Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

What you are offering from the bible is not reliable or credible as evidence of Jesus.

Just because the bible, or any source, makes claims about anything, does not mean that it’s mere mention and mere claim is truly evidence for anything it says. It's not evidence of Jesus merely because the bible says Jesus did A, B & C. That alone is just an un-evidenced claim.

The bible is a book of peoples religious beliefs. It’s evidence of peoples 1st century superstitious beliefs. But there is no reliable evidence in the bible to show that those beliefs were ever true.

What you are trying to claim is that the beliefs themselves are evidence of their own truth. What it needs to turn those religious beliefs of the bible into evidence of Jesus, is some external independent verifiable corroboration to show that mere claims like that, it’s mere words, are likely to be actually true.

But just because I won't read you biblical evidence for the 100th time, does not mean that other sceptics here wont read it. And they have asked you for it several times on just the last few pages (tsig asked you and so did proudfootz) - why don't you post it here for them to read?

I know I'm on your ignore list, but I have to say this again anyway:

The discipline of higher criticism is a lot more involved than just reading the stories and accepting them at face value.

You would know that if you knew anything about how History is actually studied by Academics, as opposed to High School students.

 

[tsig]

I am not "offering you the Bible" and you know that perfectly well. I am referring to critical analysis of certain texts. As I say if, you don't like this, nobody is making you look at it. But at least you should admit that is the position, and not keep stating that people refuse to provide evidence. If people are saying things to death hundreds of times, and you don't like that, then you are the second worst culprit. The worst is of course dejudge, who's in a class of his own.

What "certain texts" do you have besides the bible? I'll be happy to look at them if you'll only say what they are. Telling people to look at the evidence and then not providing the evidence is pointless.

 

[tsig]

To be more precise, you have repeated the same thing hundreds of times, and I think it's tosh. But that's entirely up to you. What I don't think you are entitled to do is keep saying, or even say once, that you have not been offered evidence, because that encourages less well informed people to think your opponents are being "lazy" and such rubbish as that, if they have not been able or inclined to follow the most interesting discussions we've been having.

If you reject critical analysis of texts, absolutely fine. But it's a valuable procedure, in the opinions of others, whether you think so or not.

You might want to present that critical analysis of texts rather than just talking about it.

 

[tsig]

I know I'm on your ignore list, but I have to say this again anyway:

The discipline of higher criticism is a lot more involved than just reading the stories and accepting them at face value.
You would know that if you knew anything about how History is actually studied by Academics, as opposed to High School students.

What you are offering from the bible is not reliable or credible as evidence of Jesus.

Just because the bible, or any source, makes claims about anything, does not mean that it’s mere mention and mere claim is truly evidence for anything it says. It's not evidence of Jesus merely because the bible says Jesus did A, B & C. That alone is just an un-evidenced claim.

The bible is a book of peoples religious beliefs. It’s evidence of peoples 1st century superstitious beliefs. But there is no reliable evidence in the bible to show that those beliefs were ever true.

What you are trying to claim is that the beliefs themselves are evidence of their own truth. What it needs to turn those religious beliefs of the bible into evidence of Jesus, is some external independent verifiable corroboration to show that mere claims like that, it’s mere words, are likely to be actually true.

But just because I won't read you biblical evidence for the 100th time, does not mean that other sceptics here wont read it. And they have asked you for it several times on just the last few pages (tsig asked you and so did proudfootz) - why don't you post it here for them to read?

Obviously they won't post them because we're not qualified to understand them we're just supposed to kneel down in front of Academic Authority and accept what we're told.

Looks like we've gone back to the Piggy argument that History is far too complicated for us commoners to understand.

And if you don't agree then you're a High School student, oh well, it's one of the Lesser Insults.

 

[IanS]

Thanks for the links.

Hi Pakeha … I don’t know if you have had the time or inclination to watch that video of Hector Avalos, but I think you will find it quite revealing.

Not only does he show how and why bible scholars get things wrong, but more importantly why their profession as a whole is seriously deficient and self serving.

Interestingly, Avalos started life as a devout evangelical Christian, and actually a creationist who went about preaching creationism. Then he did an undergraduate degree in anthropology, but at the time was still highly religious and thought he ought to study for a degree in religious Christian issues in order to pursue his preaching of creationist Christianity. But he did not get very far into those religious studies before he began to realise how fatally flawed and unscientific it all was.

By the time he had qualified in his religious studies, and with the intention of a profession lecturing bible studies, he had lost his faith entirely. But not knowing what else he could do for a living, he went into a lecturing position in Bible studies and taught that not just as an atheist but also as someone who quickly found from inside the profession how erroneous and self serving it’s methods and conclusions are … and afaik he actually teaches that and emphasises those very serious flaws of the profession to his students.

