Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

It becomes a bit frustrating when your opponents in a debate begin to argue that your argument is really theirs, so when one points out what HJ means and MJ proponents try to include that in their own definition in order to "win" the debate, it's a bit grating.

The point of the matter is that HJ argues that there was a guy who was a vague Jesus at some point. It follows that MJ argues otherwise. If not, then we've all been in agreement all along which is a silly proposition. HJ doesn't take miracle claims seriously, for instance, and no one is proposing that it should. Neither is anyone saying that all non-miraculous occurances of the gospel accounts really happened.

Actually, Belz..., that's the view I've had long before the beginning of the threads here.
I haven't begun to argue differently at all.

In fact, given the little that we can know about Jesus, M or J, is based on hagiography written after the destruction of Jerusalem, with the possible exception of Paul's letters, it's impossible to have a definite idea of the source of those tales.

Haven't you found that the more we examine any aspect of the tale, it falls apart?
I have.

In any case I've a great deal of sympathy for those who think that there's simply no man behind the curtain, but I suspect there's likely a figure, an actual person upon whom the stories were based, rather like the case of Robin Hood or King Arthur.
I even have doubts this person was crucified, Belz...

This highlights the problem I have had with Maximara's arguments in all of these threads.

What most on the HJ side are arguing against is Carrier and Doherty's "Celestial Jesus".

Maximara is using a definition of "Myth Jesus" which was written at a time when the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea. It isn't a new idea anymore, it is the standard model. Max's definition of MJ includes the standard HJ and is therefore useless for this debate.

No one (except DOC) is arguing for the Historical Accuracy of the Gospels.

The HJ side is arguing against the idea that there was a tradition of belief that Jesus lived up in the clouds and not on earth. There is no evidence for such a belief and it contradicts the evidence that we do have.

Why Max continues to do this is a mystery to me.

 

[TimCallahan]

"You suspect Robin Hood was based on a real Robber?"
It's possible, or a series of robbers.


"You suspect King Arthur was based on a real King?"
Yes, or war leader.



"You suspect Jesus Christ, the Son of God was based on a real Christ and real Son of God?" No way. I think you'll find there's no one here who does, dejudge.

This is why it's pointless to argue with dejudge. He, she or it immediately, without evidence or logic, jumps to the conclusion that any affirmation of an historic Jesus makes one a believer. Apparently it doesn't occur to dejudge that there is a whole spectrum of possible historic Jesus characters, beginning with one that was a very minor messianic pretender who held the deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead and ending with the god incarnate of the Gospel of John.

Of course the other problem one has arguing with dejudge is that he, she or it rapidly becomes abrasive and abusive toward anyone arguing against his, her or it's position.

 

[Brainache]

This is why it's pointless to argue with dejudge. He, she or it immediately, without evidence or logic, jumps to the conclusion that any affirmation of an historic Jesus makes one a believer. Apparently it doesn't occur to dejudge that there is a whole spectrum of possible historic Jesus characters, beginning with one that was a very minor messianic pretender who held the deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead and ending with the god incarnate of the Gospel of John.

Of course the other problem one has arguing with dejudge is that he, she or it rapidly becomes abrasive and abusive toward anyone arguing against his, her or it's position.

I think the biggest laugh I've had on these threads was when someone announced that dejudge was some kind of expert over at another Skeptic forum.

That place must be a riot!

 

[pakeha]

This highlights the problem I have had with Maximara's arguments in all of these threads.

What most on the HJ side are arguing against is Carrier and Doherty's "Celestial Jesus".

Maximara is using a definition of "Myth Jesus" which was written at a time when the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea. It isn't a new idea anymore, it is the standard model. Max's definition of MJ includes the standard HJ and is therefore useless for this debate.

No one (except DOC) is arguing for the Historical Accuracy of the Gospels.

The HJ side is arguing against the idea that there was a tradition of belief that Jesus lived up in the clouds and not on earth. There is no evidence for such a belief and it contradicts the evidence that we do have.

Why Max continues to do this is a mystery to me.

I think you'll find many of the MJer or non-HJers here would call that point of view a strawman, because there's a variety of ways of thinking about just how much of the Jesus figure is historical.

