Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Good to see the bickering has stopped...

But Maximara, you could start here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

There is methodology, please stop insulting the entire profession of History.

...
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran. In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which it is claimed was an early version of Mark, thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide. On it are five lines with nine good letters and one complete word — hardly a firm foundation upon which we can rest an early date for Mark.

Those who argue for a later date say that Mark was able to include the prophecy about the destruction of the Temple because it had already happened. Most say that Mark was written during the war when it was obvious that Rome was going to exact a terrible vengeance on the Jews for their rebellion, even though the details were unknown. Some lean more towards later in the war, some earlier. For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after...

 

[dejudge]

My position is that the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE and that the Jesus story and cult originated sometime later in the 2nd century.

That is precisely what the actual evidence shows.

1. There is archaelogical evidence for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE.

2. All stories about Jesus of Nazareth and cult that have been found and dated are well after c 70 CE.

3. All early stories of Jesus and cult that have been found and dated were recovered outside Judea.

My position cannot be overturned at this present moment because it is supported by the actual existing dated evidence.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are 2nd century or later inventions--they never had any real existence.

 

[Craig B]

He doesn't use those exact words but that is the general gist of his paper: <snip for space> If promoting the c125 CE date that thanks to 70+ years of changes and advances in the paleography field is likely no longer valid and that used manuscripts whose own dates were estimates is not the equivalent of using a tarot deck or an Ouija board and ignoring these same changes and advances in promoting said date doesn't amount to unscientific crap I don't know what does.

It may be as you say. But my point was that there is evidence for the dates normally given for John, and thus for the earlier Synoptics, which goes beyond unsupported speculation. None of this calls for shouting, purple faced emoticons and extreme language. Here is wiki on the topic. There are no Ouija boards or crap here either.

Nongbri resists offering his own opinion on the date of 52, but apparently approves the relatively cautious terminology both of Roberts's dating, "On the whole, we may accept with some confidence the first half of the second century as the period in which (52) was most probably written"; and also of Roberts's speculations on possible implications for the date of John's gospel, "But all we can safely say is that this fragment tends to support those critics who favour and early date (late first to early second century) for the composition of the Gospel rather than those who would still regard it as a work of the middle decades of the second century"
( ... )
The consequence is to extend the range of dated primary reference comparators both earlier and later than in Roberts work; and Nongbri stresses that, simply from paleographic evidence, the actual date of 52 could conceivably be later (or earlier) still. Nevertheless the impled midpoint of Nongbri's range of most probable dates for 52 remains securely in the first half of the second century, as Roberts had originally proposed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52
These are valuable scholarly observations, calmly and reasonably expressed. The conventional date for gJohn is not being denounced in intemperate language here at all. Thank you for drawing my attention to this work.

 

[Brainache]

My position is that the Jewish Temple Fell c 70 CE and that the Jesus story and cult originated sometime later in the 2nd century.

That is precisely what the actual evidence shows.

1. There is archaelogical evidence for the Fall of the Temple of the Jewish God c 70 CE.

2. All stories about Jesus of Nazareth and cult that have been found and dated are well after c 70 CE.

3. All early stories of Jesus and cult that have been found and dated were recovered outside Judea.

My position cannot be overturned at this present moment because it is supported by the actual existing dated evidence.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are 2nd century or later inventions--they never had any real existence.

Tacitus proves you wrong.

You have been shown this before.

Josephus proves you wrong.

You have been shown this before.

The sheer size and diversity of the various texts you casually label "2nd century or later inventions", shows that you have no idea of the impossibility of what you assert.

You have been shown this before.

There is nothing in your argument that would convince an educated person to your position. It is totally preposterous. Please stop insulting our intelligence with this garbage.

 

[dejudge]

Tacitus proves you wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

An 11th century copy of Tacitus which shows signs of manipulation proves nothing for your HJ.

You have been shown this before.

Josephus proves you wrong.

A copy of Antiquities of the Jews dated over a thousand years later with forgeries proves nothing for your HJ.


