Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

HJers have made a claim about an assumed HJ found in the NT.

HJers must present the CORROBORATIVE evidence for their CLAIM.

Jesus of Nazareth is unknown in existing writings from 6 BCE all the way through to the end of the 1st century.

HJers cannot even prove a positive.

You've hit the nail on the head.

It must be frustrating for them.

HJers simply cannot prove that a character called Jesus of Nazareth did exist who was an obscure preacher and cannot prove Jesus of Nazareth talked about overthrowing Roman rule and was killed as a result.

HJers cannot present the source or THE EVIDENCE for their story of Jesus.

Where is the PROOF -the Source--the Evidence--that Jesus was an obscure preacher and talked about over throwing Roman rule and was killed as a result?

I REJECT un-evidenced claims.

Rejecting un-evidenced claims will make some people very angry!

 

[proudfootz]

"Originally Posted by Brainache: If that was true, (which I dispute) what are you going to replace HJ with?

Or are you content to just leave a big hole in the Historical narrative and say "We can never know, or even surmise what might have happened"?

Or are you going to invent a whole load of "fake hoax forgers" to fill in the gaps?"

What "big hole in the Historical narrative"?

There will be a big Jesus-shaped hole in history if we don't assume Jesus is real.

To match the big Noah-shaped hole left when we remove the Flood from history, and the big Abraham-shaped hole when it was concluded his story was a myth, and the big Moses-shaped hole when it was discovered the tale of Exodus was just made up for theo-political reasons.

The consequences are enormous! Cue prophecies about the sacking of universities and the burning of books. Where is Stone when you need him?

Historians do the "We can never know, or even surmise what might have happened" with Robin Hood and King Arthur so why not with Jesus?

Despite the several centuries gap between Robin Hood and the first ballad there are far less issues with regard to known history than with Jesus but even there there is debate if Robin Hood was a single person or a composite character formed out of several bandits in the region.

We are often reminded that much of ancient history is tenuous and speculative, that any HJ hypothesis is merely the judgement that the author thinks something happened but it is merely offered as be a probability.

Why is it considered such a big deal if it turns out the speculation of an HJ was wrong?

 

[Stone]

The consequences are enormous! Cue prophecies about the sacking of universities and the burning of books. Where is Stone when you need him?

That's O.K.: R. Joseph Hoffmann has already said it best for me. --

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/mythtic-pizza-and-cold-cocked-scholars/

"The disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense. They are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism, to the calm and considered academic study of religion".

I've sometimes thought I should make that my signature.

Stone

 

[tsig]

There will be a big Jesus-shaped hole in history if we don't assume Jesus is real.

To match the big Noah-shaped hole left when we remove the Flood from history, and the big Abraham-shaped hole when it was concluded his story was a myth, and the big Moses-shaped hole when it was discovered the tale of Exodus was just made up for theo-political reasons.

The consequences are enormous! Cue prophecies about the sacking of universities and the burning of books. Where is Stone when you need him?



We are often reminded that much of ancient history is tenuous and speculative, that any HJ hypothesis is merely the judgement that the author thinks something happened but it is merely offered as be a probability.

Why is it considered such a big deal if it turns out the speculation of an HJ was wrong?

We will be left tottering around in a world of chaos where no historical facts can be know and soon mankind will revert to barbarism and the rule of tooth and claw.

Jesus saves us from all that.

 

[Stone]

We will be left tottering around in a world of chaos where no historical facts can be know and soon mankind will revert to barbarism and the rule of tooth and claw.

Jesus saves us from all that.

No: ALL PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS IN ANCIENT HISTORY

M I G H T

SAVE US FROM THAT. Unfortunately, it depends on whether or not and if/when mythers and their Kool-Aid ilk ever get all the guns.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

No: ALL PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS IN ANCIENT HISTORY

M I G H T

SAVE US FROM THAT. Unfortunately, it depends on whether or not and if/when mythers and their Kool-Aid ilk ever get all the guns.

Stone

Calm down. Tsig is simply being intentionally provocative. Leave them to it.

 

[proudfootz]

That's O.K.: R. Joseph Hoffmann has already said it best for me. --

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/mythtic-pizza-and-cold-cocked-scholars/

"The disease these buggers spread is ignorance disguised as common sense. They are the single greatest threat, next to fundamentalism, to the calm and considered academic study of religion".