Still, there's a series of articles on the subject of a celestial Jesus at Vridar that might interest you. http://vridar.org/2013/12/31/a-simo...ity-part-7-the-source-of-simonpauls-gospel-2/
I can't say the arguments convince me, but I read them to try to get a feel for the many ways of seeing how Christianity began.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your Questing has now made you desperate.

You forget the Robert Van Voorst is a theologian and was a practising minister for the Reformed Church of America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Van_Voorst



This is the Belief of the Reformed Church of America.

https://www.rca.org/beliefs


Robert Van Voorst believes in the Jesus of Faith--NOT your standard HJ.

Robert Van Voorst believes in a Myth--a Son of a God who is alive even today.

Robert Van Voorst worships Jesus as an eternal being.

Robert Van Vorst worship Myth Jesus--Not your assumed standard obscure criminal.

HJ the obscure criminal is tantamount to a Hoax---No such Jesus has ever been found in or out the Bible.

None of that invalidates the fact that there are many ancient references to Christians as "Chrestians". If a Christian told you that the Earth orbits the sun, would you attempt to find some way of proving him wrong?

 

[IanS]

I inferred that you must reject it, by a sort of process of reasoning founded on an implicit reductio ad absurdum argument. But it seems that I was wrong, and you agree with dejudge that the entire corpus of NT writings is a "hoax". Very well. I note your opinion.

Well this is the same nonsense yet again from you, trying to claim I said all sorts of things which I never said at all. Why do you keep doing that?

Please quote where I ever said that I "agree with dejudge that the entire corpus of NT writings is a "hoax" ".
Where did I ever say any such thing at all in any HJ threads anywhere on this entire website?

Quote it please!

Where is it?

 

[Craig B]

Well this is the same nonsense yet again from you, trying to claim I said all sorts of things which I never said at all. Why do you keep doing that?

Please quote where I ever said that I "agree with dejudge that the entire corpus of NT writings is a "hoax" ".
Where did I ever say any such thing at all in any HJ threads anywhere on this entire website?

Quote it please!

Where is it?

I inferred it from your statements. Either you don't agree with dejudge or you do agree with dejudge. But you're saying neither. Is that your version of the reductio ad absurdum reasoning?

 

[maximara]

This highlights the problem I have had with Maximara's arguments in all of these threads.

What most on the HJ side are arguing against is Carrier and Doherty's "Celestial Jesus".

Maximara is using a definition of "Myth Jesus" which was written at a time when the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea. It isn't a new idea anymore, it is the standard model. Max's definition of MJ includes the standard HJ and is therefore useless for this debate.

No one (except DOC) is arguing for the Historical Accuracy of the Gospels.

The HJ side is arguing against the idea that there was a tradition of belief that Jesus lived up in the clouds and not on earth. There is no evidence for such a belief and it contradicts the evidence that we do have.

Why Max continues to do this is a mystery to me.

Let's get one thing clear THESE ARE NOT MY DEFINITIONS

Also your claim of "using a definition of "Myth Jesus" which was written at a time when the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea" is NOT true:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that 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..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

Wells accepted that there was a 1st century Jesus in both Jesus Myth (1996) and Jesus Legend (1999)--yet these books were labeled as examples of the Mythical Jesus Thesis (defined as the idea of "Jesus tradition is virtually--perhaps entirely--fictional in nature" (sic)) in Eddy and Boyd's 2007 The Jesus Legend Baker Academic on pp. 24

Doherty in 1999 classified The Jesus Myth as one of the "books which concluded that the Gospel Jesus did not exist. One of these was the latest book by G. A. Wells, the current and longstanding doyen of modern Jesus mythicists."

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996)" (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"

Drews in 1909 wrote "In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels." and that was when the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea.

Last time I checked 1982 was over 70 years latter and 2007 was over 20 years after that! You can hem and you can haw but these are the definitions of Christ Myth theory given by both sides of the fence within the last 35 years or a minimum of 70 years after "the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea."

The HJ side shoulders most of the blame by throwing around the Christ myth label with all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery since Schweitzer in 1913. The MJ side could have done a lot better in making sure this nonsense was stopped before it got out of hand. But the HJers have, to paraphrase the Bible itself, 'sowed the wind and now reap the whirlwind.' Their own definitions of Christ Myth have come home to roost be they 1913 or 2007.

