Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Yes. William Lane Craig is a Christian Apologist.

He does not agree with my understanding of the HJ. He thinks Jesus was magical, like you do. I don't.

Is that the best argument you have? Accusing me of being a Christian? Hilarious.

William Lane Craig vehemently argues that Jesus did exist as you do.

William Lane Craig believes the Apostle James was the brother of Jesus like you do.


William Lane Craig also argues that Jesus was a resurrected being.

William Lane Craig believes the Magic and the Plausible Fiction about Jesus in the NT .

You seem to believe ONLY the Plausible Fiction.

You may be either a WEAK Believer in the NT or a weak fake atheist--you believe the Son of God was really real.

There are many more Christian Scholars who believe the Historical Jesus was a Resurrected being like Ratzinger and Robert Van Voorst.

Incredibly, the Historical Jesus was a real resurrected being according to a multitude of Christian Scholars.

Essentially, the Historical Jesus is a Hoax--there is no such thing as a resurrected being.

 

[David Mo]

David
However, there are other ways for somebody to be killed and their corpse to be gibbeted(…). Those ways (…)do not definitely contradict anything found in Paul.

I have been nailed to the cross with Christ. (Galatians 2:19)
You stupid Galatians! I told you exactly how Jesus Christ was nailed to a cross. (Galatians 3:1)
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. (1 Corinthians 2:8)
…but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, (1 Corinthians 1:23)
Christ was humble.
He obeyed God
and even died
on a cross. (Philippians 2:8)
But I will never brag about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of his cross, the world is dead as far as I am concerned, and I am dead as far as the world is concerned. (Galatians 6:14)

"Those ways" contradict these Paul’s sentences. Or not?

 

[David Mo]

Well the point about the Isaiah text is that it is not by any means certain that it was only written and only known after Paul had written his letters. That's what Carrier explains in that link. And that much is fairly clear.

Richard Carrier:

“So an honest historian would say this text most likely dates anywhere between the 70s AD and the 130s AD.”
“Although I don’t see any need of the Ascension of Isaiah to have been written any earlier than the early second century as all experts on this text now say”
“It’s even remotely possible that it’s pre-Christian and that Paul cites it as scripture. I deem that improbable, but it’s not impossible”. (Richard Carrier, “Dating the Ascension of Isaiah”, en “Critical Review of Maurice Casey’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus”, Freethoughts Blog, http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4282#ascension.

One can make assumptions as he likes, even admitting that they are "remotely possible." It's fun, but it is not history.

If we stay with the dates from the honest Carrier we could say that the text was written between 70 CE and 120 CE. "Although I don’t see any need of the Ascension of Isaiah to have been written any earlier than the early second century as all experts on this text now say" (Ibid). That is, long after Paul's writings.

As far as the vision of the 500 is concerned, and the idea that there is some sort of “natural reading” of that passage which means that Jesus had recently died, that so called “natural reading” simply does not exist beyond wishful thinking - the fact of that matter is that there is actually nothing in that passage which dates the death of Christ, and nothing which even has any of those named people saying that they had any idea when their Christ died.

"Natural reading" means the usual reading made by a common reader. I had proposed a neutral example with a similar structure than the text we are commenting. Here it is:

“Caesar first went to the home of some friends. Then he went to the home of Marius, Septimius Severus and Caius' wife. After this he went to the Senate.”

Nobody will think that Caesar came to the Senate two weeks after calling on his friends. The structure of the sentence clearly points to a sequence without interruption.

If you don't admit that this is the most common reading of this sentence I think we have no way to discuss. The requirement that the words have a clear meaning unless we have a serious reason to suppose a hidden or ambiguous sense is the basis of linguistic communication. And I don't see any reason to suppose a lapse between the death, resurrection and appearances of Jesus in Paul's text.

 

[Craig B]

<snip mishmash of "guilt by association" nonsense>

What a mishmash of "guilt by association" nonsense!

