Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

I think you'll find the scholars who critique the various HJ hypotheses actually study the subject.

What's your point? Why do you need to twist everything? Why would you bother being that blatantly dishonest?

Don't you know everyone else can see these pathetic lies for what they are?

Right, and if they are using works that accept a flesh and blood Jesus being behind the Gospel account as examples of the MJ theory then their definition MUST be along Marshall's Jesus existed as a flesh and blood person and the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events rather then his Jesus existed as a flesh and blood person rather then fictional creation like King Lear or Dr Who. QED.

 

[proudfootz]

When the R J Hoffmann published his piece on the Jesus Process blog there was a response from fellow blogger and student of the subject Neil Godfrey.

Hoffmann’s Ersatz Response to Mythicism

...

Yet bizarrely the same R. Joseph Hoffmann who writes in his Jesus Process essay that Goguel’s arguments are a “clear refutation” of mythicism, and who in the Introduction in a reprint of Goguel’s book wrote that

Goguel poses real challenges to the theory that Jesus never existed (p. 35)

also wrote on this blog two years ago that Goguel’s arguments were “weak and dated“, that the reprint of his book had “historical interest” but was otherwise “pretty insignificant“, that to demolish his arguments, as Doherty has done, is nothing worth mentioning, and that the myth theory is kept at arms length from academia for reasons other than its intrinsic merits:

The work is of some historical interest, but I agree that his arguments are weak and dated, but deserve exposure and examination for that reason. I don’t think it a particularly valorous or useful act to “demolish” them; but you may have other reasons for calling this pretty insignificant reprint to task. Anyway, I highly recommend the fruitfulness of having a look at the succession of French scholarship, beginning with Renan and Loisy even, but certainly including Guignebert (Loisy’s pupil for awhile) and the Protestant Goguel. I should also mention that the biggest reason for the shyness of scholars with respect to the non-historicity thesis had/has to do with academic appointments (as in security thereof) rather than common sense. As a middle-of-the road Hegelian like Strauss discovered.

Hoffmann also wrote in the same Introduction that

Goguel is by far superior to other defenders* of historicity . . . . (p. 32)

His footnote to “defenders” singles out only one name: Shirley Jackson Case. So one must wonder why Hoffmann sees fit to post a chapter of Case’s book given that he has written that Goguel’s arguments, “weak and dated” and easily demolished today though they are, are nonetheless “far superior” to anything Case has written!

Given these words of Hoffmann from June 2010, we must conclude that our scholar has been undergoing some struggle with his deconversion from mythicism. The same words may further help explain Hoffmann’s often logically and factually flawed and incoherent attacks on mythicism, his vicious personal assaults against Carrier, Doherty and yours truly, and some of his less than comprehensible arguments for historicism.

...

Interesting that this same Hoffmann once argued that critics of the HJ hypotheses were blackballed for other than scholarly reasons.

 

[proudfootz]

You'll have a link for that, I assume.

There is Carrier.

Who else?

What other Historians of the Ancient Near East are questioning the idea of an HJ?

I'm not allowed to link - I'm only an egg.

Why confine it to people holding that particular title - is that Dale Martin's title? Is that Bart Ehrman's?

Do read what I posted again, and see if you spot your mistake in asking this absurd question.

 

[maximara]

Why are you still quibbling about the definition of "Myth"?

What has any of that got to do with Carrier's assertion that Jesus didn't exist?

Clearly you didn't actually pay attention to what was posted:

All of these more or less fit the 1910 position. Well's Jesus Myth (ie current) position especially as it fits Robertson's "what the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" to a 'T' as he says Jesus was not crucified and has been called Christ Myth by Earl Doherty, (1999), Robert M Price (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine), Graham Stanton ((2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143), Richard Carrier (2006), and (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

The work in question by Richard Carrier himself states:

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)".

 

[Brainache]

I'm not allowed to link - I'm only an egg.

Why confine it to people holding that particular title - is that Dale Martin's title? Is that Bart Ehrman's?

Do read what I posted again, and see if you spot your mistake in asking this absurd question.

You have made more than 15 posts, you can post links.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is about.

Apparently George A. Wells is a Historian now.

Who knew?

 

[proudfootz]

You have made more than 15 posts, you can post links.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is about.

Apparently George A. Wells is a Historian now.

Who knew?

I didn't claim anyone was a professor of Ancient Near East Studies.

But if that is what you require, that should reduce the people qualified to talk about Jesus by about 99%.

But once you've read Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man you'll understand that this is a person who has studied the topic.

You'll probably find others who have also studied the material.

If being an Historian is a requirement, then that lets Ehrman out. History is his hobby.

 

[dejudge]

It is a complete failure of logic to argue that Jesus existed because it is taught by historians and Christian Scholars at Universities.

