Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

I agree with Tim.


Whatever.

 

[maximara]

The questions have all been answered.

The Jesus story and cult did not start in the 1st century as the evidence shows.

Not a single manuscript or Codex of the Jesus story has been recovered in Judea and none in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

If there was no story of Jesus and no cult in the 1st century then this is exactly what would be the case--no recovered evidence.

The story of Jesus in the NT, INCLUDING the Pauline letters, are all AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple of God.

It is the Fall of the Temple of God that is the fundamental crisis that caused stories to be fabricated that the Jews killed the Son of God.

Virtually all Apoklogetic writers of antiquity that mentioned the reason for the Fall of the Temple claimed it was because the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

There is an alternative line of thought. We know from Josephus that there had been would be Messiah from Simon (d c4 BCE) forward. Depending on how you read the very garbled accounts Dositheos the Samaritan may have been his teacher (meaning he predated Simon) (Clement of Rome, l.c. ii. 8; several passages in Origen; Epiphanius, l.c. (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Prmitive Christianity", Jean Danielou, p. 95-96, 1958, Mentor edition 1962)

Wikipedia states "Origen says that Dositheus pretended to be the Christ (Messiah), applying Deut. xviii. 15 to himself, and he compares him with Theudas and Judas the Galilean. (See "Contra Celsum," i. 57, vi. 11; in Matth. Comm. ser. xxxiii.; "Homil." xxv. in Lucam; "De Principiis," iv. 17.) Origen also says that Dositheus' disciples pretended to possess books by him, and related concerning him that he never suffered death, but was still alive" ("In Joann." xiii. 27)

If the references actually say what they are claimed to be saying then we would have possible evidence of a Christ cult before Jesus. I say possible because what little there is on this guy is a real muddled mess as Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, iv. 22, § 5 cites Hegesippus who puts him after Simon then you have 14th century Samaritan chronicler Abu al-Fatḥ who puts the origin of Dosithean sect (and therefore one would assume Dositheus himself) before Alexander the Great.


But anyway I think anyone of the period paying real attention could have figured it was only a matter of time before some Messiah-want-a-be got to Jerusalem and stirred up the already greatly agitated Jewish population into full revolt which in turn result as nearly all revolts against Rome did--a largely destroyed city, the rebels dead and-or enslaved, and what wealth remained taken back to Rome.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11 and realize that for the Peace and safety to come about the conflict between Jews and Romans would have to end and how would it end? Well anyone with understanding of the Roman mind knew how it would likely end.

Given Paul's vision all you really need is him hearing about some guy who rampaged through the Temple yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being killed as a result to get the ball rolling. You don't need the actual destruction of the Temple but that its destruction will be one of the many signs of the end time.

 

[zugzwang]

Well, I just stopped in to have a look at this pointless thread. Aside from DOC, the reality is that people on the thread are debating whether Jesus was a (barely) historical figure, an amalgamation of a few (barely) historical figures or if he was entirely made up. So, what are we really arguing about? I think there was a guy named Jesus, a messianic pretender, done in, rather routinely, by Pilate, around whom legends gathered. If, however, it turns out he was totally rather than mostly mythical, I can't say it will rock my world.

So, why don't all just agree to disagree on the fine points, and let dejudge and DOC have it out dressed in the undershorts and armed with inflated pig bladders? In other words, end this pointless thread.

Yes, too true. But it probably won't end. And the one on RatSkep has been going for 4 years, and before that, had various reincarnations on the old RDF forum. A lot of that thread seems to recycle stuff endlessly.

It suggests that more is at stake than a question of history - I suppose some ideological issues are being fought out, although I'm not sure what they are, presumably varying attitudes to religion and history. Reason is the slave of the passions, and all that.

 

[pakeha]

This does raise an interesting question for both HJer and MJer alike; how do you get to a crucified criminal being worshiped as god in the 1st century?

Better yet wouldn't something so odd be noted by others if as per Acts Christianity was so wide spread by 37 CE?

Why doesn't Josephus note this particularity of the cult in the TF? Only 20 years later Pliny states Christ is worshiped as a god and Paul indicates that Jesus is God so why doesn't this show up in the earliest non Christian reference?

Put this way it does raise a lot of question regarding Christianity that neither the MJ or HJ theories really answer: how did such a belief form in the first place?

