Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

How is it you are an atheist and believe the Son of God existed?

Because I believe it to be probable that Jesus was a human being upon whom, during or after his life, the title "Son of God" (a title of the anointed kings of the Davidic dynasty) was conferred.

The Son of God was with Satan and Angels in the wilderness, he walked on the sea, transfigured in the presence of the Resurrected Moses and Elijah, and then was raised from the dead.

No he wasn't. The idea, that you have to believe such things and be a Christian in order to think there may have been a real figure behind the Jesus stories, is located in your mind, not in reality.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

But isn't this what James in Jerusalem was preaching? The worship of a man ascended to heaven?

We don't know. We don't know what the Jerusalem church preached. Brainache has mentioned some Jewish material with a possible Christian interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I've mentioned the Jewishness (and un-Paul-likeness) of the Didache. Maybe these materials provide a basis for an estimate.

The James Gang are Jews. I don't think they'd ever reach the problem of being persecuted for teaching that a man is a god; I think they'd just call BS on it, and get on with agitating against the Temple big hats, evading the temple tax, and other worthy projects. John the Baptist is in there somewhere, and he got himself killed. Religious politics can be a dangerous game, even in our own time.

Brainache

This Messiah Cult brought down the whole nation. I think that might be why the Rabbis don't include Daniel in the list of major Prophets. They don't like Dan all that much.

The Jewish canon doesn't include Daniel as any kind of prophetic literature because it isn't. It's a work of fiction about a prophet, so it is reasonably included, as the Jewish canon does, among the general writings, the litearature.

So far as I can tell, Christians make more of Daniel than that because Jesus is depicted as quoting from it, maybe even teaching that he was one of the characters. Regardless of whether Jesus taught that or not, post-Revelation Christians have a basis to think that Daniel must be real, since the supposedly "god-breathed" last book of the Christian canon owes so much to it.

It'd be embarrassing to have your religion based on Twilight. Bad enough that it's already so much based on Matthew.

 

[Brainache]

pakeha


We don't know. We don't know what the Jerusalem church preached. Brainache has mentioned some Jewish material with a possible Christian interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I've mentioned the Jewishness (and un-Paul-likeness) of the Didache. Maybe these materials provide a basis for an estimate.

The James Gang are Jews. I don't think they'd ever reach the problem of being persecuted for teaching that a man is a god; I think they'd just call BS on it, and get on with agitating against the Temple big hats, evading the temple tax, and other worthy projects. John the Baptist is in there somewhere, and he got himself killed. Religious politics can be a dangerous game, even in our own time.

Brainache


The Jewish canon doesn't include Daniel as any kind of prophetic literature because it isn't. It's a work of fiction about a prophet, so it is reasonably included, as the Jewish canon does, among the general writings, the litearature.

So far as I can tell, Christians make more of Daniel than that because Jesus is depicted as quoting from it, maybe even teaching that he was one of the characters. Regardless of whether Jesus taught that or not, post-Revelation Christians have a basis to think that Daniel must be real, since the supposedly "god-breathed" last book of the Christian canon owes so much to it.

It'd be embarrassing to have your religion based on Twilight. Bad enough that it's already so much based on Matthew.

Here's an interesting site for comparison:
http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls?locale=en_US

APOCRYPHON OF DANIEL
4Q Apocryphon of Daniel
Date: 50–1 bce, Herodian Period
Language: Aramaic

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain extensive apocalyptic literature relating to the final messianic battle at the End of Days. The Aramaic Apocryphon of Daniel describes either a messianic figure or a boastful ruler that will arise as “Son of God” or “Son of the Most High”, like the apocalyptic redeemer in the biblical book of Daniel. The text calls to mind the New Testament proclamation of the angel Gabriel concerning the new-born Jesus: “He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High… ” (Luke 1:32)

 

[IanS]

No. I stated that that was the clear meaning of the expressions you used.

So you simply decided there was some other meaning there which I had never stated?

You are constantly imputing ulterior motives to people with claims that their posts actually mean things quite different from what they have actually said.

If you were really unsure of what that short and quite clear sentence of mine said, then why didn’t you just ask me, instead of jumping to completely mistaken conclusions about ulterior motives etc.

 

[pakeha]

I see your point about possible Jewish reaction to being asked to worship a man as a god.
The Jewish reaction to being asked to worship any Emperor is well enough known, after all.

But isn't this what James in Jerusalem was preaching? The worship of a man ascended to heaven?
How is it possible James was able to preach such blasphemy in Jerusalem during at least 20 years and that his murder caused the downfall of the High Priest Ananus, as Josephus is said to have reported?

Something doesn't quite fit in that scenario.

Because:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-18/chapter-1.html

All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men.

This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction.

This "Fourth Philosophy" Josephus is talking about is Messianism. The followers of the "Star Prophecy" from the book of Daniel.

