Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

In fact the very word Christian doesn't appear in known contemporary works until the mid point of of the 5th century even though the word Christ is used all they way back into late 2nd century.

Are Pliny's letters to Trajan not known contemporary pre 5th century works?

LIBER DECIMUS, EPISTULA XCVl
C. PLINIUS TRAIANO IMPERATORI
SOLLEMNE est mihi, domine, omnia, de quibus dubito, ad te referre. Quis enim potest melius vel cunctationem meam regere, vel ignorantiam instruere? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui numquam. Ideo nescio, quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat, aut quaeri. Nec mediocriter haesitavi, sitne aliquod discrimen aetatum, an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant, detur paenitentiae venia, an ei, qui omnino Christianus fuit, desisse non prosit, nomen ipsum, etiamsi flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohaerentia nomini puniantur.
Interim in iis, qui ad me tamquam Christiani deferebantur, hunc sum secutus modum. Interrogavi ipsos, an essent Christiani ... etc

 

[IanS]

All fine and well, but you did not address my questions. I really don't want to argue about Bart Ehrman's shortcomings, but would like to ask is it not possible to study religions from an historical perspective? I think that it is and don't think that is controversial.

Yes, of course it would be possible for bible scholars to apply the same methods used by historians who study non-religious issues. And we know that bible scholars often say they do use all those same methods.

But the problem is that the written material which is available to them as “evidence” is simply nowhere near good enough to yield reliable conclusions by any method. It does not matter how much time they spend using “higher criticism”, “criteria of embarrassment”, “textural linguistic analysis” etc. - if the gospels and Paul’s letters are not reliable and credible as source material in the first place, then none of those methods can turn such flawed data into a reliable outcome.

It needs initial data which is far better than the biblical writing.

Really it needs, almost as a bare minimum, independent writing from a contemporary source reliably quoting eye-witness testimony from traceable witnesses whose veracity can be confirmed.

But not only do we not have anything remotely like that. What we do have is in fact the exact opposite of that! What we have are written accounts produced only centuries after the supposed life of Jesus, and known only then as anonymously written copies from the Christian faithful themselves. And where none of the writing cites even one single person who ever met Jesus or who ever wrote to credibly confirm they had indeed met or otherwise known Jesus. And where in fact all of that writing describes stories of Jesus which were no doubt at the time the very stories & details that so convinced the faithful that this man must truly have been the real long-awaited messiah, because of his constant amazing miracles and prophetic insights etc., but where all of those things were discovered 1800 years later by science to be the very things that actually showed the stories to be impossible fiction.

And that is supposed to be the sum total of the evidence of Jesus! I.e., just that biblical writing alone. Because there is no extra biblical writing from any author who was contemporary to the time of Jesus and who could have possibly witnessed himself anything ever claimed of Jesus. And where of many early extra-biblical historical writers of time, almost none of them ever mentioned Jesus at all, and where the few such as Tacitus and Josephus who do mention Jesus, mention him only in the most fleeting of brief mention, to report what could only have been known to them as hearsay. And where as far as we can honestly tell, hearsay just re-reported from whatever Christians themselves were saying at the time. And where in any case, none of that extra-biblical writing is known from any original copies, but where instead work like Tacitus and Josephus comes to us only as copies made a hopelessly whopping 1000 years later!

That cannot possibly be reliable evidence in any sense whatsoever. And it does not matter what “higher criticism” or “criteria of embarrassment” or “argument from silence” is attempted. Because that original data, i.e. the bible and 11th century hearsay copies of extra-biblical writing, is completely useless as reliable data in the first place.

Against that, there is of course now a huge mass of quite unarguable evidence to show how and why such ancient religious devotional writing about miraculous god-like figures, is highly untrustworthy in the extreme, to put it mildly.

So there is plenty of quite unarguable evidence against the biblical claims of Jesus. But actually afaik, no good evidence in support of any reliability to the biblical stories of Jesus at all.

