Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

The Dead Sea Scrolls (http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/deadseascrolls.html) , which were found in that exact small region near Jerusalem, consist of remnants of 800-900 manuscripts all written on either parchment or papyrus (plus one famous copper scroll), and those are typically several centuries older than the extant copies of gospels, so they did not all “crumble away in a few decades”.

The DSS were intentionally hidden away in circumstances intended to preserve them in a cave in a desert area. Most of them were on skin or parchment. Bury papyrus in a jar in a cave in a desert in Judaea, it will not crumble away in a few decades, yes. But in Egypt papyrus survives better in general. You're still having a laugh I think.

 

[IanS]

The DSS were intentionally hidden away in circumstances intended to preserve them in a cave in a desert area. Most of them were on skin or parchment. Bury papyrus in a jar in a cave in a desert in Judaea, it will not crumble away in a few decades, yes. But in Egypt papyrus survives better in general. You're still having a laugh I think.

The DSS were in caves above the shore of the Dead Sea, so the region presumably has it's share of moisture in the air. It was not in the middle of a sandy dessert.

But I don't think either of us know how well or how badly any biblical material might have survived in circumstances similar to the DSS at Qumran. Or whether the circumstances are really so much more favourable wherever the NT writing was actually found in parts of Egypt.

Is there some special reason why, if there was voluminous NT writing in Judea, i.e. presumably more than has actually been found in Egypt, it would not have been stored in stone libraries & preserved at least in some small part?

Presumably you are proposing that the biblical writing would have been almost entirely from that region around Jerusalem and wider Judea? But that apparently, nothing of it has ever been found? Whilst instead it has all been found far away in another country entirely.

It's not supposed to be a "knock-down" argument (which is why I merely said that it seems strange or suspicious). But on the face of it, I think that does need an explanation, and I don’t know if it’s correct to say that so much would be found in Egypt, whilst nothing at all seems to have been found where you might expect it around Jerusalem, and whilst the DSS did survive in vast amounts (whether in simple caves and crude stone jars or not … they were not sealed in modern airtight containers!).

Weather conditions and preservation conditions aside, I assume you would agree that we should have expected to find that the NT biblical writing was produced around Jerusalem, and not 500 miles away in Egypt? Presumably the point you are making is that you would have expected it all to be found there around Jerusalem, but that it must have all decayed away? What, all of it decayed away? It all disappeared? Was there any left, any found?

But why is it in Egypt at all? Why was it written there in such vast amount?

 

[Brainache]

The DSS were in caves above the shore of the Dead Sea, so the region presumably has it's share of moisture in the air. It was not in the middle of a sandy dessert.

But I don't think either of us know how well or how badly any biblical material might have survived in circumstances similar to the DSS at Qumran. Or whether the circumstances are really so much more favourable wherever the NT writing was actually found in parts of Egypt.

Is there some special reason why, if there was voluminous NT writing in Judea, i.e. presumably more than has actually been found in Egypt, it would not have been stored in stone libraries & preserved at least in some small part?

Presumably you are proposing that the biblical writing would have been almost entirely from that region around Jerusalem and wider Judea? But that apparently, nothing of it has ever been found? Whilst instead it has all been found far away in another country entirely.

It's not supposed to be a "knock-down" argument (which is why I merely said that it seems strange or suspicious). But on the face of it, I think that does need an explanation, and I don’t know if it’s correct to say that so much would be found in Egypt, whilst nothing at all seems to have been found where you might expect it around Jerusalem, and whilst the DSS did survive in vast amounts (whether in simple caves and crude stone jars or not … they were not sealed in modern airtight containers!).

Weather conditions and preservation conditions aside, I assume you would agree that we should have expected to find that the NT biblical writing was produced around Jerusalem, and not 500 miles away in Egypt? Presumably the point you are making is that you would have expected it all to be found there around Jerusalem, but that it must have all decayed away? What, all of it decayed away? It all disappeared? Was there any left, any found?

But why is it in Egypt at all? Why was it written there in such vast amount?

Again, you could study Ancient History and learn these things, but you won't.

Did you hear about that big war in 70 CE? All the cities of Judea were destroyed, but you think we should be able to find store houses full of "Official Records".

Maybe even Jesus' long-form birth certificate...

 

[dejudge]

Again, you could study Ancient History and learn these things, but you won't.

Did you hear about that big war in 70 CE? All the cities of Judea were destroyed, but you think we should be able to find store houses full of "Official Records".

Maybe even Jesus' long-form birth certificate...