Good questions, maximara.
I'd ask another: is there any evidence a crucified criminal was worshiped as god in the 1st century?

 

[Craig B]

It suggests that more is at stake than a question of history - I suppose some ideological issues are being fought out, although I'm not sure what they are, presumably varying attitudes to religion and history. Reason is the slave of the passions, and all that.

As I see it, two things are relevant here.

What is meant by myth? Does it simply mean, lack of positive evidence for historicity? Or does it refer to some specific pre-existing construct, containing features that were later worked up into the Jesus story, without that story having any reality whatsoever? These are two very different positions.

Has the belief in historicity, or its rejection, been created or coloured by hostility to the behaviour of religious organisations and their adherents in recent times. Is denying historicity a mode of attack against these recent religious misdeeds? If so, can it be justified as a tactic or strategy? That would be an important issue, worthy of protracted discussion.

 

[pakeha]

The questions have all been answered.

The Jesus story and cult did not start in the 1st century as the evidence shows.

Not a single manuscript or Codex of the Jesus story has been recovered in Judea and none in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

If there was no story of Jesus and no cult in the 1st century then this is exactly what would be the case--no recovered evidence.

The story of Jesus in the NT, INCLUDING the Pauline letters, are all AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple of God.

It is the Fall of the Temple of God that is the fundamental crisis that caused stories to be fabricated that the Jews killed the Son of God.

Virtually all Apoklogetic writers of antiquity that mentioned the reason for the Fall of the Temple claimed it was because the Jews KILLED the Son of God.

1. The TEMPLE fell first.

2. An "explanation" was needed.

3. An "explanation" was invented.

4. The "explanation" was Believed.

5. People who believe the "explanation" are called Christians.

6. The Jews KILLED or caused the crucifixion of the Son of God was the explanation for the Fall of the Temple of God.

7. The Romans carried out the WILL of God.

8. The Romans are the Good Guys.

9. The Jews were viciously Evil.

10. A disciple of the Son of God BETRAYED him.

We wont find any stories of Jesus in the 1st century and pre 70 CE.

Aristides writing c 117-138 CE explains what Christians believed.

Aristides' Apology

The STORY of Jesus could not have started until the Temple Fell c 70 CE.

The Fall of the Temple of God was believed to be the sign the Messiah had ALREADY come based on the book of Daniel.

Examine Tertullian's Answer to the Jews.

Answer to the Jews

It was Non-Jews who fabricated the story that the Jews KILLED the Son of God in order to explain why the Jewish Temple of God was destroyed.

Non-Jews believed the story was true sometime in the 2nd century.

Dunno about that, dejudge.
Isn't the OT full of howling prophets, ill-treated and mocked by their fellow Jews and who predict the death and destruction of those who didn't pay them heed?
Wouldn't non-Jews attribute the twice-over destruction of Jerusalem to rebelling against Rome rather than anything else?
One is reminded of Carthage, after all.

 

[pakeha]

There is an alternative line of thought. We know from Josephus that there had been would be Messiah from Simon (d c4 BCE) forward. Depending on how you read the very garbled accounts Dositheos the Samaritan may have been his teacher (meaning he predated Simon) (Clement of Rome, l.c. ii. 8; several passages in Origen; Epiphanius, l.c. (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Prmitive Christianity", Jean Danielou, p. 95-96, 1958, Mentor edition 1962)

Wikipedia states "Origen says that Dositheus pretended to be the Christ (Messiah), applying Deut. xviii. 15 to himself, and he compares him with Theudas and Judas the Galilean. (See "Contra Celsum," i. 57, vi. 11; in Matth. Comm. ser. xxxiii.; "Homil." xxv. in Lucam; "De Principiis," iv. 17.) Origen also says that Dositheus' disciples pretended to possess books by him, and related concerning him that he never suffered death, but was still alive" ("In Joann." xiii. 27)

If the references actually say what they are claimed to be saying then we would have possible evidence of a Christ cult before Jesus. I say possible because what little there is on this guy is a real muddled mess as Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, iv. 22, § 5 cites Hegesippus who puts him after Simon then you have 14th century Samaritan chronicler Abu al-Fatḥ who puts the origin of Dosithean sect (and therefore one would assume Dositheus himself) before Alexander the Great.