Does that mean Jesus could not have existed? No, it does not mean that. He might have existed. But the problem is the almost total lack of any reliable evidence for his actual existence. There is really no good evidential reason to believe it. People may prefer to believe it on the basis of some sort of trust or faith in what 1st century religious fanatics believed, but that is really a faith position rather than a judgement made from what is genuinely available as evidence of any living individual known and described in the bible as “Jesus”.

Do I think he existed? I really have no idea, and I can’t answer that question even with a guesstimate figure such as the aforementioned figures of 60:40 or 5:95 or any other such complete guess. Because there is just zero credible evidence of this figure known as existing to anyone. So I could not honestly, i.e. objectively, say the likelihood was either 0%, 100% or any other figure in between … because there is just no reliable data at all.

He might have existed. But if we are to base judgements on evidence (and that means reliable and credible evidence, not just anyone who ever mentioned the name “Jesus”), then it needs something far better than the biblical writing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Is that referencing Christian's pitiful "extemporizing" in his halting conversation in Rostand's Cyrano before the later balcony scene when Cyrano has to speak for him in the shadows? (I've sometimes wondered if that latter scene was partly influenced by the scene in Mozart's Don Giovanni, when Leporello has to mime the Don's "Discendi, o gioia bella".)

Phil, don't expect mythers to pick up stuff like this. They're not educated. If they were, they wouldn't be mythers.

Stone

Much lower brow than that. Steve Martin (Cyrano character) in the movie "Roxanne" -- the Christian character, named Chris in the movie, is asked by Roxanne (Darryl Hannah) to say something extemporaneous to which he initially replies "the sunset is very .... extemporaneous" or some such nonsense since it's been a while.

Hopefully the rest is obvious. Inigo Montoya -- you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.....

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

On the basis of the above (and all of your post), you and I are barely disagreeing at all beyond the level of "angels on a pin head". So the following are just some quite general personal comments -

When you say “But he (Crossan) still seems to be a believer. Ehrman is not” , can we be clear that you are talking there about belief in God? Because if we are talking about Jesus (as we were/are), then both Ehrman & Crossan do say they believe Jesus is a matter of known “certainty“.

Yes, certainly. I should have been clearer -- I meant belief in God, or even belief in Jesus as savior. Don't completely know about Crossan. Ehrman doesn't seem to believe in either a transcendent God or Jesus as savior any longer. He clearly used to, though.

When you say that you “object to anyone who says that Jesus definitely, no question about it, existed too. I don't see any way to make such an absolute statement.”, I have to point out that you will in that case definitely need to object to Bart Ehrman and Dominic Crossan, and afaik almost all bible scholars, e.g. where Ehrman says in his book that “almost every properly trained scholar on the planet” agrees with his views and where he (Ehrman) repeatedly said in that book that Jesus “certainly” “definitely” “did exist”.

And on that particular point of such well known and supposedly most academically expert and agnostically sceptic scholars as Bart Ehrman being incautious enough to write repeatedly declaring “certainty” , people really ought to ask themselves what sort of level of academic prowess it is that has it’s most celebrated practitioners writing so incautiously as that in a commercial book which they must have known would be seen by millions of people?

It’s really inconceivable that even the most lightweight research scientist would write anything as incautious and unprofessional as that unless he/she really did mean to express such certainty and felt very confident indeed of defending his/her words.

IOW - that sort of repeated lack of care should tell people a great deal about the difference in academic rigor and expertise that exists within a field like Bible Studies compared to any properly objective field such as theoretical/mathematical physics where, as some here know, I spent most of my academic past. And I only chuck in that piece of personal info because several HJ people here, and one in particular, have repeatedly told myself and others that we are not academically qualified to criticise bible scholars like Bart Ehrman, and that any such remarks I may make about apparent lack of care and objectivity in their work is an “ad hominem” etc. Well some of us have spent decades in far more careful, precise and objective academic research where “evidence” of the kind reportedly relied upon by bible scholars would be rejected as so hopelessly flawed as to be inadmissible from the start.

