Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Sure, if you are a Christian.

But that is a totally different concept to the Historical Jesus, as Dale Martin explains in the video you linked, so I don't see what the problem is.

If he wants to believe in God and the Trinity, so what? That makes no difference to the evidence that Jesus was a 1st century Jewish preacher.

Again, you do not understand what 'REAL' means.

Real means real.

There is NO REAL evidence for an historical Jesus.

The ONLY REAL evidence is dated from the 2nd century or later and states Jesus was God Creator, the Logos, the Son of God and Born of a Ghost.

There are REAL manuscripts with the Mythological description of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus character is TRULY a Myth.

The Historical Jesus is a Hoax--He never existed.

 

[Belz...]

You don't have any actual evidence for what you write so please stop wasting my time.

Is this how you interact with everybody in your life ?

 

[Brainache]

Again, you do not understand what 'REAL' means.

Real means real.

There is NO REAL evidence for an historical Jesus.

The ONLY REAL evidence is dated from the 2nd century or later and states Jesus was God Creator, the Logos, the Son of God and Born of a Ghost.

There are REAL manuscripts with the Mythological description of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus character is TRULY a Myth.

The Historical Jesus is a Hoax--He never existed.

OK. You win.

Now what?

How are you going to convince qualified people of your Hoax theory?

No one else has bought it so far, how will you convince people who have actually studied the subject?

 

[Belz...]

The Historical Jesus is a Hoax.

Why don't you answer his question ?

There may be hundreds of Christians Scholars who believe Jesus was God Incarnate.

Ad hominem.

Again, you do not understand what 'REAL' means.

Real means real.

Wow. Thanks for that enlightening insight.

 

[pakeha]

By telling us that the name was applied to them in Antioch, in a context referring to an early conversion campaign.

Yes, you're quite right. Acts tells us that.
Perhaps the author even believed it.
It might even be true, though I think an external source of information would be desirable to get an idea of how accurate this picture of 1st century Christianity can be considered to be.


eight bits, you reminded me of JaysonR's inestimable trade route maps in relation to the spread of Christianity posted up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9559836&postcount=50
Of course you're right in that those postulated Christian communities didn't spring up like mushrooms but I find the evidence of Pliny the Younger's letter giving me a niggling je ne sais quoi.
How is it he wouldn't have known about Christians if they were a threat to public order and merited the death penalty?
"...but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

And then there's the question if these people were Chrestians or Christians, too.

 

[pakeha]

...So at best it appears Tacitus and Suetonius were repeating an urban myth about Chrestians and since the very word "Christian" doesn't appear until much latter is uncertain if Pliny the Younger was dealing with Christians as we know them or Chrestians (our oldest copy of him is from the 6th century) who may or may not have revered Christ.

Kudos on the summary, maximara; I've book-marked it.
What you didn't mention is that Pliny the Younger and Tacitus were friends, as well as governors of neighbouring provinces AFAIK.

Pliny was also a member of Trajan's judicial council during three years. How could he not have known what to do with confessed Christians?

 

[maximara]

Yes, you're quite right. Acts tells us that.
Perhaps the author even believed it.
It might even be true, though I think an external source of information would be desirable to get an idea of how accurate this picture of 1st century Christianity can be considered to be.


eight bits, you reminded me of JaysonR's inestimable trade route maps in relation to the spread of Christianity posted up here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9559836&postcount=50
Of course you're right in that those postulated Christian communities didn't spring up like mushrooms but I find the evidence of Pliny the Younger's letter giving me a niggling je ne sais quoi.
How is it he wouldn't have known about Christians if they were a threat to public order and merited the death penalty?
"...but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

And then there's the question if these people were Chrestians or Christians, too.

In the oldest copies of Acts we are told about Chrestians and it is not until c450 CE that the term becomes Christians. In fact, while Paul never used "Chrestian" he did use variants of it like chrestotes, chrestos, chrestologia, chresteuomai, chresis, chresimos, chrematismos, chrematizo, chrezo, chreia, and chraomai.

This can even still be seen in modern languages like French (chrétien), Romanian (creştin), Slovakian (kresťan), Hungarian (keresztény) and several others.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

How is it he wouldn't have known about Christians if they were a threat to public order and merited the death penalty?
"...but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition."

Apparently they did hold their meetings in secret. Whether this was because they wanted to operate as a mystery religion, or because they reacted stupidly to being persecuted because they were cultish and secretive, I don't know.

Pliny does seem to know of them, and has known of them for a while. What he didn't know is what goes on at their meetings. Appaarently, he'd heard that they're cannibals (his remark about innocent food) and that they swear strange oaths (which also turn out to be innocuous). He may also be bewildered why they sing hymns to one man as if to a god, but won't spalsh some wine or burn some incense to another man as if to a god, Pliny's boss.

Regular secret meetings with no shared family or class relationship are what attracted law enforcement interest. Romans were suspicious about that sort of theng (and also about magic, it appears, especially if being used for political purposes). Meriting the death penalty apparently didn't take much beyond law enforcement interest. I think Pliny explains himself fairly well,

... those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished.