 

[Foster Zygote]

That is the precise question that YOU cannot answer and is in capable of answering.

"Incapable" is one word, and you should write it, "you are incapable", not, "you is incapable".

The very 11th century copy that YOU use show that the word "ChrEstian" was manipulated and never claimed the WELL KNOWN Christus was crucified.

So what? Scribes often corrected what they felt to be spelling errors in texts. The fact that we have the Codex Sinaiticus proves that the connection existed prior to the alteration in the copy of Annals.

 

[Belz...]

I even have doubts this person was crucified, Belz...

Of course you do. So do I. We're been over this again and again.

 

[Belz...]

I think the biggest laugh I've had on these threads was when someone announced that dejudge was some kind of expert over at another Skeptic forum.

That place must be a riot!

This place is a riot, very often. That other place must be insane.

 

[maximara]

I think you'll find many of the MJer or non-HJers here would call that point of view a strawman, because there's a variety of ways of thinking about just how much of the Jesus figure is historical.

This EXACTLY what I. Howard Marshall pointed out in his 2001 book I Believe in the Historical Jesus and is explained in Rationalwiki's Jesus myth theory article:

The Historical Jesus spectrum or color me completely confused

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall writes that there are "two views of the historical Jesus which stand at the opposite ends of a spectrum of opinion about him." At one extreme is the view that Jesus never existed, and that the gospels describe an essentially fictional person. At the other extreme is the view that the gospels portray events exactly as they happened, and each event depicted in the New Testament is the literal truth. [32]

As with any spectrum there are "colors" (or categories) and over the course of a century at least three people (Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy-Boyd) have taken a stab as what those colors are. However, as Eddy-Boyd points out these the categories are "admittedly over simplistic", "ideal-typical", and a "useful heuristic" they should not be taken as absolute definitions.

In fact, if you look at the definitions provided by these three authors as well as some others you will notice that the four categories don't always match up which in turn means the boundaries between the definitions are not sharp and clear...even to scholars and experts. This why one need to nail down just what what one means when one talks about the "Jesus myth theory" or the "historical Jesus."

The four "colors" of the historical Jesus spectrum (and their current status with the academic community) are:

Christ Myth theory (Philosophical myth) (Fringe) "Jesus Christ is a pure myth—that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity."[33] Jesus began as at a Myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being being added later. "Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process." All trace of a historical person, if there was ever one was to begin with, has been lost. (Jesus agnosticism) Christ Myth theory (Historical myth on the narrative is essentially false side) or Minimalist (Fringe) "Many radical Freethinkers believe that Christ is a myth, of which Jesus of Nazareth is the basis, but that these narratives are so legendary and contradictory as to be almost if not wholly, unworthy of credit." "Other skeptics deny that the Jesus character portrayed in the New Testament existed, but that there could have been a first century personality after whom the exaggerated myth was pattered." There is just enough to show there was a first century teacher called Jesus and little else.
Moderate Historical (mainstream)

"Jesus of Nazareth is a historical character and that these narratives, eliminating the supernatural elements, which they regard as myths, give a fairly authentic account of his life."

"Jesus did exist, and that some parts of the New Testament are accurate, although the miracles and the claim to deity are due to later editing of the original story."

A historical Jesus did exist but was very different from the gospel Jesus.

Total/Extreme Historical (Fringe)

"Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth."

"The New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories."

-----

Note the two versions of Christ Myth in the above.

 

[Brainache]

Let's get one thing clear THESE ARE NOT MY DEFINITIONS

Also your claim of "using a definition of "Myth Jesus" which was written at a time when the non-historicity of the Gospels was a new idea" is NOT true:

"This view (Christ Myth theory) states that 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..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

...


The HJ side shoulders most of the blame by throwing around the Christ myth label with all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery since Schweitzer in 1913. The MJ side could have done a lot better in making sure this nonsense was stopped before it got out of hand. But the HJers have, to paraphrase the Bible itself, 'sowed the wind and now reap the whirlwind.' Their own definitions of Christ Myth have come home to roost be they 1913 or 2007.

OK. Sorry, I phrased that poorly, it isn't "Your" definition. It is the definition that you use. I thought the meaning would be clear by context, I should have known better than to assume that.

