Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

That was the wrong word. I apologise.

Having read your arguments, I know there is no logic to them.

Is that better?

You keep using the wrong words. Stop guessing.

You have NO evidence for your HJ.

You admit Paul is a Liar yet you take Galatians 1.19 at face value.

Apologetic writers admitted their Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle and was Born of a Ghost.

You claimed there is a consensus when there is no such thing and never ever was--Many Christians Scholars agree Jesus was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead on the third day.

 

[Brainache]

You keep using the wrong words. Stop guessing.

You have NO evidence for your HJ.

You admit Paul is a Liar yet you take Galatians 1.19 at face value.

Apologetic writers admitted their Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle and was Born of a Ghost.

You claimed there is a consensus when there is no such thing and never ever was--Many Christians Scholars agree Jesus was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead on the third day.

Logic: You're doing it wrong.

 

[dejudge]

You keep using the wrong words. Stop guessing.

You have NO evidence for your HJ.

You admit Paul is a Liar yet you take Galatians 1.19 at face value.

Apologetic writers admitted their Jesus had NO brother called James the Apostle and was Born of a Ghost.

You claimed there is a consensus when there is no such thing and never ever was--Many Christians Scholars agree Jesus was the Son of God who was Raised from the dead on the third day.

Logic: You're doing it wrong.

Stop guessing. Did you not take Galatians 1.19 at face value?

You have no actual evidence for an historical Jesus.

The Galatians Jesus was NOT a man.

 

[IanS]

Well how do you even know in that case that they belong to the second century? I suppose however that you know plenty, if you can seriously doubt that academic historians have made studies of the subject, and also you are aware that the academic consensus is like Bigfoot. Others say The Bermuda Triangle, but I suppose Bigfoot's much the same as that.

The people you are talking about are bible studies scholars, they are not historians in the usual academic sense of the term. They typically - (1)do not have their academic qualifications in mainstream history, (2)they are not teaching & researching any of the vast mass of mainstream non-religious history, and (3)they are not employed teaching and researching in university history departments.

On the contrary, almost everyone you are talking about as a "historian", is a bible studies lecturer qualified in religious studies and theology, teaching various branches of religious NT studies, in religious studies dept's of various institutes.

Their original background, their early academic studies, and the factors that lead them into their current profession of biblical studies, is often far from neutral. Almost all of them are known to have early backgrounds in really quite extreme levels of devout evangelising religious belief. That is, in most cases, how and why they entered this subject and profession at all. Some of them have since lost their faith, but afaik the majority are still practising believing theists.

That does not totally disqualify them from objective study. But it does place a huge question mark over their neutrality and their ability to really see things objectively in a subject which, for many of them, has so often included a very deeply rooted part of their lifelong theistic belief system.

You won’t like the following quote from the book written by Hector Avalos, but it shows that some academics within that profession, i.e. bible studies scholars, and particular those like Avalos who eventually lost their religious faith, do say that the field is not properly objective or neutral, but is instead still far too closely connected with the interests, and self-interests, of religious belief, Christianity, and the Church (Hector Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State university) -


http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/pages-from-dr-hector-avalos-book-end-of.html

Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies, Prometheus Books; 1St Edition edition (May 1, 2007)

The majority of biblical scholars in academia are primarily concerned with maintaining the value of the Bible despite the fact that the important questions about its origin have either been answered or cannot be answered. More importantly, we will show how academia, despite claims to independence, is still part of an ecclesial-academic complex that collaborates with a competitive media industry.

Most standard histories will grant that biblical studies began as an apologetic enterprise. Few biblical scholars will admit that it is still just that. The largest organization of professional biblical scholars, the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), began as the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in New York City in 1880, and its chief members included Philip Schaff, Charles A. Briggs, and Francis Brown. Some of these men represented the more liberal streams of scholarship. A few were friendly toward the then emerging "higher criticism," which dared to question the authorship and historicity of many biblical events. Yet all were religious in some way. They all believed the Bible was worth keeping in the modem world.

Today, the Society of Biblical Literature is larger and more pluralistic in representation. One will find Jews represented, whereas there were none at the first meeting of the SBL. Secular humanists, such as myself, have participated in reading many papers. Although still heavily dominated by men, the SBL has more women members than even twenty years ago. The SBL is no longer centered in the northeast, and its members come to its massive annual meetings, usually in the United States, from countries all over the globe.

