Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

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..

Well I have less respect for what historians bible scholars may claim, and rather more respect for what can be said objectively, accurately and honestly (so, "scientifically", in that sense).

But you only seem to be saying what I said, anyway. I.e., that the date of origin for a story like the Ascent-of-Isaiah, may of course be from a time much earlier than any remaining extant written copy. Though conversely, it's obviously likely to be the case that bible scholars and associated academics have been tempted to estimate optimistically early dates for the gospels, epistles, and the oldest fragments of the biblical writing ... because the further you can push those dates back, the more reliance you can put on the possible accuracy of that writing, and that is obviously something they need to do in order to make any case for a HJ.

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

If you reply as you have just done here, saying above "absurd" and telling me that I need to learn how language works, then it makes a mockery of your apparent recent attempts to reply politely. If you reply like that then you can expect me to reply to you with similar scorn and lack of respect. And after a lifetime writing for a living in academia, I expect my understanding of language is at least as good as yours anyway, thank you.

 

[IanS]

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!

You seem particularly obsessed with someone named Jean Hardouin, who I have never heard of, and who I have no interest in.

The fact of the matter in respect of Paul's writing, is that if Paul wrote any letters around 55-65AD, then we do not know what he said in any such letters.

We only know what was said on Paul's behalf by a copyist writing P46 about 150 years after Paul was thought to have died. And what it says there about Jesus is very little indeed.

 

[Craig B]

Well I have less respect for what historians bible scholars may claim, and rather more respect for what can be said objectively, accurately and honestly (so, "scientifically", in that sense).

Ah, honesty again.

<snip> If you reply like that then you can expect me to reply to you with similar scorn and lack of respect.

That's what we do expect.

 

[eight bits]

David

First, I apologize for mistitling my previous reply. I have from time to time appended the following disclaimer to my posts:

Disclaimer: it sometimes happens that I misspell a username. If that is the case, then it is unintentional and accidental, even if the misspelling is itself a possibly meaningful string.

Perhaps I should include it more often.

About my translation from the Greek is a joke, right?

No, it's the relative dative. If you present the translation, it's your translation. You did say, in two cases, that nails were mentioned. "Where are the nails in the Greek?" is a reasonable question. I can'r find any reference to nails in the Greek there, as I have said. I gather you can't, either. If not, then I guess that's where that matter rests.

They all without exception talk about the crucifixion of Jesus. No any other type of death, as you intended.

No, they all without exception mention that Jesus was gibbeted. Paul doesn't commit himself to any cause of death. As I have commented just today to another poster, I personally am entirely comfortable that "handing over" Jesus to his executioners would afford ample warrant to describe somebody as Jesus' killers. That somebody can only plausibly have been one or more Jews, and their action can only have been accomplished by their use of force against Jesus. A Jewish writer might have had occasion to comment upon Jewish involvement.

-

Example Supose that in a gesture to defuse the Crimean crisis, Putin orders that Edward Snowden be handed over to American law enforcement. Snowden is arrested after a brief armed struggle by agents who answer to Putin. They deliver him into American custody. Snowden dies shortly afterwards of drowning, after questionning in the American style.

Question: If an ex-KGB Russian journalist wrote, "Russians killed Snowden to secure Sevastopol," to a foreign audience familiar with all the public facts in the case, would that journalist be untruthful?

-

However, the other posters needn't share my satisfaction. Since I do not know how Jesus "really" died, and Paul, however vigorously he teases, never does commit himself to a cause of death, I acknowledge that what the other posters propose is admissible and uncontradicted until the canonical Gospels. The first I read actual statements asserting Roman involvement in Jesus' death is in Mark, who does not contradict Paul, but does expand upon him, by a lot.

It is perfectly reasonable to distinguish "what happened" from "what happened according to a named source." The other posters do, and so do I. You, on the other hand, insist on reading Paul as if he were commenting on later writings. He is not. He is telling the story his own way. In his telling, Jesus' gibbeting is something he wishes to discuss. Jesus' cause of death is not. Later writers tell us that those two things are one and the same: death by gibbeting (after being beaten by both Jews and Romans). Maybe so, but Paul is not our source for that.

 

[Craig B]

You seem particularly obsessed with someone named Jean Hardouin, who I have never heard of, and who I have no interest in.

Obsessed, eh? Then don't bother looking at the internet to find out about him. But whether you're interested in him or not, is not the criterion I will apply when deciding whether or not to refer to him.