I've sometimes thought I should make that my signature.

Stone

Yes, it does appear this Hoffmann character is a bit of a paranoid crank.

A pity he is cited here as representative of the HJ position.

 

[proudfootz]

We will be left tottering around in a world of chaos where no historical facts can be know and soon mankind will revert to barbarism and the rule of tooth and claw.

Jesus saves us from all that.

No: ALL PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS IN ANCIENT HISTORY

M I G H T

SAVE US FROM THAT. Unfortunately, it depends on whether or not and if/when mythers and their Kool-Aid ilk ever get all the guns.

Stone

ZOMG!

This will be worse than when phlogiston theory was abandoned!

 

[Craig B]

Stone

Calm down. Tsig is simply being intentionally provocative. Leave them to it.

Now it's proudfootz's turn.

Yes, it does appear this Hoffmann character is a bit of a paranoid crank.

A pity he is cited here as representative of the HJ position.

This is not rational discourse. Leave them to it.

 

[proudfootz]

Now it's proudfootz's turn.This is not rational discourse. Leave them to it.

I agree - Brainache's appeal to consequences just leads to this sort of thing.

 

[dejudge]

So I guess that Caesar was NON-Historical too?

You keep guessing.

I am not arguing about the existence/non-existence of Caesar. The existence or non-existence of Caesar requires a separate and independent inquiry and the results cannot be transferred to the assumed Jesus of Nazareth.

Your argument makes zero sense.

You admit Paul was a Liar yet believe Galatians 1.19 at face value. It makes no sense to use ADMITTED discredited sources like the Bible for history.

Apologetic writers admitted Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, had NO brother called James the Apostle.

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

You don't know that Jesus cult Christians argued that THEIR Jesus was born TWICE.

Lactantius' The Divine Institutes

But lest by any chance there should be any doubt in your mind why we call Him Jesus Christ, who was born of God before the world, and who was born of man three hundred years ago, I will briefly explain to you the reason.


The same person is the son of God and of man. For He was twice born: first of God, in the spirit, before the origin of the world; afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus.

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

If Christians believed their Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost what would you expect them to write?

They did write what they believed---Jesus was born of a Ghost.

 

[Gregoire]

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.

Hi Dejudge,

You keep on citing the name of a Harvard course as evidence for your point of view, but you don't seem to have any idea where the name comes from or what it actually means.

Hint: Check out this hugely influential book written by Albert Schweittzer over 100 years ago:
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Historical-Jesus-Albert-Schweitzer/dp/0486440273

Please note, despite his calling this area of study a "quest", he accepted that there actually was an HJ -- the quest is to figure out what type of person the HJ was.

Which brings us to another point. Scholars may disagree with what TYPE of person the HJ was, but (as even Carrier admits) they overwhelming think there probably WAS an HJ.

(Incidentally), I have the same argument with Creationists: Biologists often disagree of how evolution occurred, but (even as Behe admits) they overwhelming agree that it DID occur.

 

[Gregoire]

What evidence for an HJ do you have and what source of antiquity is it found?

You admit Paul was a Liar but still believe Galatians 1.19.

Your HJ argument is based on admitted discredited sources…..

Your Historical narrative is just a massive hole based on a single admitted Liar.



Bart Ehrman admitted the NT is filled with historical problems, discrepancies, events that most likely did not happen, forgeries or false attribution of at least 18 books.

You seem to have NO idea that there is an On-Going Quest for an HJ and that it was known for hundreds of years that the Gospels, Acts and the Pauline Corpus were vamped up by LIARS.

Again, for the 1000th time, another false dichotomy.

Sorry, but fortunately historians do not suffer from the same black and white thinking.

The MJ'ers here are just using special pleading to make their case. According to this naive view, the writings in what we now call "the Bible" have to be completely discarded unlike any other ancient writing; that is not how history or even detective work is actually done in the real world.

As has been pointed out again and again, MJ'ers in this thread are NOT following the historical critical method.

They follow their own PERSONAL INTUITION about how they think history should be practiced and then have the gall to call themselves "skeptics". And when this is pointed out to them by even their own allies (like Carrier), they simply ignore it and continue to spout off what has already been debunked.

Now maybe Carrier, an actual scholar, will make a clear case in his forthcoming book. But just note even when he attempts to do this, he is not using the above false dichotomy.