 

[IanS]

Richard Carrier:

“So an honest historian would say this text most likely dates anywhere between the 70s AD and the 130s AD.”
“Although I don’t see any need of the Ascension of Isaiah to have been written any earlier than the early second century as all experts on this text now say”
“It’s even remotely possible that it’s pre-Christian and that Paul cites it as scripture. I deem that improbable, but it’s not impossible”. (Richard Carrier, “Dating the Ascension of Isaiah”, en “Critical Review of Maurice Casey’s Defense of the Historicity of Jesus”, Freethoughts Blog, http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4282#ascension.

One can make assumptions as he likes, even admitting that they are "remotely possible." It's fun, but it is not history.

If we stay with the dates from the honest Carrier we could say that the text was written between 70 CE and 120 CE. "Although I don’t see any need of the Ascension of Isaiah to have been written any earlier than the early second century as all experts on this text now say" (Ibid). That is, long after Paul's writings.

Well as I just said in the previous post (when myself quoting the above passage from Carrier) - we do not really know when Paul wrote the first letters. And we certainly have no idea what any such original letters actually said. Because we have no remnants of any such letters at all.

The earliest indication of what Paul was supposed to have written is P46 which probably dates from c.200AD, but which like all these biblical estimates could quite easily be much later. That alone would place the earliest example of Paul around 100 years after Carriers “honest historian" dating of 70-130AD for the Ascension of Isaiah.

But all of that is totally unnecessary speculation anyway. Because it’s obvious that if 70-130AD is a reasonable estimate for any known copy of the Ascension of Isaiah, then the story itself might long pre-date 70-130AD. Especially since, as I already explained, Isaiah was presumably supposed to have experienced these things as far back as 700BC.

"Natural reading" means the usual reading made by a common reader. I had proposed a neutral example with a similar structure than the text we are commenting. Here it is:

“Caesar first went to the home of some friends. Then he went to the home of Marius, Septimius Severus and Caius' wife. After this he went to the Senate.”

Nobody will think that Caesar came to the Senate two weeks after calling on his friends. The structure of the sentence clearly points to a sequence without interruption.

If you don't admit that this is the most common reading of this sentence I think we have no way to discuss. The requirement that the words have a clear meaning unless we have a serious reason to suppose a hidden or ambiguous sense is the basis of linguistic communication. And I don't see any reason to suppose a lapse between the death, resurrection and appearances of Jesus in Paul's text.

We don’t need to invent an unconnected analogy with what Caesar may have done visiting people. Because in Paul’s letters it’s a fact that it does not say when any of those people thought Jesus had lived and died. It only says that they were claiming to have seen spiritual visions. Even today people claim to see spiritual visions of Jesus, the Virgin Mary, God etc., but that does not in any way imply that God, Jesus and Mary only died in 2010.

There is no need for any such assumptions. Because the plain fact of the matter is that Paul’s letters simply do not say when Jesus was thought to have died. And afaik they make no claim to anyone saying they either knew or even merely believed any particular time or date for his death. It just says they claimed to have spiritual visions of a messiah from the unspecified past.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

It might be helpful if you could point to something that Paul "seems to have" gotten from Ascension of Isaiah. Perhaps someplace where Paul and AofI depart from the canonical Jewish scriptures the same way?


Daniel

"Those ways" contradict these Paul’s sentences. Or not?

That would be a "not."

(Galatians 2:19) What Greek word there are you translating as "nailed?"
(Galatinas 3:1) What Greek word there are you translating as "nailed?"
(1 Corinthians 2:8) Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?
(1 Corinthians 1:23) Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?
(Philippians 2:8) Are we in repeats already? As has already been pointed out to you, the Greek says only that Jesus died and that Jesus was gibbeted. Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?
(Galatians 6:14) Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?

The other posters' hypotheses about Jesus' cause of death contradict the Gospels, but do not contradict Paul. I still see no canonical reference in Greek to "nail" written before John 20, but please do point me to what you are seeing about nails in Paul's letters.

