Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

A good point.

DOC, this is evidence of the manuscripts' existence, not of the existence of an HJ.
Do you understand the difference between these two ideas?

It would appear that to an alarming extent, the assumption that there must have been a man underneath the Christ myth is based on the idea that there's no smoke without a fire.

It's always instructive to be linked to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

 

[maximara]

You are still playing with definitions. We seem to be in general agreement here, and this author as well, that MJ is a group of related hypotheses that Jesus as a man did not exist, but was rather built up from a previous preacher, or several of them, or from preexisting myth, etc., while HJ argues that there was a man in the early first century who was the founder of Christianity, however little else he might have in common with the Jesus of legend.

Which brings us to Biblical Scholar I. Howard Marshall's two definitions of "historical Jesus":

1) a man, Jesus, existed rather the being a totally fictitious creation like King Lear or Doctor Who, and is the source of the myth but that the myth itself may not be an accurate portrayal of the man;

2) not only did he exist, but the Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events rather than being on par with the stories of King Arthur.


Note that Marshall doesn't give a time for historical Jesus option 1 so there a HJ is on par with a historical King Arthur or historical Robin Hood; just enough to convince people they are not total fictional creations but the details including the time they supposedly lived are largely fictitious.

Robert Price's "For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the 1st century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." fits into this category of HJ.

But many HJ by option 1 would be MJ by option 2. Your own definition of HJ requires the man to be in the 1st century CE not 1st century BCE so Price's HJ above would be a MJ for you. See the problem?

As Marshal himself wrote "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."

 

[maximara]

I agree with what you said in that post (mostly) except for this bit.

No one that I know of has been arguing that the HJ went from "a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months."

Where did you get that idea?

Likely from one of the timelines we can hammer out based on Paul, Mark, Acts, and Josephus.

1) We can show that Paul had to be converted to the idea of Jesus as the co-creator of the universe no later than 36 CE.

2) "And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him." (Mark 6:14 KJV)

3) "Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE..." (Goldberg, G. J (2001) "John the Baptist and Josephus")

While the death of John's death is a matter of debate the 36 CE date has a lot of support ("Dates for John the Baptist: John's death in 36 C.E. is based on Josephus references to historic events such as the reigns of Tiberius and Areta." - Rex Weyler's 2009 The Jesus Sayings)

Since Jesus was still preaching after John the Baptist was dead this means that Jesus was crucified the very same year Paul converted so the transformation from "a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe" has to occur in a matter of months. QED

 

[maximara]

It would appear that to an alarming extent, the assumption that there must have been a man underneath the Christ myth is based on the idea that there's no smoke without a fire.

It's always instructive to be linked to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

As John Frum shows you had have a lot of smoke and no obvious fire.

As I have said before the HJ belongs to the Great Man theory of History while most MJ theories belong to the Great Moment theory of History.

Carl Sagan touched on this in Cosmos when he commented the "The discovery of America around 1500 was inevitable"

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

That's one of the gaps in the HJ argument. No persuasive mechanism has been put forward to get from a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months.

Like Brainache, I don't follow. Who argued that that was the trajectory? Assuming the conventional order of dating, about two generations, maybe three, elapsed berween Paul's conversion (as recalled by him 15-to-20 years later) until John, in which Jesus is the means by which the Universe was created. John could be a century late to the party, and that prologue may be later still.

Before you can have an explanatory mechanism, you first need something for the mechanism to explain.

How's this for a mechanism, refelcting the actual likely span of time? By the turn of the Second Century, Jesus is a stock chaarcter in the public domain. There's a market for new Jesus stories, so new Jesus stories are cranked out. That works today for Sherlock Holmes and Abraham Lincoln, sounds as if it may have worked for Jesus, too. It sure payed off for Mohammed and Joseph Smith... why not John?

It's always instructive to be linked to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

The linking member has long been an active recycler of CARM garbage. At least now the links to the source are incldued..

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz

Like Brainache, I don't follow. Who argued that that was the trajectory?

It was my impression the 'consensus' was that there was an historical Jesus, a mortal man, who became known as the son of a god if not a god himself among people known as christians.

obscure preacher ----> god

Do you not agree that is the typical trajectory proposed?

Assuming the conventional order of dating, about two generations, maybe three, elapsed between Paul's conversion (as recalled by him 15-to-20 years later) until John, in which Jesus is the means by which the Universe was created. John could be a century late to the party, and that prologue may be later still.

