Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

@ianS

Given the relatively tenuous nature of the similarity between the "prophecies" and certain of the allegedly prophesied events reported in the Gospels, it seems more plausible in these cases that the evangelists and Paul searched the OT for passages that might explain some of the more intractable material they encountered in their sources, than that they looked at these sources and concocted events to match them.

In some cases, the birth story for example, the dependence on prophecy is indeed clear, because mistakes in the reading of the prophecy turn up as "facts" in Jesus' biography. But in other cases that phenomenon is not the most likely explanation.

When you say "material they encountered in their sources" (meaning sources other than the OT), which other sources are they? Where do you say they got their messiah beliefs except from the OT and from their religious beliefs in general (e.g. Paul believed that in addition to using the OT as his source, he had also seen visions of Jesus and had communications from Jesus and God as his sources) ... which other sources are you thinking of?

If you want to say that their sources were that they must have been told about Jesus from earlier Christians who knew Jesus and told them first hand evidence of Jesus, then that is a complete non-starter, because the whole point throughout all these threads and throughout all the sceptic books and articles ever written is that in fact there is zero evidence that anyone who ever met Jesus ever told Paul or any anonymous gospel copyist anything of the sort.

What it actually says in Paul’s letters, and iirc in g-Mark and g-Mathew too, is that they were definitely taking their messiah beliefs from what "is written", "according to scripture", and because "God was pleased to reveal his son in me" etc. And indeed, as I just pointed out (and as Helms shows in complete book of the stuff), you most definitely can find those passages in the OT ... that's not merely a coincidence is it!

 

[Craig B]

IanS

Your last three paras are simply not accepted. Possible sources have been referred to many times. If you can bring yourself to believe that Paul had no sources except the heavenly Jesus, then you must believe in the supernatural. Paul was in direct communication with people referred to in the gospels as companions, and at least one brother, of Jesus, and their followers.

These are possible sources. A light in the sky called Jesus is not--whatever Paul may have said. How you can not believe in the existence of a Jesus group, but can take Paul seriously as regards his alleged sources, is beyond my understanding.

 

[maximara]

Your memory fails you; see post #184 in Jesus Story: A peice of History that bugs me :

Based on the coins found with them the Dead Sea Scrolls are c62 BCE ± 72 2σ. (ie a 94% chance of being between 135 BCE and 73 CE; the 2σ means two standard divination as most ± are only at 1σ which is only 68%) while the carbon 14 dates range goes from a low of 408 BCE (Wadi-Daliyeh deed) to a high of 318 CE (4Q258 Comm. Rule, 1st sample)

----

Considering the Wadi-Daliyeh deed via Carbon 14 is dated to c408 BCE your current claim of 1st Century CE for the entirety of the DSS is nonsense. Also Edward M. Cook in his "Solving the Mysteries of the Dead Sea Scrolls" points out Carbon 14 for the materials has a ± 100 range or a 200 year range for the dates--"not a very exact result".

Normally such ranges are 1σ or only a 68% chance of being in the range. If we assume Cook is following the de facto standard for a Carbon 14 ranges you would have to double the range (ie 2σ) to get up to 94% but that would be a staggering 400 year range. If he is using the more conservative 2σ range then you still have fromt he 1st century BC to 2nd cantury CE as your range--"not a very exact result".

Yes, but the period (decades) leading up to the Revolt is smack bang in the middle of the carbon dating range. Why is this controversial?

The middle is actual far before the revolt: c62 BCE for the coins and c45 BCE for the C14 range. Both of which are well before the supposed time of Jesus.

People proposing a 2nd Century BCE Teacher of Righteousness have to stretch the dating beyond the limits. It just doesn't work.

The Damascus Document (which admittedly is far younger than the DDS) gives a date for the Teacher of Righteousness: 390 years after the Babylonian Exile. That exile ended 538 which would put the Teacher of Righteousness in c150 BCE or smack dab in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. AIUI the DDS that also relate to this Teacher of Righteousness also have makers pointing to this date and artifacts associated with them have a C14 date range with a mid point in the 2nd century BCE.