So, you have nothing for HJ.

 

[Craig B]

Weather conditions and preservation conditions aside, I assume you would agree that we should have expected to find that the NT biblical writing was produced around Jerusalem, and not 500 miles away in Egypt? Presumably the point you are making is that you would have expected it all to be found there around Jerusalem, but that it must have all decayed away? What, all of it decayed away? It all disappeared? Was there any left, any found?

See wiki on papyrus.

In European conditions, papyrus seems to have lasted only a matter of decades; a 200-year-old papyrus was considered extraordinary. Imported papyrus once commonplace in Greece and Italy has since deteriorated beyond repair, but papyrus is still being found in Egypt; extraordinary examples include the Elephantine papyri and the famous finds at Oxyrhynchus and Nag Hammadi. The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, containing the library of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Julius Caesar's father-in-law, was preserved by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, but has only been partially excavated.

And it also states that

Until the middle of the 19th century, only some isolated documents written on papyrus were known. They did not contain literary works. The first discovery of papyri rolls in modern days was made at Herculaneum in 1752. Before that date, the only papyri known were a few surviving from medieval times.

None were known from ancient Rome, although millions of documents must have been churned out by the Roman bureaucracy and private scribes.

 

[dejudge]

See wiki on papyrus. And it also states thatNone were known from ancient Rome, although millions of documents must have been churned out by the Roman bureaucracy and private scribes.

So, you have nothing for YOUR HJ.

 

[Craig B]

So, you have nothing for YOUR HJ.

Nobody has anything at all. That's why your equation of earliest extant manuscript with date of composition is quite absurd. Nothing at all prior to the discovery of the very special carbonised papyri from Herculaneum was known from the ancient Roman civilisation. I repeat, not one single document. Nothing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri

Until the middle of the 18th century the only papyri known were a few survivals from medieval times.The [Herculaneum] rolls, which were part of a library of Greek and Latin texts from the Ancient era, would never have survived the Mediterranean climate and would have crumbled or been lost.

Only with the much later introduction of parchment do we start to have documents preserved for centuries.

 

[dejudge]

Nobody has anything at all. That's why your equation of earliest extant manuscript with date of composition is quite absurd. Nothing at all prior to the discovery of the very special carbonised papyri from Herculaneum was known from the ancient Roman civilisation. I repeat, not one single document. Nothing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri Only with the much later introduction of parchment do we start to have documents preserved for centuries.

So, you have NOTHING for your HJ.

The HJ argument is an established failure and it was known to be a failure for hundreds of years.

There was NEVER any evidence from the start.

I repeat, Not one single document before c 70 CE has ever been found for HJ.

I repeat, Nobody has anything at all.


The HJ argument is confirmed to be void of logic and facts.

Nobody can successfully argue that there was an HJ in the time of Tiberius--Nobody.

The DSS and the Herculaneum papyri do not mention HJ, the disciples and Paul.

 

[David Mo]

It's in 1 Thessalonians 2, but it's a bit suspicious. The final sentence at least, which is a clear reference to the destruction of the Temple, seems to be an interpolation.

Thank you, Craig. You are right. In any case, even the authors who defend the authenticity do not interpret this text as an indictment of the Jews for they had crucified Jesus. The common interpretation in this case is complicity for having surrendered him to the Romans, that is the line of the Synoptics.

 

[Craig B]

So, you have NOTHING for your HJ.

The HJ argument is an established failure and it was known to be a failure for hundreds of years.

There was NEVER any evidence from the start.

I repeat, Not one single document before c 70 CE has ever been found for HJ.

I repeat, Nobody has anything at all.

You don't need to repeat it. I just wrote it. It's about the non-durability of pre-parchment writing formats in the Mediterranean basin area.

Nobody can successfully argue that there was an HJ in the time of Tiberius--Nobody.

Not by producing contemporary papyrus documents we can't. That's right. As stated, the earliest complete copies of literary works are almost all medieval parchment codices.

The DSS and the Herculaneum papyri do not mention HJ, the disciples and Paul.

That's right. They don't. Well spotted.

ETA

The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, containing the library of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Julius Caesar's father-in-law

indeed contained no documents mentioning Paul. That's right.

 

[David Mo]

David Mo

Perhaps so. The black letter text of 21:23 , however, attaches a curse to the open display of a corpse, period. Paul states his belief that this verse applies to Jesus. It is uninteresting that you would interpret the passage differently than Paul says he did, and uninformative about where Paul got the idea that Jesus' dead body was displayed on a "stake" of some kind.