Yeah, but....

There is no way to compare physics and chemistry to 'soft' pursuits like Bible Studies, History or Psychology. They are entirely different in their approaches.


With that said, yes, I basically agree that the careful approach is to admit ignorance. We are largely ignorant of the early first century and there is simply no possible way to find certainty about what occurred in that time. The best we can do is speak of possibilities and probabilities.

Personally I think it is a mistake, therefore, to think of it, in any way, similar to our knowledge of physics and chemistry. Not the same kettle of fish at all.

While I think Ehrman and Crossan go a little far in their pronouncements and in their certainty, I do not think it worth the trouble to argue about it. So, they feel they are certain. Well, I'm not.

Towards this end I think it wise to consider the distinction between physical and epistemic probabilities. What Ehrman and Crossan refer to are epistemic probabilities that they feel are certain or near certain. They feel confident in their belief that Jesus existed. It may still not be the case that Jesus actually did exist. They give their reasons why they feel epistemically certain -- meaning that they are fully convinced by the available evidence and supporting arguments. I feel less certain than they do, but I don't think there is any point holding their certainty against them. After all, they know much more about this than I do.

If we want to derive a more 'objective' view about all of this, the approach that Richard Carrier wants to employ is Bayesian analysis. That seems fine, but that type of analysis has always struck me as a way to make opinion look scientific. Personally, I think there is lots of wiggle room assigning prior probabilities, etc. so I am not as sanguine as he about that approach.

We are, I'm afraid, left with the way humans navigate the world.

What I think I'm hearing from you is that you would prefer a definite result -- a clear-cut yes/no answer to the question of Jesus' existence. Basically the sort of results one sees in the hard sciences. Even there, of course, we cannot speak of 100% certainty, but for all intents and purposes we can treat those results as 100% certain.

That doesn't exist in history. Even the 'best' ancient Greek historian -- or journalist -- Thucydides made up speeches that seemed like what he thought was said or should have been said in certain situations. We simply cannot rely on ancient testimony in the way that we can rely on scientific experiment.

So, what are we left with? No one wants to admit the answer is 'feelings'. The way we navigate the world is largely based on feeling what is right and what is wrong. There are reasons why we think some things are right and some things wrong and different people have different thresholds for evidence they accept for right and wrong.

Those sorts of feelings are part of what we mean by epistemic probability. There are plenty of situations where we have excellent evidence and we can provide terrific arguments and be relatively certain of the results. There are other situations where the evidence is really terrible -- and the historical Jesus is just one of those situations.

My take -- if you want to pin me down -- is this: when it comes to the distinction between physical probability and epistemic probability, I think there is no way to establish any certainty at all about the physical probability of Jesus' existence. I agree with you that we really would need better evidence to speak of Jesus as actually existing in the past (with certainty). He may well have and I think that someone who the stories hand on did But that person, even if he did exist, is probably (as a wise poster on this forum in the past said) in the same category as Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz -- based on a real person but virtually none of what happened to her in the stories has anything to do with the actual Dorothy.

As far as epistemic probability, I am convinced by the available evidence that it is more probable that such a person existed even though I know the evidence is piss poor. The primary reason I think that is the other option is total mythology. For total mythology to be true there must be an originator. The mythological originator is either Paul or someone else. If someone else then that person is lost to history so I have no way to know anything about the creation of the mythology. If Paul, then we have some evidence in his writings that he was not the originator of the myth, only a propagator. Yes, this requires that I believe those bits of evidence from Pau, but I do, so shoot me.

When you say “Most academic HJ research does not concern itself with Jesus as messiah -- that is a matter of faith. HJ 'research' concerns if he existed and what he might have actually done if he existed” … afaik, there is actually no Jesus originally described except for the biblical Jesus of peoples faith. The idea of a HJ is something relatively modern. But the only evidence for any Jesus, is that biblical writing which does not describe belief in a so-called “HJ” at all. The evidence (such as it is in the bible) is evidence of a miraculous supernatural Jesus … or rather, to be precise, it’s only evidence of peoples beliefs in a supernatural messiah that none of them had ever known except through generations of belief in OT prophecy drawn from centuries before Paul and the others were even born.