Does the prospect of the DSS being the writings of the James Gang worry you? It worries the Catholics, that's for sure...

Given the wide range of dates for the documents and the condition of many why would they "worry" anyone? The fact that people have to straw grasp to make the DDS have the writings of Paul or even the Gospels IMHO shows that they now the current dating of the Gospels is shaky at best...which brings me back to my issue: Where did those dates come from in the first place?

A little search shows more or less the same early range for Mark in the 1830s long before the DDS or any 20th century discovery. Philip Schaff in 1889 puts the synoptics at 60-70 and John at 70-100 which are close to the dates seen in modern works. So again, where are the dates often given to the Gospels coming from and how were they determined?

 

[maximara]

IanS

Your last three paras are simply not accepted. Possible sources have been referred to many times. If you can bring yourself to believe that Paul had no sources except the heavenly Jesus, then you must believe in the supernatural. Paul was in direct communication with people referred to in the gospels as companions, and at least one brother, of Jesus, and their followers..

This ignores the possibility of the Gospels using these names when they were composed.

 

[Craig B]

This ignores the possibility of the Gospels using these names when they were composed.

But it takes into account the certainty that Paul's claimed source of information is quite impossible.

 

[zugzwang]

@ianS

Given the relatively tenuous nature of the similarity between the "prophecies" and certain of the allegedly prophesied events reported in the Gospels, it seems more plausible in these cases that the evangelists and Paul searched the OT for passages that might explain some of the more intractable material they encountered in their sources, than that they looked at these sources and concocted events to match them.

In some cases, the birth story for example, the dependence on prophecy is indeed clear, because mistakes in the reading of the prophecy turn up as "facts" in Jesus' biography. But in other cases that phenomenon is not the most likely explanation.

What is really fascinating is that the phrases such as “hung on a tree”, being “pierced or fastened hand and foot”, being “rejected and persecuted by his own people”, being "raised on the third day", have long been used by evangelicals to show that Jesus was prophesized in the Jewish Bible (OT); in fact, it is a famous example of retro-engineered prophecy and also lots of wriggling, since as you say, the connection often seems tenuous.

It's nice to see that the same phrases are being used in the reverse direction, as supporting MJ. You can see how versatile the Bible is!

 

[dejudge]

Mark, throughout, never presents a "miracle" for which there is not a close-to-the-surface candidate for natural explanation.

Your claim is a well established fallacy.

The miracles in gMark cannot be explained naturally.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

... but can take Paul seriously as regards his alleged sources, is beyond my understanding.

But you just explained it a few posts back in the case of the "virgin birth prophecy" and Matthew. The author misread his source, plain and simple.

Next up: Theosophists announce major breakthrough on 100 BCE Jesus! Epiphanius tells all!

Misreading is a common thing.

But it takes into account the certainty that Paul's claimed source of information is quite impossible.

One of Paul's claimed sources for some of his material is impossible as he interpreted it, but not as he described himself to have experienced. As a psychological phenomenon, it is altogether possible, either experiencing a creative act as originating outside oneself (in the case of the Galatians "gospel," which may indeed be Paul's original work) or cryptomnesia if he recalled actual information about the past that way.

If Sigmund Freud can fail to recognize his boyhood reading when he regurgitates it as an adult, then Paul can mistake what his persecution victims shouted at him for a novel discourse from a chatty light in the sky.

But it's fairly obvious that Paul got most of what he says in the 50's about earthside Jesus from a two-week seminar with The Rock back in the 30's. He most certainly disclosed this source.

 

[dejudge]

But its fairly obvious that Paul got most of what he says about Jesus in the 50's from a two week seminar with The Rock back in the 30's. He most certainly disclosed this source.

Your statement is an established fallacy. There is no actual evidence of any Pauline writings before the 2nd century or later.

Plus, the version of the Pauline Corpus used today are really compiled from 4th century or later Codices like the Alexandrinus Codex.

