Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Gregoire]

I like to quote from Richard Carrier's blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

Thanks, Brainache!

So who to believe about the "overwhelming consensus"? Every historian I have ever asked plus the writings of Richard Carrier plus Richard Carrier's own voice plus Bart Ehrman's book plus various other books I have read about HJ​

OR

Someone who says the opposite on the JREF forum. Hmmm, decisions, decisions…./sarcasm​

 

[Craig B]

And yet the letter also clearly states "The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Chrestians" in one version and in other "The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians"

The "evidence" that has been given for a HJ is on par with that given for the Bermuda Triangle: questionable accounts written many years if not decades after the events with a mixture of fact and fiction.

The Raifuku Maru is a prime example of the sort of nonsense going on there. In the legend version all that was heard from the ship before she disappeared was the message "Danger like dagger now! Come quick!" In realty the message was "Now very danger! Come quick!" and the Homeric sent a message to the coast guard station that she saw the Raifuku Maru sink in a raging storm.

In other cases no evidence that the supposed event even happened can be found. This is the case with Ellen Austin and the derelict she supposedly found in 1881. In the legend Ellen Austin on way to St. John’s Newfoundland finds a derelict ship totally abandoned and puts a prize crew aboard. A squall separates the two ships and neither the derelict of the prize crew are ever seen off again. In one variant you have two squalls and the derelict is recovered after the first with the prize crew gone so a second prize crew is put aboard.

The reality is that Ellen Austin sailed only once in 1881: From London December 5, 1880 to New York February 11, 1881. Any loss of crew would have to beed reported but no such record has been found.

I see. Very interesting. Now you need to work in a bit about it being the same as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well.

 

[dejudge]

....Of course people can if they wish believe without evidence. But that is usually what is known as a faith position. And in this case it is trusting to the faith of 1st century religious fanatics who reported the supernatural/miraculous.

1st century religious fanatics?

Who were the 1st century religious fanatics that reported the supernatural/miraculous?

There is no evidence from antiquity that any of the Jesus stories were reported in the 1st century and no evidence from antiquity that there were 1st century religious fanatics of a Jesus cult.

It has already been deduced by Scholars that the Gospels in the Canon are either forgeries or falsely attributed.

Forgeries or false attribution are typically forms of deception.

It would appear that stories of Jesus which were composed in the 2nd century or later were attributed to supposed pre 70 CE characters who probably did not even exist to give the impression that the Jesus character and story were known in the time of Tiberius.

An historical Jesus is the least plausible explanation for the Jesus cult.

An historical Jesus would make the Jesus cult a pack of KNOWN Liars , including the Pauline writers.

An actual known historical Jesus with a known earthly father would diminish the credibility of the Jesus cult to ZERO or a lower number.

It is far more likely that the Jesus story and cult started outside of Judea and sometime in the 2nd century or later as suggested by the actual recovered dated manuscripts.

The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention any 1st century religious fanatics of a Jesus cult and made no reports of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Brainache]

...
The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention any 1st century religious fanatics of a Jesus cult and made no reports of Jesus of Nazareth.

The DSS are the writings of that fanatic religious cult. They don't use any names. They were Nazarite. Nazoreans, however you want to spell it, they weren't from Nazareth, they believed in separating holy things from impure things. They kept themselves apart from most of society.

Please learn more about this subject, before you spread your ignorance further.

Or dispute my ideas with solid arguments, leave the tired empty posturing of your rhetoric in the past, where it belongs.

 

[pakeha]

You don't seem to understand that Christian cults may have existed before the Jesus cult.

Are you think of the Serapis cult, dejudge?
I'd be interested in knowing what you have in mind there.

 

[dejudge]

...
The Dead Sea Scrolls did not mention any 1st century religious fanatics of a Jesus cult and made no reports of Jesus of Nazareth.

