistakes which are meaningful may have an advantage over meaningless events for later recall when their contents become salient.

 

[Belz...]

You forgot

Impossible. I have a good memory, and you to remind me of that every second post. You hand on to that statement as if it were a lifejacket for you.

ou SCREAMED out

I typed it.

that You never claimed to have had evidence for HJ.

And you STILL have no idea what that meant, even after I explained it several times. I can only call your ignorance willful.

Do you have any idea why people become Atheists?

I have a vague idea of why YOU became an atheist, and it's probably for the wrong reasons.

Do have no idea that there is NO corroborative historical evidence for his Son, Jesus Christ, the Logos, God Creator?

No one here is arguing for that version of Jesus. You are barking at a scarecrow.

May I remind that Jesus of the NT is all MAGIC and NO history.

You don't need to remind me of your lies.

 

[tsig]

You do believe in an HJ do you not? If so then you are a Christ Believing Atheist, whether or not you attend regular services.

So like me, as well as being non objective

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
you are a Christ Believing Atheist, whether or not you attend regular services.

And the same as Bermuda Triangle lunatics too. Dear me, what a sorry situation.

You dishonestly cut the first part of my post.

Resorting to cherry picking is a tactic I associate more with creationists than honest debaters.

What's next, are you going to ask "Were you there"?

 

[Craig B]

You dishonestly cut the first part of my post.

Resorting to cherry picking is a tactic I associate more with creationists than honest debaters.

What's next, are you going to ask "Were you there"?

Snipped your post?!? Unheard of here? Very droll! Now, how many more ways will you find of calling me dishonest and a believer - nay, even a creationist? But you should expatiate more on how NT criticism is equivalent to the Bermuda Triangle. I don't think you've developed that argument sufficiently yet.

 

[dejudge]

zugzwang


Our earliest account of the incident, Mark's, describes this as the interpretation which some tired men, working in poor light, placed upon their experience. They thought they saw a ghost.

Maybe even that much never happened, but what about it clearly didn't happen in your view?

People report seeing ghosts all the time. Seeing things that aren't there is an inevitable consequence of having a functioning sense of sight. Like other events, mistakes which are meaningful may have an advantage over meaningless events for later recall when their contents become salient.

How convenient? Everybody in the boat had the same illusion. They all managed to see a Ghost that responded to them but also physically entered the boat.

Your HJ argument is a dead end highly illogical argument.

You discredit the NT stories of Jesus yet believe they are sources of history for your Jesus and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

 

[dejudge]

You don't need to remind me of your lies.

Why are you calling people liars when your posts are recorded.

Did you not say Everyone Agrees the evidence for HJ is Terrible?

I made no such agreement.

Did you not say that You never claimed to have had evidence for an HJ?

You had no evidence for HJ--NOT even Terrible evidence.

You statements make it appears as though you may be lying about the evidence for HJ.

What Terrible evidence are you talking about?

You never claimed to have had evidence!!

 

[maximara]

OK then let me be the first to reply that it's POSSIBLE that the Jesus belief started from not-a-man. But that it's the problem here. The problem is that, assuming we want to reach a conclusion at all ("I don't know" is perfectly acceptable), which of the alternatives is more probable ? Dejudge likes to remind us that I said the evidence is terrible. How about MJ with its zero evidence ?

As I have pointed out before (with cited examples) not all MJ theories are the same.

There is John Robertson's 1900 "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that the Gospels Jesus is partly based on a real person). 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." Wells current theory fits into this form of Christ Myth theory and has been called such by Stanton, Eddy-Boyd, Carrier, and Price.

There is Remsburg's historical myth in "the narrative is essentially false" vein ie "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..." reiterated in 1982 and 1995 by the HJ side of the fence.

There is Price's "the central figure of the gospels is not based on any historical individual", i.e. the Gospel Jesus is little more than "a synthetic construct of theologians, a symbolic 'Uncle Sam' figure." which is essence the "HJ" the Jesus Seminar gave us.

There is Herbert George Wood's 1934 "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure."

And finally per Schweitzer in 1912 and again in 1931 Sir James George Frazer.


As for evidence for the more moderate MJ theories there is plenty of evidence:

1) The Euhemeristic mind set of the day is well documented. Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos. All myth was distorted history to these people. "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." was basically the mind set of the day. No one of that time or even three centuries later would question Jesus existing as a person because they believed that Heracles and Zeus had once been flesh and blood people.

2) As documented in Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels you had a ridiculously gullible, credulous, superstitious group of people willing to believe any story that came down the pipe and willing to declare people "gods" for things as simply surviving snake bite.

3) We know from Josephus and others that the place and time was teaming with not only "cheats and deceivers claiming divine inspiration" but totally delusional nutcases who led their followers to destruction. Visions were sometime regarded as powerful messages from the "gods" so Paul would have not too hard of a time with a exists only in visions Jesus.

4) No of the details regarding the trials, behavior of the Romans, treatment of the body, etc in the Gospels or Acts matches what we know about them from other sources...suggesting these accounts are fictional.

5) We know from John Frum and other cargo cults that not only does a religious movement not need a founder but the cult may latch on to a person who has nothing to do with the cult's founding.

6) The best argument the HJ side seems to have is minimize Jesus actual presence to just above nil...which when you think about is saying he might as well not existed because the majority of the Gospel account is fiction. To quote Carl Sagan here "why not save a step" and throw the whole thing out?

7) Per Eddy-Boyd I don't know is a MJ position.