This Messiah Cult brought down the whole nation. I think that might be why the Rabbis don't include Daniel in the list of major Prophets. They don't like Dan all that much.

Thanks for such an informative reply, Brainache.
At the end of the day (well, morning, as it's nearing time to kit up and get out the door for a longish work session) what I come away is that if the James Gang can be identified with those followers of the "Star Prophecy", they weren't actually Christians, at least in the Christ died for your sins meaning Paul pushed.
Josephus is writing long after the James Gang was active. Are you quite sure he's referring to them in this passage?

I don't doubt your take on the Messiah Cult- we saw what the Ghost Dance cult did for the Native Americans and the Boxer Rebellion did for the Chinese.

Still, the question remains- was James preaching a Redemptor, Ascended Christ?

pakeha
We don't know. We don't know what the Jerusalem church preached. Brainache has mentioned some Jewish material with a possible Christian interpretation from the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I've mentioned the Jewishness (and un-Paul-likeness) of the Didache. Maybe these materials provide a basis for an estimate.

The James Gang are Jews. I don't think they'd ever reach the problem of being persecuted for teaching that a man is a god; I think they'd just call BS on it, and get on with agitating against the Temple big hats, evading the temple tax, and other worthy projects. John the Baptist is in there somewhere, and he got himself killed. Religious politics can be a dangerous game, even in our own time. ...

Thanks for being so clear.
Next on the list is:
If the James Gang are Jews, why does Paul, industriously pushing his luck preaching a man ascended into heaven who died for our sins, even have any contact with them?
What possible relation does the James Gang have with the budding churches, not only worshipping James' brother as a god, but, if reports are true, suffering martyrdom for this belief?

ETA- I have the feeling a reread of Frank Herbert's Dune series will be on my Easter hols book list.

 

[tsig]

Thanks for such an informative reply, Brainache.
At the end of the day (well, morning, as it's nearing time to kit up and get out the door for a longish work session) what I come away is that if the James Gang can be identified with those followers of the "Star Prophecy", they weren't actually Christians, at least in the Christ died for your sins meaning Paul pushed.
Josephus is writing long after the James Gang was active. Are you quite sure he's referring to them in this passage?

I don't doubt your take on the Messiah Cult- we saw what the Ghost Dance cult did for the Native Americans and the Boxer Rebellion did for the Chinese.

Still, the question remains- was James preaching a Redemptor, Ascended Christ?




Thanks for being so clear.
Next on the list is:
If the James Gang are Jews, why does Paul, industriously pushing his luck preaching a man ascended into heaven who died for our sins, even have any contact with them?What possible relation does the James Gang have with the budding churches, not only worshipping James' brother as a god, but, if reports are true, suffering martyrdom for this belief?

ETA- I have the feeling a reread of Frank Herbert's Dune series will be on my Easter hols book list.

Maybe he didn't, maybe the later church thought it would be good to have authority straight from Jesus followers and made the whole thing up.

 

[pakeha]

tsig, like the carbon based life-form you are, you've managed to raise yet more questions with your answer.

Especially with the 2nd century date for the writing of Acts.
Why even plug the James Gang into the equation?

 

[Brainache]

Maybe he didn't, maybe the later church thought it would be good to have authority straight from Jesus followers and made the whole thing up.

Or, maybe given that James was the leader of the main opposition to the Temple, it was the only gang someone like Paul could associate himself with. Especially if he was trying to turn people away from James' brand of Ultra-Nationalist Messianism with his talk of the resurrection already happening.

James and Co were awaiting the resurrection, Paul said it was already happening, but not in a Holy War, like James said.

It's like the concept of "Jihad" in Islam. Some say it is a personal struggle for inner peace, others see it as an actual war against Infidels. Paul is the former, James the latter.

Maybe.

 

[tsig]

tsig, like the carbon based life-form you are, you've managed to raise yet more questions with your answer.

Especially with the 2nd century date for the writing of Acts.
Why even plug the James Gang into the equation?

I read the NT as a series of vignettes each designed to prove a point of doctrine with enough connective narrative to give it a flow.

Each scenario was approved by a church committee as to doctrinal purity and the needs of the church not accordance with reality.

In some cases we're even given the reason for a story, "and this was done that the words of the prophets be fulfilled", clearly showing that the scenario was supposed to prove fulfillment of prophesy and so prove Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Craig B]

I read the NT as a series of vignettes each designed to prove a point of doctrine with enough connective narrative to give it a flow.

Each scenario was approved by a church committee as to doctrinal purity and the needs of the church not accordance with reality.

In some cases we're even given the reason for a story, "and this was done that the words of the prophets be fulfilled", clearly showing that the scenario was supposed to prove fulfillment of prophesy and so prove Jesus was the Messiah.