The DSS are the writings of that fanatic religious cult. They don't use any names. They were Nazarite. Nazoreans, however you want to spell it, they weren't from Nazareth, they believed in separating holy things from impure things. They kept themselves apart from most of society.

Please learn more about this subject, before you spread your ignorance further.

Or dispute my ideas with solid arguments, leave the tired empty posturing of your rhetoric in the past, where it belongs.

Your statement is irrelevant. You should first read what I wrote instead of going off an a tangent about Nazarites/Nazaroeans or whatever you call them..

The DSS does not mention Jesus or Jesus cult fanatics.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are direct evidence AGAINST the HJ argument.

There is simply no existing evidence that Jews worshiped men as Gods in the DSS.

Essentially, the NT is a pack of lies without any corroborative support from the DSS.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is irrelevant. You should first read what I wrote instead of going off an a tangent about Nazarites/Nazaroeans or whatever you call them..

The DSS does not mention Jesus or Jesus cult fanatics.
The Dead Sea Scrolls are direct evidence AGAINST the HJ argument.

There is simply no existing evidence that Jews worshiped men as Gods in the DSS.

Essentially, the NT is a pack of lies without any corroborative support from the DSS.

The DSS were written by these Nazarites, who were the fanatics that you claim don't exist. They don't mention Jesus by name; they don't mention anyone by name. It is all in code so that people who were uninitiated wouldn't know who they were talking about.

But if you understand what the scrolls say and compare it with other writings including, but not limited to the NT and the Mishnah, a good case can be made for an HJ associated with this Qumran group.

Robert Eisenman agrees with me.

Does anyone agree with you? I'd be interested to see that.

 

[dejudge]

It really comes down to your definition of "Historical Fact".

Jesus is as well, or better attested than many ancient people that no one has any problem accepting as a fact.

Your claim is completely erroneous. You very well know that there is NO archaeological evidence, no artifacts and no pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

Richard Carrier an historian argues that Jesus is a figure of mythology.

Jesus is the probably the best attested MYTH character of all myths.

1. Ignatius claimed Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

2. Aristides attests that Christians claimed Jesus was God from heaven.

3. Justin attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

4. Irenaeus attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.,

5. Tertullian attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

6. Origen attests that Christians claimed Jesus was God Incarnate born of a Ghost.

7. Hippolytus attests that Christians claimed Jesus was God Creator, the Logos.

8. Eusebius attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

9. The author of gMatthew claims that Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

10. A Pauline writer claimed that Jesus was the Last Adam--a Spirit.

My favourite example is Pythagoras, look him up: No contemporary accounts. All writings about him are from centuries later and full of mystical religious nonsense.

My favorite is Romulus. Look him up. No contemporary accounts just myth nonsense.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

Romulus was the Son of God and A virgin with a human brother. When he died his body vanished, day was turned into night, then he resurrected, appeared to people and then ascended.

Yet, no one is campaigning for a "Mythical Pythagoras", even though Historians use exactly the same kinds of analyses to determine the Historical "fact" of his existence.

No-one here is campaigning for an "Historical Romulus".

 

[Brainache]

Your claim is completely erroneous. You very well know that there is NO archaeological evidence, no artifacts and no pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

Richard Carrier an historian argues that Jesus is a figure of mythology.

Jesus is the probably the best attested MYTH character of all myths.

1. Ignatius claimed Jesus was God and born of a Ghost.

2. Aristides attests that Christians claimed Jesus was God from heaven.

3. Justin attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

4. Irenaeus attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.,

5. Tertullian attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

6. Origen attests that Christians claimed Jesus was God Incarnate born of a Ghost.

7. Hippolytus attests that Christians claimed Jesus was God Creator, the Logos.

8. Eusebius attests that Christians claimed Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

9. The author of gMatthew claims that Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

10. A Pauline writer claimed that Jesus was the Last Adam--a Spirit.




My favorite is Romulus. Look him up. No contemporary accounts just myth nonsense.

