Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[The Norseman]

I agree and again the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page at rationalwiki shows the problem with such a minimumal Jesus:

Jesus as historical myth and The Tabula Rasa Jesus

Remsburg pointed out:
"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the Miner problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views.
-----

As I said before you could have Paul simply hear stories about some local preacher named Jesus whose efforts to create a following failed and who then drifted off never to be heard again.

Paul has his vision and in his mind creates his own Jesus.

Then years or decades later someone creates an elaborate life story for Paul's Jesus.

Sure you could argue that the Gospel account at its most basic level is plausible but there are many examples in known fiction where that is used to make the character more "real" so it doesn't really count for much.

In fact it can be argued it is in the details of the nonsupernatural events that suggest the whole Gospel account is a fiction. In this example the only thing to connect the "historical" Jesus to the Gospel one is the name...nothing else.

That is akin to saying that since you can find the name Clark Kent in a 1920's New York City phone directory that Superman must have been based on a real person. It doesn't come off as a plausible theory but an ad hoc theory to salvage a position that so devoid of actual evidence that no other reasonable action is left.

Thanks for the backup!

 

[maximara]

To be fair I don't think we can say much more on Jesus with _any_ sort of certainty. I'd be willing to add his execution to the definition, but not much else. A connection to John the Baptist might fit well in there, as well. That sort of thing.

The "HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE." idea you proposed has the same problem as Paul's Jesus which is the same problem as John Frum: it is so vague as to be useless to verify if such a person actually existed.

If you assumed John Frum was actually based on a historical person using the views of the 1970s (ie 40 years after the events or the rough equivalent of c70 CE for Mark) you would be looking for a literate white US serviceman (perhaps in the Navy) in the 1930s.

The problem is unlike Jesus we have professionals recording the John Frum movement all the way back to the early 1950s and when going to those records we find that the image of John Frum becomes vaguer and vaguer. In the 1960s depending on who you ask John Frum is a native, or a black serviceman, or white GI, as well as the white navy man. Go back to the 1950s and you don't even have that-only a name and what John Frum will accomplish. Go back to the 1940s and you have the idea that John Frum was from an earlier time such as the 1910s.

We seem to see that same kind of thing with Jesus were there was the idea he died c100 BE which according the Price can be traced to a 2nd century Jewish-Christian Gospel and the idea that Jesus was crucified under the reign of Claudius ie no earlier than 41 CE.

We don't see this with any of the people Jesus is usually compared with. We only see this pick that ruler or pick that century with people so mythicized that what core there was seems to have been loss or were likely composite characters to being with (Robin Hood and King Arthur being the main ones on that list)

 

[pakeha]

You mean for an HJ ?

Well I did so perhaps 2 days ago. Let me try to put one together again:

HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE.

It'd be hard for me to make the hypothesis more precise because I don't think we have evidence to even say, for instance, that he was put to death, though that would surely fit nicely with the development of the religion.

Okay, thank you. No snark -- I will do my utmost to remember your post and cease calling for your definition.

I do, however, disagree based on the idea that no current scholar begins and ends their historical Jesus at this Lowest Common Denominator. I have given evidence to support my position and it'd be great if someone (doesn't have to be you Belz...) would provide some evidence to support the position that this LCD historic Jesus is what they say exists.

To be sure, this LCD Jesus is the beginning, but only on the JREF is it also the end.

"HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE."
Like The Norseman, I respect your definition because it's yours but also think an LCD Jesus is so nebulous as to be virtually unidentifiable, rather like the historical figures that may have formed the basis for the character known as King Arthur.

After all, what's the real difference between " the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"

and

"the "Jesus" of the bible is a preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"?

 

[Craig B]

After all, what's the real difference between " the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"
and
"the "Jesus" of the bible is a preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"?

Nothing. Just as there is no difference between

"The Battle of Waterloo is a historical combat between Napoleon and his enemies which took place in the early nineteenth century CE", and "The Battle of Waterloo is a combat between Napoleon and his enemies which took place in the early nineteenth century CE"

But both of these are very different from

"There was a pre-existing mythical prophecy of an enemy called "Napoleon", a name derived from the demon name "Appolyon", who would threaten The Isle of Perfidious Albion in the super terrestrial sublunary domain of Cloud Cuckoo Land; but after an epic decades-long struggle he and the evil Spiritual Archontes of Woo were whacked near the Mystic City of Brussels by the Angels of Light. Later mythographers developed this theme into a supposed terrestrial event, and some even came to believe that this figure was a historical leader who had really lived in the relatively recent past. Most historians in fact believe this, but we know better than these wise-guy know-alls. Anyway, everything ever written about it is a forgery concocted hundreds of years later so we refuse to waste our time reading it."

 

[Belz...]