Well, there are a few references to Jesus as a person in Paul's letters, but IIRC there are only four and they are just throw-away lines.

The Jesus described in Mark is not supernatural (before death), but certainly miraculous. But miracles were considered part and parcel of the schtick of 'great men' in the ancient world. One of the problems reading this material is that we cannot look at it with modern eyes and see things the way the ancients did. They considered miracles part of their world, at least in stories if not in real life. Herodotus' writings are full of the miraculous and supernatural, including a serpent woman and something to do with Herakles IIRC.

So, the existence of the miraculous is neither here nor there when it comes to modern scholarship trying to piece out what might or might not have been historical about the guy.

If by “extra biblical material” you mean the usual sources such as Tacitus and Josephus, then I’m afraid that is of absolutely no credibility at all in respect of it‘s ultra brief mention of “Jesus“. We have been through this before very many times, but very briefly - the fact is (apparently) that none of that extra-biblical writing is known in extant form (i.e. actually existing) except from copies made around 1000 years and more after the original writers had all died. And that vast discrepancy in the dates alone, makes any such extra biblical sources inadmissible as reliable writing about a messiah that none of those non-biblical writers could possibly have ever themselves known anyway.

Really, the bible scholars (and everyone else) is stuck just with the bible. And that is quite obviously neither reliable as a source (only anonymous copies available from long after the events), and not remotely credible in what is says (impossible miracles on almost every page).

Actually I specifically mentioned only two things, both from Josephus and neither concerned the passages about Jesus directly. One is a reference to James, the brother of Jesus and the other to John the Baptist. Josephus attests these people as existing, and they show up in the Christian writings -- John in the gospels and James in one of Paul's letters. It is the reference to James, as Jesus' brother (arguable what was meant by brother, I know) in Josephus and Paul that provides the evidence for Jesus as historical that sways me, even given the problems in interpretation. The other reason that I think he actually existed is that I simply cannot make the pure mythology approach work to my satisfaction (he either existed or he didn't exist, so there is either minimal Jesus or Jesus as pure myth as an option). If someone could provide a really good pure myth explanation that explains all the evidence I am certainly willing to change my mind.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Yes, of course it would be possible for bible scholars to apply the same methods used by historians who study non-religious issues. And we know that bible scholars often say they do use all those same methods.

But the problem is that the written material which is available to them as “evidence” is simply nowhere near good enough to yield reliable conclusions by any method. It does not matter how much time they spend using “higher criticism”, “criteria of embarrassment”, “textural linguistic analysis” etc. - if the gospels and Paul’s letters are not reliable and credible as source material in the first place, then none of those methods can turn such flawed data into a reliable outcome.

It needs initial data which is far better than the biblical writing.

Really it needs, almost as a bare minimum, independent writing from a contemporary source reliably quoting eye-witness testimony from traceable witnesses whose veracity can be confirmed.

But not only do we not have anything remotely like that. What we do have is in fact the exact opposite of that! What we have are written accounts produced only centuries after the supposed life of Jesus, and known only then as anonymously written copies from the Christian faithful themselves. And where none of the writing cites even one single person who ever met Jesus or who ever wrote to credibly confirm they had indeed met or otherwise known Jesus. And where in fact all of that writing describes stories of Jesus which were no doubt at the time the very stories & details that so convinced the faithful that this man must truly have been the real long-awaited messiah, because of his constant amazing miracles and prophetic insights etc., but where all of those things were discovered 1800 years later by science to be the very things that actually showed the stories to be impossible fiction.