How long can Brainache continue with such a horrible fallacious argument?

The existence of an HJ can ONLY be confirmed or argued with actual evidence from antiquity.

There is simply NO archaeological evidence, no artifacts and no manuscripts from the 1st century pre 70 CE about Jesus of Nazareth.

The Bible is NOT credible and is a compilation of forgeries, false attribution and fiction.

A list of a billion historians and Christian Scholars has no value as evidence for an HJ.

The present existing evidence state Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator and Born of a Ghost who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection and then ascended in a cloud.

A billion historians and Christian Scholars cannot change the existing mythological evidence for Jesus just like they cannot change the existing myth evidence for Adam, Eve, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost, the God of the Jews and the Angel Gabriel.

 

[proudfootz]

Really?

1) Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58) (Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

2) "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.


3) The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24) Given Wells' current position fits definition number 1 above this makes sense.

4) The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

6) Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

All of these more or less fit the 1910 position. Well's Jesus Myth (ie current) position especially as it fits Robertson's "what the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" to a 'T' as he says Jesus was not crucified and has been called Christ Myth by Earl Doherty, (1999), Robert M Price (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine), Graham Stanton ((2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143), Richard Carrier (2005), and (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)


You can put your fingers in your ears and go la la la til the horse's colts have colts but the reality is John Robertson's 1910 definition is being used TODAY...for G.A Wells CURRENT position by people on both sides.

There is apt to be confusion when several people use the same word but retain slightly different understandings of what that word specifies.

Suppose it is true that there was a man upon whom a cult was founded, it would seem the mythology quickly overwhelmed whatever that person might have stood for - since we have umpteen different versions of this 'historical Jesus' it's pretty clear all traces of him have been drowned in 'myth' (as I use it here to signify stories not literally true intended for theological purposes).

We don't know if he was a pacifist or a zealot, but we do know he was crucified and rose from the dead, because that all the early sources agree on.

 

[maximara]

There is apt to be confusion when several people use the same word but retain slightly different understandings of what that word specifies.

Suppose it is true that there was a man upon whom a cult was founded, it would seem the mythology quickly overwhelmed whatever that person might have stood for - since we have umpteen different versions of this 'historical Jesus' it's pretty clear all traces of him have been drowned in 'myth' (as I use it here to signify stories not literally true intended for theological purposes).

We don't know if he was a pacifist or a zealot, but we do know he was crucified and rose from the dead, because that all the early sources agree on.

We aren't even sure on that as there is that story of Jesus being stoned to death which according to Enoch Powell and Robert Price goes back to at least the 2nd century.

Remsburg pointed out that "A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

"Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

That more or less seems to be where the HJ argument is going but that direction has a very nasty sting in the tail as should be obvious.

 

[wendy moir]

"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. (http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/)

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

The story relating to Jesus Christ demonstrates that Christ was named as references a long time before being born. How could you prophecize a future name as a realistic historical life situation? Parents name their child when they are born.

Old Testament http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-Christ.html

There are many other studies providing the names Jesus related in the New Testaments quantify as statements in the old Testaments.

Matthew 27
THISISJESUSTHEKINGOFTHEJEWS

If you reference other studies that related that the Christ quotes were similar in context to ancient stories such as Isis and Number relationships as THOTH, then reviewing a secret method gives a different review of the information.

TH ISIS

Numbers were given to letter values, hence UPPER CASE letters have a higher value.
T value 160,000
H value 200,000 = 360,000 the value for a circle O = 360 degrees
I value ancient for yodh hand of God
S value 70,000
I value yodh hand of God
S value 70,000

The value for Christ is 1000.
140,000 as symbolic values for Hand of God,
By adding the letter S and S together forms the symbolic joining for the number symbol given as 8 and the Revelation of 144,000.

Time a value of 12 determines 12 x 12 = 144,000.

Adding End Revelations of 22 verses
20 29 22 11 14 17 17 13 21 11 19 17 18 20 8 21 18 24 21 15 27 21
Equals 404
404 x 22 = 8888 as a constant or repeated application

TH gaining O forming Numbers as Revelations into THOTH - Egyptian Moon deity with the head of an ibis; god of wisdom and learning and the arts; scribe of the gods

The values given Christ related to Revelations, and Revelations to factors involving biblical equated disasters.

The WORD value for Carpenter is related in the WORD meaning of tectonic - carpenter or builder, pertaining to the geology of the structure of Earth's crust and pertaining to building, hence architectural.

The Secret Brotherhood called the MASONS as "builders/construction".

A review of this secret wisdom in the building of Coral Castle.

http://www.leedskalnin.com/

The moon and its relationship to magnetism on Earth and tides.