These are mostly if not all in gMatthew. Some of them display a garbled misunderstanding of the OT, and they derive from LXX. Do you really think these things were all drawn up by a Church Committee on Doctrine? Where and when did this agency do its work? And who was on it? I seek not names, but what sort of people? Was it the same people who forged the NT according to dejudge? Or the author, copyists invoked by other MJ proponents?

 

[proudfootz]

One would expect to find evidence of a cult who worshipped a purely "Spiritual, Celestial" Jesus, if we are talking about Carrier's Hypothesis.

There is no such cult anywhere to be found.

If you want to make an argument from silence, that's cool. Any chance you've read up on the latest scholarship from Doherty or Carrier on christian origins?

In fact the earliest tradition that we know of, the Ebionites, apparently followed a Jesus who was wholly human and not divine at all. Their books were destroyed as heretical by later Christians, but there are traces to be found. No such luck for Carrier's "Celestial" Jesus.

So in your opinion the materials we have from these Ebionites pre-date the Epistles?

That's interesting as Paul is depicted joining a messianic cult within a year or so of the supposed date of Jesus's death. Doesn't leave much room for a non-messianic Jesus Gang, does it?

Why do you think virtually no proponents of an HJ cite this Ebionite material when they put forward their evidence showing there was a real man beneath the Christ myth?

So if you want to posit a Christianity that began without a Jesus, you'll have to come up with something more plausible.

So if you want to posit a christianity that began with a human Jesus you'll have to come up with something more plausible than a 2nd century movement that post-dates the high christology of the early literature.

 

[proudfootz]

I read the NT as a series of vignettes each designed to prove a point of doctrine with enough connective narrative to give it a flow.

Each scenario was approved by a church committee as to doctrinal purity and the needs of the church not accordance with reality.

In some cases we're even given the reason for a story, "and this was done that the words of the prophets be fulfilled", clearly showing that the scenario was supposed to prove fulfillment of prophesy and so prove Jesus was the Messiah.

It's pretty clear by the nature of the material that made the cut there was little concern for accuracy.

Did some true facts manage to survive the doctrinal infighting? Perhaps, but only by accident, not design.

 

[maximara]

He refers to those Authors, but he forms his own Hypothesis.

I don't believe you are being honest about this. He believes there was a cult of people who worshipped a "Celestial Jesus" who was born and died in the heavens and never actually walked on Earth, if we can believe what he says in that lecture.

Why you continue to dispute this is beyond me.

This whole thread is on Bart Ehrman Did Jesus Exist ? work, yes?

Ehrman himself provides a definition of Jesus mythicism via Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii"

"it is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12)

The very man whose book this thread is one agrees with the John Robertson 1900 definition I have been presenting.

Face it you can't win with your strawman definition as even Bart Ehrman uses a broader one. DEAL WITH IT!

 

[proudfootz]

The earliest tradition is NOT the Ebionites. You made that up.

I think the methodology used to make the Ebionites early is the Criteria of Question Begging: they are thought to be 'low christology' therefore they must be early, and because they are early it is 'evidence' the early christology was 'low' QED.

There is no claim by Apologetics that the Ebionites were the earliest Christians and the Ebionites are mentioned in writings attributed to supposed 2nd century writers or later.

It appears the Ebionites use gMatthew:

"And they (the Ebionites) receive the Gospel according to Matthew. For this they too, like the followers of Cerinthus and Merinthus, use to the exclusion of others. "

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites.html

The earliest known source to mention the Ebionites was "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus c 180 CE and the author claimed Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Ghost was crucified c 50 CE or when he was an OLD MAN.

Obviously this is evidence of an oral tradition which could only survive because it was true, based on the Criteria of Embarrassment...

The Jesus cult of Christians started WITHOUT an historical Jesus just like the Jewish religion started without an historical God or the same way Marcionism started WITHOUT a real Phantom.

Well of course there was an historical Yahweh. It's absurd to think there was a religious cult that wasn't based on true events and real people.

It makes no sense that the Jesus cult started with known lies.

If people of the Roman Empire including Jews actually knew Jesus and that he was crucified as a criminal then it is virtually impossible that such a character would have been worshiped as a God and claimed to be the Messiah AFTER he was dead.

The total absence of a non-messianic Jesus would seem to indicate that the character of Jesus was conceived of as a savior from the beginning as depicted in even earlier literature.

Jews do not worship men as Gods and Romans do NOT worship Jewish criminals as Divine creatures.

How the alleged 'disciples' from the backwaters (as depicted in 2nd century tales) could come up with the ideas attributed to them seems like quite a huge hole in the HJ hypothesis. These are not theologians or philosophers.

The personal savior cult seems more appropriate to the Greek speaking world outside Judea.

