Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

The number of options is only limited by the human imagination but the HJers want to force a narrow dichotomy:

There was an HJ or someone/s consciously invented the story then forged all the NT.

...So "inspired by a person" AND "inspired by a myth". Still not seeing a third option, here.

No you have a third option where you have a barely remembered flesh and blood Jesus but his past is made up to fit with Paul's vision.

In the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread, I talked about how you could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 but it would still make the Gospel Jesus mythical and nonhistorical because this historical Jesus did not teach as reported in the Gospels nor was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.

In this thread I postulated a man going for the 1st century version of suicide by cop by running into the Temple and trashing the place while yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being run through with a sword by a guard. Again not historical as that Jesus did not teach as reported in the Gospels, nor was put to death in the circumstances there recorded, and certainly didn't found Christianity.

As I said before the 'let's minimize Jesus to the point all the problems of no one noticing him goes away' idea creates the situation of Jesus effectively not existing. It reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:

Believer: I found Jesus
Skeptic: I didn't know he was lost.
Believer: He must be as there are all these quests to find him.
Skeptic: ...

In some respects the historical Jesus quest has gotten to the level of Robin Hood and King Arthur where people are finding the historical people that were the "basis" for the stories as much as 200 years away from the traditional period of the stories. It get tot he point that one get the impression of less a look for a historical core and more a desperate desire to find someone anyone who reasonably fits whatever criteria the researcher is looking for.

In the case of Robin Hood and King Arthur there may have been no core but various people woven into a core composite character who while based on various actual people in fact never really existed. The same my be true of the Gospel Jesus.

One of the strange parts of the whole Jesus story is the first recorded attempt at creating a Christian Bible used Luke which the editor (Marcion) believed had actually been written by Paul and started at our Luke 3:1.

But if one sits down and thinks about what Marcion is actually saying you quickly realize he is implying that Luke's story is also a vision Paul had. Add in the Lucan priority school of thought which has Luke not Mark as the first Gospel and things quickly go south real fast.

A good reply, maximara.
Other options could include having the Christian myth based on several people, rather than just one individual.

There might not be proof, but there is evidence, a lot of evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9829265#post9829265

It's sweet of you to remind us of that post, DOC.
How about explaining just what your sources are for that 5,000 manuscripts claim?

 

[Belz...]

If there was no dogma then there would be no need for any kind of Jesus.

Early Christianity was a mess of competing ideologies. It took a while before they settled on a dogma.

ETA: When do you think the resurrection myth was invented then?

I'm not sure. It seemed to have been around towards the latter half of the first century.

 

[Belz...]

No you have a third option where you have a barely remembered flesh and blood Jesus but his past is made up to fit with Paul's vision.

Isn't that HJ ?

I get the impression that you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.

 

[dejudge]

The Quest for an HJ is still on going so what are these HJ posters here arguing about?

Please, we already know there is no evidence for an HJ so stop wasting time.

The outcome will always be the same--NO HJ will be found.

The earliest recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story are from the 2nd century or later.

The HJ argument is dead--NO evidence of existence.

The HJ argument is an argument from silence--the same type of argument emanates from the dead.

 

[Brainache]

The Quest for an HJ is still on going so what are these HJ posters here arguing about?

Please, we already know there is no evidence for an HJ so stop wasting time.

The outcome will always be the same--NO HJ will be found.

The earliest recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story are from the 2nd century or later.

The HJ argument is dead--NO evidence of existence.

The HJ argument is an argument from silence--the same type of argument emanates from the dead.

Please learn how the study of Ancient History is actually done.

You are doing it wrong.

 

[dejudge]

The Quest for an HJ is still on going so what are these HJ posters here arguing about?

Please, we already know there is no evidence for an HJ so stop wasting time.

The outcome will always be the same--NO HJ will be found.

The earliest recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story are from the 2nd century or later.

The HJ argument is dead--NO evidence of existence.

The HJ argument is an argument from silence--the same type of argument emanates from the dead.

Please learn how the study of Ancient History is actually done.

You are doing it wrong.

You really have no idea how history is done or else you would not be making those highly illogical statements.

Again, Robert Eisenman, an historian, has declared publicly that NO-ONE has solved the HJ question.

There is NO evidence for an HJ so historians have made assumptions.

The fact that there is NO evidence has led to MULTIPLE irreconcilable versions of HJ.