Religion, a spiritual teaching advising us in secret that the ancients used magnetism and levitation practices involving the Philosophy of the Stone (Earth crust). Crust, a value we give to bread.

Religion a practice taught regarding spiritual advice for living a holy life. In secrecy an informed dialogue detailing that human's had previously used secret building methods that caused the Wrath of God and the destruction of life via the detailed astronomical advice.

A Holy Life, the reverence for the natural spirit and how holy it was. Teaching an implied relevance that involved the breaking of God's natural Laws, demonstrating that it caused the Earth's stone (plates) to attack us.

Therefore the implied reference to the Holiness of the Ark of the Covenant and why the information was kept secreted by the ancient brotherhoods to keep life safe on Earth.

A historical review of the secret brotherhoods determines that astronomers and philosophers as alchemists were purposely hunted and murdered or jailed for crimes against humanity.

 

[dejudge]

We don't know if he was a pacifist or a zealot, but we do know he was crucified and rose from the dead, because that all the early sources agree on.

What actual early sources are you talking about?

One cannot assume sources of the Jesus stories are early. Nothing can be ruled in or out by assumptions.

Where is the actual evidence that anyone wrote about the Jesus story pre 70 CE?.

Imagination, speculation, assumptions and belief are not evidence.

We have NO early manuscripts of the Jesus story and manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls mention nothing of a crucified Jesus of Nazareth.

The manuscripts that are being used to argue for an historical Jesus are from the 2nd century or later.

When we make references to the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus we are using manuscripts of UNKNOWN authorship that have been dated to the 2nd century or later.

There is NO agreement in any 1st century pre 70 CE manuscript that there was a crucified Jesus of Nazareth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...f_all_registered_New_Testament_uncial_codices

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

 

[Elagabalus]

Ignore it guys 'n gals. You know who I'm talking about. And try not to make eye contact! Just let her drift away-as if she were never here. Peace, peace and tranquility ...

 

[dejudge]

Apologetic sources claim Paul was executed under Nero sometime before c 69 CE

Eusebius' Church History 3.1.2

What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero.

If Paul was executed under Nero c 54-69 CE then he did NOT write the Pauline Corpus dated to the 2nd century or later.
The earliest existing Pauline Corpus [P 46] may have been written by at least 7 different authors posing as Paul.

The earliest existing Pauline Corpus[ P 46]is dated between the mid 2nd century.

1. the author of Ephesians.

2. the author of Colossians.

3. the author of 2 Thessalonians

4. the author of 1 Timothy

5. the author of 2 Timothy

6. the author of Titus

7. the author of Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon.

Who wrote the Pauline letters [P 46] in the 2nd century or later?
It was NOT Paul-- he was DEAD since the time of Nero according to Church writers.

There is no corroborative evidence in the NT that the supposed Paul wrote letters to Churches or Pastorals.

 

[pakeha]

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

It'll be my after-RL relaxation tonight, IanS.
My opinions are only the expressions of a newcomer's meanderings in the material; I'm easily the least informed poster here as far as the antics of Academe are concerned.
ETA

Well neither tsig or proudfootz actually said they would refuse to read what you think is evidence in the bible. Like me they may think they have seen it all before if it’s just the same old bible passages.

But just post what you have to say about it, and then see who reads it.

Nor did I say I wouldn't read it!
Also, I'm interested in knowing why posters refer to higher criticism, when according to wiki it's an out-moded term in historians' circles.
"In 18th century Biblical criticism, the term higher criticism was commonly used in mainstream scholarship [3] in contrast with lower criticism. In the 21st century, historical criticism is the more commonly used term for higher criticism, while textual criticism is more common than the loose expression lower criticism."

Anyway, let's see what's on offer.

 

[Belz...]

When you say any MJ theory are you including John M. Robertson in that?

I repeat: any theory that says that there was one man, around the beginning of the first century, who is at the core of the religion, is pretty much HJ by definition. How much this man corresponds to the story is another matter.

Theories claiming that more than one man were the source can be considered HJ also.

Sorry but once Frazer, G.R.S. Mead, Alvar Ellegård and Wells post-Jesus Myth all of whom accepted a flesh and blood Jesus being behind the Gospel account were effectively called Christ Mythers that argument died a twitching death.

Therefore that is not MJ.

Face it, MJ does NOT mean what you think it means and I can PROVE it.

If that were true you wouldn't be arguing against HJ supporters here because they would be included in your own hypothesis.

 

[Brainache]

I didn't claim anyone was a professor of Ancient Near East Studies.

But if that is what you require, that should reduce the people qualified to talk about Jesus by about 99%.

But once you've read Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man you'll understand that this is a person who has studied the topic.

You'll probably find others who have also studied the material.