I don’t interpret the Deuteronomy passage in a different way that Paul, I interpret Paul’s passage in a different way you do. Make no mistake.

Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree,”​

This is a comparison with a similarity and a difference between two situations: the body of bad son stoned and crucified body of Christ:
Similarity: curse by being hung on a wood ("tree")
Difference: the causes: stoning (bad son), Crucifixion (Jesus).
Paul compares two similar situations, but not two different causes. The comparison is cut if we entered the causes. So Paul can not draw the cause from Deuteronomy to figure out the cause of the death of Jesus. All he equates is the two curses not the two causes of death.

The most plausible hypothesis is that Paul finds in Deuteronomy the justification of a fact that he previously believed: the ignominious death of Jesus. To do this, he adds a new jump: to link this passage with the rite of the scapegoat, which is a difficult jump without a rational justification. According to the argument of difficulty the procedure is rationally unjustified and, therefore, implausible. The simplest is to assume that Paul does this because he wants to justify at all costs a fact really happened or who he thinks really happened: the humiliating death of Jesus. So the Paul's procedure continues to be irrational but explainable. And in equal conditions the simplest way is preferable.

I wonder what you have against this interpretation. Because so far I have not heard nothing about it, except that it is my interpretation.

This is my argument. There are only two things that can throw a shadow of a doubt: René Girard's theory of deification of the scapegoat and the story of Jesus Malverde. But I wont to explain them. You cannot hope that I will shoot on my own foot. Furthermore, they are only shadows of a doubt.

Nobody said that Paul wrote that Jews crucified Jesus. Paul comments upon the role of Jews in Jesus' death, from whatever cause, in 1 Thessalonians 2: 14-15

For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone.

You are right: this passage doesn’t speak of crucifixion. I asked you on what text Paul spoke on crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews. The correct answer is: none.
Here (1 Thessalonians 2, 13-16) is said that the "Jews killed" Jesus. This sentence can be interpreted as extending the blame on those who handed Jesus over to the Romans in order to exculpate these (Antonio Piñero, -in Spanish) or that this is a reason to think that the passage is interpolated (Richard Carrier). Because to think that the text attributes to Jews such penalty, not knowing that it was a typically Roman penalty in Palestine from the death of Herod the Great to the year 70 CE, is a reason to assume that Paul did not write these lines. He couldn’t ignore it. Especially since it is in contradiction to 1 Corinthians 2:6-8, where he attributes the crucifixion (now yes!) of Jesus to the "rulers of this world." The idea of interpolation seems widely accepted by experts of the two sides (both miticists and historicists).

 

[David Mo]

The colour options are there to be used. If you don't think this website should provide the use of colour, then complain to the moderators.

Do not be angry, please. I did not want to prohibit you to write as you wish, only warn you that you wasn't obliged to colour your writings to make them patent. If you like to write with colours, do so. It does not bother me and I will not complain to anyone.

 

[IanS]

See wiki on papyrus.

And it also states that

See wiki on papyrus.
Quote:
In European conditions, papyrus seems to have lasted only a matter of decades; a 200-year-old papyrus was considered extraordinary. Imported papyrus once commonplace in Greece and Italy has since deteriorated beyond repair, but papyrus is still being found in Egypt; extraordinary examples include the Elephantine papyri and the famous finds at Oxyrhynchus and Nag Hammadi. The Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum, containing the library of Lucius Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus, Julius Caesar's father-in-law, was preserved by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, but has only been partially excavated.


And it also states that

Quote:
Until the middle of the 19th century, only some isolated documents written on papyrus were known. They did not contain literary works. The first discovery of papyri rolls in modern days was made at Herculaneum in 1752. Before that date, the only papyri known were a few surviving from medieval times. None were known from ancient Rome, although millions of documents must have been churned out by the Roman bureaucracy and private scribes

None were known from ancient Rome, although millions of documents must have been churned out by the Roman bureaucracy and private scribes.

Well your above selection of Wiki quotes is interesting. Not so much for what those particular sentences say, but because I notice that you omitted the first sentence in that Wiki article, which seems to suggest that the earliest known papyri date back as far as 2500BC!, see below -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus

Papyrus was first manufactured in Egypt and Southern Sudan as far back as the fourth millennium BCE.[3][4] The earliest archaeological evidence of papyrus was excavated in 2012-2013 at Wadi al-Jarf, an ancient Egyptian harbor located on the Red Sea coast. These documents date from ca. 2560-2550 BCE (end of the reign of Khufu).[3] In the first centuries BCE and CE, papyrus scrolls gained a rival as a writing surface in the form of parchment, which was prepared from animal skins.[5]



If papyrus could survive since 2500BC in Egypt, you might think that it could survive in some state at least from the time of the gospels in Judea. In which respect, notice that your other Wiki quote talking about surviving little more than 200 years, is specifically talking about European conditions. But Judea is not in Europe, and afaik the conditions there are much hotter and drier.