 

[IanS]

IanS

Your last three paras are simply not accepted. Possible sources have been referred to many times. If you can bring yourself to believe that Paul had no sources except the heavenly Jesus, then you must believe in the supernatural. Paul was in direct communication with people referred to in the gospels as companions, and at least one brother, of Jesus, and their followers. These are possible sources. A light in the sky called Jesus is not--whatever Paul may have said. How you can not believe in the existence of a Jesus group, but can take Paul seriously as regards his alleged sources, is beyond my understanding.

Well that astonishing reply is just hilarious. Or, rather, it would be hilarious, except that it's actually rather sad.

What I have quoted to you at least a dozen times, from Paul’s letters, is where his letters very clearly, specifically, repeatedly and unarguably do actually say that he obtained his Jesus beliefs "from no man", that he never consulted "any human source", but that he got his beliefs "according to scripture". That is undeniably what the letters actually do say.

If you are trying to claim instead that Paul ever told of any eye-witness who gave him his information about Jesus, then you must quote where Paul actually says that.

Please quote where Paul's letters ever say that he obtained his beliefs about Jesus from what any other human man had told him.

If you cannot do that, then you have absolutely no case at all.

And it's no case at all for you to speculate that quote "Paul was in direct communication with people referred to in the gospels as companions, and at least one brother, of Jesus, and their followers. These are possible sources." ... any source might be "possible" for absolutely anything in any subject at all ... but we are talking here of what Paul’s letters do actually say, whilst you are doing no more now than just speculating in support of your own un-evidenced pre-conceived Jesus beliefs. Where is your evidence any such information told to Paul by anyone?

Where is your evidence for claiming that Paul knew about Jesus because witnesses had told him about Jesus?

You have zero evidence of any such thing at all.

But on the contrary, there is not merely evidence for Paul obtaining his Jesus beliefs from the OT, but actually unarguable proof that his letters specifically say exactly that (and they stress it, repeatedly!).

 

[IanS]

What is really fascinating is that the phrases such as “hung on a tree”, being “pierced or fastened hand and foot”, being “rejected and persecuted by his own people”, being "raised on the third day", have long been used by evangelicals to show that Jesus was prophesized in the Jewish Bible (OT); in fact, it is a famous example of retro-engineered prophecy and also lots of wriggling, since as you say, the connection often seems tenuous. It's nice to see that the same phrases are being used in the reverse direction, as supporting MJ. You can see how versatile the Bible is!

Re. the highlight, I am doing no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. As you really must know (assuming you can read properly!).

What I said about it, is - Paul's letters actually do say where he obtained his Jesus beliefs, and he stresses and repeats that it was from no man, not of human origin, but from his visions of Jesus and from God, from what he believed was written as prophecy in ancient scripture. That's what his letters actually say.

And ... as far as those OT passages are concerned re, "hung on a tree" and "pierced" and "raised up on the third day" etc. are concerned, I am simply pointing out the unarguable and inescapable fact that those sort of passages are in fact found in parts of the OT, and that is the same OT where Paul and the gospel writers very clearly say they were looking for, and finding, their messiah beliefs.

 

[zugzwang]

Re. the highlight, I am doing no such thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. As you really must know (assuming you can read properly!).

What I said about it, is - Paul's letters actually do say where he obtained his Jesus beliefs, and he stresses and repeats that it was from no man, not of human origin, but from his visions of Jesus and from God, from what he believed was written as prophecy in ancient scripture. That's what his letters actually say.

And ... as far as those OT passages are concerned re, "hung on a tree" and "pierced" and "raised up on the third day" etc. are concerned, I am simply pointing out the unarguable and inescapable fact that those sort of passages are in fact found in parts of the OT, and that is the same OT where Paul and the gospel writers very clearly say they were looking for, and finding, their messiah beliefs.

This is a fascinating thesis, as it seems to suggest that Paul had never met any Christians, or heard any stories about Jesus, but had produced his ideas either from his own visions or from the Jewish Bible.

I think you should disseminate this view more widely; surely, it would have a revolutionary impact on historical studies, Biblical studies, classics, and so on. At a stroke, it solves all the problems about Pauline writings and the gospels, the background of oral literature, the existence of Q. Go for it!