And that is supposed to be the sum total of the evidence of Jesus! I.e., just that biblical writing alone. Because there is no extra biblical writing from any author who was contemporary to the time of Jesus and who could have possibly witnessed himself anything ever claimed of Jesus. And where of many early extra-biblical historical writers of time, almost none of them ever mentioned Jesus at all, and where the few such as Tacitus and Josephus who do mention Jesus, mention him only in the most fleeting of brief mention, to report what could only have been known to them as hearsay. And where as far as we can honestly tell, hearsay just re-reported from whatever Christians themselves were saying at the time. And where in any case, none of that extra-biblical writing is known from any original copies, but where instead work like Tacitus and Josephus comes to us only as copies made a hopelessly whopping 1000 years later!

That cannot possibly be reliable evidence in any sense whatsoever. And it does not matter what “higher criticism” or “criteria of embarrassment” or “argument from silence” is attempted. Because that original data, i.e. the bible and 11th century hearsay copies of extra-biblical writing, is completely useless as reliable data in the first place.

Against that, there is of course now a huge mass of quite unarguable evidence to show how and why such ancient religious devotional writing about miraculous god-like figures, is highly untrustworthy in the extreme, to put it mildly.

So there is plenty of quite unarguable evidence against the biblical claims of Jesus. But actually afaik, no good evidence in support of any reliability to the biblical stories of Jesus at all.

Does that mean Jesus could not have existed? No, it does not mean that. He might have existed. But the problem is the almost total lack of any reliable evidence for his actual existence. There is really no good evidential reason to believe it. People may prefer to believe it on the basis of some sort of trust or faith in what 1st century religious fanatics believed, but that is really a faith position rather than a judgement made from what is genuinely available as evidence of any living individual known and described in the bible as “Jesus”.

Do I think he existed? I really have no idea, and I can’t answer that question even with a guesstimate figure such as the aforementioned figures of 60:40 or 5:95 or any other such complete guess. Because there is just zero credible evidence of this figure known as existing to anyone. So I could not honestly, i.e. objectively, say the likelihood was either 0%, 100% or any other figure in between … because there is just no reliable data at all.

He might have existed. But if we are to base judgements on evidence (and that means reliable and credible evidence, not just anyone who ever mentioned the name “Jesus”), then it needs something far better than the biblical writing.

I have no problem with that position -- with one exception.

I still think you are too quick to call all of the extra-biblical information useless. Even with all the known problems -- especially being in the hands of Christian copyists (but we also have Josephus from non-Christian sources) -- I do not think that it is all worthless when it comes to claims about the existence of Jesus. We simply need to be careful in our analysis.

 

[dejudge]

.... We are largely ignorant of the early first century and there is simply no possible way to find certainty about what occurred in that time. The best we can do is speak of possibilities and probabilities.

Well, since you admit you are ignorant of the early first century then your argument for an HJ is based on admitted IGNORANCE.

You ought to have known that probabilities are NOT based on ignorance but on DATA.

The best you can do is SPECULATE and imagine your own history.

It has already been exposed that there is an ON-GOING Quest for an HJ from since the 18th century up to today AFTER Multiple Failures.

The 250 year old On-Going Quest for an HJ confirms that there was NEVER EVER any established evidence for an HJ for at least 1800 years.

Nothing has changed except for the introduction of logical fallacies in the HJ argument.


There is simply no actual pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ.

Jesus the Christ [the Anointed] in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 is Jesus the Son of Damneus who was CHRIST [Anointed] High Priest. The JEWS have NOT claimed the Messiah had already come since the time of Pilate.

Up to c 133 CE, it was believed that Simon Barchoceba was the Jewish Messiah almost 100 years after the time of Pilate.

 

[dejudge]

..The Jesus described in Mark is not supernatural (before death), but certainly miraculous.

The Jesus in gMark is Supernatural.

1. Jesus is acknowledged as the Son of God. Mark 3.11, 5.7, 14.61, 15.39.

2. Jesus WALKS on the sea which is a Supernatural act. Mark 6.49

3. Jesus Transfigures which is a Supernatural act. Mark 9.2

4. Jesus supernaturally Resurrects after being Dead. Mark 16.6

5. Church writers of antiquity who used gMark argued that gMark's Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Holy Ghost.