You are wasting your time.

The earliest recovered stories of Jesus are Ghost stories dated to the 2nd century or later.

Jesus was a Spirit or the Son of a Ghost.

 

[Belz...]

WHERE ARE THE SCHOLARLY PAPERS THAT PROVE THESE DATES ARE NOT SIMPLY PULLED OUT OF THE FREAKING AIR?!

You can take some time off the forum if this is the mood this topic puts you into. You'll find that shouting at people continually will not get you what you want.

Quit dodging the question, Belz. Either produce the scholarly papers that show where and how these dates are arrived at or stop wasting our time and admit the pre-130 dates have no basis in anything but wishful thinking, bad methodology, and Bermuda Triangleish like repeating of what the previous scholar has said to the point no one even knows where the dates came from or how they were arrived at.

False dichotomy.

 

[maximara]

Good to see the bickering has stopped...

But Maximara, you could start here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/biblegospelofmark/a/dating.htm

There is methodology, please stop insulting the entire profession of History.

I should mentioned that back in 2012 in the Jesus Story: A peice of History that bugs me thread I referenced the Qumran with regards to The Teacher of Righteousness

Please note that way back in January 2014 (post) 2317 in the Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed thread I stated

"This study will use evidence from the four canonical Gospels, the DSS and the classical sources to investigate the relationship between John and Jesus, as well as possible links between John and the Qumran community." (Dapaah, Daniel S. (2005) The Relationship Between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth University Press of America) That statement makes sense only if there is New Testament material in DSS.

"Quotes from the New Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Grant R Jeffrey Ministries)

These along with scholars pointing to any external source other then Josephus Flavius and Tacitus and effort to push any manuscript they do find as early as possible comes off as an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows Jesus actually existed.

----

Note that I was arguing for really early dates for the NT at that time and IIRC in that or a related thread papers were produced that showed not only was my use of the DSS incorrect but the claims of any of the Gospels being at Qumran were also suspect.

If you look at wikipedia's page on 7Q5 you will see that concern is warranted.

The identification of 7Q5 being Mark is "now virtually universally rejected" by scholars. (Elliot (2004), JK, Book Notes, Novum Testamentum, Volume 45, Number 2, 2003 , pp. 203.; Gundry, Robert H. (Dec 1999). "No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 With Mark 6:52-53". Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 118 (4): 698–707. doi:10.2307/3268112. JSTOR 3268112)

So the Qumran caves are a bust regarding Mark and IIRC the papers correctly any of our canonal Gospels as well.

 

[Brainache]

I should mentioned that back in 2012 in the Jesus Story: A peice of History that bugs me thread I referenced the Qumran with regards to The Teacher of Righteousness

Please note that way back in January 2014 (post) 2317 in the Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed thread I stated

"This study will use evidence from the four canonical Gospels, the DSS and the classical sources to investigate the relationship between John and Jesus, as well as possible links between John and the Qumran community." (Dapaah, Daniel S. (2005) The Relationship Between John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth University Press of America) That statement makes sense only if there is New Testament material in DSS.

"Quotes from the New Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls" (Grant R Jeffrey Ministries)

These along with scholars pointing to any external source other then Josephus Flavius and Tacitus and effort to push any manuscript they do find as early as possible comes off as an almost desperate effort to find something anything that shows Jesus actually existed.

----

Note that I was arguing for really early dates for the NT at that time and IIRC in that or a related thread papers were produced that showed not only was my use of the DSS incorrect but the claims of any of the Gospels being at Qumran were also suspect.

If you look at wikipedia's page on 7Q5 you will see that concern is warranted.

The identification of 7Q5 being Mark is "now virtually universally rejected" by scholars. (Elliot (2004), JK, Book Notes, Novum Testamentum, Volume 45, Number 2, 2003 , pp. 203.; Gundry, Robert H. (Dec 1999). "No NU in Line 2 of 7Q5: A Final Disidentification of 7Q5 With Mark 6:52-53". Journal of Biblical Literature (The Society of Biblical Literature) 118 (4): 698–707. doi:10.2307/3268112. JSTOR 3268112)

So the Qumran caves are a bust regarding Mark and IIRC the papers correctly any of our canonal Gospels as well.