 

[dejudge]

But it takes into account the certainty that Paul's claimed source of information is quite impossible.

Now that you have admitted the Pauline claims of revelations are not credible why do you still BELIEVE him?

Your pattern of argument is completely contradictory.

You openly discredit your sources but still believe them and do so without any external corroborative evidence.

You put forward the very worst kind of argument for an HJ.

1. Admitted discredited sources.

2. Admitted fictional sources.

3. Admitted forgeries or falsely attributed sources.

4. Writings of unknown authorship and unknown date of authorship.

5. Writings that were compiled from sources and Codices dated no earlier than the 4th century.

The HJ argument is futile--an established dead end argument with multiple failures as late as 1980 and multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

 

[Belz...]

The miracles in gMark cannot be explained naturally.

Actually, they kinda can, although it requires assuming that the events actually happened and were misinterpreted.

 

[Brainache]

The middle is actual far before the revolt: c62 BCE for the coins and c45 BCE for the C14 range. Both of which are well before the supposed time of Jesus.

Well the range I saw was from 150 BCE to 200 CE. The first half of the first century is in the middle of that.

The Damascus Document (which admittedly is far younger than the DDS) gives a date for the Teacher of Righteousness: 390 years after the Babylonian Exile. That exile ended 538 which would put the Teacher of Righteousness in c150 BCE or smack dab in the middle of the 2nd century BCE. AIUI the DDS that also relate to this Teacher of Righteousness also have makers pointing to this date and artifacts associated with them have a C14 date range with a mid point in the 2nd century BCE.

I don't know what the DDS is, but the Damascus document is one of the DSS and your method of dating is, er, novel to say the least...

You can't just take that 390 years and add it on to some modern interpretation of when they mean. That could just be some symbolic numerology about "Fulfillment" or something.

Given the wide range of dates for the documents and the condition of many why would they "worry" anyone? The fact that people have to straw grasp to make the DDS have the writings of Paul or even the Gospels IMHO shows that they now the current dating of the Gospels is shaky at best...which brings me back to my issue: Where did those dates come from in the first place?

Who is saying the DSS have the writings of Paul? In my scenario Paul is their hated enemy corrupting the religion with lies. They don't have copies of his letters lying around, they want to kill him.

A little search shows more or less the same early range for Mark in the 1830s long before the DDS or any 20th century discovery. Philip Schaff in 1889 puts the synoptics at 60-70 and John at 70-100 which are close to the dates seen in modern works. So again, where are the dates often given to the Gospels coming from and how were they determined?

Are you really only asking this question now?

We know the Synoptics come before John.

We know (per your earlier link) that John was written in the first half of the second century.

If we accept that gMark must have been composed no earlier than the mid to late 60s, but not later than the early 70s, given the content, I can't see what the problem is.

There is no need to invoke the DSS at all.

 

[maximara]

Well the range I saw was from 150 BCE to 200 CE. The first half of the first century is in the middle of that.

I have no idea where as when I originally brought up the point I expressly stated:

"It should be noted the DSS have a range of dates from 408 BCE to 318 CE based on a mixture of C14 dating of linen found with them and palaeography."

I don't know what the DDS is, but the Damascus document is one of the DSS and your method of dating is, er, novel to say the least...

Not my method of dating but the one used in The Madrid Qumran Congress published by BRILL pg 141-142. Tell us, do you do any research with regard to your comments?

The Wikipedia article Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls uses Doudna's Brill work as a reference and that is where I pulled the date range from. Have no idea what wonky source you got that 150 BCE to 200 CE range from but based on Doudna's paper where ever it came from the person clearly didn't know that they were talking about.

Doudna, Greg, "Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis", in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, edited by Flint Peter W., and VanderKam, James C., Vol.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 430-471.

Who is saying the DSS have the writings of Paul?

We went over this post 2302 in the Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed thread. Do try to remember previous thread you have been in...it saves a lot of time:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

(The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls pg 316)

The Apologists toddle out this a lot from what I have seen.