For the sake of argument I am speculating that Paul was first century and that his 'conversion' was within a few years of the traditional dates for the death and resurrection of the Jesus.

Unless I have some evidence of Paul's theology evolving from a 'low' to 'high' christology I am assuming it is as depicted in the epistles.

Before you can have an explanatory mechanism, you first need something for the mechanism to explain.

If the HJ hypothesis is correct that the story of an ordinary man became twisted into a story of a god disguised as a mortal, then that would seem to require an explanation. Just as the notion that the ragtag followers of a common street corner ranter came to preach that their dead leader had risen from the dead is something that stands in need of an explanation.

How's this for a mechanism, refelcting the actual likely span of time? By the turn of the Second Century, Jesus is a stock chaarcter in the public domain. There's a market for new Jesus stories, so new Jesus stories are cranked out. That works today for Sherlock Holmes and Abraham Lincoln, sounds as if it may have worked for Jesus, too. It sure payed off for Mohammed and Joseph Smith... why not John?

True - the New Testament appears to be a collection of fan fiction.

If the typical timeline for NT literature is observed, we have the high christology of the epistles coming before the more mundane gospel narratives. Which would seem to dovetail nicely with the idea of the messiah being a stock character about whom any number of edifying stories could be written.

 

[proudfootz]

As John Frum shows you had have a lot of smoke and no obvious fire.

As I have said before the HJ belongs to the Great Man theory of History while most MJ theories belong to the Great Moment theory of History.

Carl Sagan touched on this in Cosmos when he commented the "The discovery of America around 1500 was inevitable"

It seems clear that in the context of the times what happened was in a certain sense inevitable - even if HJ were true it's a fact that savior religions were already popular with christianity just jumping on an already moving cultural freight train.

Everyone is depicted as already looking for a messiah - if it wasn't Jesus it would have been someone else.

 

[proudfootz]

Likely from one of the timelines we can hammer out based on Paul, Mark, Acts, and Josephus.

1) We can show that Paul had to be converted to the idea of Jesus as the co-creator of the universe no later than 36 CE.

2) "And king Herod heard of him; (for his name was spread abroad) and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him." (Mark 6:14 KJV)

3) "Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE..." (Goldberg, G. J (2001) "John the Baptist and Josephus")

While the death of John's death is a matter of debate the 36 CE date has a lot of support ("Dates for John the Baptist: John's death in 36 C.E. is based on Josephus references to historic events such as the reigns of Tiberius and Areta." - Rex Weyler's 2009 The Jesus Sayings)

Since Jesus was still preaching after John the Baptist was dead this means that Jesus was crucified the very same year Paul converted so the transformation from "a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe" has to occur in a matter of months. QED

Not that it is impossible for this to occur in a short time (we're talking about what possibly happened and not dealing with certainties) but it would seem this stands in need of an explanatory mechanism.

The appearance of a high christology before the narratives of a Jesus on earth just makes the gradual development from a dead man to an immortal god the exact opposite of what the evidence indicates, however plausible it might otherwise have been.

 

[Belz...]

As John Frum shows you had have a lot of smoke and no obvious fire.

And Chernobyl shows that nuclear power is too dangerous for man to use.

The problem with the John Frum example is that it only raises the possibility that Jesus was mythical. It does not make it unlikely that he wasn't, nor does it help that it's the only example you can dig up. If you had a large number of them, it would help your position a lot more.

 

[eight bits]

proudfootz

Do you not agree that is the typical trajectory proposed?

Not as you stated it in in your earlier post, "to get from a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months. " That didn't happen.

Now, in this post, you've extended the trajectory further, from co-creator of the Universe to God. That took a long time after John. A created Jesus was still in play as a minority, but well entrenched, view throughout much of the Fourth Century.

Unless I have some evidence of Paul's theology evolving from a 'low' to 'high' christology I am assuming it is as depicted in the epistles.

Paul's epistles are uniformly low christology. By their own account, they are one or two decades after their author's conversion. That's a lot of months, and Jesus isn't God's number one yet for another forty years, maybe more.

I ask again, who is arguing that Jesus was proclaimed a god within months of his death? On what basis? Surely not Paul (in the seven consensus epistles).

If the HJ hypothesis is correct that the story of an ordinary man became twisted into a story of a god disguised as a mortal,

There are a variety of proposed historical Jesuses. They range from painfully ordinary to arguably extraordinary on a par with, say, John the Baptist. Whether somebody is God is not a historical question, and that's simply not the HJ problem. Accounting for the production of the Gospels by second and third generation Chrsitianity is a historical problem, "reconciling" them with an original actual Jesus is not necessarily the correct accounting for the Gospels' production.