Well yes, we are all aware of that. So no one seriously dates gMark as early as the mid 60s.

I remember you talking about the TOR as someone from the second century BCE, and asking why you use such an early date for the DSS, when the carbon dating supports a much later time frame, ie: the 1st Century CE.

I don't recall a response.

 

[David Mo]

David

What is at stake in the bulshification of the 1 Corinthians appeaances narrative is that since Paul had a natural source for his list of who else saw the ghost before he did, then he was preaching something which he received and passed on, and which he didn't receive "from no man." That would imply that the denialist-critical Galatians description of the sources for Paul's "gospel" referred to something more specific than everything he ever preached.

(…)

Of course, there is no rule at all. Even in Galatians itself, Paul preaches that he had natural face-to-face meetings with other men on Earth, reached agreement about doctrine with those men, and preached to one of those men in Antioch. None of those events are in Jewish scriptures, either. The source of this preaching is recited in the preaching itself: Paul had meetings with natural men, where religious doctrine was discussed, argued about and sometimes agreed upon - in order for the doctrine discussed to find its place in Paul's later preaching.

“Bulshification”? I don’t know this word.

For the rest of your comment see my answer to IanS

 

[David Mo]

Well, first of all, leaving aside the fact that nobody here has ever seen the actual fragments of the earliest copies of what was actually written, so that we are all relying on translations made by various people, and hence we don’t really know exactly which words were originally written or what any important punctuation or emphasis really was, such that it may have changed the meaning etc. etc. …

Yes. This is a very common problem with ancient texts.

… what that Wiki quote above actually says, is exactly what I said it says. And it does not say what you say at all! It makes no mention at all of Paul obtaining any information about Jesus as a result of being told about it by anyone else such as James, or Peter or anyone … nothing at all like that is mentioned or implied in any way at all. So any suggestion of that kind is a total non-starter.

Whereas, in fact, what the quoted passage very explicitly does say, exactly as I had just said to you, is that Paul makes clear (twice, and he repeats it!), that what he is telling his readers, is known to him from the “SCRIPTURES” …

.... below is the same passage again with highlights for emphasis; in which respect notice the word “received” as well as the words “according to the scriptures”, and compare that with next following quote below from Galatians where Paul specifically says that he obtained the beliefs that he preaches about Christ because he “received” it from Jesus Christ, and he explicitly stresses that his gospel belief was “not of human origin” and was “not received from ANY man” but came to Paul instead as “received it by revelation from Jesus Christ”, of which he further explains it by ultimately saying-

You do not take into account the reasons for my interpretation of the text. You simply rejected it because you don't realize where the comma is placed and you don't analyze the meaning of the words. Only the literal content of a text has meaning for you. It is a too literalist interpretation and not particularly refined neither grammatically nor semantically.

You come back with literalism to the next passage. Of course, Paul says that his entire gospel is product of revelation and the Old Testament. You have surely read or heard someone saying some thing as "I owe all my knowledge to my teacher XX". Obviously, this is an expression of courtesy or tribute that mustn't be understood literally.
Paul says "all my doctrine is due to my Master" in the context of a dispute with some authoritative sources, that is to say the apostles. The distinctive feature of an apostle in the Early Christianity was that he had been elected by the Master and his doctrine was directly extracted from the Master. Paul places himself as an apostle just saying that "I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ". This claim doesn't imply some marginal data about how many were the people who were present in the appearances and in what order.

So that's why, even if Paul had wanted to say literally that all his data were given to him by the Christ in person, we must examine this statement and consider if it is reasonable. And it is not. The revelation alleged by Paul logically includes doctrinal content, the called Gospel. But it is hardly thinkable that Pauline ecstasies were devoted to proclaim how many disciples were together, if they were alive or not, and so on. If Paul was intending to say literally that all what he said came from Christ that is simply false.