But anyway I think anyone of the period paying real attention could have figured it was only a matter of time before some Messiah-want-a-be got to Jerusalem and stirred up the already greatly agitated Jewish population into full revolt which in turn result as nearly all revolts against Rome did--a largely destroyed city, the rebels dead and-or enslaved, and what wealth remained taken back to Rome.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-11 and realize that for the Peace and safety to come about the conflict between Jews and Romans would have to end and how would it end? Well anyone with understanding of the Roman mind knew how it would likely end.

Given Paul's vision all you really need is him hearing about some guy who rampaged through the Temple yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being killed as a result to get the ball rolling. You don't need the actual destruction of the Temple but that its destruction will be one of the many signs of the end time.

Thanks for the heads-up on Dositheos. Off to learn more.

 

[zugzwang]

As I see it, two things are relevant here.

What is meant by myth? Does it simply mean, lack of positive evidence for historicity? Or does it refer to some specific pre-existing construct, containing features that were later worked up into the Jesus story, without that story having any reality whatsoever? These are two very different positions.

Has the belief in historicity, or its rejection, been created or coloured by hostility to the behaviour of religious organisations and their adherents in recent times. Is denying historicity a mode of attack against these recent religious misdeeds? If so, can it be justified as a tactic or strategy? That would be an important issue, worthy of protracted discussion.

It seems to excite passions on both sides, so what are these passions? Some anti-HJ people seem to want to destroy Christianity root and branch, hence destroying HJ is a tactic in that strategy. What about HJ proponents? Some seem distressed at the dismissal of historical method; I suppose others don't want to treat religion purely as fantasy. Or something like that, I'm not sure. There is also internetitis, whereby some topics just take on a life of their own, e.g. 9/11, and I suspect the Amanda Knox case will now last forever online.

I suppose also there is an element of taking on the experts at their own game, which is fun.

 

[eight bits]

max

This does raise an interesting question for both HJer and MJer alike; how do you get to a crucified criminal being worshiped as god in the 1st century?

Given that the leading competition is Mohammed, and that other contenders include Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard, I can only assume that this was intended as comic relief.


Tim

So, why don't all just agree to disagree on the fine points, ...

Because this is a false partition of the available and advocated positions,

... whether Jesus was a (barely) historical figure, an amalgamation of a few (barely) historical figures or if he was entirely made up.

We had a thread last year, "What counts as a historical Jesus?" Some of us argued, then and now, for a historical figure, no barely about that, but for whom the evidence is barely different than equipoise. That combination would explain a long-lived discussion.


DOC

It seems he did a pretty good job of separating his scholarship from his religion when he wrote the 3 volume "History of Rome". Check out the book's Table of Contents:

You asked the community why a Victorian author had expressed satisfaction with the evidence that he used to preach his religion. I answered the question you asked. It is uniniteresting that this same author also wrote on other subjects besides the matter you asked about.

Belz...

Does ANY version of MJ have evidence going for it ? If so, let's make that distinction, then.

Maybe this is too straightforward to "count" as a mythical Jesus, but a lot of the "40" in my own 60-40 is simply that Paul misinterpreted his ghost expereince. In that case, the evidence "going for it" is identical to what supports the basic historical Jesus.

This is not unusual. Evidence "bears on" an uncertainty, usually favoring several incompatible hypotheses at the expense of several alternatives. Both "Jesus existed" and "Jesus didn't exist" are a collection (disjunction) of many, many specific explanations of the evidence, only one of which can be right. The leading individual hypotheses might be from either collection.

This is a different argument from

pakeha

At the end of the day, I think the weak HJ is actually a variant of an MJ.

Obviously, if the two hypotheses are the same (it does happen), then the same evidence supports both. I also grant that some advocates of an MJ have proposed one or more real persons as the inspiration of an HJ. However, that's what last year's "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread ws about. In actual discussions, different people have different answers to the the "what counts?" part.

So, yes, there is a possible Jesus who would count as an HJ for me, but wouldn't for (name another poster), and who, according to yet a third poster, would count as a mythical Jesus. There are also unboundedly many possible Jesuses and Jesus-substitutes who wouldn't be difficult to classify.