Just as the notion that the ragtag followers of a common street corner ranter came to preach that their dead leader had risen from the dead is something that stands in need of an explanation.

Paul was preaching that, and he wasn't a follower of anybody in the movement. So, again, before there can be an explanation, first there has to be something to explain. For what did happen, Paul already explains: he saw a ghost and thought it was the end of the world.

 

[maximara]

And Chernobyl shows that nuclear power is too dangerous for man to use.

The problem with the John Frum example is that it only raises the possibility that Jesus was mythical. It does not make it unlikely that he wasn't, nor does it help that it's the only example you can dig up. If you had a large number of them, it would help your position a lot more.

The cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular show that people who want to believe in something with either latch on some one they heard about (who most of the time known nothing of their cult) or create a supposed founder.

Also remember that nearly from the conception of History by Herodotus (c484 – 425 BCE) myths were considered distorted accounts of real historical events. All Euhemerus (4th century - 3rd century BCE) really brought to the table was the idea that all myths had some basis in historical fact

For example, Euhemerus stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete. Eusebius who wrote a history of the Church in the 4th century CE said that Heracles was a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and had been a king in Argos. "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Hastings, James; John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray (1919) Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10) captures this point perfectly.

This assumption of men becoming mythical gods could have been what Justin Martyr really meant when he wrote "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." ie Jupiter (Zeus) was once a flesh and blood man around who all these fantastic stories grew around until he became a god and the same is true of Jesus.

Yet today few people talk about the historical Zeus, Heracles, Osiris, Attis, or Adonis. Rather they are simply said to be myths and its called a day even though in the time Jesus supposedly lived they were thought by the historians of the day to have been as much people of flesh and blood as he was.

Sure trying to figure out how Euhemerism could apply to Genesis or the story of Adam of Eve is a bit of a head scratcher but is it really that off the wall to say Heracles could have been an actual person whose exploits were through retelling turned into these fantastical tales?

Yet the idea is not even considered with Heracles being blown off as a totally mythical person while all kinds of efforts to explain all the fantastical non historical stuff around Jesus to show he actually existed. Why is that, hmm?

 

[Belz...]

The cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular show that people who want to believe in something with either latch on some one they heard about (who most of the time known nothing of their cult) or create a supposed founder.

But do those situations apply to first century palestine ? This is where the study of history, as opposed to the finding of single examples to confirm one's predilections, would be useful.

I know that legendary people are sometimes theorized to have existed, but it's not quite the same situation as we have here, where the earliest writings we have speak of a real person, not a god.

 

[dejudge]

It was my impression the 'consensus' was that there was an historical Jesus, a mortal man, who became known as the son of a god if not a god himself among people known as christians.

When did historians and scholars concede that Jesus was a mortal man? In which century did such a concession occur?

The 18th century?

The 19th century?

The 20th century?

The 21st century?

The Quest for an HJ began in the 18th century after it was realized the Jesus of the NT was a Jesus of Faith

There is simply no existing contemporary evidence anywhere that shows Jesus of Nazareth was a known mortal man .

If there was known established evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a mortal man then there would be no need for a Quest which is still on-going for over 250 years.

The earliest existing evidence show that Jesus was considered to be God Incarnate--a Myth.

The so-called consensus is a modern myth--propaganda--Chinese Whispers-- to distort the history of the multiple failures in the Quest for an HJ.

 

[maximara]

But do those situations apply to first century palestine ? This is where the study of history, as opposed to the finding of single examples to confirm one's predilections, would be useful.

I know that legendary people are sometimes theorized to have existed, but it's not quite the same situation as we have here, where the earliest writings we have speak of a real person, not a god.

The earliest writings of Jesus are Paul's and he can't seem to make up his mind if Jesus is a normal man (Romans 1:1-3; Galatians 4:4), a demigod (Romans 8:31-34; Galatians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 1:19) or God himself taking human form to walk among us mortals (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 14:10 + 2 Corinthians 5:10)

It is really telling when you have this "just what is Jesus?" showing up in the same epistle.