Some assume HJ was a crucified criminal and other claim he was the Christ, or a Zealot, or a rabbi, or a miracle worker, or an apocalyptic preacher, or a prophet or a..............whatever they imagine.

After hundreds of years the QUEST for an HJ is still on going--Historians have NO evidence from sources of antiquity for the last 1800 years.

 

[maximara]

There might not be proof, but there is evidence, a lot of evidence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9829265#post9829265

Doc, that "evidence" has been shows to be on par with that of the Bermuda Triangle and therefore useless.

The 5000 New Testament manuscripts actually cover 14 centuries. Given Against Heresies (c180) quotes so much from what would become our Gospels only those before c180 would be any use and ALL of the pathetic 48 manuscripts that supposedly predate our oldest intact Bible use paleographic dating which is regarded as a last resort dating technique that under the best of conditions has a 50 year range. (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24.)

The account of Christians and Nero seems to be an urban myth as neither of two people known to have been in Rome at the time mentions Christians.

The prophesy thing is garbage. All of it either requires taking passages out of their original context and claiming they were prophesy or claiming passages we cannot even find ie likely never existed in the first place. We need a short hand for vague claims like this; I've got it: Kusche's Parrot.

"All of the following facts were derived collectively from "Non-Christian" sources." and they are totally different then Doc's lame list:

1) Jesus lived during time of Claudius Caesar or Alexander Jannaeus...take your pick

2) Jesus was a sinful student

3) Jesus practiced magic and was an idolater

4) John Frum has Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as a brother...even though the man only has sisters and no brothers.

5) Jesus was just one of many that were claimed to be the Messiah.

6) Jesus was crucified under the reign of Claudius Caesar or Alexander Jannaeus...take your pick.

The rest of the list is nonsensical garbage that is not supported by any actual 2nd century source but rather by tampered sources, the repeats of urban myths, or distortions to make the documents fit (ie Bermuda Triangle quality evidence) or ignores the fact that dying for a belief does NOT make it true per Heaven's Gate or Branch Davidians. In fact, all of Doc's list is refuted in the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ article.

 

[David Mo]

If the person (James) was not in fact a family brother, but only a brother in the sense of belief, then there is no reason at all why any such person should have ever known Jesus.

And nor can you invent personal acquaintances of Jesus by introducing talk of “transmission vectors … of … contacts sources and modes” lol.

You talk about James being “close enough to be described as a brother…”, well who was the person “James”? How do you know how close he was to Jesus if he was not actually his brother? And what evidence do you have that he had ever met Jesus at all?

And what do you mean by saying James “is a possible source of information”? Anyone named in the bible might have been a “possible” source of information. So the question is - what evidence do you have that this person “James” actually personally ever met Jesus?

I think the Doherty's point of view on this subject is a relevant one from the mythicism. You can see it here:

http://vridar.org/2010/05/02/applying-sound-historical-methodology-to-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/

I avoid linguistic considerations because I am not an expert in this specialized field.

Regarding the other non technical arguments I think they are very disputable. But in general, the argument that the expression "brother of the Lord” differentiates contextually James to the others mentioned along him seems consistent. It discards the use of "brother" in a more general sense as “disciple” or similar. Doherty's suppositions in order to weaken this implication seem to me more inconsistent. There is no reasonable motive to suppose that John or Peter don't were called "brother" because they would be familiar with the Galatians or so. Yes, it introduces the shadow of a doubt, but sustained by nothing it is a weak objection.

Either Paul wants to say that James was the blood brother of Jesus or someone very close to him. In both cases the supposition that he was a source of information about Jesus seems coherent.

But if James or any other close person informed Paul about Jesus in his journeys to Jerusalem it must be said they were very bad "informers" because Paul tells practically nothing in his letters about the life or sayings of Jesus. Moreover, his stories about Jesus' appearances post mortem are incredible or disagree with the other evangelical sources.

If I was a Christian I would get a big headache with Paul accounts of their own adventures. I would be specially reluctant to admit their accounts without seeing the opposite point of view. But to admit he says that he saw the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem, why not? Another different thing is to know what they said each other.

 

[eight bits]

David

But if James or any other close person informed Paul about Jesus in his journeys to Jerusalem it must be said they were very bad "informers" because Paul tells practically nothing in his letters about the life or sayings of Jesus.