But important features have remained constant. The main bond is bibliolatry, which entails the conviction that the Bible is valuable and should remain the subject of academic study. Equally important, the Society of Biblical Literature, while now relatively more free of denominationalist agendas, is still religionist in orientation. Scholars still are either part of faith communities, or see their work as assisting faith communities directly or indirectly. One of the most prominent Jewish biblical scholars today, Jon D. Levenson, comments: "(T]he motivations of most historical critics of the Hebrew Bible continues to be religious in character. It is a rare scholar in the field whose past does not include an intense Christian or Jewish commitment." Atheists may read papers at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, but usually only when such papers do not challenge the relevance of biblical studies itself.

 

[pakeha]

...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)...

Can we agree to go with this definition?

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

That makes sense, thanks.
ETA
As does tsig's explanation, which I didn't acknowledge earlier.

 

[Belz...]

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?

I think you missed my point.

No one's saying it's impossible. You made that up.

 

[Belz...]

Here's how this works, You have to provide iron clad proof there was no HJ, including proof there was a Jesus Myth, the names of those who made it up and even their writings while all the HJ side has to do is prate "Academic Authority".

More straw.

You've got to love these kind of rules.

Wow, and you just take tsig at his word ? You have a very inconsistent trust system.

My point about Carrier is this: Yes, the evidence for HJ is thin. But the evidence for MJ is non-existent. Doesn't that logically give the edge to the former ? The denial of this conclusion, to me, stems from anti-religious bias, because that was my reason before.

 

[Belz...]

Stop guessing.

What's with these word phases ?

 

[pakeha]

...As much as Paul would like to say that his being commissioned by a ghost to preach.is all that matters, it is a fact (if Paul's own theory is granted) that the James Gang have that commission themselves plus they had been Jesus' students beforehand. Their handshake, then, is worth something to Paul, as is their agreement not to fish in his pond.

I think Acts is a retrospective attempt to pretend there was unity, when there wasn't. To that extent, then, I agree with part of proudfootz' answer to you. I think Acts fits in with the shared agenda of the synoptics, to build up the disciples at the expense of the dead Paul. Maybe that must be done carefully, because it would appear that some churches, like the one at Corinth, were still fond of Paul at the turn of the Second Century, as suggested by 1 Clement. So, presto! - a myth of early unity, and to hell with Paul himself complaining about factionalism, hypocrisy, scrambling for position and disputes over who gets paid for what. ...

Yes, and keeping in mind Acts was written for a 2nd century audience that had no connection to events in the Jerusalem in the mid 1st century, it seems clear that it's basically propaganda.
"... Tabor is the chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina and specializes on Paul and Christian origins. In his book, "Paul and Jesus " (2012), which is primarily about Paul, Tabor writes (p. 229-230),

"Many historians are agreed that it merits the label, 'Use Sparingly with Extreme Caution.' As a general working method I have adopted the following three principles:

1. Never accept anything in Acts over Paul's own account in his seven genuine letters.

2. Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases.

3. Consider the independent information that Acts provides of interest but not of interpretive historical use." "
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9949401&postcount=6431

...http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/pages-from-dr-hector-avalos-book-end-of.html

Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies, Prometheus Books; 1St Edition edition (May 1, 2007)...

I can't thank you enough for bringing Hector Avalos to my attention, IanS. That lecture of his you posted up was a breath of fresh air, indeed.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Do you mean that Paul's letters say that James and/or anyone else (this "James Gang") had actually met and known Jesus (his "students beforehand")?

No. I was answering another poster's hypothetical questions. The poster's hypothesis was "If the James Gang were Jews..." If you're more interested in exploring other hypotheses instead, then by all means ask the board about what follows from the premises that engage you.

pakeha

Thanks for what you found in Tabor. It's sort of "Acts is deuterocanonical" from a historian's point of view. I like principle 2, "Cautiously consider Acts if it agrees with Paul's letters and one can detect no obvious biases," since it salvages one of my favorite Bible Stories, Acts 14: 12-ish, when Paul and Barnabas are mistaken for Greco-Roman gods. If that didn't really happen, then it should have.

On another point,

Can we agree to go with this definition?

Fear and trembling set in - recall that long thread last year on "what counts...?"

So, what counts as a mythical Jesus hypothesis?

"No single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity."