And we are still waiting on where and how the pre-130 dates for the Gospels come from.

 

[Brainache]

I have no idea where as when I originally brought up the point I expressly stated:

"It should be noted the DSS have a range of dates from 408 BCE to 318 CE based on a mixture of C14 dating of linen found with them and palaeography."

The Wikipedia article Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls uses Doudna's Brill work as a reference and that is where I pulled the date range from. Have no idea what wonky source you got that 150 BCE to 200 CE range from but based on Doudna's paper where ever it came from the person clearly didn't know that they were talking about.

Doudna, Greg, "Dating the Scrolls on the Basis of Radiocarbon Analysis", in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years, edited by Flint Peter W., and VanderKam, James C., Vol.1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 430-471.

Try this blog from Eisenman, the guy who commissioned that study by Doudna:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/james-the-just-as-righteo_b_4133599.html

To state this perhaps more clearly, it was my firm opinion then and now that the margins-of-error in C-14 testing for a timeframe, such as that for the mss. at Qumran - particularly the 'sectarian' ones or those never seen before - were of such magnitude as to render "absolute dating" unrealistic. On the other hand, in the circumstances, ''relative dating" - meaning, as we just saw, "earlier vs. later" in the same test series - would be the best that could reasonably be expected since, in the limited circumstances of a run of tests conducted at the same time, the inherent methodological errors would more or less cancel each other out. Moreover such a process would at least test over-inflated claims for accuracy based on these tenuous "paleographic sequences".

These suggestions along with the caveats were laid out in two letters (to which we attached the relevant literature on the new AMS Carbon testing in the event he was not familiar with them - we presumed, probably correctly, he was not) to the then Head of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Amir Drori (a former Israel General who saw service in the Lebanon War), where they fell on deaf ears - the first on May 6, 1989 and the second on June 15th, 1989, after no response was received from the first...

We went over this post 2302 in the Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed thread. Do try to remember previous thread you have been in...it saves a lot of time:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

(The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls pg 316)

The Apologists toddle out this a lot from what I have seen.

And we are still waiting on where and how the pre-130 dates for the Gospels come from.

Apologists would be the only people trotting out that list. I don't recall any of the people I've read claiming any of that stuff except for Carsten Peter Thiede, and he was a loony.

So I'm not sure what you are arguing about here. Mainstream Scholars don't date the Gospels by the DSS and the DSS researchers I trust don't find books of the Bible at Qumran.

What's the problem here?

 

[Craig B]

And we are still waiting on where and how the pre-130 dates for the Gospels come from.

. None of the Gospels, in your estimation, may be dated prior to c 130?

 

[IanS]

This is a fascinating thesis, as it seems to suggest that Paul had never met any Christians, or heard any stories about Jesus, but had produced his ideas either from his own visions or from the Jewish Bible.

I think you should disseminate this view more widely; surely, it would have a revolutionary impact on historical studies, Biblical studies, classics, and so on. At a stroke, it solves all the problems about Pauline writings and the gospels, the background of oral literature, the existence of Q. Go for it!

Well first of all - it is not a "fascinating thesis", it's what all translations of Paul's letters actually say.

Secondly - whether Paul had met any earlier Christians is irrelevant. Because the mere fact that anyone described anyone as "Christians" only means they believed in the Jewish messiah prophecies of the OT, and those messiah prophecies had been preached and believed since at least the time of Moses c.1000BC.

And thirdly - why on earth should I bother trying to point that out to bible scholars, when (a) they know all that very well indeed (as has has been pointed out in most modern sceptic books), and since (b) I have zero interest in trying to change the mind of religiously interested, religiously self-serving bible scholars who invariably have an extensive personal history of devout religious faith, and where (c) I don’t regard them as serious objective genuine academics at all.

 

[Brainache]

Well first of all - it is not a "fascinating thesis", it's what all translations of Paul's letters actually say.

...

Why do you act as if this is the ONLY thing Paul tells us in his letters?

He says lots of other things too. Why do you ignore all that stuff about earlier Apostles?

The rest of your post is the usual ad-hom rubbish.