See Plutarch's Romulus.

Romulus was the Son of God and A virgin with a human brother. When he died his body vanished, day was turned into night, then he resurrected, appeared to people and then ascended.



No-one here is campaigning for an "Historical Romulus".

This is all totally irrelevant.

This is not the kind of argument that shifts paradigms, dejudge.

Please get proper ones.

 

[IanS]

Pls note that I am only speaking of the human existence, not the religious mythic crapola.

There is no strong evidence of Jesus life, but there is some weak evidence, textual criticizism, and that people believing in its existence. Not much by any standard, but the explanation he existed as a human is a bit stronger than it is all a myth. But is it to state that it is a historical fact ? nope it is overstating the evidence IMNSHO.

Oh, sure I understand that you are not taking any firm position on this, and not insisting that Jesus was probably real. That’s fine.

I am just pointing out that there is a bit of a problem if you say the "HJ position is strong" and then also say the "evidence for a HJ is weak". Because those two statements are really irreconcilable.

Obviously, the fact that 1st century people believed in Jesus is not any kind of evidence that their beliefs were true. And what was written as the “evidence”, i.e. the gospels and Paul’s letters, most certainly do not contain any evidence of a human Jesus known to anyone.

As far as “textural criticism” is concerned - the texts that Bible scholars are searching are again those same gospels and letters which are fatally flawed and not credible as evidence anyway. It does not matter how much anyone searches documents as flawed as that, no amount of “textural criticism” can make a HJ appear from writing which is not credible or reliable in the first place.

 

[Aepervius]

It really comes down to your definition of "Historical Fact".

Jesus is as well, or better attested than many ancient people that no one has any problem accepting as a fact. My favourite example is Pythagoras, look him up: No contemporary accounts. All writings about him are from centuries later and full of mystical religious nonsense.

Yet, no one is campaigning for a "Mythical Pythagoras", even though Historians use exactly the same kinds of analyses to determine the Historical "fact" of his existence.

The difference is that no one CARE about whether Pythagoras is historical or mythical, expect maybe a few historian.

If anybody cared, then YES he is about as solid as jesus , so nope, i would not view him as historically factual.

Consistence.


ETA: "Jesus is as well, or better attested than many ancient people that no one has any problem accepting as a fact." you are very close to the fundie apologetic that jesus is more attested than than any person ever in ancient history. I hope it was an accidental turn of sentence.

 

[IanS]

The difference is that no one CARE about whether Pythagoras is historical or mythical, expect maybe a few historian.

If anybody cared, then YES he is about as solid as jesus , so nope, i would not view him as historically factual.

Consistence.


ETA: "Jesus is as well, or better attested than many ancient people that no one has any problem accepting as a fact." you are very close to the fundie apologetic that jesus is more attested than than any person ever in ancient history. I hope it was an accidental turn of sentence.

Well done for spotting that.

It's something I have also pointed out here (several times). But for some wholly inconsistent and illogical reason, it is not something that HJ people here wish to accept, even though it's an undeniable fact!

It is an “undeniable fact” that almost nobody alive on the planet cares whether any other non-religious figures such as Pythagoras or Caesar etc. were ever real or not. Because figures like that have absolutely no relevance to the lives of anyone today.

But the opposite is true in the case of Jesus. Because Jesus is the basis off current day Christianity, and because the Christian church has such significant influence on most western governments (especially in the USA), Jesus and Christianity maintain very direct and significant influence over the daily lives of almost everyone on the planet (even inc. all atheists and those of other entirely different religions).