The problem is that even the Gospel Jesus has virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity. The story is that he gathers followers, the followers survive him, and their interaction (not his, except as a ghost) with another guy altogether, Paul, causes (Gentile) Christianity to break out.

So far as a I can tell, MJ defines itself in opposition to either GJ or HJ, as the occasion demands, and that's where the slipperiness sets in, since HJ and GJ intersect, but don't greatly coincide.

Example Jesus' father was a Roman soldier who raped, paid for the company of, or seduced a Jewish girl. Very MJ because it blows GJ to kingdom come. But for HJ, so what? That Jesus' mother is Jewish, so he is. Maybe having an absent father shapes Jesus' theology, and lights a fire under his butt that Romans aren't all nice guys. Maybe he has so much trouble with grown-up Jews because his childhood playmates razzed him about his dad....

This is not my personal favorite HJ, but there is no problem for an HJ in it. And it doesn't fit the proposed definition because there is a single identifiable individual who could have had the same (natural) amount to do with later Christianity as any Gospel Jesus would have.

 

[pakeha]

... one of my favorite Bible Stories, Acts 14: 12-ish, when Paul and Barnabas are mistaken for Greco-Roman gods. If that didn't really happen, then it should have. ...

It's my very favourite Bible story.

 

[IanS]

Ian

Do you mean that Paul's letters say that James and/or anyone else (this "James Gang") had actually met and known Jesus (his "students beforehand")?

Where does it say that in Paul's letters?

No. I was answering another poster's hypothetical questions. The poster's hypothesis was "If the James Gang were Jews..." If you're more interested in exploring other hypotheses instead, then by all means ask the board about what follows from the premises that engage you.

Ahh, so when your previous post said the following (see highlight in particular) -

As much as Paul would like to say that his being commissioned by a ghost to preach.is all that matters, it is a fact (if Paul's own theory is granted) that the James Gang have that commission themselves plus they had been Jesus' students beforehand. Their handshake, then, is worth something to Paul, as is their agreement not to fish in his pond.

- in fact you did not actually mean what your post says where it says “ … plus they had been Jesus' students beforehand.” In fact what you meant was the complete opposite of that, and that in fact Paul’s letters never say that any of these people had met Jesus or “had been his students before hand”?

OK, so now we can be clear about that - Paul’s letters never say, or claim to have the "theory", that James or anyone else had ever met Jesus (as students or in any other capacity).

 

[Craig B]

Here's how this works, You have to provide iron clad proof there was no HJ, including proof there was a Jesus Myth, the names of those who made it up and even their writings while all the HJ side has to do is prate "Academic Authority".

Nonsense. You have to provide evidence for whichever of the myth theories you're speaking of. I for one have explicitly stated that I'm not looking for names. If you provide evidence, moreover, I will read it. Now you're being particularly forgetful, tsig, of post #6550:

Originally Posted by tsig
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.

Originally posted by Craig B:
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?

So that's what you are asked for, and what you say in your current post is completely false; the diametric opposite of the truth, at least as far as my dealings with you are concerned.

So now, tell me about your Doctrine Committee, tsig. Or if it's some other type of myth theory you're promoting just now, give me comparable evidence for it.

 

[IanS]

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/pages-from-dr-hector-avalos-book-end-of.html

Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies, Prometheus Books; 1St Edition edition (May 1, 2007)

I can't thank you enough for bringing Hector Avalos to my attention, IanS. That lecture of his you posted up was a breath of fresh air, indeed.

Hi … thanks for the kind words, and thanks for taking time to see & hear what Avalos had to say.

Yes, what he has to say is interesting, isn’t it. Not least because he his providing an opinion from within the profession. An opinion which goes to the heart of why it can be a serious mistake to rely upon appeal to authority in this field.

 

[IanS]

You have to provide evidence for whichever of the myth theories you're speaking of.

Why does anyone have to provide evidence for any particular myth theory?

Afaik nobody here in any of these threads has proposed or endorsed any particular myth theory. Even dejudge, who I think you regard as the most extreme "mythicist" here, has in fact only ever said that the biblical figure of Jesus must be a myth (he is not talking about any so-called "HJ").

If commercial authors such as Earl Doherty or Richard Carrier propose specific myth theories (which Doherty certainly has), then of course they must provide a credible argument in support of their theory. And indeed that argument is precisely what Doherty sets out in his book (ditto Carrier in his books).