If we abandon your rigid literalism there is an obvious interpretation of the passage in stake: Paul pulled out his information from some people of the Jewish-Christian Circle in his Jerusalem journey. Or he is pretending that.

And I hope you don't maintain the assertion that we can't interpret the early Christian writings but take them literally. Have you changed of sides?

It should be obvious to you that there is no necessity at all for “someone” (as if it had to be one particular individual) to “invent a heavenly Jesus”.

It does not need to a be a deliberately untruthful “invention” at all. And nor does it need to have been done by any particular one individual.

The likley explanation is perfectly obvious - by the time of Paul and the Gospel writers, they and every other Jew in that region were absolutely certain that the OT was ordained by God (prophecy of Gods’ actions etc.) and that the absolutely central pivotal element of the OT was the certainty that God would send a heavenly messiah to lead his faithful chosen Jewish people to success on earth and everlasting life in heaven.

Nobody needed to invent that in the first century. All of that was universally believed as literally certain since at least 500BC if not since c.1000BC from the time of Moses!
.

Nowhere in the Old Testament will you find a crucified Messiah. In the mythicist opinion this was invented by an individual or collective subject whom we call "Christian" or "Christianity". But the references to nails and trees, the unique example, are so contradictories to the actual text of the Psalm 22 that indicate an obvious intent to justify a repugnant event and not an invention from an unconstrained lecture of the Bible.

I repeat, neither in the Hellenized world nor in the Jewish world nobody would have invented, I insist, invented a crucified Messiah starting from previous religious beliefs. This invent, that is to say, this unbelievable idea was more likely a desperate intent to justify the unjustifiable.

 

[David Mo]

The fragmentary nature of John Frum's appearance (which gets worse the closer to 1940 you get) and a basic understanding of Greek and Roman mythology shows this idea is nonsense. By your logic since the 12 labors of Heracles are so harmonious in not only generalities but also in the details they must be historical myth.
(…).

I know the Cargo Cults only by Marvin Harris’ Cows, Pigs, Wars, And Witches. The Riddles of Culture. As far as I remember Harris cogently showed that Cargo Cults were perfectly coherent.

Perhaps the problem is with "coherent". By "coherent" I don't mean "intelligent", or “true”, or "plausible". A myth is coherent if its structure keeps the normal structure of the myths. The deaths of Heracles, Osiris, Atis, Dionysus, etc. were coherent with the mentality and ideologies of the men who believe in them and invented their lives. All they were heroic or idealized deaths appropriates for divine or semi divine entities. The repugnant death of Jesus screeched in this context and also in those of the deaths of Jewish prophets, kings or Messiah. This is the kind of death that a hellenized or Jewish Christian never would have chosen to his divine Master if he had been able to avoid it.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

Well yes, we are all aware of that. So no one seriously dates gMark as early as the mid 60s.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

65-80 Gospel of Mark

This makes sense, since the only problem with a date that early is the mention, supposedly in the 30's, that the Temple will not stand forever (13:1-2),. The context was that no human work will last forever, and the author doesn't disclose that he offered the sayings as remarkable in light of the sack of Jerusalem in 70.

An example of later awareness by an editor is the chapter division, made by a modern Jesus devotee. By placing the brief remark about the Temple at the head of chapter 13, it groups it with the immediately following lengthy teaching on the Mount of Olives about the end of days, which is frankly prophetic and predictive in character.

In the undivided text, however, Jesus walks in a fluent course from the Temple area where he is teaching (12: 35ff), stopping across from the treasury (12:41) to oberve the widow's contribution, then into the city for the "prophecy," finally arriving at the Mount of Olives.

To depict Jesus taking a walk, and in passing making a trite observation about the transitory nature of human achievement, is the work of an author who either doesn't know when the Temple was destroyed, or plays his cards very close to his chest.

The latter is possible. Mark, throughout, never presents a "miracle" for which there is not a close-to-the-surface candidate for natural explanation. It could be that the author is writing at a time when miracle stories abound, and he is making a selection from among them, furthering an agenda of encouraging critical thought about the deposit of fatith. This would point to a later date than crisply on the heels of Paul's death.