6. There is NO manuscript of gMark from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

7. gMark is useless to argue for an historical Jesus when it is a source of fiction.

8. The provenance of gMark is unknown in the 1st century.

9. The first source to mention gMark is "Against Heresies" composed no earlier than c 180 CE.

 

[Craig B]

The Jesus described in Mark is not supernatural (before death) ...

Or indeed after death. Look at Mark 16. Verses 1-8 describe odd but not explicitly supernatural occurrences at Jesus' tomb on the occasion of the women's visit there. The subsequent verses which relate an account (preposterous, by the way) of the words of a risen Jesus are now pretty universally rejected as an interpolation, as you will see from the NIV note at 16:9. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV
This passage has been rejected as inauthentic by some scholars since 1809.

 

[dejudge]

Or indeed after death. Look at Mark 16. Verses 1-8 describe odd but not explicitly supernatural occurrences at Jesus' tomb on the occasion of the women's visit there. The subsequent verses which relate an account (preposterous, by the way) of the words of a risen Jesus are now pretty universally rejected as an interpolation, as you will see from the NIV note at 16:9. See http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NIV
This passage has been rejected as inauthentic by some scholars since 1809.

It is virtually impossible for you to show that gMark's Jesus was a figure of history.

You have discredited gMark yet still use it as a source of history and do so without any corroborative evidence.

The earliest gMark is not even from the 1st century.

 

[dejudge]

As far as epistemic probability, I am convinced by the available evidence that it is more probable that such a person existed even though I know the evidence is piss poor.

Logically, if the evidence for an HJ is Piss Poor the probability of an HJ is Piss Poor or the HJ argument is Piss Poor.

The primary reason I think that is the other option is total mythology. For total mythology to be true there must be an originator. The mythological originator is either Paul or someone else. If someone else then that person is lost to history so I have no way to know anything about the creation of the mythology. If Paul, then we have some evidence in his writings that he was not the originator of the myth, only a propagator. Yes, this requires that I believe those bits of evidence from Pau, but I do, so shoot me.

You don't know the originator of the Creation story yet you consider it total mythology.

You don't know the originator of the story of Romulus yet you consider it mythology.

You don't know the originator any Pauline letter.

You simply BELIEVE the Bible because you have NO actual corroboration that Paul did actually exist and no corroboration that Paul wrote letters to Churches pre 70 CE.

All you have is a Piss Poor HJ argument using admitted Piss Poor evidence in known sources of fiction.

You have "shot" yourself in the foot.

 

[Brainache]

Logically, if the evidence for an HJ is Piss Poor the probability of an HJ is Piss Poor or the HJ argument is Piss Poor.




You don't know the originator of the Creation story yet you consider it total mythology.

You don't know the originator of the story of Romulus yet you consider it mythology.

You don't know the originator any Pauline letter.

You simply BELIEVE the Bible because you have NO actual corroboration that Paul did actually exist and no corroboration that Paul wrote letters to Churches pre 70 CE.

All you have is a Piss Poor HJ argument using admitted Piss Poor evidence in known sources of fiction.

You have "shot" yourself in the foot.

I'm wondering who you think this kind of stupid, vacuous posturing will convince.

Is this the kind of thing you find persuasive?

 

[Belz...]

Well, since you admit you are ignorant of the early first century then your argument for an HJ is based on admitted IGNORANCE.

Your post is full of nonsense [diatribe].

 

[maximara]

What a load of Bollocks.

"They also came to be called "Jessaeans'' for a short while, before the disciples began to be called "Christians" at Antioch."" Yes they started to be called "Christians" when Paul was preaching at Antioch in the mid first century. How does that become the "5th Century"?

Except our oldest copy of Acts used "Chrestians" NOT "Christians". We know from the tampering of Tacitus that "Chrestians" was still being used clear into the 11th century. Here again we see the Christ-Chrestian disconnect.