Pliny doesn't care why they disobey him (the nature of the creed), but only that they disobey him, after being caught and fairly warned. (Oddly, this reminds me of Swedenborg's ideas about personal judgment after death: OK, you lived a faithless life, but here you are, you can see for yourself that Jesus really is running things, so do you now cooperate with Jesus or not?)

Marcus Aurelius didn't think much of the "Christian attitude," either. From Meditations, Book 11, ~ 167 CE:

What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show.

Which, oddly, reminds me of Jesus himself (supposedly) complaining about the insincere piety of the Pharisees, etc.

Pliny was also a member of Trajan's judicial council during three years. How could he not have known what to do with confessed Christians?

Is it possible that you've never worked in a bureaucracy? This a CYA memo, with a hint of buttering the bosses' cupcakes. He's already done something with the confessed Christians, he just wants to make the sure the boss is on board with that.

 

[proudfootz]

There may be hundreds of Christians Scholars who believe Jesus was God Incarnate.

It would appear that Christian Scholars personally believe in a Mythological Jesus yet argue that their Jesus was a figure of history.

This is tantamount to deception.

If a person knows that they have no evidence for an historical Jesus and believe Jesus was a Myth [a God Incarnate] then it is completely unacceptable that such a person should teach others exactly what they do not believe.

I have no doubt there are many scholars who are christians in academia, and no doubt they publish and review papers and thus have a strong voice in what constitutes the 'academic consensus'.

Until such time as we discover what a particular person's argument consists of, they are merely names and we are in no position to judge whether these arguments are persuasive or not. Should anyone believe any proposition merely on the the authority of their day job?

That Professor X believes there was a man named Jesus behind the Christ myth isn't an argument, really. Nor is asserting that there are 1000 Professors who believe the same thing much of an argument when we have no clue on what basis they found such a belief.

There's nothing wrong with going against the academic consensus on this topic. We have the intelligence to judge for ourselves whether the arguments (if they are ever presented to us) are worthy of consideration or are persuasive.

Otherwise there's not much point in having a thread.

 

[proudfootz]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist, but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus." - Bart D. Ehrman, December 2007.

I heard Bart make the above statement on a recorded radio show and wondered what people thought of it. It seemed to me pretty strong.

Nick

Since I have been invited to review the thread in efforts to discover the arguments about the HJ and MJ to be found here, I've gone back to Page One.

In my view Ehrman is taking a rather 'strong' view, since as a best-selling author he is more likely to be moved by the profit motive than anyone else.

Should we consider scholars who depend on their paid positions at universities as mercenary as well?

It's a dumb thing to say - it undermines our confidence in the field in general.

 

[Craig B]

There's nothing wrong with going against the academic consensus on this topic. We have the intelligence to judge for ourselves whether the arguments (if they are ever presented to us) are worthy of consideration or are persuasive.

Otherwise there's not much point in having a thread.

Don't you worry. Even if you never manage to find out the arguments, I'm sure others will, and therefore the thread may well continue.

 

[proudfootz]

Don't you worry. Even if you never manage to find out the arguments, I'm sure others will, and therefore the thread may well continue.

When the purveyors of these alleged arguments overcome their shyness I'm sure there will be discussion.

In the meantime we can amuse ourselves by discussing Bart Ehrman.

If Bart Ehrman, representing the 'consensus' view on the historicity of Jesus dismisses the few non-christian references as evidence of an historic Jesus, why do some apologists still cite Josephus et al?

Is it because we are safe to ignore what the 'academic consensus' concludes?

 

[dejudge]

I have no doubt there are many scholars who are christians in academia, and no doubt they publish and review papers and thus have a strong voice in what constitutes the 'academic consensus'.

What 'academic consensus' are you talking about? There is big difference between 'majority' and 'consensus'.

Historians and Scholars have never ever conceded that there was an historical Jesus in the history of the Quest for an HJ.

The Quest for an Historical Jesus began in the 18th century up to this present day.

We know the history of the Multiple Quest for an HJ.

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

1. Historians and Scholars did NOT concede that there was an HJ after the 1st Quest--the 1st Quest was a failure--there was NO evidence of a human Jesus pre 70 CE.

2. Historians and Scholars did NOT concede there was an HJ after the 2nd Quest--the 2nd Quest ended in a failure--there was NO evidence of a human Jesus pre 70 CE.

3. There is NOW a 3rd Quest for an HJ and Historians and Scholars have NOT conceded that there was an HJ. The 3rd Quest has failed so far There is still NO evidence of an human Jesus pre 70 CE.

In fact, the HJ argument is NOW exposed by Richard Carrier and other Scholars as fundamentally based on fallacious methodologies and WITHOUT a shred of supporting evidence from antiquity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

At around the 4th minute Richard Carrier rubbishes the so-called consensus and argues that it is based on Fallacious methods and sometimes factually incorrect beliefs.

 

[Craig B]

When the purveyors of these alleged arguments overcome their shyness I'm sure there will be discussion.

No. The MJ people refuse to acknowledge their existence, or read them. So they have been "purveyed", but the addressees refused to receive them, without even looking in the box they were purveyed in.

 

[maximara]

How could there be confusion in such a simple inquiry?