(It is interesting that 7Q5 should come up, since it was mistaken for 6:52 ish of Mark. What's happening there is Jesus complaining, yet again, that the disciples don't understand the signs. That articulates a coherent position about the miracle stories, not that they are preter- or supernatural events, but opportunistic teaching stories, illustrating religious, moral, social and political principles which Jesus wishes to promote.

In this theory, hallucinating that Jesus walked on the water is not an occasion to imagine that Jesus really did walk on the water, but to conemplate what the meaning of such a vision is.)

 

[Craig B]

So the Qumran caves are a bust regarding Mark and IIRC the papers correctly any of our canonal Gospels as well.

Agreed. The Qumran caves contain material secreted before and during the Revolt. Mark and the other Gospels certainly date from after 70 AD.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/


This makes sense, since the only problem with a date that early is the mention, supposedly in the 30's, that the Temple will not stand forever (13:1-2),. The context was that no human work will last forever, and the author doesn't disclose that he offered the sayings as remarkable in light of the sack of Jerusalem in 70.

An example of later awareness by an editor is the chapter division, made by a modern Jesus devotee. By placing the brief remark about the Temple at the head of chapter 13, it groups it with the immediately following lengthy teaching on the Mount of Olives about the end of days, which is frankly prophetic and predictive in character.

In the undivided text, however, Jesus walks in a fluent course from the Temple area where he is teaching (12: 35ff), stopping across from the treasury (12:41) to oberve the widow's contribution, then into the city for the "prophecy," finally arriving at the Mount of Olives.

To depict Jesus taking a walk, and in passing making a trite observation about the transitory nature of human achievement, is the work of an author who either doesn't know when the Temple was destroyed, or plays his cards very close to his chest.

I think it is also possibly an Author placing various "Sermons" of Jesus into a Narrative Structure of a travelogue through Jerusalem; Stopping at various places of interest along the way to relate some pearl of Jesus wisdom...

Told in this way, little lessons are easier to recall for a speaker who has to memorise it. IMO.

 

[dejudge]

I repeat, neither in the Hellenized world nor in the Jewish world nobody would have invented, I insist, invented a crucified Messiah starting from previous religious beliefs. This invent, that is to say, this unbelievable idea was more likely a desperate intent to justify the unjustifiable.

Your post is highly illogical.

The story of Jesus is not about a human being. It was the Son of God, a Ghost like character that walked on the sea and transfigured that was crucified.

Your assumption is worthless.

The story of Jesus as described must have been invented.

1. They invented the conception and birth of Jesus.

2. They invented the Birth in Bethlehem because of the census of Cyrenius.

3. They invented the talking cloud at baptism.

4. They invented the Temptation by Satan.

5. They invented the Miracles of Jesus.

6. They invented the Killing of the Innocent by Herod.

7. They invented the Sermon of the mount.

8. They invented the Sermon on the Plain.

9. They invented the transfiguration.

10. They invented the feeding of the Five thousand.

11. They invent the Killing of the Fig Tree by Jesus.

12. They invented the resurrection.

13. They invented the Great Commission after the resurrection.

14. They invented the Ascension.

 

[Brainache]

Your post is highly illogical.

The story of Jesus is not about a human being. It was the Son of God, a Ghost like character that walked on the sea and transfigured that was crucified.

Your assumption is worthless.

The story of Jesus as described must have been invented.

1. They invented the conception and birth of Jesus.

2. They invented the Birth in Bethlehem because of the census of Cyrenius.

3. They invented the talking cloud at baptism.

4. They invented the Temptation by Satan.

5. They invented the Miracles of Jesus.

6. They invented the Killing of the Innocent by Herod.

7. They invented the Sermon of the mount.

8. They invented the Sermon on the Plain.

9. They invented the transfiguration.

10. They invented the feeding of the Five thousand.

11. They invent the Killing of the Fig Tree by Jesus.

12. They invented the resurrection.

13. They invented the Great Commission after the resurrection.

14. They invented the Ascension.

Still waiting for a coherent theory and detailed explanation of who "They" were, why and how they did it.