 

[Craig B]

Well as I just said in the previous post (when myself quoting the above passage from Carrier) - we do not really know when Paul wrote the first letters. And we certainly have no idea what any such original letters actually said. Because we have no remnants of any such letters at all.

Indeed not. We have almost no remnants of any original Roman or Greek literary work. So we don't know what anyone said, I suppose. Shades of Jean Hardouin!

 

[dejudge]

Indeed not. We have almost no remnants of any original Roman or Greek literary work. So we don't know what anyone said, I suppose. Shades of Jean Hardouin!

We have the DSS--No one said anything about Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

How is it you know what Paul said while admitting the Pauline Corpus contains interpolations and have no remnants of any supposed original in the 1st century pre 70 CE?

You appear to be a shade of Jean Hardouin!!

 

[Brainache]

I suppose I must have overstated the case for "Brother Of The Lord". Sorry about that.

It's just that I found the arguments put forward by Craig B and David Mo very convincing and I didn't see any attempt at rebuttal, so I thought it must have been accepted.

Carry on.

And dejudge, can you tell me who the DSS does mention by name?

(hint): Nobody, they had code-names for everyone.

Does that mean the DSS refer to ghosts?

ETA: You keep talking about Jesus being the Son Of God and therefore the Son Of A Ghost, these guys called themselves "The Sons Of Light"; That's impossible! Light can't have Babies! They are a MYTH!!!!!11!1!!!

 

[dejudge]

And dejudge, can you tell me who the DSS does mention by name?

(hint): Nobody, they had code-names for everyone.

Does that mean the DSS refer to ghosts?

What is the code-name for the God of the Jews in the DSS?

What is the code name for Jesus of Nazareth in the DSS?

You know the codes!!

There is NO code name from Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul.

If there were code-names for Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul they would have already been plastered all over the internet.

You have nothing--no code, no code-name--- just stupid ridiculous Ghost stories, MYTH FABLES, from the 2nd century or later propagated by Illiterates according to Justin.

ETA: You keep talking about Jesus being the Son Of God and therefore the Son Of A Ghost, these guys called themselves "The Sons Of Light"; That's impossible! Light can't have Babies! They are a MYTH!!!!!11!1!!!

What a big Joke.

God could not have made Adam.

They are MYTH!!!111!!!

 

[Brainache]

..
If there were code-names for Jesus of Nazareth, the disciples and Paul they would have already been plastered all over the internet.

...

This bit was particularly hilarious.

Keep it up.

 

[zugzwang]

Indeed not. We have almost no remnants of any original Roman or Greek literary work. So we don't know what anyone said, I suppose. Shades of Jean Hardouin!

In fact, it seems likely that some of Aristotle's works were 'written' (i.e. forged), in the 9th century, and sold to the University of Oxford in the early 19th century. It seems quite likely therefore that Christian monks forged some of these manuscripts, inserting ideas and passages, which could then be linked to Christian ideas.

You have to admire their cunning and retro-engineering, eh?

 

[Craig B]

In fact, it seems likely that some of Aristotle's works were 'written' (i.e. forged), in the 9th century, and sold to the University of Oxford in the early 19th century. It seems quite likely therefore that Christian monks forged some of these manuscripts, inserting ideas and passages, which could then be linked to Christian ideas.

You have to admire their cunning and retro-engineering, eh?

How do we know they were forged, if the "forged" and "authentic" works are both medieval copies? Presumably internal evidence is the indicator of probable authenticity. We have discussed probable interpolation in Paul and Josephus, in cases where the suspected interpolations are as old as the earliest extant versions of the presumed authentic text, and Mark, where it is not.

 

[dejudge]

How do we know they were forged, if the "forged" and "authentic" works are both medieval copies? Presumably internal evidence is the indicator of probable authenticity. We have discussed probable interpolation in Paul and Josephus, in cases where the suspected interpolations are as old as the earliest extant versions of the presumed authentic text, and Mark, where it is not.