But all that apart - assuming that the NT papyri found in Egypt were not transported to Egypt from Judea (why would they do that?), then I wonder why they would be writing the story of Jesus in Egypt?

 

[Belz...]

Did I make my point clear?

I guess that's a "no", then.

 

[eight bits]

David Mo

Thank you, Craig. You are right. In any case, even the authors who defend the authenticity do not interpret this text as an indictment of the Jews for they had crucified Jesus. The common interpretation in this case is complicity for having surrendered him to the Romans, that is the line of the Synoptics.

The passages in question, II Chronicles, 1 Thessalonians and later Matthew's "O, Jerusalem" (23: 37-39) are all familiar to anybody who does Muslim counterapologetics. (A risky business around here.) These verses certainly are used in antisemitic discourse, today as they have been in the past. None of that has anything to do with Paul.

Paul is one of the best prose stylists ever. Paul is exactly indicting "the Jews" for killing Jesus, and not as an isolated incident, but as part of a centuries-long pattern and practice which continues to inflict violence on Paul himself. Paul does not mean all Jews, since he retains a Jewish identity, and knows about the prophets because of Jewish scripture.

Paul does, however, mean some Jews, and he speaks first-hand, since at one time, he was a Jew doing what he later condemns. As far as Jesus's death is concerned, there is no Roman involvement mentioned in Paul. The first we read of that is in Mark, who does not tell us his sources. It may have been an inference on Mark's part, as he tried to work out how a man killed by Jews ended up on a stick (as Paul tells us he did, at least once he was dead or dying).

Even taking Mark at face value, there is sufficient Jewish involvement in Jesus' death tale to justify Paul placing blame on them. Since the 1 Thessalonians passage is not only about Jesus, "some" Jewish involvement may have sufficed, for Paul to include Jesus on his list.

Including Jesus on the list also helps the ever on-message Paul to mitigate a serious problem with Jesus' claim to the Messiahship - no "big name" Jewish religious figure noticed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah until after he's dead. The inplicit argument, then, is "that's how it is with Jews, being rejected and even killed by them is a mark of authenticity - their own scriptures say so." That's what an indictment looks like, David. There is no wonder that Muslims, who otherwise have little use for Paul, think he's making beautiful music here.

Be that as it may, there is no problem with the passage's authenticity. The other poster relied on a well-spun English translation to gin up an almost sort-of (murky is the new clear) reference to a future-therefore-must-have-been-added-later event that simply isn't mentioned at all in Paul's Greek text. The bullshy reference-wannabe was tricked up by an English translator who thought it would help somehow.

ETA: It is at least interesting, though, that Paul doesn't mention Roman involvement in 1 Thessalonians. The sense of the passage is that his audience is undergoing persecution at the hands of Gentiles, parallel to the way that the Jewish church has been beset by Jewish hostility. There's a missed opportunity to remark on Gentiles yet again finishing what Jews started, or some such. Not a big deal one way or the other, but remarkable all the same.

 

[GDon]

I've posted it before (as far back as the Piggy thread iirc). From which I pointed out (dozens of times here) that Ehrman has indeed repeatedly insisted that Jesus “certainly” existed (the same certainty is also declared in print in his book).

But also iirc, towards the end of that film when he finally gets to mentioning his evidence he says just two things (i)that one piece of his evidence is too complicated to tell people about, and (ii) that Paul said that he met James “the Lords brother”, and he presents that as utterly conclusive because he says (quoting him from memory) “you would think that James would know if his own brother never existed” ... hmm, how very amusing.

If Ehrman believes that Paul indeed met the brother of Jesus, don't you think his conclusion that Jesus "certainly existed" is reasonable, from his perspective? I can't see him rationally coming to any other conclusion.

 

[eight bits]

GDon

If Ehrman believes that Paul indeed met the brother of Jesus, don't you think his conclusion that Jesus "certainly existed" is reasonable, from his perspective? I can't see him rationally coming to any other conclusion.

Then perhaps you ought to ask Ehrman why he later asserted "almost" certainty.