All we have of Paul is a quirky sample of his business correspondence. In them, Paul emphasizes what he thinks he has authority to teach, his interpretation of the many sightings of Jesus' ghost, based mainly on how he understands Jewish scripture.

There would be no way for Paul to discuss Jesus' career without promoting the status of his business rivals, the James Gang. Further, no teaching of Jesus that reaches us has any relevance to the benefits of membership sold by Paul to his Gentile constituency, that is, never dying and learning to fly. Thus, I don't see a basis in Paul's avoidance of Jesus' first career for your conclusion about the Gang's reliability as a source of Jesus stories for Paul.

In any case, the BS being rebutted is that Paul says that he had no other source for an earthly Jesus than his own visions, amplified only by his personal understanding of Jewish scripture. Paul says no such thing. On the contrary, he discusses meetings, both amicable and hostile, with people who definitely promote a different perspective on the Jesus phenomenon than Paul does, some of whom may possibly have had personal knowledge about the earthly Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

[

In any case, the BS being rebutted is that Paul says that he had no other source for an earthly Jesus than his own visions, amplified only by his personal understanding of Jewish scripture. Paul says no such thing. On the contrary, he discusses meetings, both amicable and hostile, with people who definitely promote a different perspective on the Jesus phenomenon than Paul does, some of whom may possibly have had personal knowledge about the earthly Jesus.

What a Big Lie!!

Paul CERTIFIES that he Got his Gospel ONLY by Revelation from Jesus.

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[Brainache]

What a Big Lie!!

Paul CERTIFIES that he Got his Gospel ONLY by Revelation from Jesus.

Galatians 1

"CERTIFIES"? In the same way he CERTIFIES meeting James and having differing opinions over Jesus?

How useless do these arguments have to get, before you just give up?

 

[Craig B]

The number of options is only limited by the human imagination but the HJers want to force a narrow dichotomy:

There was an HJ or someone/s consciously invented the story then forged all the NT.

Then dejudge must be an "HJer", cos that's what he says. I, the HJer, say it's utter nonsense.

 

[maximara]

No you have a third option where you have a barely remembered flesh and blood Jesus but his past is made up to fit with Paul's vision.

(restored snipped portion in original post)

In the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread, I talked about how you could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 but it would still make the Gospel Jesus mythical and nonhistorical because this historical Jesus did not teach as reported in the Gospels nor was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.

In this thread I postulated a man going for the 1st century version of suicide by cop by running into the Temple and trashing the place while yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being run through with a sword by a guard. Again not historical as that Jesus did not teach as reported in the Gospels, nor was put to death in the circumstances there recorded, and certainly didn't found Christianity.

As I said before the 'let's minimize Jesus to the point all the problems of no one noticing him goes away' idea creates the situation of Jesus effectively not existing. It reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:

Believer: I found Jesus
Skeptic: I didn't know he was lost.
Believer: He must be as there are all these quests to find him.
Skeptic: ...

Isn't that HJ ?.

No for the reasons explained in the original post. Quit taking little sound bites to make nonsensical arguments that don't hold up in the context of the full post.

I get the impression that you are trying to make a distinction without a difference.

Actually there is a difference which you refuse to see.

The HJ is NOT just some obscure guy named Jesus who preaches something to a small group and then disappeared into local obscurity. If that was all that was required there wouldn't be a HJ-MJ debate in the first place.


As set forth by John Robertson in 1900 to qualify as a HJ any proposed Jesus would have to meet all of these three criteria:

1) He was the personal founder of Christianity
2) He taught as reported in the Gospels
3) He was put to death in the circumstances there recorded

None of the hypothetic Jesuses I have suggested meet those three criteria ergo per Robertson they are NOT HJ but examples of MJ. A definition over 100 years old that has been used in our modern age to classify people like Wells post Jesus Legend as MJers. You may not like it but as the end of the day that is the definition you are stuck with even if you don't want to admit it.

 

[dejudge]

In any case, the BS being rebutted is that Paul says that he had no other source for an earthly Jesus than his own visions, amplified only by his personal understanding of Jewish scripture. Paul says no such thing....

What a Big Lie!!

Paul CERTIFIES that he Got his Gospel ONLY by Revelation from Jesus.

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

"CERTIFIES"? In the same way he CERTIFIES meeting James and having differing opinions over Jesus?

How useless do these arguments have to get, before you just give up?