So, we are like people discussing coin tosses, heads or tails, who wantonly overlook the real possibility that the coin might land and stand on its edge. Could be, but there is no reason why people couldn't agree to proceed with their analysis on the assumption that it won't.

 

[Craig B]

Dunno about that, dejudge.
Isn't the OT full of howling prophets, ill-treated and mocked by their fellow Jews and who predict the death and destruction of those who didn't pay them heed?
Wouldn't non-Jews attribute the twice-over destruction of Jerusalem to rebelling against Rome rather than anything else?
One is reminded of Carthage, after all.

That was the rational explanation offered by Josephus. The destruction was the result of messianic fervour, and its baleful political effects. That this explanation found favour with non-Jews is evidenced by the fact that his works survived in their Greek, but not Aramaic, versions, and no copies have survived in Jewish literary sources, albeit that his War was composed in Aramaic in the first place.

Living at the Flavian court in Rome, Josephus undertook to write a history of the war he had witnessed. The work, while apparently factually correct, also served to flatter his patron and to warn other provinces against the folly of opposing the Romans. He first wrote in his native language of Aramaic, then with assistance translated it into Greek (the most-used language of the Empire). It was published a few years after the end of the war, in about 78 CE.

http://m.ccel.org/browse/authorInfo?id=josephus

 

[pakeha]

That was the rational explanation offered by Josephus. The destruction was the result of messianic fervour, and its baleful political effects. That this explanation found favour with non-Jews is evidenced by the fact that his works survived in their Greek, but not Aramaic, versions, and no copies have survived in Jewish literary sources, albeit that his War was composed in Aramaic in the first place. http://m.ccel.org/browse/authorInfo?id=josephus

Interesting.
I think it was Brainache who mentioned the similarity of the Jewish Wars the Ghost Dance^WP movement in 19th century USA.
"The chief figure in the movement was the prophet of peace, Jack Wilson, known as Wovoka among the Paiute. He prophesied a peaceful end to white expansion while preaching goals of clean living, an honest life, and cross-cultural cooperation by Native Americans. Practice of the Ghost Dance movement was believed to have contributed to Lakota resistance. In the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, U.S. Army forces killed at least 153 Miniconjou and Hunkpapa Lakota people.[3] The Sioux variation on the Ghost Dance tended towards millenarianism, an innovation that distinguished the Sioux interpretation from Jack Wilson's original teachings."

I suppose one could even draw a similarity with the Boxer Rebellion^WP, if pushed.

 

[Craig B]

...The Sioux variation on the Ghost Dance tended towards millenarianism, an innovation that distinguished the Sioux interpretation from Jack Wilson's original teachings."

Rebellions of oppressed peoples are in general laudable, if not always advisable. They are at any rate morally justifiable. But millenarianism is insane and destructive in all its manifestations. A secular version of it even infected the socialist movement and, having attached itself to Soviet communist ideology, was productive of the most horrible and devastating effects.

 

[pakeha]

I didn't know there was an element of millenarianism in the socialist movement.
Has anything similar shown up in Palestine, Syria or Ireland?

 

[Craig B]

I didn't know there was an element of millenarianism in the socialist movement.
Has anything similar shown up in Palestine, Syria or Ireland?

I mean that the USSR was believed by some socialists to be the culmination of history, the end of the class struggle, and of the exploitation of man by man. They really did believe that; and the USSR drew a great deal of its strength from the persistence of this delusion, both at home and abroad. That is why when the delusion was punctured the Soviet Union promptly collapsed, though it was still in other respects a mighty empire possessing huge resources, both natural and human.

 

[zugzwang]

Doesn't Marxism itself have a kind of eschatological flavour? I've always assumed that this was derived from Judaeo-Christian ideas, but I suppose it could just be a generalized hope for the 'end of history', which humans may possess. Interesting that that phrase was used about the triumph of capitalism, by Fukuyama, who I think has rowed back from that idea now. I suppose the French Revolution saw itself as the triumph of Reason, which is rather ironic.

 

[pakeha]

I mean that the USSR was believed by some socialists to be the culmination of history, the end of the class struggle, and of the exploitation of man by man. They really did believe that; and the USSR drew a great deal of its strength from the persistence of this delusion, both at home and abroad. That is why when the delusion was punctured the Soviet Union promptly collapsed, though it was still in other respects a mighty empire possessing huge resources, both natural and human.