He also has on You Tube an audio recording of a formal debate that he had with William Lane Craig. I’ve only listened to about 2/3 of that, but that far Craig was getting a serious pasting and was unable to answer any of the very direct and revealing questions Avalos was putting to him (the subject was the resurrection of Jesus, which Craig claims really took place as a miracle).

Anyway … take a look at it, I’d be interested to see what you think.

 

[maximara]

To be more precise, you have repeated the same thing hundreds of times, and I think it's tosh.

Which ignores the FACT that when you get right down to it when compared to actual known history and social-political dynamics the Gospels and Acts read like badly researched and thought out historical fiction on par with modern stuff where witches were burned in Salem or witch trials were still a thing in North America in the mid to late 1700s.

 

[Craig B]

... But just because I won't read you biblical evidence for the 100th time, does not mean that other sceptics here wont read it. And they have asked you for it several times on just the last few pages (tsig asked you and so did proudfootz) - why don't you post it here for them to read?

And here's what Tsig has in fact stated since you wrote these words.

What "certain texts" do you have besides the bible? I'll be happy to look at them if you'll only say what they are. Telling people to look at the evidence and then not providing the evidence is pointless.

So I regret to say tsig isn't about to pay much attention to such evidence, contrary to your reassuring but regrettably false beliefs.

ETA Here's what else tsig has to say, and I'm not inclined to converse in such terms.

Obviously they won't post them because we're not qualified to understand them we're just supposed to kneel down in front of Academic Authority and accept what we're told.

Looks like we've gone back to the Piggy argument that History is far too complicated for us commoners to understand.

ETA 2 And here's Proudfootz. He seems to take a dim view of the texts in question too.

Many who believe things like god, heaven, and hell do cite evidence: for example what they read in the Bible.

Ehrman seems to be saying going against the majority opinion is deplorable.

I think that is simply a fallacious argument and not a good jumping off point for his argument that, based on the Bible, Jesus must have existed.

 

[Belz...]

Looks like we've gone back to the Piggy argument that History is far too complicated for us commoners to understand.

Gosh, I hope not. That was a silly argument.

 

[proudfootz]

Here you go:


Dale Martin - The Historical Jesus

Thanks!

It's good to see you have no contempt for argument by YouTube clip.

 

[proudfootz]

Sometimes we don't really know if a text was meddled with if we do not have the supposed un-meddled text.

We know gMark was meddled with. We have both the Long and Short version of gMark.

We cannot assume texts were interpolated or assume we know what was interpolated just because the texts contain passages that do not support a theory.

Many of the claims that the Pauline Corpus was interpolated cannot be shown to be true or it cannot be shown that the Pauline Corpus was written in the 1st century pre 70 CE and interpolated later.

Of course, you are absolutely correct.

It would be the heighth of arrogance to suppose all the forgeries, re-orderings, redactions, edits, and additions have been discovered.

And of course even if we had the original MS of gMark or any other of the christian material, we would still face the difficulty in establishing whether anything written there were reliable materials for an historian's use.

Thanks!

 

[proudfootz]

I'm trying to follow your reasoning.

IanS refuses to look at the gospel sources.
These are in the Bible.
IanS is a mythicist
Therefore there exists a mythicist who doesn't read the Bible.
HJers note IanS's aversion to this material.
So they must be saying that mythicists don't read the Bible.
But mythicists do read the Bible.
Therefore HJers are wrong again QED.

IanS seems to be saying this material has been looked at.

So a claim that he hasn't, or 'MJers' haven't, would appear to be mistaken.

I don't ask you to read Earl Doherty's books or Dr Carrier's books hundreds of times.

That's why it sounds absurd for someone who seems to be saying 'read your Bible again and again until you agree with me'.

 

[proudfootz]

Obviously they won't post them because we're not qualified to understand them we're just supposed to kneel down in front of Academic Authority and accept what we're told.

Looks like we've gone back to the Piggy argument that History is far too complicated for us commoners to understand.

And if you don't agree then you're a High School student, oh well, it's one of the Lesser Insults.

When it gets down to 'go to college' etc it's pretty poor argumentation.

When someone would rather repeat this kind of drivel in place of the killer arguments they're reluctant to publicize it makes one wonder if these mysterious arguments are that compelling after all the build up.

I was invited to visit the 'Paul the Herodian' thread to find some great arguments relevant to the historicity of a Jesus and it wasn't very fruitful.

Mostly it was about Paul, and some very non-mainstream views were championed. So it appears it's OK for some to ignore the consensus view, when it is convenient for them.

 

[proudfootz]

And here's what Tsig has in fact stated since you wrote these words. So I regret to say tsig isn't about to pay much attention to such evidence, contrary to your reassuring but regrettably false beliefs.

ETA Here's what else tsig has to say, and I'm not inclined to converse in such terms.

ETA 2 And here's Proudfootz. He seems to take a dim view of the texts in question too.