The "HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE." idea you proposed has the same problem as Paul's Jesus which is the same problem as John Frum: it is so vague as to be useless to verify if such a person actually existed.

You know what's amusing ? People on the HJ side of the argument have been saying that agnosticism in history is rather poor form; that we need some sort of conclusion. In other words, HJ is an attempt to push towards a more detailed answer than "I don't know". After all that talk from MJ people that that's way too certain, you now say that my definition is too vague and that I should push it further for it to be "useful". In other words, no matter what people define Jesus as, you will dismiss it.

 

[pakeha]

Nothing. Just as there is no difference between

"The Battle of Waterloo is a historical combat between Napoleon and his enemies which took place in the early nineteenth century CE", and "The Battle of Waterloo is a combat between Napoleon and his enemies which took place in the early nineteenth century CE"

But both of these are very different from

"There was a pre-existing mythical prophecy of an enemy called "Napoleon", a name derived from the demon name "Appolyon", who would threaten The Isle of Perfidious Albion in the super terrestrial sublunary domain of Cloud Cuckoo Land; but after an epic decades-long struggle he and the evil Spiritual Archontes of Woo were whacked near the Mystic City of Brussels by the Angels of Light. Later mythographers developed this theme into a supposed terrestrial event, and some even came to believe that this figure was a historical leader who had really lived in the relatively recent past. Most historians in fact believe this, but we know better than these wise-guy know-alls. Anyway, everything ever written about it is a forgery concocted hundreds of years later so we refuse to waste our time reading it."

Are you comparing the historicity of Jesus to that of Napoleon?

 

[Craig B]

Are you comparing the historicity of Jesus to that of Napoleon?

I am comparing what is meant by "historical" with what is meant by "mythical".

 

[pakeha]

Napoleon being historical and Jesus being mythical?

 

[Craig B]

Napoleon being historical and Jesus being mythical?

No. That is not what I was referring to. You stated

After all, what's the real difference between " the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"
and
"the "Jesus" of the bible is a preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"?

And I said there is no difference at all, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between a historicist position about a reported event, and a mythicist interpretation of the same report. And I then elaborate on that.

 

[pakeha]

Napoleon being historical and Jesus being mythical?

No. That is not what I was referring to. You stated

After all, what's the real difference between " the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"
and
"the "Jesus" of the bible is a preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"?

And I said there is no difference at all, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between a historicist position about a reported event, and a mythicist interpretation of the same report. And I then elaborate on that.

Ah, my bad indeed, Craig B.
If I'd proof-read my post this wouldn't have happened.

After all, what's the real difference between " the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"
and
"the "Jesus" of the bible is a preacher, whose story is set somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE"?

I hang my head in shame for having misled you.
Off to make coffee.

 

[eight bits]

max

The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century.

Then, again, the Sanhedrin didin't penalize Jesus, either. The Romans killed the dude, the Jews simply made the prisoner available for whatever the Romans cared to do with him. They didn't try Jesus. In Anglo-American terms, they arraigned him, and yielded him to another jurisdiction.

Jesus preaches in the open so there is no need for the whole Judus betrayal. A real Roman official would have sent a modest group of soldiers and got the guy as what happened with John the Baptist.

It is doubtful that Romans would deliver their prisoner to a subject people's judiciary. In any case, it is reasonable and prudent to arrest Jesus at night, which Judas makes feasible, compensating for the lack of illumination by serving as a spotter. Had Judas not been available and willing, then I agree that arresting Jesus by day would have been the best option, although whether it would have been cost-effecttive to proceed at all, I couldn't say.

The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life Of Flavius Josephus (75)

And there is an intervention by somebody in the Gospels. "Important" is a flexible quality. You mentioned the character of Pilate according to Jewish commentators. Taking that at face value, I'd estimate that a modest cash contrubution to Pilate's favorite charity would cover him allowing you to pick up some trash he was only going to throw out anyway.

Given Jesus short time on the cross and reports of him being out an about afterword certainly the Romans might have wondered if they had been tricked

And so, Pilate checked with the detail commander that Jesus was dead. There is no report of Jesus being out and about with any Roman official, and Romans would know a ghost story when they heard one.

What I conclude is that "Mark" is a good storyteller (even if his grammar and diction need work). It s one thing to complain that a story is untruthful, which may be so, but to say that this particular story is poorly written is a nonstarter.