It is a piece of cake to inquiry whether or not there was an historical Pilate, a character found in gMark.

We would simply look for details about Pilate in Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources and also utilize archaeological findings or artifacts if available.

There are indeed CONTEMPORARY sources of antiquity which mention Pilate as Governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius.

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT mentioned at all by any contemporary Non-Apologetic source of antiquity and there are no archaeological findings or artifacts.

Jesus of Nazareth cannot be confirmed to be a figure of history.

What is so confusing??

We have evidence for Pilate in contemporary non-Apologetic sources and NONE for Jesus of Nazareth.

This is an extremely simple matter.

Pilate was Governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius when Caiaphas was High Priest until New evidence surfaces

Jesus was the Son of God Born of a Ghost--it is documented.

Jesus is a MYTH UNTIL new evidence surfaces.

Remsburg 100 years before summed up the confusion issue: "(i)t is often difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish a historical from a philosophical myth. Hence the non-agreement of Freethinkers in regard to the nature of the Christ myth. Is Christ a historical or a philosophical myth? Does an analysis of his alleged history disclose the deification of a man, or merely the personification of an idea?"

"For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." (Price, Robert (2012) The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems pg 387-8)

If Jesus of the Gospels actually lived outside of the time of Pilate as Governor of Judea under Tiberius such as claimed by Irenaeus who put the crucifixion firmly in 42-44 CE in Demonstration (74) then of course you will find no evidence under Tiberius if the guy was crucified by King of the Jews Herod Agrippa I under Claudius Caesar because you are looking in the wrong freaking time. The same is true if Jesus actually lived and died before Pilate's rule began.

Much is true of Robin Hood in the earliest surviving written tales about him which put him against a King "Edward". But is this Edward the Elder (900–924), Edward the Martyr (975–978), Edward the Confessor (1042–1066), or Edward I to Edward III (1272-1377)? None of them are in the later King Richard-Prince John time period seen in the later ballads and searches for the "historical" Hood go after that time period rather then that of a King "Edward". By the standard set by the Jesus quest wouldn't looking in the times when an Edward was ruling England make more sense?

King Arthur is another supposedly historical myth with candidates as much as 300 years earlier then the traditional late 5 early 6th century time frame.

Yet when the same sort of thing is suggested about Jesus it is panic time with mythist label thrown around with all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery

It comes off as that old joke about looking for something where the light is better.

 

[tsig]

Don't you worry. Even if you never manage to find out the arguments, I'm sure others will, and therefore the thread may well continue.

I thought you knew the arguments. If you don't know the arguments then what have your posts been based on?

 

[tsig]

No. The MJ people refuse to acknowledge their existence, or read them. So they have been "purveyed", but the addressees refused to receive them, without even looking in the box they were purveyed in.

In the time you took to post this you could have linked to those arguments. So far the arguments for an HJ have been very like the evidence for the HJ, much talked about but seldom seen.

In both cases other posters are called names for not reading arguments not posted and not acknowledging evidence never shown.

 

[Craig B]

Yet when the same sort of thing is suggested about Jesus [as about Robin Hood] it is panic time with mythist label thrown around with all the gay abandon of an alcoholic in a brewery

That's because there are differences between the characteristics of the Jesus story and the Robin Hood story.

Is there a mythic Robin Hood story anyway, in that sense? Robin shot his bow in a super terrestrial sublunary sphere, and it wasn't the Sheriff of Nottingham but the Archontes of the Land of Woo who were trying to get him? And he lived not in the reign of whichever King Edward it might have been, but in unspecified undefinable mythic time?

 

[tsig]

That's because there are differences between the characteristics of the Jesus story and the Robin Hood story.

Is there a mythic Robin Hood story anyway, in that sense? Robin shot his bow in a super terrestrial sublunary sphere, and it wasn't the Sheriff of Nottingham but the Archontes of the Land of Woo who were trying to get him? And he lived not in the reign of whichever King Edward it might have been, but in unspecified undefinable mythic time?

So true because we know the Story of Jesus is Unique in History.

 

[IanS]

No. The MJ people refuse to acknowledge their existence, or read them. So they have been "purveyed", but the addressees refused to receive them, without even looking in the box they were purveyed in.

You don’t have any evidence. It’s no good telling us to read the bible (which you said was indeed your evidence).

The NT bible is only a source of peoples religious beliefs written centuries later by anonymous religious fanatics, telling tales of the supernatural. It’s no good telling us that is a credible source of reliable evidence for a human Jesus that none of it‘s authors ever knew.

What you need, what bible scholars actually need, is some external source of evidence which confirms what is said in the gospels and letters of the bible.

That means either some sort of convincing archaeological or physical evidence, or some writing contemporary to the lifetime of Jesus quoting historical factual details from a reliable known eye-witness who’s account can be verified as likely true.

But you don’t have anything remotely like that. All you have is the unreliable incredible writing of the supernatural in the NT.

So don’t tell us that we have been shown the evidence but that we won’t read it. Don’t tell us that the bible contains your evidence. Because everyone here has discussed all of that biblical writing to death over many thousands of posts long before you told us to read the links to your biblical “evidence”.