Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

And we get this BS again. The reality is somewhat different:


Pythagoras (c570 BCE – c495 BCE): more famous for founding Pythagoreanism (a way of life rather than religion) which thanks to it secretive nature we know little about there isn't much on him or the movement that he inspired. In fact the Pythagorean theorem is not formally credited to him until the 4th century. However, Milo of Croton a documented six-time Olympic victor (540 BC-520 BCE) was a Pythagorean and is said to have personally saved Pythagoras life with his great strength

So no contemporary writings, no credible eye-witness testimony. Writings about him full of supernatural BS. Just like Jesus.

Sun Tzu (Sun Wu) (544–496 BCE?): his very existence is debated in scholarly circles despite reference in the Records of the Grand Historian and Spring and Autumn Annals which used earlier official records that haven't survived.

Hey look! Just like Jesus. Again...

Confucius (Kong Qiu) (551–479 BCE) the Records of the Grand Historian used archives and imperial records as source material (which themselves have not survived). Its author Sima Qian noted the problems with incomplete, fragmentary, and contradictory sources stating in the 18th volume of the 180-volume work "I have set down only what is certain, and in doubtful cases left a blank." Moreover, Kong Qiu was the governor of a town in Lu and ultimately held the positions of Minister of Public Works and then Minister of Crime for the whole Lu state not exactly minor positions one could create a fictitious person to fill.

So, not an obscure first century Jewish preacher like Jesus. What was the point?

Leukippos (shadowy nearly legendary figure of early 5th century BCE): very existence doubted by Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE).

Just like Jesus, except no one was doubting Jesus' existence in Antiquity.

Socrates (c469 – 399 BCE): written about by contemporaries Plato, Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE), and Aristophanes (c446 – 386 BCE).

Hippocrates (c460 – c370 BCE): written about by contemporary Plato.

Only one source? That is less than Jesus.

Plato (428 – 347 BCE): written about by contemporaries Aristotle (384 – 322 BC), Xenophon, and Aristophanes.

Alexander the Great (July 20, 356 – June 11, 323 BCE): official historian Callisthenes of Olynthus, generals Ptolemy, Nearchus, and Aristobulus and helmsman Onesicritus where all contemporaries who wrote about Alexander. While their works were eventually lost, later works that used them as source material were not. Then you have mosaics and coins also contemporaneous with Alexander.

Hannibal (247 – 182 BCE): Written about by Silenus, a paid Greek historian who Hannibal brought with him on his journeys to write an account of what took place, and Sosylus of Lacedaemon who wrote seven volumes on the war itself. Never mind the contemporary Carthaginian coins and engraved bronze tablets.

Julius Caesar (July 100 – 15 March 44 BCE): Not only do we have the writing of contemporaries Cato the Younger and Cicero but Julius Caesar' own writings as well (Commentarii de Bello Gallico aka The Gallic Wars and Commentarii de Bello Civili aka The Civil War). Then you have the contemporary coins, statues and monuments.

Yes, the kind of people I said we can expect evidence for. Is this confusing you?

Apollonius of Tyana (c15 CE - c100 CE): Often refereed to as the "Pagan Christ", fragments of Apollonius' own writings are part of the Harvard University Press edition of The Life of Apollonius of Tyana (1912) ISBN-13: 978-0674990180 as documented in Carrier's Kook article.

Boadicea (d. 60 CE): Tacitus himself would have been a 5-year old boy when she poisoned herself c. 60 CE making him contemporary to her. Furthermore, his father-in-law Gnaeus Julius Agricola served under Gaius Suetonius Paulinus during the revolt. So Tacitus was not only an actual contemporary, but he had access to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus' records and an actual eyewitness.

Muhammad (570 – c. June 8, 632 CE): Unlike the New Testament, the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime and there are some that say it was compiled shortly before his death. Moreover there are non-Muslim references by people who would have been contemporary to Muhammad

This apple is different to this orange. I wonder why?

Now compare those to Jesus

1) The only known possible contemporary is Paul (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) who not only writes some 20 years after the events but seems more intent on the Jesus in his own head than any Jesus who actually preached in Galilee. In fact, even though in his own account Paul meets "James, brother of the Lord" we get no details of Jesus' life, not even references to the famous sermons or miracles.