And that's apart from the fact that people like Pythagoras and Caesar etc. are known for what was done in their name, rather than for the importance of the individual themselves actually existing. E.g. - even if there never was any individual named "Caesar", that would not matter and would not change history, because what matters to historians is that someone was a Roman ruler at that time and did lead his armies into all sorts of battles etc ....so it changes nothing if the persons name was not actually "Caesar". The same is true of “Pythagoras” and all the others … it does not matter if the person was not actually named “Pythagoras” or if he really discovered all the things claimed in his name … what matters is that there certainly was a philosophical movement of people named “Pythagoreans” who popularised that particular philosophy and who described those particular elements in maths. But in the case of Jesus, the opposite is true, and what matters for Jesus is that he himself must be a real person who does at least some of the things claimed in the bible … because if Jesus was not real, if his legend was only mythical, then current day Christianity has no basis except myth.

 

[Belz...]

Your claim is completely erroneous. You very well know that there is NO archaeological evidence, no artifacts and no pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

No but there is a larger body of literary evidence than many historical figures. That's Brainache's point, I believe.

Your extremist views are preventing you from thinking about this topic dispassionately.

 

[Kathie Bondar]

This is all totally irrelevant.

This is not the kind of argument that shifts paradigms, dejudge.

Please get proper ones.

My problem with this is that none of these people ever defined "Ghost" or "Heaven" or "God", for that matter.
I have no doubt there are no ghosts and there is no heaven, but also I have reason to believe there is a parallel universe and that we have a paralllel body, bonded to the physical body while here on earth, and that at the death of this physical body the bond breaks releasing the parallel body. I think subconsciously we all know this, hence the persistent belief in afterlife, and hence the saying "giving up the ghost".
I was born with latent memories I could not explain, not until my studies into telepathy many years later, which suddenly put everything into perspective for me. The idea of coming out of nothing and returning to nothing never made sense to me, I don't know how anybody could even consider that possibility. There must be continuity, even if we don't yet have the science to prove it, but then we have not really tried it as yet, the subject just has not made it to the plate. Today particle physics is heading that way.

 

[Belz...]

I have no doubt there are no ghosts and there is no heaven, but also I have reason to believe there is a parallel universe and that we have a paralllel body, bonded to the physical body while here on earth, and that at the death of this physical body the bond breaks releasing the parallel body.

Reason to believe ? No you don't.

I think subconsciously we all know this, hence the persistent belief in afterlife, and hence the saying "giving up the ghost".

Here's a better explanation, one that doesn't require extra entities: supernatural belief is a survival mechanism that allows individuals and societies to put their lives at risk for a cause, with the express conviction that they will survive in another way. It's also a means to wade through troubled times via a belief in future bliss, etc.

 

[Brainache]

Well done for spotting that.

It's something I have also pointed out here (several times). But for some wholly inconsistent and illogical reason, it is not something that HJ people here wish to accept, even though it's an undeniable fact!

It is an “undeniable fact” that almost nobody alive on the planet cares whether any other non-religious figures such as Pythagoras or Caesar etc. were ever real or not. Because figures like that have absolutely no relevance to the lives of anyone today.

But the opposite is true in the case of Jesus. Because Jesus is the basis off current day Christianity, and because the Christian church has such significant influence on most western governments (especially in the USA), Jesus and Christianity maintain very direct and significant influence over the daily lives of almost everyone on the planet (even inc. all atheists and those of other entirely different religions).

And that's apart from the fact that people like Pythagoras and Caesar etc. are known for what was done in their name, rather than for the importance of the individual themselves actually existing. E.g. - even if there never was any individual named "Caesar", that would not matter and would not change history, because what matters to historians is that someone was a Roman ruler at that time and did lead his armies into all sorts of battles etc ....so it changes nothing if the persons name was not actually "Caesar". The same is true of “Pythagoras” and all the others … it does not matter if the person was not actually named “Pythagoras” or if he really discovered all the things claimed in his name … what matters is that there certainly was a philosophical movement of people named “Pythagoreans” who popularised that particular philosophy and who described those particular elements in maths. But in the case of Jesus, the opposite is true, and what matters for Jesus is that he himself must be a real person who does at least some of the things claimed in the bible … because if Jesus was not real, if his legend was only mythical, then current day Christianity has no basis except myth.