How do you know if they were authentic when you have no known original authentic writings but medieval copies?

Surely you don't have any established sample of authentic writings of Paul.

It has already been deduced that the Pauline Corpus are either forgeries or falsely attributed to Paul since at least the 19th century based on the internal and external evidence.

Essentially the INTERNAL evidence from other Apologetic writings show that the entire Pauline Corpus is not authentic if it is claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 62 CE.

 

[Craig B]

Essentially the INTERNAL evidence from other Apologetic writings show that the entire Pauline Corpus is not authentic if it is claimed Paul wrote letters to Churches before c 62 CE.

I see. I think you've got your wires crossed here. "The internal evidence from other apologetic writings" is not what's usually meant by internal evidence in Paul. But keep trying. Good show.

 

[dejudge]

I see. I think you've got your wires crossed here. "The internal evidence from other apologetic writings" is not what's usually meant by internal evidence in Paul. But keep trying. Good show.

You seem to have no idea that other writings have INTERNAL evidence.

There is no internal evidence in the Pauline writings to show that they are authentic.

The Pauline letters are not addressed to any known established person, there is no claim about time of authorship and there is no known sample of an authentic Pauline writing.

You have no non-apologetic corroborative evidence for Paul and no corroborative evidence that Paul actually wrote any of the Epistles.

Plus, once you admit that the existing Pauline Corpus contains events that most likely happened after c 70 CE then the Pauline Corpus MUST be or most like were forgeries or falsely attributed if you claim Paul wrote or died since c 62-64.

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have no idea that other writings have INTERNAL evidence.

For that matter a railway timetable contains internal evidence. It's simply not "internal" to the Pauline material.

 

[David Mo]

The earliest indication of what Paul was supposed to have written is P46 which probably dates from c.200AD, but which like all these biblical estimates could quite easily be much later. That alone would place the earliest example of Paul around 100 years after Carriers “honest historian" dating of 70-130AD for the Ascension of Isaiah.

But all of that is totally unnecessary speculation anyway. Because it’s obvious that if 70-130AD is a reasonable estimate for any known copy of the Ascension of Isaiah, then the story itself might long pre-date 70-130AD. Especially since, as I already explained, Isaiah was presumably supposed to have experienced these things as far back as 700BC.

You will not find any historian that estimates a date of a text neither from the date of the first found copy nor the date of the portrayed personality. Sorry but this is absurd.

We don’t need to invent an unconnected analogy with what Caesar may have done visiting people.

Well, I think a reflexion about how language works would be good for you.

 

[David Mo]

Daniel[sic]


That would be a "not."

(Galatians 2:19-20) What Greek word there are you translating as "nailed?"
(Galatinas 3:1) What Greek word there are you translating as "nailed?"
(1 Corinthians 2:8) Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?
(1 Corinthians 1:23) Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?
(Philippians 2:8) Are we in repeats already? As has already been pointed out to you, the Greek says only that Jesus died and that Jesus was gibbeted. Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?
(Galatians 6:14) Who here has denied that Paul teaches that Jesus died and was gibbeted?

The other posters' hypotheses about Jesus' cause of death contradict the Gospels, but do not contradict Paul. I still see no canonical reference in Greek to "nail" written before John 20, but please do point me to what you are seeing about nails in Paul's letters.

In the links I attach you can find the translations that you claim. (About my translation from the Greek is a joke, right?) They all without exception talk about the crucifixion of Jesus. No any other type of death, as you intended.

The thing is so clear that I do not understand neither your blind obstinacy nor your intent to mask the facts with "nailed" and "gibbeting" issues. Crucifixion and enough is enough.

http://biblehub.com/
http://www.biblegateway.com/

PS: You will find similar translations in the most mtihicist site, Vridar. Here, for example: http://vridar.org/2009/06/13/reasons-to-question-the-historicity-of-the-crucifixion/
About crucifixion and nails:
http://www.mercaba.org/FICHAS/upsa/crucifixion.htm
http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=11&Issue=1&ArticleID=6

 

[eight bits]

Craig

For that matter a railway timetable contains internal evidence. It's simply not "internal" to the Pauline material.