2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written sometime between 70 CE to 140 CE and there are no references to any of them until the early 2nd century.


As you can see the whole if we deny Jesus we deny most of ancient history claim is total BS and has no more credibility then Holocaust denial or the theory of ancient astronauts.

You are beating up that straw man again. Nowhere did I say we would erase most of Ancient History. I said: There is less evidence for other Ancient people than there is for Jesus.

I'm not providing a list, because you should already know this.

 

[Craig B]

Smith is not God in the Mormon religion, he is a prophet. The historical figure Christ who suffered under the historical figure Ponius Pilate is God in the Christian religion. In the bible Christ says" "If you've seen me you've seen the Father" and "I am in the father {God} and the father is in me".

It's not "the bible" that says that. It's the Gospel of John that says that, at 14:9 and 10:38. Other bits of the Bible say different. And even passages in John say different. Examples:

Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
John 8:40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.
John 14:28 My Father is greater than I.
John 20:17 I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
1 Corinthians 11:3 The head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Colossians 3:1 Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
1 Peter 3:21-22 Jesus Christ: who is ... on the the right hand of God.

Jesus may well have existed and Pilate certainly did, but to say "Jesus is God in the Christian religion" proves nothing except that the Christian religion may be wrong.

ETA In Acts 2 Peter is made to say

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24 whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.

Not God; but approved and raised up by God. That was the original belief.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

You make different inferences about Paul's theory of the James Gang than I do, and you apply different principles of literary interpretation than I do. That's swell. You and I have discussed your ideas about textual interpretation elsewhere.

The bottom line is that my answer to the other poster's question stands as I wrote it. If you disagree with my answer, then write your own answer. Don't pretend that I meant to write something different than I did write as window dressing when you expound your own views.


Brainache

We need to accept that proof is a homonym pair. One word is a term of art in mathematics and logic meaning a formal quasi-syntactic demontsration. The other word means evidence and argument establishing the plausibility of a fact claim.

To apply one when the other applies would be a category mistake. It is not special pleading, then, to distinguish a historian's proof from a mathematician's, because they are different things. It is special pleading to ask a non-historian to accommodate ancient historians' difficulties with drawing convincing conclusions from weak evidence when other professionals are held to different standards for acknowledging the limitations of what they can infer when those limitations rub.

 

[Belz...]

How far from the story would qualify for an HJ, do you reckon?

For me, anyway, he should be a Jewish preacher who lived in the first half of the first century, preached in Jerusalem and was executed for it by the authorities, Roman or otherwise, and his followers continued to spread his message, however close to the book those are.

 

[Belz...]

Perhaps you should not be so quick to assume that disagreement stems from dishonesty automatically, or at least keep that to yourself. You'll find it makes for much better debates.

Did you accidentally misquote me, there, or do you actually think that "bias" is the same as "dishonesty" ?

How that focus on the inadequacy of the evidence translates in your judgement to an 'anti-religious bias' is not clear to me.

As I said previously, continued accusations that your opponents must be closet christians is a red flag, first that one is out of arguments, and second that this is the true reason for their position.

 

[DOC]

...Other than a Resurrection what could drive this rapid growth and the willingness to die and be tortured.

A belief in one.

(note: belief and fact are not always the same thing).

So the 12 apostles who lived with Jesus for 3 years are going to believe he was raised from the dead (in Jerusalem where they currently lived) without ever seeing him. And even though they haven't seen him they are going to travel all over the territory and to Rome and risk their lives to preach.

It doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is without a Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole central tenet of the religion.

 

[pakeha]

So Islam must be correct because the Saudi flag says "There is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God"

Steve S

Makes sense.

So the 12 apostles who lived with Jesus for 3 years are going to believe he was raised from the dead (in Jerusalem where they currently lived) without ever seeing him. And even though they haven't seen him they are going to travel all over the territory and to Rome and risk their lives to preach.

It doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is without a Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole central tenet of the religion.

Wait.
The Resurrection must be true because Christianity is as wide-spread as it is?

 

[Craig B]

It doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is without a Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole central tenet of the religion.

Why do you keep stating, as if it made the thing true: it must be so, because it is a tenet of the religion?

It is a firm tenet of the Roman Catholic faith that the Pope is infallible in certain conditions; it is a tenet of that faith that the consecrated bread "is" the body of Christ. Does their being tenets of that faith make these beliefs true, manifestly absurd as they are?