Oh, yes, I understood you, sorry to be so unclear.

 

[dejudge]

There is an alternative line of thought. We know from Josephus that there had been would be Messiah from Simon (d c4 BCE) forward.

Simon who called himself King of the Jews after the death of Herod is not Jesus Christ in the NT.

Simon was not worshiped as a God by Jews and Romans.

Simon and his followers were hunted down by the Romans and they were killed without a trial.

The NT specifically speaks of a character called Jesus of Nazareth crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE.

The QUESTERS are looking for an assumed obscure preacher crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE

Depending on how you read the very garbled accounts Dositheos the Samaritan may have been his teacher (meaning he predated Simon) (Clement of Rome, l.c. ii. 8; several passages in Origen; Epiphanius, l.c. (The Dead Sea Scrolls and Prmitive Christianity", Jean Danielou, p. 95-96, 1958, Mentor edition 1962)

Dositheos is not Jesus of Nazareth.

The QUESTERS are looking for corroborative evidence of Jesus of Nazareth crucified under Pilate who was worshiped as a God by Jews and people of the Roman Empire since at least c 37-41 CE.

Given Paul's vision all you really need is him hearing about some guy who rampaged through the Temple yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being killed as a result to get the ball rolling. You don't need the actual destruction of the Temple but that its destruction will be one of the many signs of the end time.

When did Paul have "visions"?

Paul had a vision that is found ONLY in gLuke.

May I remind you that the very Church writers claimed Paul knew gLuke.

Paul was ALIVE after the Fall of the Temple.

The very first time we hear of gLuke is not earlier than in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed around c 180 CE.

If Paul had visions he probably had them AFTER gLuke was composed and After the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

1. Do not forget that Paul was a companion of the author of gLuke.

2. Do not forget that the author of Acts wrote nothing of the Pauline Epistles.

3. Do not forget that the first time we hear of Acts of the Apostles is in "Against Heresies" supposedly composed around 180 CE.

4. Do not forget that Aristides wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 117-138 CE.

5. Do not forget that Justin wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus c 138-161 CE.

6. Do not forget that Celsus wrote Nothing of Paul c 180 CE.

7. Do not forget that the first writer to mention the Pauline Corpus, Irenaeus, also claimed Jesus was crucified when he was an OLD Man c 50 CE under Claudius.

8. Do not forget that an apologetic writer admitted that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER the Revelation of John.

9. Do not forget that there are Multiple authors of the Pauline Corpus.

10. Do not forget that the earliest recovered NT manuscripts of the Pauline letters [ P 46]are dated to around c 200 CE.

Everything adds up. "Paul" is not a 1st century pre 70 CE character.

The Pauline "visions" are without corroboration and were fabricated no earlier than c 180 CE and played NO role in the early development of the Jesus story and cult.

The Jesus story had nothing at all to do with the Pauline Corpus but was a reaction to the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Temple of the Jewish God Fell and a story was propagated that it was destroyed because God came down from heaven, told the Jews to Repent but instead was Killed by the Jews.

Hippolytus "Treatise Against the Jews"

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf? Was it on account of the idolatry of the people? Was it for the blood of the prophets? Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel? By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, man, Dejudge; stop antagonising everyone.

 

[tsig]

Oh, man, Dejudge; stop antagonising everyone.

I've had him and all replies on skim since his second post. Seems like I missed nothing.

 

[dejudge]

Dunno about that, dejudge.
Isn't the OT full of howling prophets, ill-treated and mocked by their fellow Jews and who predict the death and destruction of those who didn't pay them heed?
Wouldn't non-Jews attribute the twice-over destruction of Jerusalem to rebelling against Rome rather than anything else?
One is reminded of Carthage, after all.

Dunno about that, pakeha.

Let us read what Non-Jews wrote.

They actually BLAMED the Jews for the destruction because they Killed the Son of God.

This is a partial list of Non-Jews who claim the Temple fell because the Jews killed Jesus, the Son of God.

1. Justin of Palestine

.... that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem........ Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him

2. Tertullian of Rome

...let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him.

3. Hippolytus of Rome

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?......it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

4. Origen

Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.