Fine and dandy that Ehrman thinks that Paul meant that James was in some literal sense "The Lord's brother" (although Jesus being a Lord is itself a figure of speech), and that Paul would know whether or not it was factually true, and that Paul himself is speaking truthfully to us. None of that justifies a pontification that the matter is decided with certainty.

Dollars to doughnuts that you are unimpressed when the Pope speaks infallibly. Ehrman isn't etiher, and wasn't even back in the days when the Bible saying so was good enough for him. So, that Ehrman himself spoke as if infallible was an error on his part. To his credit, he has since corrected himself.

 

[Craig B]

Well your above selection of Wiki quotes is interesting. Not so much for what those particular sentences say, but because I notice that you omitted the first sentence in that Wiki article, which seems to suggest that the earliest known papyri date back as far as 2500BC! ...
If papyrus could survive since 2500BC in Egypt, you might think that it could survive in some state at least from the time of the gospels in Judea. In which respect, notice that your other Wiki quote talking about surviving little more than 200 years, is specifically talking about European conditions. But Judea is not in Europe, and afaik the conditions there are much hotter and drier.

But all that apart - assuming that the NT papyri found in Egypt were not transported to Egypt from Judea (why would they do that?), then I wonder why they would be writing the story of Jesus in Egypt?

But we agreed that papyrus could survive in Egypt, so I don't understand your point. Judaea has a climate probably more like say Greece than like Egypt. On this point of difference, see http://www.flowofhistory.com/units/pre/2/fc11b

Thutmose I (1525-1490 B.C.E.) was the pharaoh who really established Egypt's empire. He extended Egyptian power into Nubia once again. This meant Egypt controlled a thin strip of river valley some 1200 miles long. Thutmose also advanced into Palestine and Syria to protect Egypt against any "Hyksos" there ... many of the Egyptian soldiers experienced rain for the first time, which they could only describe as "the Nile falling from the sky."

 

[Craig B]

Be that as it may, there is no problem with the passage's authenticity. The other poster relied on a well-spun English translation to gin up an almost sort-of (murky is the new clear) reference to a future-therefore-must-have-been-added-later event that simply isn't mentioned at all in Paul's Greek text. The bullshy reference-wannabe was tricked up by an English translator who thought it would help somehow.

That is slightly misleading, in that it must be the worst translated passage in the NT. I can't find a single translation that isn't (as you put it) "tricked up" in that way. I wasn't selecting a rogue translation. They, all that I can find, and I checked it against several, say the same thing.

New International Version: The wrath of God has come upon them at last.
New Living Translation: But the anger of God has caught up with them at last.
English Standard Version: But wrath has come upon them at last!
New American Standard Bible : But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.
King James Bible: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Holman Christian Standard Bible: and wrath has overtaken them at last.
International Standard Version: However, wrath has overtaken them at last!
NET Bible: but wrath has come upon them completely.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English: but fury has come upon them until the end.
GOD'S WORD® Translation: So at last they are receiving [God's] anger.
Jubilee Bible 2000: for the wrath of God has come upon them to the uttermost.
Douay-Rheims Bible: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.
Darby Bible Translation: but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost.
English Revised Version: but the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Webster's Bible Translation: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Weymouth New Testament: and God's anger in its severest form has overtaken them.
World English Bible: But wrath has come on them to the uttermost.
Young's Literal Translation: but the anger did come upon them -- to the end!

 

[IanS]

Do not be angry, please. I did not want to prohibit you to write as you wish, only warn you that you wasn't obliged to colour your writings to make them patent. If you like to write with colours, do so. It does not bother me and I will not complain to anyone.

David - I'm not angry at all.

The red type, which I started using after about the first 40 pages of prevarication and evasion here from the HJ side (ie a long way back in these various HJ threads), is of course only to emphasise that the central question here never gets answered by the HJ side. They never produce any credible reliable evidence of Jesus.

And if you can’t do that, then there really is nothing else left to discuss. Because there is no point discussing what the bible says about Jesus meeting people, saying things and doing things, if he never even existed!

And the proper test of that, must always be evidence. And that does mean evidence from writers who are reliable as a source of accurate information, and credible in what they say.

That’s the entire problem in all of these HJ threads. And after many thousands of pages in total, that really does need stressing (in red or whichever way), and people really do need to come to the point in that. Until then there can be no progress … and it is an actual fact that no genuine reliable credible evidence is ever produced to show that anyone at all ever knew a living Jesus. But sadly, many people just cannot admit that, even to themselves (apparently).