We know there were a lot of would-be-messiahs in the 6 BCE-70 CE period:

Dositheos the Samaritan (unknown, before Simon of Peraea or after him) According to Origen Dositheus pretended to be the Christ
Simon of Peraea (d 4 BCE)

Matthias, son of Margalothus (during time of Herod the Great) - thought by some to be the "Theudas" referenced in Acts 5.

Athronges (c 3 CE)

Judas of Galilee (6 CE)

Theudas the magician (between 44 and 46 CE)

Egyptian Jew Messiah (between 52 and 58 CE)

Menahem ben Judah (sometime between 66-73 CE)

John of Giscala (d c70 CE)

And these are just the none that got enough of a head of steam they were noticed out side of their locality.

Robin Hood and King Arthur are not gods either and they are all over the place in terms of historical existence.

 

[dejudge]

The earliest writings of Jesus are Paul's and he can't seem to make up his mind if Jesus is a normal man (Romans 1:1-3; Galatians 4:4), a demigod (Romans 8:31-34; Galatians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 1:19) or God himself taking human form to walk among us mortals (Philippians 2:5-11; Romans 14:10 + 2 Corinthians 5:10)

Your statement is a known fallacy and completely un-evidenced. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever that writings under the name of Paul are the earliest writings of Jesus.

1. No NT author claimed the Pauline letters were composed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

2. The Pauline writings admitted there were Scriptures which stated Jesus DIED for the sins of mankind, was BURIED and RESURRECTED on the Third day.

3. Apologetic writers admitted Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

4. In the Muratorian Canon it is admitted that the Pauline letters were composed After the Apocalypse of John.

5. In writings attributed to Justin Martyr, there is NO mention at all of Paul and the Pauline Corpus but mention of the Apocalypse of John.

6. Not a single reference to Paul and the Pauline Corpus was used in Justin Martyr's conversion to Christianity.

7. In "Apology" attributed Aristides, there is no acknowledgment of Paul and no acknowledgment that he preach the Gospel--it was the 12 disciples.

8. In Minucius Felix Octavius, not a single mention of Paul or the Pauline Corpus was used in the conversion of Caecilius to Christianity.

9. In Arnobius' "Against the Heathen" there is no acknowledgment of Paul and the Pauline Corpus and no claim that Paul preached to the Gospel to the heathen.

10. In Ephraem's "Against Marcion" there is no mention of Paul or the Pauline Corpus.

11. The author of Acts did not corroborate a single Pauline letter.

12. The earliest actual Pauline letters [P 46] that have been found are from the 2nd century or later.

13. Letters in the Pauline Corpus have already been found to be forgeries or falsely attributed.

14. Paul is mentioned in 2 Peter but the Epistle is an admitted forgery by the very Church.

15. Letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul in the time of Nero has been deduced to be forgeries.

16. Origen in "Against Celsus" admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul.


The abundance of evidence against Paul and Pauline writings pre 70 CE is overwhelming.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is a known fallacy and completely un-evidenced. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever that writings under the name of Paul are the earliest writings of Jesus.

1. No NT author claimed the Pauline letters were composed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

2. The Pauline writings admitted there were Scriptures which stated Jesus DIED for the sins of mankind, was BURIED and RESURRECTED on the Third day.

3. Apologetic writers admitted Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was composed.

4. In the Muratorian Canon it is admitted that the Pauline letters were composed After the Apocalypse of John.

5. In writings attributed to Justin Martyr, there is NO mention at all of Paul and the Pauline Corpus but mention of the Apocalypse of John.

6. Not a single reference to Paul and the Pauline Corpus was used in Justin Martyr's conversion to Christianity.

7. In "Apology" attributed Aristides, there is no acknowledgment of Paul and no acknowledgment that he preach the Gospel--it was the 12 disciples.

8. In Minucius Felix Octavius, not a single mention of Paul or the Pauline Corpus was used in the conversion of Caecilius to Christianity.

9. In Arnobius' "Against the Heathen" there is no acknowledgment of Paul and the Pauline Corpus and no claim that Paul preached to the Gospel to the heathen.

10. In Ephraem's "Against Marcion" there is no mention of Paul or the Pauline Corpus.

11. The author of Acts did not corroborate a single Pauline letter.

12. The earliest actual Pauline letters [P 46] that have been found are from the 2nd century or later.

13. Letters in the Pauline Corpus have already been found to be forgeries or falsely attributed.

14. Paul is mentioned in 2 Peter but the Epistle is an admitted forgery by the very Church.

15. Letters between Paul and Seneca to place Paul in the time of Nero has been deduced to be forgeries.

16. Origen in "Against Celsus" admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul.


The abundance of evidence against Paul and Pauline writings pre 70 CE is overwhelming.