(I didn't have to wait long, did I, to be at the received end of the scorn you promised to mete out?)

 

[IanS]

Ah, honesty again. That's what we do expect.

You have absolutely nothing useful to say in these HJ threads do you?

Almost all your posts are like the above, i.e. zero attempt at any constructive examination of the claimed evidence, and instead just constant attempts at childish personalised abuse.

When are you going to post any genuine evidence of Jesus? The answer seems to be “never”. You will never present any genuine evidence for Jesus belief, because you don’t have any genuine evidence of anyone ever knowing a living human Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Obsessed, eh? Then don't bother looking at the internet to find out about him. But whether you're interested in him or not, is not the criterion I will apply when deciding whether or not to refer to him.

(I didn't have to wait long, did I, to be at the received end of the scorn you promised to mete out?)

It's not scorn. I have no interest anyone called Jean Hardouin. But you have dragged up that name dozens of times, haven't you? We are not talking about anyone called Hardouin ... well, nobody except you! We are talking about credible evidence of Jesus, and you don't have any!

 

[Craig B]

You have absolutely nothing useful to say in these HJ threads do you?

Almost all your posts are like the above, i.e. zero attempt at any constructive examination of the claimed evidence, and instead just constant attempts at childish personalised abuse.

When are you going to post any genuine evidence of Jesus? The answer seems to be “never”. You will never present any genuine evidence for Jesus belief, because you don’t have any genuine evidence of anyone ever knowing a living human Jesus.

You offer and deliver "scorn". You won't look at the evidence; now you won't look at Jean Hardouin. It's hardly I who am being childish and personalised. But of course you are welcome to use any argument you like.

 

[IanS]

You offer and deliver "scorn". You won't look at the evidence; now you won't look at Jean Hardouin. It's hardly I who am being childish and personalised. But of course you are welcome to use any argument you like.

No, there was no scorn directed at anyone here in the above replies.

And you are now trying to link that fallacious complaint about "scorn" with your previous constant complaints that I won't read a link to something you had posted before/elsewhere as Jesus evidence from the bible. There is no link there between your false claims about "scorn" and your belief in the bible as evidence of Jesus, far less any connection with your interest in anyone named Hardouin.

The bible is not a reliable source of credible writing for anything except peoples 1st century superstitious religious beliefs. You need something independent of the religious devotional writing of legendary messiah superstitions. What can you offer that is not dependent on the bible?

 

[dejudge]

...No, they all without exception mention that Jesus was gibbeted. Paul doesn't commit himself to any cause of death.

In the Pauline Corpus Paul preached Christ CRUCIFIED--not gibbeted.

1 Cor. 1.23

23 ἡμεῖς δὲ κηρύσσομεν Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, Ἰουδαίοις μὲν σκάνδαλον [a]ἔθνεσιν δὲ μωρίαν,

1 Corinthians 1:23
King James Version (KJV)

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

CRUCIFIED--not gibbeted.

Crucifixon is a specific form of gibbeting. The choices are: gibbeted after mortal injury or gibbeted as the means to inflict death. Paul's Greek does not distinguish between the two. Jesus was dead on a stake or a pole, according to Paul.

Either kind of gibbeting would be significant for Paul's case in favor of Jesus' status as post-mortem Messiah, because of Jewish scripture and a cultural norm for speedy disposal of human remains. In contrast, whether Jesus was killed by being staked, or was mortally wounded elsewhere and expired on a cross, or died elsewhere and then was placed on a pole is irrelevant to Paul's argument, and so it isn't surprising that he wouldn't spontaneously raise the non-issue.

It would be interesting that if Paul knew of Roman involvement, that he'd never have occasion to comment on the supposed Jewish Messiah being so utterly defeated during his natural life by a few soldiers of the Jews' nemesis. It's not a deal-killer, since there would be ways to spin it, just as Paul spun the gibbeting despite cursing of that in Deuteronomy. It's hard to believe it wouldn't have ever come up as an objection, but if it did, Paul's answer doesn't reach us.

One possibility, of course, is that Paul didn't think of Gentiles, Romans or otherwise, as moral agents until and unless indwelt by the Christ, unlike Jews, who have been bound to moral righteousness since Sinai. So, just as we blame the Romans for the deaths of those upon whom they set starved wild anmials - we don't blame the animals - perhaps, and for parallel reasons, Paul held Jews responsible for handing over Jesus to the nearest amoral killers of Jews.