Paul, a Pharisee, would have been regarded as a suicidal IDIOT if he actually attempted to evangelize the Roman Empire claiming that a KNOWN executed Jewish criminal was Lord, the Son of God, the Savior and that every knee should bow to him even the Emperors of Rome.

The Pauline Corpus only makes sense if there was NO KNOWN historical Jesus.

You put your finger on a very sore point for the HJ hypothesis - when Paul asks people to check out his story he asks they go to scriptures to verify his facts - which dovetails nicely with his claim to know Jesus only through visions and interpreting scripture.

If there was ever a real Jesus, surely Paul would have to make arguments with people who knew Jesus as a man but not an angel, god, or whatever divine being.

The utter absence of an HJ heresy in the 1st and 2nd century is convincing evidence that no one had any idea of Jesus as a real man during that time period.

There is NO history of Jews who worshiped Men as Gods.

Apparently some ignorant Galilean peasants dreamed up the idea themselves with no outside influence - and amazingly came up with a savior cult just like the surrounding regions. An amazing coincidence of history!

The Jesus cult of Christian started WITHOUT an historical Jesus sometime in the 2nd century or later.

At least this is where all the literature is found. And if we decide to stick with an evidence based theory that is where we will have to locate christian origins.

Up to the 5th century even Jesus cult Christians claimed Jesus was NOT born which is evidence that there was NEVER any established evidence of an historical Jesus.

It does seem the cults that became blended into what we know as christianity were wildly divergent, which makes sense if it was something of a syncretic religion arising out of a widespread craze for interpreting the Septuagint and other literature and generating new communities and interpretations over many places over a long period of time.

It's interesting that when the gospel tales finally came to Judea they had to be interpreted from the Greek, as there was no local Jesus tradition.

The Jesus cult did NOT even need and historical Jesus--they needed a Myth--their Jesus was the Son of God who came down from heaven.

This does seem to be the earliest Jesus found in literature.

The mere mortal Jesus doesn't crop up until the 18th century AD.

 

[proudfootz]

This whole thread is on Bart Ehrman Did Jesus Exist ? work, yes?

Ehrman himself provides a definition of Jesus mythicism via Earl Doherty's Jesus: Neither God Nor Man. Age of Reason, 2009, pp. vii-viii"

"it is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist Harper Collins, 2012, p. 12)

The very man whose book this thread is on agrees with the John Robertson 1900 definition I have been presenting.

Face it you can't win with your strawman definition as even Bart Ehrman uses a broader one. DEAL WITH IT!

I agree that even if were found that there was a man under the myth that he had virtually no influence on what became known as christianity.

The first thing his alleged disciples did was start lying about him, claiming Jesus rose from the grave. Since everyone and their grandmother apparently used this character as a convenient mouthpiece for their own ideas it would appear the least important person in christianity is Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

If you want to make an argument from silence, that's cool. Any chance you've read up on the latest scholarship from Doherty or Carrier on christian origins?

Speaking of silence, what proof does Carrier present ?

 

[Belz...]

Well of course there was an historical Yahweh. It's absurd to think there was a religious cult that wasn't based on true events and real people.

Can you still breathe under all that straw ?

 

[Belz...]

"it is the theory that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition." In simpler terms, the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

Well of course he didn't have anything to do with the foundation of Christianity, since even if he existed, he was dead by that time. What a stupid definition. ANY Jesus you can imagine short of a divine one couldn't possibly have anything to do with the foundation of a religion that sprang into existence after he died.

 

[proudfootz]

tsig, like the carbon based life-form you are, you've managed to raise yet more questions with your answer.

Especially with the 2nd century date for the writing of Acts.
Why even plug the James Gang into the equation?

It appears to me that Acts is an effort to create a history which ties together many different cults into a model of the linear development of one movement.

The authors are trying to reconcile several different cults into one, much the same way Christ cults tried to coopt John the Baptist by including him in their story as a subordinate to their hero. This process would be similar to that posited about how 'pagan' pantheons are constructed - myths depict one god conquering another, or marrying, or having a dalliance, or fathering a child, etc. Similar also to how the 'Twelve Tribes' of Israel is a mythology to create a sense of national identity. Most likely there never was a man called Israel who had twelve sons who founded twelve tribes.

The 'church' continued this tradition by coopting whatever was necessary to win over converts (thus we get the concepts for the 'feast days' like Christmas and Easter from 'pagan' holidays, and the 'baptizing' of local cult figures and turning them into 'saints').

Based on this history of behavior we can plausibly posit that if James is named that he was the focus for some sort of group that for propaganda purposes had to be accounted for as important but not quite supreme in the pantheon.

 

[proudfootz]

Can you still breathe under all that straw ?

As quick as you keep clutching at straws, I can burn it up.

Anyone confused about how a religion can start without a human as its center of worship needs a theory as to how Judaism can start without an historic Yahweh.

What have you got?