We are dealing with a copy and I suspect that the same kind of editorial shenanigans occurred and as with our oldest actual material the word was actually "Chrestian"

 

[Craig B]

Except our oldest copy of Acts used "Chrestians" NOT "Christians". We know from the tampering of Tacitus that "Chrestians" was still being used clear into the 11th century. Here again we see the Christ-Chrestian disconnect.

We are dealing with a copy and I suspect that the same kind of editorial shenanigans occurred and as with our oldest actual material the word was actually "Chrestian"

So what, if it was sometimes rendered in this way? The word was a loan word of Greek origin, and may perhaps on occasion have been confused with the common personal name Chrestus, as possibly in Suetonius Claudius 25, 4. But that can't be taken to mean that Tacitus (whether his account is true or not) was not referring to the Christ of the Gospels (whether their account is true or not).

 

[maximara]

Are Pliny's letters to Trajan not known contemporary pre 5th century works?

Except the best we have is a Sixth-Century Fragment and I don't know if they reference to Christ is part of that. We have funerary stone inscriptions of Chrestians for Christians which makes no sense if they are one and the same as is often claimed.

More over "If Chrestians is a variant spelling of Christians then why do the early Christian authorities, such as Tertuallian, take issue with the two being used interchangeably? He clarifies that Chrestian is a proper term in it's own right. It is a different word with a different meaning - not a variant." (Christian, Yeremyah)

"By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians." (Justin Martyr 2nd century)

"Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians, as those who are cared for by the true king are kingly. For as the wise are wise by their wisdom, and those observant of law are so by the law; so also those who belong to Christ the King are kings, and those that are Christ’s Christians." (Clement 3rdcentury)

"Indeed, even the Papyrology Unit within the University of Oxford, for the 3rd century P.Oxy 3035, renders the term "Chresian" as "Christian". Various reasons for this type of emendation and/or translation are provided, including misspelling by the original scribes, Iotacism, and orthographic errors. If any of these reasons were correct, then it would be reasonable to expect a mixture of the terms "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the sources, but a mixture is certainly not found." (The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity)

People who have gone back to the oldest originals find that many times that "Christian" is actually Chrestian. So we have distortion of the data to make things fit...something that as Miner has shown tends to happen when you have a strong preconception.

"It is interesting to note that not once did Polus (Paul) once use the term Christian in any of his writings. The Greek translation of his teachings does however use many related forms of Chrestian such as chrestotes, chrestos, chrestologia, chresteuomai, chresis, chresimos, chrematismos, chrematizo, chrezo, chreia, and chraomai."

It seems that Chrestian was the original term and Christian came in latter via oral tradition but was not formalized into the NT until the mid point 5th century.

 

[Brainache]

What we have is an 11th century copy NOT the a copy pre 5th century and that copy shows evidence of after the fact tampering. Chrestianos was changed to Christianos and yet Christus was not changed. More over we have funerary stone inscriptions of Chrestians for Christians which makes no sense if they are one and the same as is often claimed.

More over "If Chrestians is a variant spelling of Christians then why do the early Christian authorities, such as Tertuallian, take issue with the two being used interchangeably? He clarifies that Chrestian is a proper term in it's own right. It is a different word with a different meaning - not a variant." (Christian, Yeremyah)

"By the mere application of a name, nothing is decided, either good or evil, apart from the actions implied in the name; and indeed, so far at least as one may judge from the name we are accused of, we are Chrestians." (Justin Martyr 2nd century)

"Now those who have believed in Christ both are and are called Chrestians, as those who are cared for by the true king are kingly. For as the wise are wise by their wisdom, and those observant of law are so by the law; so also those who belong to Christ the King are kings, and those that are Christ’s Christians." Clement 2nd century)

"Indeed, even the Papyrology Unit within the University of Oxford, for the 3rd century P.Oxy 3035, renders the term "Chresian" as "Christian". Various reasons for this type of emendation and/or translation are provided, including misspelling by the original scribes, Iotacism, and orthographic errors. If any of these reasons were correct, then it would be reasonable to expect a mixture of the terms "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the sources, but a mixture is certainly not found." (The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity)

People who have gone back to the oldest originals find that many times that "Christian" is actually Chrestian.