We wouldn't blame gravity if Jesus' homies in Luke had tossed him off that cliff onto the rocks below. We'd say that the mob killed Jesus. Maybe Paul thinks like us after all.

 

[dejudge]

Crucifixon is a specific form of gibbeting. The choices are: gibbeted after mortal injury or gibbeted as the means to inflict death. Paul's Greek does not distinguish between the two. Jesus was dead on a stake or a pole, according to Paul....

I am merely exposing your fallacious argument. You don't know what you are talking about.

In the Pauline Corpus Paul claimed he preached Christ CRUCIFIED--not gibbeted.

In the 1st century Jews were NAILED to Crosses when CRUCIFIED.


Based on Wars of the Jews attributed to Josephus hundreds of Jews were NAILED to Crosses.,

Josephus' "Wars of the Jews 6.11.1

... they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city.

This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such as great deal them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment.

So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies...

 

[Craig B]

... Based on Wars of the Jews attributed to Josephus hundreds of Jews were NAILED to Crosses

Who says? Mediaeval monks? No evidence that this was written before the tenth century or whatever!

 

[dejudge]

Based on Wars of the Jews attributed to Josephus hundreds of Jews were NAILED to Crosses


Josephus' "Wars of the Jews 6.11.1

.. they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. ......So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies...

Who says? Mediaeval monks? No evidence that this was written before the tenth century or whatever!

Well, up to the 21st century there are NO sources or copies from any century which show the Pauline Jesus was gibbeted.

The stories of Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are no earlier then the 2nd century and in those manuscripts the Pauline writers claimed they preached that Jesus was crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:2 KJV

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified

 

[tsig]

You offer and deliver "scorn". You won't look at the evidence; now you won't look at Jean Hardouin. It's hardly I who am being childish and personalised. But of course you are welcome to use any argument you like.

It's not up to others to look for links for you.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

In the Pauline Corpus Paul claimed he preached Christ CRUCIFIED--not gibbeted.

No. Anybody who is crucified is necessarily gibbeted. Even in the situation that Josephus tells - a victim was removed from the apparatus before he died, the man was gibbeted, since that was the intent of the exactor mortis.

Apart from that, as is surely obvious to a scholar like yourself, but please bear with me as I explain this to other readers, crucify comes from Latin roots meaning to affix to a cross. As it happens, Paul wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Paul's terms are based on the root staur- - which means pole; it's generic. And upon this pole, Paul placed his dead Jesus. In English, that is to gibbet. Among the ways a body can be gibbeted is to be affixed to a cross.

Mark, too, places Jesus, first when still living and later when dead, on a pole. But in Mark there is plainly stated Roman involvement in Jesus' death. So, to understand Mark's pole, your pathbreaking observation that Romans crucified Jews in the First Century holds the key to the Marcan Passion.

King James' committee of translators read Mark. The same Greek words they were quite justifiably translating as "crucify" in Mark, they translated as "crucify" in Paul. Duh.

There is no reason to suppose that Paul read Mark, however. Paul may very well have meant "crucify" when he wrote about some manner of gibbeting. But Paul only claimed what he wrote, and Paul, unlike "Mark," did not write that Romans were involved in Jesus' death. When other posters, then, consider Roman-free death scenarios for Jesus, they do not contradict Paul. They contradict only later writers.

 

[Craig B]

The stories of Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul are no earlier then the 2nd century

The stories of Josephus, then, are no earlier than the tenth.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


No. Anybody who is crucified is necessarily gibbeted. Even in the situation that Josephus tells - a victim was removed from the apparatus before he died, the man was gibbeted, since that was the intent of the exactor mortis.

What fallacies!!

The passage in Wars of the Jews 6.11 does not state the Jews were gibbeted--they were Crucified [NAILED to Crosses].

You invent your own fallacies and then believe them.

..they all without exception mention that Jesus was gibbeted. Paul doesn't commit himself to any cause of death.

No NT writer claimed Jesus was gibbeted and SPECIFICALLY stated he was crucified and NAILED to a Cross as implied in gJohn.

 

[dejudge]

The stories of Josephus, then, are no earlier than the tenth.

So, what are you going to use to argue for HJ in the time of Pilate?

You have nothing but admitted interpolated copies.

 

[Craig B]

So, what are you going to use to argue for HJ in the time of Pilate?

You have nothing but admitted interpolated copies.

So, what are you going to use to argue for HJ Josephus in the time of Pilate the Jewish War?

You have nothing but admitted interpolated copies