If being an Historian is a requirement, then that lets Ehrman out. History is his hobby.

Earl Doherty is a joke, sorry.

But once you've read Robert Eisenman's "James The Brother Of Jesus", you'll have a better understanding of second Temple Judaism and the History of 1st century Palestine.

You should probably also read Josephus "War", it is quite an eye opener for new-comers to the subject.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/

ETA: Any time you feel ready to comment on the actual arguments laid out in this little essay, I'm sure there will be someone here who will discuss them with you:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

 

[eight bits]

Belz...

Much of the "MJ" problem seems to be a homonym conflation. The noun phrase Mythical Jesus may refer to the study of something that indisputably exists as ink on the page: the main character in the New Testament who performs arguably mighty deeds, conquers death, and awaits his Dad's nod to come back to Earth and whoop the Roman Empire's butt.

The same noun phrase, Mythical Jesus, may also refer to the antithesis of the Historical Jesus thesis. The HJ thesis is what Bart Ehrman espouses, that when Paul reports that he saw a ghost (a pneuma being), Paul thought that it was the revenant of an actual flesh-and-blood Jewish man who had recently died, some of whose surviving associates Paul had dealt personally with, and that there actually was just such a man.

What stuns me is that some people can read an author like Frazer, even quote Frazer to the effect that he means one homonym rather than the other, and then say that Frazer is writing about the other homonym anyway.

It's the same thing with atheist. One homonym means not worshipping the locally accepted gods (as in "Clement, the Bishop of Rome, was called an atheist by his contemporaries"). The other means rejecting the existence of whatever divinity is on offer (as in "Richard Dawkins is a well-known atheist author"). Conflating the two homonyms would lead to absurdities like

X The "Five horsemen of atheism" are Richard Dawkins, Samuel Harris, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, and Clement of Rome.

It would, except that few people dig up obsolete and absurdly inapplicable meanings of nouns to argue about serious current controversies.

 

[proudfootz]

We aren't even sure on that as there is that story of Jesus being stoned to death which according to Enoch Powell and Robert Price goes back to at least the 2nd century.

Remsburg pointed out that "A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

"Jesus, if he existed, was a Jew, and his religion, with a few innovations, was Judaism. With his death, probably, his apotheosis began. During the first century the transformation was slow; but during the succeeding centuries rapid. The Judaic elements of his religion were, in time, nearly all eliminated, and the Pagan elements, one by one, were incorporated into the new faith."

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

That more or less seems to be where the HJ argument is going but that direction has a very nasty sting in the tail as should be obvious.

Actually the story of Jesus ben Pandira seems to make more sense - as he was stoned which makes more sense for the accusations, and his disciples were pursued which also is a more rational course of action.

If indeed several of the wandering preachers that are supposed to have traveled the dusty roads of Palestine contributed something to the Christ myth this 1st century BC trouble-maker is a very likely candidate for inclusion.

 

[dejudge]

Earl Doherty is a joke, sorry.

But once you've read Robert Eisenman's "James The Brother Of Jesus", you'll have a better understanding of second Temple Judaism and the History of 1st century Palestine.

Robert Eisenman is a BIG joke, sorry.

1. Galatians 1.19 is NOT corroborated in or out the Bible.

2. There is no corroborative evidence that Galatians 1.19 was composed in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

3. Christians of antiquity, Papias, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom and Rufinus, admitted that James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

4. Based on the Recognitions-- James the Apostle died around c 67-69 CE about 5-7 years AFTER James, the bother of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

5. James in Josephus' AJ 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus the Anointed High Priest the Son of Damneus.

6. Jesus the Anointed [Christ] the brother of James in AJ 20.9.1 was STILL ALIVE in the time of Nero when Albinus was Governor of Judea.

7. There is NO brother of Jesus called James the Apostle in the Gospels.

8. There is No brother of Jesus call James the Apostle in Acts.

 

[proudfootz]

Earl Doherty is a joke, sorry.

Well, if you ever decide to grapple with the scholarship, it's there.

Or you can make meaningless quips.

Your choice.

But once you've read Robert Eisenman's "James The Brother Of Jesus", you'll have a better understanding of second Temple Judaism and the History of 1st century Palestine.

After reading the 'Paul was a Herodian' thread I didn't get a very good impression of this Eisenman.

You should probably also read Josephus "War", it is quite an eye opener for new-comers to the subject.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/

I'm sure it is. Those were the days, when one was a newcomer, eh?

ETA: Any time you feel ready to comment on the actual arguments laid out in this little essay, I'm sure there will be someone here who will discuss them with you:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

Sure, and when you feel ready to comment on the actual arguments of Carrier or Doherty or Price or Bauer or...

I'm sure there's someone who'll discuss them with you!