But all that has happened in HJ threads here is that sceptics such as myself have merely pointed out why the claimed evidence of Jesus is nowhere near good enough. In fact, most of us don't seem to think it's really evidence of Jesus at all ... it's evidence of peoples various 1st century religious messiah beliefs, but nowhere does it actually contain any evidence at all of anyone knowing Jesus such that they could provide known evidence of him.

As Proudfootz just explained in an earlier post - you cannot actually have evidence of someone that does not even exist … if Jesus did not really exist, then we cannot have evidence of that non-existent being.

You can of course ask for evidence to show that the biblical stories of Jesus were “mythical”, i.e. untrue. And indeed there is a vast mountain of undeniable evidence to show precisely that.

The evidence is that the biblical writing about Jesus, whilst at one time (until relatively quite recently in fact) was universally thought to be absolutely true, is now known as a matter of scientific “fact” to be certainly untrue. That is the actual “evidence” here; evidence showing the stories of Jesus were untrue.

Also of course, there is a similar mountain of quite undeniable evidence to show how and why untrue theist accounts like the biblical stories have always been produced in all religions, inc. old testament Judaism with it’s very detailed stories of figures and events such as Kind David, Abraham, Solomon, Moses, the exile into Babylon etc., all of which are afaik now widely regarded by biblical scholars as probably just mythical fiction.

Even Yahweh himself is also of course an invention (circa 12th century BC) with a vastly detailed story of what he did and where he lives etc.

So there is vast and undeniable evidence to show how religious stories, often highly detailed, are almost always complete fiction, how ancient OT Judaism is filled with such detailed fiction, and how the NT stories of Jesus are quite certainly also fiction.

The evidence which is missing, is evidence of anyone actually ever being able to confirm that that they, or anyone else, had ever known a real Jesus. That’s what is missing.

 

[Craig B]

Why does anyone have to provide evidence for any particular myth theory?

That is breathtakingly nonsensical. I now await what tsig may have to say about the "names" issue. Come on tsig. Tell us that no evidence is required for this

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

Remember, as I've said, I don't need the names!

 

[IanS]

Why does anyone have to provide evidence for any particular myth theory?

That is breathtakingly nonsensical.

No. It’s the very opposite of “nonsensical”. It’s completely sensible. In fact it’s absolutely correct - unless someone is proposing a specific myth theory, then there is zero obligation on them to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of other peoples published myth theories.

 

[proudfootz]

I think you missed my point.

No one's saying it's impossible. You made that up.

NOw why would you lie again? To cover your previous lie?

The word 'impossible' isn't used in my post.

Stop with the strawmanning already, it just makes you look weak.

 

[proudfootz]

Wow, and you just take tsig at his word ? You have a very inconsistent trust system.

My system is to read for understanding. Try it sometime!

My point about Carrier is this: Yes, the evidence for HJ is thin. But the evidence for MJ is non-existent. Doesn't that logically give the edge to the former ? The denial of this conclusion, to me, stems from anti-religious bias, because that was my reason before.

...and you recall how I showed this idea 'there is no evidence for myth' is rather deluded. Everybody knows christian literature is chock full of crazy made up BS.

I have no problem with your asserting 'MJ comes from anti-religious bias', so long as you are no hypocrite and allow others to assert 'HJ comes from pro-religious bias'.

Deal?

 

[Craig B]

No. It’s the very opposite of “nonsensical”. It’s completely sensible. In fact it’s absolutely correct - unless someone is proposing a specific myth theory, then there is zero obligation on them to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of other peoples published myth theories.

"Jesus is a myth."
"OK, give me evidence for that, because there's lots of myth theories."
"Yes, but I'm not proposing any specific myth; I'm just saying he's a myth. So I don't need to provide evidence." Mmm.

What you are saying is, you don't need to provide evidence for tsig's "doctrine committee", and tsig doesn't need to provide evidence for dejudge's hoax forger falsifying fabricators, and neither of you needs to give evidence about the author copyists and none of these people needs to tell us anything about the metaphysical crucifixion perpetrated by the Archontes of Woo in the Sublunary Superterrestrial Cloud Cuckoo Land; and if people in general can't give evidence for other people's theories, and don't give any for their own, then anyone can say anything whatsoever, and no evidence needs to be advanced at all. Great!