 

[dejudge]

Nothing. Just as there is no difference between

"The Battle of Waterloo is a historical combat between Napoleon and his enemies which took place in the early nineteenth century CE", and "The Battle of Waterloo is a combat between Napoleon and his enemies which took place in the early nineteenth century CE"

But both of these are very different from

"There was a pre-existing mythical prophecy of an enemy called "Napoleon", a name derived from the demon name "Appolyon", who would threaten The Isle of Perfidious Albion in the super terrestrial sublunary domain of Cloud Cuckoo Land; but after an epic decades-long struggle he and the evil Spiritual Archontes of Woo were whacked near the Mystic City of Brussels by the Angels of Light. Later mythographers developed this theme into a supposed terrestrial event, and some even came to believe that this figure was a historical leader who had really lived in the relatively recent past. Most historians in fact believe this, but we know better than these wise-guy know-alls. Anyway, everything ever written about it is a forgery concocted hundreds of years later so we refuse to waste our time reading it."

You are in denial.

You very well know that there are people who argue for an historical Jesus and also claim that HJ did exist as described in the NT.

In fact, it is those who believed Gods and Sons of Gods are figures of history INITIATED the QUEST for an HJ.

It is the Bible Believers who believed the God of the Jews and his Son were actually historical who started the QUEST for the historical Son of God in the 18th century.

Even today Fundies, Christians and Bible believing Scholars argue that HJ was the Son of God who resurrected.

William Craig, a Scholar, argues that HJ really was a resurrected being.

Robert Van Voorst, Scholar, preaches and teaches that HJ was the Son of God who was raised from the dead.

There may be thousands of Fundie, Christian and Bible believing Scholars who argue that THEIR HJ was God's Son and raised from the dead and that the Bible is a credible historical source.

No HJ has ever been found in the 1st century --neither the Fundie version or the multiple irreconcilable non-Fundie versions--there is simply no evidence.

The only evidence that have been recovered and dated is from the 2nd century and later.

The existing actual evidence only supports a 2nd century or later Jesus story and cult.

The actual dated recovered 2nd century or later stories of Jesus depict him as the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator, born of a Holy Ghost who walked on water, transfigured, resurrected and ascended.

Jesus was a Holy Ghost [a Myth] until new evidence surfaces.

 

[maximara]

You know what's amusing ? People on the HJ side of the argument have been saying that agnosticism in history is rather poor form; that we need some sort of conclusion. In other words, HJ is an attempt to push towards a more detailed answer than "I don't know". After all that talk from MJ people that that's way too certain, you now say that my definition is too vague and that I should push it further for it to be "useful". In other words, no matter what people define Jesus as, you will dismiss it.

The problem is that you have created such a vague "Jesus" that he might as well not existed. As i said in the section you happily cut:

If you assumed John Frum was actually based on a historical person using the views of the 1970s (ie 40 years after the events or the rough equivalent of c70 CE for Mark) you would be looking for a literate white US serviceman (perhaps in the Navy) in the 1930s.

The problem is unlike Jesus we have professionals recording the John Frum movement all the way back to the early 1950s and when going to those records we find that the image of John Frum becomes vaguer and vaguer. In the 1960s depending on who you ask John Frum is a native, or a black serviceman, or white GI, as well as the white navy man. Go back to the 1950s and you don't even have that-only a name and what John Frum will accomplish. Go back to the 1940s and you have the idea that John Frum was from an earlier time such as the 1910s.

We seem to see that same kind of thing with Jesus were there was the idea he died c100 BE which according the Price can be traced to a 2nd century Jewish-Christian Gospel and the idea that Jesus was crucified under the reign of Claudius ie no earlier than 41 CE.

We don't see this with any of the people Jesus is usually compared with. We only see this pick that ruler or pick that century with people so mythicized that what core there was seems to have been loss or were likely composite characters to being with (Robin Hood and King Arthur being the main ones on that list)

As I pointed out in another post here

----

As I said before you could have Paul simply hear stories about some local preacher named Jesus whose efforts to create a following failed and who then drifted off never to be heard again.

Paul has his vision and in his mind creates his own Jesus.

Then years or decades later someone creates an elaborate life story for Paul's Jesus.

Sure you could argue that the Gospel account at its most basic level is plausible but there are many examples in known fiction where that is used to make the character more "real" so it doesn't really count for much.

In fact it can be argued it is in the details of the nonsupernatural events that suggest the whole Gospel account is a fiction. In this example the only thing to connect the "historical" Jesus to the Gospel one is the name...nothing else.

That is akin to saying that since you can find the name Clark Kent in a 1920's New York City phone directory that Superman must have been based on a real person. It doesn't come off as a plausible theory but an ad hoc theory to salvage a position that so devoid of actual evidence that no other reasonable action is left.

 

[Belz...]

The problem is that you have created such a vague "Jesus" that he might as well not existed.

You're proving my earlier point. Now my definition, given specifically as an HJ, is claimed to be actually part of MJ. It's redefining terms at its worst. How do you expect me to have a discussion with you if you keep redefining what I say ?

As i said in the section you happily cut:

I'll cut it again, so long as you don't address my main criticism, above.