Any time you're ready dejudge...

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I think it is also possibly an Author placing various "Sermons" of Jesus into a Narrative Structure of a travelogue through Jerusalem; Stopping at various places of interest along the way to relate some pearl of Jesus wisdom...

Told in this way, little lessons are easier to recall for a speaker who has to memorise it. IMO.

OK. That is completely compatible with the view I presented, and does nothing to render a compostion date of 65 less plausible, the main issue addressed in my post in answer to yours. Kumbaya.

 

[David Mo]

Your post is highly illogical.

The story of Jesus is not about a human being. It was the Son of God, a Ghost like character that walked on the sea and transfigured that was crucified.

Your assumption is worthless.

The story of Jesus as described must have been invented.

1. They invented the conception and birth of Jesus.

2. They invented the Birth in Bethlehem because of the census of Cyrenius.

3. They invented the talking cloud at baptism.

4. They invented the Temptation by Satan.

5. They invented the Miracles of Jesus.

6. They invented the Killing of the Innocent by Herod.

7. They invented the Sermon of the mount.

8. They invented the Sermon on the Plain.

9. They invented the transfiguration.

10. They invented the feeding of the Five thousand.

11. They invent the Killing of the Fig Tree by Jesus.

12. They invented the resurrection.

13. They invented the Great Commission after the resurrection.

14. They invented the Ascension.

Excuse me for not answering, but you misunderstood my comments. I only speak of the difficulty of the invention of crucifixion. His other references aren't relevant now.

 

[dejudge]

Your post is highly illogical.

The story of Jesus is not about a human being. It was the Son of God, a Ghost like character that walked on the sea and transfigured that was crucified.

Your assumption is worthless.

The story of Jesus as described must have been invented.

1. They invented the conception and birth of Jesus.

2. They invented the Birth in Bethlehem because of the census of Cyrenius.

3. They invented the talking cloud at baptism.

4. They invented the Temptation by Satan.

5. They invented the Miracles of Jesus.

6. They invented the Killing of the Innocent by Herod.

7. They invented the Sermon of the mount.

8. They invented the Sermon on the Plain.

9. They invented the transfiguration.

10. They invented the feeding of the Five thousand.

11. They invent the Killing of the Fig Tree by Jesus.

12. They invented the resurrection.

13. They invented the Great Commission after the resurrection.

14. They invented the Ascension.

Still waiting for a coherent theory and detailed explanation of who "They" were, why and how they did it.

Any time you're ready dejudge...

I still waiting for a coherent theory and detailed explanation for who wrote the Creation story, the Flood with Noah, the story of the Tower of Babel and the Talking Donkey.

Do you know who "They" were, why and how they did it?

Anytime you are ready Brainache.....

All we know is that they wrote mythological fables and people believe them.

Why do you believe a Myth character called the Son of the God of the Jews who walked on water and transfigured was really real without a shred of evidence from the 1st century?

Why, Why?

Anytime you are ready Brianache.....

 

[Craig B]

I still waiting for a coherent theory and detailed explanation for who wrote the Creation story, the Flood with Noah, the story of the Tower of Babel and the Talking Donkey.

Do you know who "They" were, why and how they did it?

Anytime you are ready Brainache.....

All we know is that they wrote mythological fables and people believe them.

Why do you believe a Myth character called the Son of the God of the Jews who walked on water and transfigured was really real without a shred on evidence from the 1st century?

Why, Why?

Anytime you are ready Brianache.....

Dejudge, don't pretend to be foolish. You state that the entire NT was an intentional fictional deceitful forged hoax perpetrated in the late second and early fourth centuries, and that none of this material, or any of the figures named therein, had any prior real existence. Who performed this astounding feat; where and why? You have been asked to supply evidence to sustain this fantastic assertion. Please do so.