Perhaps the other poster means that in the case of a forgery, all that is internal is really external. It's very Zen.

Earlier: It was clever of you to slip in that "probable" interpolation of Paul, as if the remaining difficulty in making your case was the lack of an example of a different 1 Thessalonians. The actual difficulty is that the passage in question is solidly grounded in the same sources Paul alludes to elsewhere in his work. It is also consistent with other passages in Paul, like the Institution Narrative where Jesus is "handed over," with the connotation of betrayal. I would be delighted to learn who, besides one or more Jews, could possibly have been in a position to hand Jesus over, or how this handing over was accomplished without the use of force, by Jews against Jesus' person.

This situation is as opposed to the canonical ending of Mark , where even if we had no unretouched manuscript witness, we would have material which alludes to later Gospels, and material which has no Marcan foundation.

Brainache

I suppose I must have overstated the case for "Brother Of The Lord". Sorry about that.

It's just that I found the arguments put forward by Craig B and David Mo very convincing and I didn't see any attempt at rebuttal, so I thought it must have been accepted.

That was good of you to acknowledge. I am surprised to learn that so wistfully warranted a viewpoint would carry for want of any dissent. Let me summarize one dissent.

In Galatians, we find that Paul's readers are Paul's "brothers" (at 1:11, 3:15, 4:12, 28, 31; 5:11, 13, 6:1, 18). that Paul writes on behalf of his brothers who are with him (1:2), and that he was the victim of "false brothers" (2:4).

So, that's what? 11 uses of the term figuratively, but when he talks about James, that's biology. And not just "cousins" biology, either. Right.

Verse 1:2 is especially interesting. Being with Paul on his mission suffices to be called his brother. but having been with Jesus on his mission doesn't suffice. Right.

The other use of the term is at 1 Corinthians 9: 5. A typical English translation of the sentence of interest might be

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

The usual song and dance is that Peter-Cephas-Rocky is distinguished here relative to brothers of the Lord. Yes, he is. Then something magical happens, therefore brothers must mean kinship, which Rocky and Jesus don't have, rather than any other possible distinction whatsoever.

Indisputably, three ctaegories are distinguished: apostles, brothers, and Rocky. Are these categories mutually exclusive? No, Rocky is "the Apostle to the Gentiles," and the point of the passage is that everybody mentioned is discharging the apostolic office, just as the writer is discharging the same apostolic office.

Paul preaches ranked categories of church status (see 1 Coritnians 12: 28, based on gifts of the spirit cataloged earlier in chapter 12). The categories are not mutually exclusive in function, and the top grade is "apostle." There is no grade of "having known Jesus in the flesh," nor any kinship-with-Jesus term. So, even if kinship was what was meant by "brothers of the Lord," the passage about wives would still only be ditinguishing people within the one top rank. Need those distinctions within the top-ranked category be mutually exclusive?

Compare the English sentence:

The heads of government were seated separately from the various heads of state, elected presidents and Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is distinguished among heads of state and among elected presidents because he is also a head of government; and there are other heads of state who are not presidents. There is a "build of three" here: general top (diplomatic) "rank," a particular kind within the top rank, and a very particular kind. If all we knew about the groupings were from this one sentence, we could not tell whether Barack Obama was or was not a distinct kind of elected president.

Applied to Paul, some distinction is being made among categories within the top rank, and there is a build of three: top rank (including the brothers and Rocky), top rank plus whatever brothers means (which may or may not include Rocky) and Rocky (who has only one known peer, Paul himself), who holds top tank maybe plus or maybe not what brothers means.

Now, all of that may or may not be as convincing as the cases presented by other posters, but there is admissible dissent hereabouts.