Yes, so having looked at the bible for the 111th time, some folks are curious if there's anything persuasive for the historicist hypothesis.

The charge that 'MJers won't look at evidence' is misleading.

 

[Belz...]

Sometimes we don't really know if a text was meddled with if we do not have the supposed un-meddled text.

We know gMark was meddled with. We have both the Long and short version of gMark.

We cannot assume texts were interpolated or assume we know what was interpolated just because the texts contain passages that do not support a theory.

Many of the claims that the Pauline Corpus was interpolated cannot be shown to be true or it cannot be shown that the Pauline Corpus was written in the 1st century pre 70 CE and interpolated later.

Who are you, and what have you done to the real Dejudge ???

(Ninja'd by Brainache, dammit !)

 

[Craig B]

IanS seems to be saying this material has been looked at.

So a claim that he hasn't, or 'MJers' haven't, would appear to be mistaken.

I'm most certainly not saying that MJers haven't. I'm not saying that IanS hasn't done it. I'm saying that he refuses to do it. IanS himself confirms this.

But just because I won't read you biblical evidence for the 100th time, does not mean that other sceptics here wont read it.

 

[tsig]

And here's what Tsig has in fact stated since you wrote these words. So I regret to say tsig isn't about to pay much attention to such evidence, contrary to your reassuring but regrettably false beliefs.

ETA Here's what else tsig has to say, and I'm not inclined to converse in such terms.
ETA 2 And here's Proudfootz. He seems to take a dim view of the texts in question too.

You don't seem too inclined to provide any evidence on any terms.

You spout the words "higher criticism" and "textual analysis" as if the terms themselves are supposed to be the evidence you lack.

So far all that you have posted looks just like bible apologetics and just like apologists when pressed for details you give out insults.

 

[tsig]

I know I'm on your ignore list, but I have to say this again anyway:

The discipline of higher criticism is a lot more involved than just reading the stories and accepting them at face value.
You would know that if you knew anything about how History is actually studied by Academics, as opposed to High School students.

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Looks like we've gone back to the Piggy argument that History is far too complicated for us commoners to understand.

Gosh, I hope not. That was a silly argument.

Tell that to Brainache.

 

[dejudge]

Of course, you are absolutely correct.

It would be the heighth of arrogance to suppose all the forgeries, re-orderings, redactions, edits, and additions have been discovered.

It is not necessary to discover all the forgeries, re-orderings, redactions, edits, and additions.

Adam and Eve, the God of the Jews, the Angel Gabriel, Satan the Devil and Romulus are considered myth characters with far less discoveries.

The existing evidence from antiquity shows Jesus as a Myth just like hundreds of other myth characters.

Unknown, never seen, never examined supposed undiscovered evidence cannot be used to determine the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

And of course even if we had the original MS of gMark or any other of the christian material, we would still face the difficulty in establishing whether anything written there were reliable materials for an historian's use.

There is no evidence that the original gMark would be fundamentally different to the existing copy.

It is extremely easy to determine that the existing gMark is NOT historically reliable.

It is unheard of that only original MS texts were used to determine the non-historicity of all the hundreds of myth characters like Adam, Eve, the God of the Jews, Apollo, the Angel Gabriel, Moroni, Satan the Devil and Romulus.

We can only examine the EXISTING evidence.

If we had the original MS texts of the NT it might have been far easier because it might have shown they were all composed in the 2nd century or later.

When were the original MS texts of the NT composed?

Would an original MS text state that it is an original?

How is an original MS text identified?

What does the original MS text say about Adam and Eve or Romulus?

 

[proudfootz]

You don't seem too inclined to provide any evidence on any terms.

You spout the words "higher criticism" and "textual analysis" as if the terms themselves are supposed to be the evidence you lack.

So far all that you have posted looks just like bible apologetics and just like apologists when pressed for details you give out insults.

Until Craig B agrees to read the whole library of literature critical of the HJ hypothesis at least 100 times, we are forced to conclude that he is unwilling to confront the arguments and the evidence.

 

[dejudge]

When it gets down to 'go to college' etc it's pretty poor argumentation.

When someone would rather repeat this kind of drivel in place of the killer arguments they're reluctant to publicize it makes one wonder if these mysterious arguments are that compelling after all the build up.

If there were "killer arguments" for an HJ then we would have seen them repeated ad nauseum.

Instead, as Richard Carrier has exposed, the HJ argument is consumed by failures of logic and facts and the methodologies employed are fallacious.

Those who argue for an HJ on this very thread have proven that Richard Carrier's observation is accurate.

There was NEVER any "killer argument" for an HJ because there was NEVER EVER any established evidence from since the 2nd century in any Existing dated manuscript.

From since the 18th--21st century, there have been multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable versions of an HJ.

The Quest for an HJ is dead--HJers "killed" their own argument.

HJers "killed" their own "Son of Man" with fallacious arguments.