"It is interesting to note that not once did Polus (Paul) once use the term Christian in any of his writings. The Greek translation of his teachings does however use many related forms of Chrestian such as chrestotes, chrestos, chrestologia, chresteuomai, chresis, chresimos, chrematismos, chrematizo, chrezo, chreia, and chraomai."

Good to see your sources support CraigB's point.

I'm a bit puzzled though, because I thought you were arguing that "Chrestian" and "Christian" meant two different groups. Your sources say they are the same group called by different names.

Have you changed your position on this?

 

[Craig B]

Except the best we have is a Sixth-Century Fragment and I don't know if they reference to Christ is part of that. We have funerary stone inscriptions of Chrestians for Christians which makes no sense if they are one and the same as is often claimed.

That is not a reasonable response to my question, "Are Pliny's letters to Trajan not known contemporary pre 5th century works?" Is it your contention that these are forgeries by much later fabricators? If you're not stating that, then you must accept the copious use of "Christiani" and the like in a very early second century text.

 

[dejudge]

I'm wondering who you think this kind of stupid, vacuous posturing will convince.

Is this the kind of thing you find persuasive?

Your post is worthless--void of evidence pre 70 CE for an HJ.

Phil2112 claims the evidence for an HJ is PISS POOR.

What a PISS POOR unconvincing HJ argument!!!

Richard Carrier an historian has declared that Bart Ehrman's HJ argument in Did Jesus Exist?" is a failure of logic and facts.

The same Carrier has also admitted the the methodologies employed in the HJ argument are FALLACIOUS in every HJ argument that he has encountered.

Carrier's declaration is corroborated by your HJ argument.

You don't even know the history of the ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after Multiple failures and that there are MULTIPLE irreconcilable versions of an HJ which is PROOF there was NEVER EVER any establised evidence for an HJ for at least 1800 years.

Please, get enrolled at Harvard University, they are offering Courses on the History of the Quest for an HJ from the 18th to the 21st century.

 

[dejudge]

Good to see your sources support CraigB's point.

I'm a bit puzzled though, because I thought you were arguing that "Chrestian" and "Christian" meant two different groups. Your sources say they are the same group called by different names.

Have you changed your position on this?

The claim that there were Chrestians or Christians has no relevance for an HJ argument.

There was NO character called Jesus the Christ in the time of Pilate.

HJ is assumed to be a little known preacher.

There is NO evidence of a Jewish King or High Priest called Jesus of Nazareth.

Jewish Kings and High Priest were called CHRIST [Anointed].

 

[Brainache]

Your post is worthless--void of evidence pre 70 CE for an HJ.

Phil2112 claims the evidence for an HJ is PISS POOR.

What a PISS POOR unconvincing HJ argument!!!

Richard Carrier an historian has declared that Bart Ehrman's HJ argument in Did Jesus Exist?" is a failure of logic and facts.

The same Carrier has also admitted the the methodologies employed in the HJ argument are FALLACIOUS in every HJ argument that he has encountered.

Carrier's declaration is corroborated by your HJ argument.

You don't even know the history of the ON-GOING Quest for an HJ after Multiple failures and that there are MULTIPLE irreconcilable versions of an HJ which is PROOF there was NEVER EVER any establised evidence for an HJ for at least 1800 years.

Please, get enrolled at Harvard University, they are offering Courses on the History of the Quest for an HJ from the 18th to the 21st century.

Why do you think Carrier knows more than thousands of Historians combined?

Carrier was one of the founders of Atheism+. The man is an Ideologue, I'm not a fan of him.

Do you have any references from someone else?

Harvard University teaches that there most probably was a HJ, just like all the other secular Universities.

Why do you think otherwise?

It boggles my mind that anyone could think that the type of arguments you use would convince anyone on a skeptic's forum like this.