It doesn't matter who invented it, or when, it isn't applicable to a debate about Carrier's ideas versus mainstream History.

It might be applicable if we were debating about the historical accuracy of the Gospel stories, but we aren't doing that. We are debating whether or not these obviously fictitious tales were based on oral traditions about a real Human Being, as most Historians say, or just spiritual allegories about "Salvation" as per Carrier and Doherty.

Saying stuff like: "The birth narrative varies, therefore it's all lies...", adds nothing to the debate.

Next he'll be telling us Jesus wasn't blonde haired and blue eyed!

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is no evidence that the Jesus cult was modeled after an actual wandering apocalyptic preacher when virtually all the words of Jesus in the NT are found in the Septuagint.

I think you mean virtually all the Old Testament quotes. And even so, what of it? Why wouldn't the Greek speaking creators of various Jesus narratives rooted in Judaism not quote the Septuagint? Much of the early Christian writings were quite adamant that Jesus' message was grounded in the Jewish religion, so why not heavily quote the version that most of them had read?

It does not make any real sense to start a new religion with a known lie.

Known by whom?

If Jesus was a known apocalyptic preacher and had a known earthly father then it would be of no use claiming he was born of a Holy Ghost and that he was the Logos and God Creator.

Right, because the followers of religions are just so rational. It's extremely doubtful that the original followers of Jesus, who may have known his father, ever believed that he was born of a virgin. And they certainly didn't think that he was God himself. That stuff was invented decades later by people who had never met Jesus or anyone who had ever known Jesus. You still have this highly Fundamentalist concept of the New Testament as something that very consistently describes Jesus as God incarnate from the very start. It doesn't.

If Jesus was a known crucified man then it would have been virtually impossible for Jews and Romans to have worshiped such a character as a God.

The Jewish followers of Jesus didn't worship him, they claimed that he was the prophesied messiah. But even this claim was rejected by the majority of Jews, even those expecting a messiah, because the Jesus cult presented a radically different interpretation of the messiah's role. The messiah was supposed to be a great leader in the mold of David and Solomon who would lead a mighty military campaign to drive out the Roman invaders and take the throne of David. He wasn't supposed to have died in a humiliating fashion at the hands of his enemies in order to redeem the faithful servants of God. All that quoting of the Septuagint that you mention was aimed at convincing Jews otherwise. It was the rejection by the majority of followers of Judaism that led to the Christian split from its root faith, and this split led to greater and greater tensions between Christianity and Judaism. It was the growth of Christianity among Pagans, who didn't necessarily regard depicting Jesus as divine to be blasphemous, and who had a tradition of venerating demigods.

 

[maximara]

OK. Sorry, I phrased that poorly, it isn't "Your" definition. It is the definition that you use. I thought the meaning would be clear by context, I should have known better than to assume that.

It doesn't matter who invented it, or when, it isn't applicable to a debate about Carrier's ideas versus mainstream History.

Sigh, one of the examples came from Carrier himself so it does apply:

Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"

A handout Richard Carrier provided for one of his own lecture and in it three books that accept a historical Jesus who was not crucified being the source from some of the Gospel story are called "Defending Ahistoricity".

Again you can hem and haw but Robertson's 1900 "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." is effectively the definition Carrier himself used in 2006 and a year later a pro HJ book defined two of those very same books as Christ Myth books also effectively using Robertson's 1900 definition of Christ Myth.

 

[Brainache]

Sigh, one of the examples came from Carrier himself so it does apply:

Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (handout for Richard Carrier's 2006 Stanford University lecture "Did Jesus Even Exist?"

A handout Richard Carrier provided for one of his own lecture and in it three books that accept a historical Jesus who was not crucified being the source from some of the Gospel story are called "Defending Ahistoricity".

Again you can hem and haw but Robertson's 1900 "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." is effectively the definition Carrier himself used in 2006 and a year later a pro HJ book defined two of those very same books as Christ Myth books also effectively using Robertson's 1900 definition of Christ Myth.

So *********** what?

How does that help us here in these threads where we are debating whether or not a HJ upon whom the Myth was based, existed as a Human Being?

Why do you keep harping on about definitions, when it adds nothing to solving the question under debate?