 

[The Norseman]

You know what's amusing ? People on the HJ side of the argument have been saying that agnosticism in history is rather poor form; that we need some sort of conclusion. In other words, HJ is an attempt to push towards a more detailed answer than "I don't know". After all that talk from MJ people that that's way too certain, you now say that my definition is too vague and that I should push it further for it to be "useful". In other words, no matter what people define Jesus as, you will dismiss it.

You're proving my earlier point. Now my definition, given specifically as an HJ, is claimed to be actually part of MJ. It's redefining terms at its worst. How do you expect me to have a discussion with you if you keep redefining what I say ?



I'll cut it again, so long as you don't address my main criticism, above.

Doesn't this often happen, though? That the readings of the text can apply to both HJ and MJ? I think that's what makes the search for an historic Jesus so difficult.

 

[maximara]

For all we know Paul heard stories of a preacher named Jesus whose efforts to gather a following failed and he disappeared into obscurity real fate unknown.

Then Paul's has his visions and in his mind uses those vague stories to create a Jesus that for all intents exists only in his mind.

Years (perhaps even decades) later one person creates a story that fit Paul's visions which became the basis for Marcon's "Luke" which in turn became the go to reference for all the other Gospels canonal and noncanal.

I think that's an almost incredible scenario. At all events it's much less plausible than that there existed a person on whom the "stories" were based.

Why is it an "almost incredible scenario"? It certainly explains why Paul's Jesus is this vague person with no real details...just like we see with John Frum.

Also it explains why we don't get real details of Jesus life in the secondary writings until the 130s. You would expect details used in the Gospels to appear before that time if as often is claim they were either shortly after or even during Paul's life time.

The more "almost incredible scenario" is that no one writes of the proverbs of Jesus or his miracles until near the 130s even though they supposedly had been sitting around for 60 years.

 

[zugzwang]

Something that has intrigued me is the role of the Jewish-Roman Wars, which are supposed to have begun in about 66, and eventually amounted to a genocide of Jews, with maybe a million dead. Well, they go on until about 135CE.

For example, if you think of the idea of forgery - why would person or persons unknown begin to forge documents about a Jewish preacher, when all around was being razed to the ground? Well, you could argue that the utter destruction might increase the appeal of a retro-engineered apocalyptic preacher, who actually got it right, so let's invent one. Hmm.

But then with regard to the early Christian documents, are they affected by the wars? Is 66CE a cut-off point, after which Jewish thinking is irrevocably changed, and the diaspora is in full flight?

I don't know if anyone has written about this - must check Vermes, et. al. I know that one idea is that Christians began to say that Jesus had actually replaced the Temple, so its destruction was irrelevant - which would infuriate Jews.

 

[Belz...]

Doesn't this often happen, though? That the readings of the text can apply to both HJ and MJ? I think that's what makes the search for an historic Jesus so difficult.

Oh, it's not the reading of the text, but the games of the poster. Notice how Maximara took my definition of HJ and fit it into MJ by saying it might as well not exist ? How can I discuss such arguments ?

 

[eight bits]

max

Why is it an "almost incredible scenario"? It certainly explains why Paul's Jesus is this vague person with no real details...just like we see with John Frum.

"... certainly explains...just like?" You seem to have skipped a step, or else I missed it. Whom do you propose was John Frum's Saint Paul? Would you please give me a link to his or her missionary correspondence?

You would expect details used in the Gospels to appear before that time...

I would? Why would I expect that? Could you point to a secondary writing from before 130 which in your view "should" contain "real details" or just details of Jesus' life, and doesn't?

Is the problem with the dating? You seem to allow Gospels (which are secondary writings) to begin appearing promptly after Paul writes, as an assumption for the expectation just mentioned,

... if as often is claim they were either shortly after or even during Paul's life time.

But then you seem to take use of the assumption away, in the next sentence.

The more "almost incredible scenario" is that no one writes of the proverbs of Jesus or his miracles until near the 130s ...

Well, what are the Gospels and Acts, then? Somebody was writing secondarily of Jesus' proverbs or his miracles, and what of that writing found and retained good acceptance in the better sees of the proto-orthodox later became the New Testament, a long while after 130.

That all the early, enduring and sort-of intact writing on Jesus' "details" is in the canon resembles Texas sharpshooting. The canon was defined based on what of that writing had already survived the test of being worth copying according to the people who had the interest and resources to commission copies. I sense this may not be a comprehensive inventory or even a random sample of all literature produced from 65-130 CE which might interest a Christian audience curious about Jesus' "details."

 

[The Norseman]

Oh, it's not the reading of the text, but the games of the poster. Notice how Maximara took my definition of HJ and fit it into MJ by saying it might as well not exist ? How can I discuss such arguments ?

Perhaps it helps to explain why such a vague definition doesn't really work for anyone.