 

[pakeha]

For me, anyway, he should be a Jewish preacher who lived in the first half of the first century, preached in Jerusalem and was executed for it by the authorities, Roman or otherwise, and his followers continued to spread his message, however close to the book those are.

That seems like a good working definition of an HJ.

 

[dejudge]

That is historical particularism, a long discounted (some 80 years ago) theory regarding history (Trigger, Bruce (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

You are falling into the same trap as many of the HJers in this thread are--using long abandoned methodologies for your argument.

What you say cannot be shown to be true. I deal with the actual existing manuscripts and Codices not with so-called expert opinion.

You cannot present any actual contemporary evidence for an HJ.

HJers are trapped in logical fallacies and failure of facts in their argument for an HJ.

There are two fundamental factors to argue for a Myth Jesus.

1. Description as a Myth.

2. No contemporary historical evidence.

Those factors exist for the supposed Jesus of Nazareth.

What trap are you talking about?

Jesus of Nazareth is Myth character just like Adam, Eve, the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, the Holy Ghost, and Romulus.

 

[IanS]

Ian

You make different inferences about Paul's theory of the James Gang than I do, and you apply different principles of literary interpretation than I do. That's swell. You and I have discussed your ideas about textual interpretation elsewhere.

The bottom line is that my answer to the other poster's question stands as I wrote it. If you disagree with my answer, then write your own answer. Don't pretend that I meant to write something different than I did write as window dressing when you expound your own views.

I'm sorry but your above explanation just won't wash.

Here yet again (5th time?) is the exact quote of what you said -

… 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.

Please quote where in any of Paul’s genuine letters he ever says he had "a theory" that the “James Gang” “had been Jesus' students beforehand". Can you quote where Paul says that or not?

You have insisted over 5 or 6 posts now that you are correct to say that was Paul‘s theory. So please quote where Paul ever says that. Please quote where Paul ever says that anyone had ever met or known Jesus “before hand”.

 

[dejudge]

It's not "the bible" that says that. It's the Gospel of John that says that, at 14:9 and 10:38. Other bits of the Bible say different. And even passages in John say different. Examples: Jesus may well have existed and Pilate certainly did, but to say "Jesus is God in the Christian religion" proves nothing except that the Christian religion may be wrong.

ETA In Acts 2 Peter is made to say Not God; but approved and raised up by God. That was the original belief.

You statement is a failure of facts. You have no actual existing manuscript pre 70 CE with the original beliefs of the Jesus cult of Christians.

There is no corroborative evidence that Acts of the Apostles represents the history of the Jesus cult.

Plus, the assumption that Jesus was NOT believed to be God himself has zero effect on the argument that Jesus of Nazareth was a myth.

Adam, Eve, Romulus, Satan, and the Angel Gabriel are figures of myth and were NOT said to be God.

 

[dejudge]

So the 12 apostles who lived with Jesus for 3 years are going to believe he was raised from the dead (in Jerusalem where they currently lived) without ever seeing him. And even though they haven't seen him they are going to travel all over the territory and to Rome and risk their lives to preach.

You argument is logically unsound and without evidence.

You have merely assumed the supposed Jesus of Nazareth existed, had 12 Apostles, that he was crucified and resurrected.

Your belief is NOT evidence. You first must get actual contemporary evidence.

It doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence to the extent it is without a Resurrection because the Resurrection is the whole central tenet of the religion.

Again, you expose a failure of logic. Belief of a resurrection is NOT evidence.

1. Christians Exist TODAY.

2. Christians TODAY have NOT seen the supposed Resurrected Jesus.

3. It is claimed Christians TODAY may suffer for their BELIEF of the resurrection.

Christianity is shown to exist by BELIEF of the Resurrection.

 

[dejudge]

That seems like a good working definition of an HJ.

You still will be unable to present any actual existing evidence for such a definition of an HJ.

An imagined Definition is NOT evidence.

There is an On-Going Quest for over 250 years and virtually all definitions of an HJ have been discarded or have failed.

There are multiple irreconcilable definitions of an HJ because there was NEVER EVER any established evidence from antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

Just like Jesus, except no one was doubting Jesus' existence in Antiquity.