Don't you see that you are committing a fallacy of arguing from consequences?

What difference does it make to the historical process? None.

It doesn't matter if a million people think Jesus was God, if the same process of Historical research leads to the conclusion that he was as human as Socrates, Pythagoras or Honi the Circle Maker.

If someone started worshipping those other guys, would the Historical methods used to identify them as real people change? Of course not. Why do it for Jesus?

 

[Elagabalus]

Your claim is completely erroneous. You very well know that there is NO archaeological evidence, no artifacts and no pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ ...

You forgot the Pilate Stone. Admittedly, not direct evidence of an HJ but rather supportive archaeological evidence, an artifact if you will, of someone named Pontius Pilate which places him in the correct time and general vicinity of areas mentioned in the NT and is also dated pre 70 CE.

 

[Craig B]

Well done for spotting that.

It's something I have also pointed out here (several times). But for some wholly inconsistent and illogical reason, it is not something that HJ people here wish to accept, even though it's an undeniable fact!

It is an “undeniable fact” that almost nobody alive on the planet cares whether any other non-religious figures such as Pythagoras or Caesar etc. were ever real or not. Because figures like that have absolutely no relevance to the lives of anyone today.

But the opposite is true in the case of Jesus. Because Jesus is the basis off current day Christianity, and because the Christian church has such significant influence on most western governments (especially in the USA), Jesus and Christianity maintain very direct and significant influence over the daily lives of almost everyone on the planet (even inc. all atheists and those of other entirely different religions).

... what matters for Jesus is that he himself must be a real person who does at least some of the things claimed in the bible … because if Jesus was not real, if his legend was only mythical, then current day Christianity has no basis except myth.

That's exactly right. That's your reason for rejecting any idea that there might have been a real Jesus, and moreover it explains the vehemence and hostility with which you do it, and your absolute refusal to look at anything derived from analysis of the NT sources, and so on. As I have pointed out before, your argument is this: Christianity is a significant and pervasive force, with influence over people and their governments. If there was no Jesus there would be no real basis for this influence. Therefore there was no Jesus. It is quite explicitly your negative estimation of Christianity that has determined your evaluation of the historical evidence.

 

[IanS]

That's exactly right. That's your reason for rejecting any idea that there might have been a real Jesus, and moreover it explains the vehemence and hostility with which you do it, and your absolute refusal to look at anything derived from analysis of the NT sources, and so on. As I have pointed out before, your argument is this: Christianity is a significant and pervasive force, with influence over people and their governments. If there was no Jesus there would be no real basis for this influence. Therefore there was no Jesus. It is quite explicitly your negative estimation of Christianity that has determined your evaluation of the historical evidence.

You have indeed peddled that line many times before. And even members on your own HJ side had to point out that your silly accusations are untrue.

And it's not a matter of any "vehemence" or “hostility” at all. It's simply a matter of evidence. And there isn't any!

And if it comes to that ("evidence") - the Pilate stone is of course not in any sense evidence of Jesus either. No more than saying that the existence of Jerusalem is evidence of Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

You have indeed peddled that line many times before. And even members on your own HJ side had to point out that your silly accusations are untrue.

And it's not a matter of any "vehemence" or “hostility” at all. It's simply a matter of evidence. And there isn't any!

And if it comes to that ("evidence") - the Pilate stone is of course not in any sense evidence of Jesus either. No more than saying that the existence of Jerusalem is evidence of Jesus.

I'd be interested to see who on the HJ side disagreed with CraigB's assessment.

That is certainly what it looks like. In your ignorance of Ancient History you appear to have assumed that the evidence for Jesus is somehow inadequate compared to similar ancient people. You have no justification for this beyond your personal bias.

Again I ask: What makes you think you are qualified to make a determination like that in a subject you have never studied?

What makes your opinion worth more than that of thousands of professional Historians?