It is extremely frustrating.

 

[dejudge]

"You suspect Robin Hood was based on a real Robber?"

It's possible, or a series of robbers.

It is also possible that Robin Hood was not based on a robber or a series of robbers.

Without evidence suspicions are of no real value.

"You suspect King Arthur was based on a real King?"

Yes, or war leader.'

Of course you have no evidence. Which source of antiquity mentioned a known King or known War leader who did the things King Arthur did?

It is possible that the stories of King Arthur was not based on a real King.

You seem to imply that people of antiquity were incapable of making stuff up.

Please, read Plutarch's Romulus, the Hebrew Bible and the NT and you will see that there were characters that were invented.

Tell us who Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and the Holy Ghost were based on?

"You suspect Jesus Christ, the Son of God was based on a real Christ and real Son of God?"

No way. I think you'll find there's no one here who does, dejudge.

You seem not to realize or have forgotten that there are Christians posting on these threads.

You seem not to realize or have forgotten that there are Christian Scholars.

Robert Van Voorst, a Christian Scholar does believe Jesus existed as described in the NT.

Robert Van Voorst is also a theologian and was a pastor of The Reformed Church of America.

Do you understand that some people who argue that there was an Historical Jesus are arguing that Jesus did exist as stated in the NT?

Do you not understand that many so-called Scholars worship Jesus as a resurrected being?

William Craig a Christian Scholar does believe Jesus exist as a resurrected being.

Do you not understand that the QUEST for an HJ was initiated by those who believe in the Jesus of Faith?

Even the former Bishop of Rome, Ratzinger, is regarded as a Christian Scholar.

http://www.superscholar.org/features/20-most-influential-christian-scholars/

Perhaps if we were to get a survey we may find that many of those who argue for an HJ are really arguing for a Myth--that Jesus existed as God Incarnate or a resurrected being as described in the NT.

 

[dejudge]

This is why it's pointless to argue with dejudge. He, she or it immediately, without evidence or logic, jumps to the conclusion that any affirmation of an historic Jesus makes one a believer. Apparently it doesn't occur to dejudge that there is a whole spectrum of possible historic Jesus characters, beginning with one that was a very minor messianic pretender who held the deluded belief that God would raise him from the dead and ending with the god incarnate of the Gospel of John.

Of course the other problem one has arguing with dejudge is that he, she or it rapidly becomes abrasive and abusive toward anyone arguing against his, her or it's position.

Your argument is extremely illogical.

Multiple irreconcilable versions of the Jesus story does not help to show an HJ.

The fact that there are multiple versions of the Jesus story riddled with discrepancies, fiction, mythology, implausibility and irreconcilable historical problems enhance the argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ side is arguing against the idea that there was a tradition of belief that Jesus lived up in the clouds and not on earth. There is no evidence for such a belief and it contradicts the evidence that we do have.

The HJ argument has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Carrier or Doherty.

Whether or NOT Carrier or Doherty even existed the HJ argument had ALREADY started and Failed multiple times.


The HJ argument was initiated in the 18th century and is argument AGAINST the NT Jesus.

No HJ has ever been found due to lack of evidence for hundreds of years.

In fact, Today there is an On-Going Quest for an HJ which is PROOF that NO HJ and NO evidence has ever been found since the 18th century.

The HJ QUESTERS are now on their THIRD attempt which recently started about 30 years ago--Nothing has changed.

HJ is still a dead end argument.

 

[Brainache]

The HJ argument has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Carrier or Doherty.

Whether or NOT Carrier or Doherty even existed the HJ argument had ALREADY started and Failed multiple times.


The HJ argument was initiated in the 18th century and is argument AGAINST the NT Jesus.

No HJ has ever been found due to lack of evidence for hundreds of years.

In fact, Today there is an On-Going Quest for an HJ which is PROOF that NO HJ and NO evidence has ever been found since the 18th century.

The HJ QUESTERS are now on their THIRD attempt which recently started about 30 years ago--Nothing has changed.

HJ is still a dead end argument.

The ridiculousness of this argument should be apparent to anyone following this thread.

It is still as useless as it ever was and your constant repetition of it is doing it no favours.

Education is the answer to your problems. Give it a go.