Your statement is a failure of facts. In the MJ/HJ argument Gods and Sons of Gods are considered NON-historical figures

Christians DOUBTED that there was an historical Jesus.

Virtually ALL Apologetic writers of antiquity ARGUED that their Jesus was NON-HISTORICAL--the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

1. Ignatius wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus, a God born of a Ghost.

2 Justin Martyr wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

3. Aristides wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

4. Irenaeus wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

5.Tertullian wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

6. Origen wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

7. Clement of Alexandria wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

8. Hippolytus wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

9. The Pauline writer wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

10. The author of gMark wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

11. The author of gMatthew wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

12. The author of gLuke wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

13. The author of gJohn wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

14. The author of Acts wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus

 

[Craig B]

You statement is a failure of facts. You have no actual existing manuscript pre 70 CE with the original beliefs of the Jesus cult of Christians.

What in the name of sanity has that got to do with whether a particular passage is in John or some other gospel? Kindly don't interrupt with your irrelevant ravings!

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is a failure of facts. In the MJ/HJ argument Gods and Sons of Gods are considered NON-historical figures

Christians DOUBTED that there was an historical Jesus.

Virtually ALL Apologetic writers of antiquity ARGUED that their Jesus was NON-HISTORICAL--the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

1. Ignatius wrote about a NON-Historical Jesus, a God born of a Ghost.
...

So I guess that Caesar was NON-Historical too?

Your argument makes zero sense.

Unless you are arguing that Jesus actually was a god... is that what you are saying?

Do you expect Ancient Religious apologists to write like modern Historians?

 

[Belz...]

You still will be unable to present any actual existing evidence for such a definition of an HJ.

An imagined Definition is NOT evidence.

Who said it was ? Do you even read posts before flailing about ?

 

[proudfootz]

While I agree we should point out that you can't "prove" a negative.

If that were the case, the no sane person would demand that the rejection of an HJ hypothesis meet equal (or greater) standards than making the claim there was such a person.

Jesus was a very common name and there were would be messiahs from 6 BCE all the way through 70 CE and even some after that. You simply cannot prove there wasn't in the 1st century some obscure preacher named Jesus who talked about over throwing Roman rule, was killed as a result, and then some elaborate myth woven around him to make him larger and more important then he really was.

This is the reason why those who remain strong agnostics on the issue of historicity are open to the idea.

And it is this FACT that the HJ proponents latch onto with all the desperation of a man dying of thirst in a desert latches onto a canteen filled with water. The problem is this is the area of King Arthur and Robin Hood--where one can argue there is good evidence there was something or perhaps someone there but the actual person (if you are not dealing with a composite character) has for all practical purposes been lost.

There is a great deal of difference between the plausibility of a certain scenario and treating it as if it were the only scenario worthy of discussion or its being taught as if it were anything but one possibility among many.

The moment you compare the canon Gospel and Acts with actual history you realize you are reading very badly researched propaganda in that the geography is a disaster, the social political climate is nonsense, and the trials have all the reality of a Perry Mason drama. So much is off it is hard to say any of it is true. Even with a several century gap between the supposed events and the first ballads the Robin Hood myth better fits the social political climate when they are supposed to have taken place then the Jesus accounts do.

I'm persuaded that the trial scenes are most likely fictions - much along the lines of advice given to screenwriters today: make sure to have a confrontation between your protagonist and the villain.

IF there were an historical Jesus and IF men like him were a dime a dozen and IF it was common practice to execute such trouble-makers and IF this Jesus were arrested it would seem hardly necessary for the Roman Governor to waste any of his time on an interview or a trial - especially at the busy time of Passover when the capital was swelled with religious fanatics from all over the region.

 

[proudfootz]

Did you accidentally misquote me, there, or do you actually think that "bias" is the same as "dishonesty" ?

Your next remark seems to indicate you equate accusations of 'bias' with 'dishonesty' (the true reasons are not what they state).

As I said previously, continued accusations that your opponents must be closet christians is a red flag, first that one is out of arguments, and second that this is the true reason for their position.

Likewise continued accusations that one makes their argument from alleged 'anti-religious bias' instead of their stated reasons is to accuse them of dishonesty and indicates the accusers are out of arguments (like all the ad hom stuff along the lines of 'get an education' and 'read a book' clogging up the thread).

I like your posts - they seem to be self-refuting.