What a Big Lie!!

In the Pauline Corpus Paul does not say he certified meeting James and did not state he had differing opinions over Jesus when he met James.

Paul blamed Peter--Not James.


Galatians 2:11 KJV

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed .............14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?

 

[Belz...]

Paul CERTIFIES that he Got his Gospel ONLY by Revelation from Jesus.

Why do you believe the bible ?

 

[Belz...]

No for the reasons explained in the original post. Quit taking little sound bites to make nonsensical arguments that don't hold up in the context of the full post.

HJ has been explained many times in this thread as having certain minimal features. Any features outside this very broad and simplistic description is irrelevant, unless your goal is to make HJ into MJ, a silly tactic if ever there was one.

Actually there is a difference which you refuse to see.

You don't know what I think. Stop personalising the argument.

The HJ is NOT just some obscure guy named Jesus who preaches something to a small group and then disappeared into local obscurity.

Why not ?

As set forth by John Robertson in 1900 to qualify as a HJ any proposed Jesus would have to meet all of these three criteria:

1) He was the personal founder of Christianity
2) He taught as reported in the Gospels
3) He was put to death in the circumstances there recorded

What do I care what this guy said a full century ago ? No one is obliged to follow his criteria. It's much more useful to distinguish HJ and MJ by the existence of a founder to Christianity (point 1 above) rather than an arbitrary set of criteria that end up creating a mess of branching hypothesese that defy classification.

None of the hypothetic Jesuses I have suggested meet those three criteria ergo per Robertson they are NOT HJ but examples of MJ.

So your point is that even HJ supporters are in fact MJ supporters ? That's a ridiculous way to try and "win" a debate.

 

[Brainache]

What a Big Lie!!

In the Pauline Corpus Paul does not say he certified meeting James and did not state he had differing opinions over Jesus when he met James.

Paul blamed Peter--Not James.


Galatians 2:11 KJV

Useless.

It's been shown to be useless before by others.

I'm not jumping through your troll hoops any more dejudge.

Sorry. You are just wrong.

 

[dejudge]

What a Big Lie!!

In the Pauline Corpus Paul does not say he certified meeting James and did not state he had differing opinions over Jesus when he met James.

Paul blamed Peter--Not James.


Galatians 2:11 KJV

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed .............14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?

Useless.

It's been shown to be useless before by others.

I'm not jumping through your troll hoops any more dejudge.

Sorry. You are just wrong.

What a monstrous fable.

 

[Belz...]

What a monstrous fable.

Do you have anything else to contribute to this topic ?

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

(Galatians 1: 11-12)

Paul's "gospel" appears at 2: 15-21, which may be summarized by it climactic two verses:

yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me. Insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Paul's gospel preached to the Galatians and summarized above has nothing to do with Jesus' earthly career before he died, but instead describes a relationship that Paul enjoys with whom he preaches to be the formerly dead, but now risen Jesus. Since Paul's gospel doesn't depend on following the Jewish law, the spiritual relationship (christosis) that Paul enjoys with the risen Jesus is also available to Paul's Gentile readers.

Interestingly, we have some noncanonical evidence that "playing at christosis" was a part of early Christian worship, based on the Second Century Odes of Solomon.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/odes.html

See Ode #3, for instance (Charlesworth translation linked from preceding link):

... I am putting on the love of the Lord.
And His members are with Him, and I am dependent on them; and He loves me.
For I should not have known how to love the Lord, if He had not continuously loved me.
Who is able to distinguish love, except him who is loved?
I love the Beloved and I myself love Him, and where His rest is, there also am I.
And I shall be no stranger, because there is no jealousy with the Lord Most High and Merciful.
I have been united to Him, because the lover has found the Beloved, because I love Him that is the Son, I shall become a son.
Indeed he who is joined to Him who is immortal, truly shall be immortal.
And he who delights in the Life will become living.
This is the Spirit of the Lord, which is not false, which teaches the sons of men to know His ways.
Be wise and understanding and awakened.
Hallelujah

I would imagine that this could be easily integrated into your forged-Paul hypothesis, since the Odes would be a fine source for that much of Galatians, and be available to the forger(s) just in time to be put to good use.

But forged or not, it is BS that Paul says that he had no other source for an earthly Jesus than his own visions, amplified only by his personal understanding of Jewish scripture. Paul says no such thing.