Where do they teach this method of Historical research?

I think it would be a public service if you told us, because people should be warned against whatever fraud it was who taught you to think this way.

 

[maximara]

Where do they teach this method of Historical research?

I think it would be a public service if you told us, because people should be warned against whatever fraud it was who taught you to think this way.

Uh, parts of this are standard Historical methodology for

1) Core principles for determining reliability (Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell)

2) Eyewitness evidence (R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical Method, The Dorsey Press: Illinois (1974). ISBN 0-534-10825-3.)

3) Indirect witnesses and Oral tradition (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, Fordham University Press: New York (1946). ISBN 0-8371-7132-6)

4) Argument to the best explanation aka Occam's Razor (C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press: New York (1984). ISBN 0-521-31830-0.)

 

[Brainache]

Uh, parts of this are standard Historical methodology for

1) Core principles for determining reliability (Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell)

2) Eyewitness evidence (R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical Method, The Dorsey Press: Illinois (1974). ISBN 0-534-10825-3.)

3) Indirect witnesses and Oral tradition (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, Fordham University Press: New York (1946). ISBN 0-8371-7132-6)

4) Argument to the best explanation aka Occam's Razor (C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press: New York (1984). ISBN 0-521-31830-0.)

Which of those principles has dejudge employed by accepting the religious ranting of 4th century apologists at face value?

 

[dejudge]

Uh, parts of this are standard Historical methodology for

1) Core principles for determining reliability (Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell)

2) Eyewitness evidence (R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical Method, The Dorsey Press: Illinois (1974). ISBN 0-534-10825-3.)

3) Indirect witnesses and Oral tradition (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, Fordham University Press: New York (1946). ISBN 0-8371-7132-6)

4) Argument to the best explanation aka Occam's Razor (C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press: New York (1984). ISBN 0-521-31830-0.)

Which of those principles has dejudge employed by accepting the religious ranting of 4th century apologists at face value?

Your question is worthless. You have exposed that you don't know what evidence is.

The writings of antiquity are not merely rantings they are supposed to be written statement of the WITNESSES of antiquity.

Now, you are the same Brainache who takes Galatians 1.19 AT FACE VALUE while you admit Paul was a Liar.

I see a distinct pattern in your post. You do exactly what you accuse others of.

You cherry-pick parts of the Bible at face value like Fundamentalists and Christians Scholars and argue that Jesus existed in the time of Pilate while you simultaneously discredit the same source.

People who take the Bible at FACE VALUE argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

Dr. Dale Martin, a professor at Yale, a Christian Scholar, actually believes Jesus of Nazareth really was 100% God and 100% man [God Incarnate] using the Bible.

By the way, You don't even have a rumor of a rant in any century from any source of antiquity that Paul was an Herodian.

 

[Brainache]

Your question is worthless. You have exposed that you don't know what evidence is.

The writings of antiquity are not merely rantings they are supposed to be written statement of the WITNESSES of antiquity.

What nonsense. They are religious writings from centuries later, not sworn court testimonies.

They are Theological works, not modern Historical studies.

Now, you are the same Brainache who takes Galatians 1.19 AT FACE VALUE while you admit Paul was a Liar.

I see a distinct pattern in your post. You do exactly what you accuse others of.

You cherry-pick parts of the Bible at face value like Fundamentalists and Christians Scholars and argue that Jesus existed in the time of Pilate while you simultaneously discredit the same source.

People who take the Bible at FACE VALUE argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

Dr. Dale Martin, a professor at Yale, a Christian Scholar, actually believes Jesus of Nazareth really was 100% God and 100% man [God Incarnate] using the Bible.

No one takes this stuff at face value like you do dejudge.

There are layers of textual analysis that goes into reaching a tentative conclusion.

This stuff is really embarrassing for you.

By the way, You don't even have a rumor of a rant in any century from any source of antiquity that Paul was an Herodian.

Well there is Paul writing to his kinsmen at the end of his letter to the Romans.

There was the Ebionite text saying how he converted to Judaism to marry the High Priest's daughter. (more likely a reference to his family ie:Herod)

Plus his general antipathy towards everything Jewish as demonstrated in his letters.

But if you want to pretend to be a great Scholar and continue embarrassing yourself, go ahead.