 

[tsig]

Calm down. Tsig is simply being intentionally provocative. Leave them to it.

Read the posts, some have said that denial of the HJ will lead to the breakdown of civilization. I think it was Stone, Brainache usually says it will lead to Academic chaos.

 

[tsig]

No: ALL PROFESSIONAL HISTORIANS IN ANCIENT HISTORY

M I G H T

SAVE US FROM THAT. Unfortunately, it depends on whether or not and if/when mythers and their Kool-Aid ilk ever get all the guns.

Stone

Calm down. Tsig is simply being intentionally provocative. Leave them to it.

Read Stone's post.

If mine are provocative his are downright inflammatory.

 

[Belz...]

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

You know, it would help if you could actually understand the things I write. I didn't say anything about "accusations". You added that.

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 didn't make an accusation in the post you quoted. I concluded that this was a possible and very believable reason for the continued vitriol I see on this topic, and I offer my past self as anecdotal evidence that this happens.

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

Key word: seem.

I can't say I like your posts. You have an axe to grind, which never results in interesting or useful discussions. So far you've accused me of lying and being biased, you've used mirror arguments, repeated my own posts to me, etc. Do you have any actual arguments to make, or do you just want to make things personal in every post ? Because I can play that game, but I'm past the age where I found that interesting.

 

[Belz...]

To match the big Noah-shaped hole left when we remove the Flood from history, and the big Abraham-shaped hole when it was concluded his story was a myth, and the big Moses-shaped hole when it was discovered the tale of Exodus was just made up for theo-political reasons.

There's an important difference between those and the topic of this thread, however. Sure, no Jesus wouldn't really change anything, at least not for me. I don't even like his teachings, let alone the stupid religion that alledgedly sprang from them. But we're still left with a question: how did Christianity start, or more to the point, what's the best explanation for its beginnings ?

Calm down. Tsig is simply being intentionally provocative. Leave them to it.

We're down to personal insults and patting each other on the back. This topic is no longer productive in the least.

 

[dejudge]

Hi Dejudge,

You keep on citing the name of a Harvard course as evidence for your point of view, but you don't seem to have any idea where the name comes from or what it actually means.

Hint: Check out this hugely influential book written by Albert Schweittzer over 100 years ago:
http://www.amazon.com/Quest-Historical-Jesus-Albert-Schweitzer/dp/0486440273

Please note, despite his calling this area of study a "quest", he accepted that there actually was an HJ -- the quest is to figure out what type of person the HJ was.

You should at least read the book because Schweitzer claimed Jesus NEVER existed, that the historical Jesus is a design of liberalism and the historical Jesus IMPLODED.



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter20.html

Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for the Historical Jesus

The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence.

He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.

This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another....

Schweitzer continues--the Quest for an historical Jesus was a mistake--Jesus as a man NEVER existed.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/schweitzer/chapter20.html

The mistake was to suppose that Jesus could come to mean more to our time by entering into it as a man like ourselves. That is not possible. First because such a Jesus never existed.

He will be a Jesus, who was Messiah, and lived as such, either on the ground of a literary fiction of the earliest Evangelist, or on the ground of a purely eschatological Messianic conception.

...(Incidentally), I have the same argument with Creationists: Biologists often disagree of how evolution occurred, but (even as Behe admits) they overwhelming agree that it DID occur.

HJers' arguments are far worse than Creationists because they discredit the Bible and still turn around and use it as their fundamental source of history for their Jesus.

Using ADMITTED sources of forgeries, fiction and fables is the very worse kind evidence for any argument.

 

[maximara]

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.

So would my John Frum based idea of Paul teachings resulting in a "Jesus" c40-50 CE count?

 

[maximara]

So I guess that Caesar was NON-Historical too?

Your argument makes zero sense.

I agree that dejudge makes way too much on the whole virgin birth thing.

It has been suggested that being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth and signified the "extraordinary personal qualities exhibited by an individual. (Tucker, Bob (2009) "Was Jesus Virgin Born?" Foundation of Contemporary Theology)

As with the "born with a silver spoon" saying today "being born of a virgin" in the ancient world was not meant to be taking literally. I am not sure when the Christians went off the rails and started taking it literally but to put so much weight on the idea is nonsense.