Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

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

I'm pretty sure that Paul believed that Jesus had existed as a person in the recent past. And I am reasonably confident that the Cephas, James and John encountered by Paul are to be identified with the persons of these names described in the Gospels as previous associates of Jesus; though of course I'm less certain of that.

Part of my reasoning is that Paul has little in the way of knowledge of, or admitted interest in, the human biography of Jesus; so this (whether true or false) must have come from another source, and you know how Paul disparaged other sources of information on this topic.

 

[Brainache]

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.

You will of course be able to quote me on that, won't you tsig?

Or possibly not, because I have never said any such thing. I'm usually one of the people telling Stone to calm down.

I'm not overly impressed by the constant anti-intellectualism of the MJ posters in these threads, but I don't think I ever said it would lead to "Academic Chaos".

I do wonder how the MJ idea fits in with everything else we know about the period in question. I often ask MJ people how they account for the existence of the Christian Religion if there was no Jesus, but rarely get a well reasoned response.

You once said it happened because of the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Which is something I guess, but a bit light on the details. Maximara has written the longest MJ scenario that I've seen in these threads, but he seemed to overlook the James gang and the Jewish Ebionites. I asked him about that, but didn't get a response (unless I missed it).

Asking for an alternative to the HJ is not asking the impossible, it is asking the minimum required for anyone to take MJ seriously as a Theory on the origins of Christianity.

The fact that no one has been able to satisfactorily do that should make you pause and rethink your position. For some unknown reason, that never seems to happen.

As always, we await Carrier's overdue book where he will put us all to rights.

Unless someone here can do it first. Have at it. What are you waiting for?

 

[eight bits]

Ian

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

Nevertheless, my answer to the other poster's questions stands as I worte it, not as you think it should have been written. If you have some question about what I wrote, then send me a PM.

Craig B

I'm pretty sure that Paul believed that Jesus had existed as a person in the recent past. And I am reasonably confident that the Cephas, James and John encountered by Paul are to be identified with the persons of these names described in the Gospels as previous associates of Jesus; though of course I'm less certain of that.

I would go one step further and say that Paul believed that those three were associates of a real Jesus, who died, and then these three who saw Jesus' ghost. Whether they actually were associates or not, of course, is another matter. Paul, unsurprisingly, doesn't much argue for the awesomeness of their credentials, and isn't really in a position to vouch for them anyway.

Somewhere in all of this, I think that proudfootz questionned the very idea of discipleship or studentship I don't know how much Paul's beliefs about Peter, James and John's relationship to Jesus resemble the later Gospel versions. Nor has it even been resolved which James we are talking about (although I think Paul means the characacter who is described as the son of Zebedee and brother of John).. But, it is clear to me that Paul thinks that they are teachers, and that Paul thinks that Jesus was a teacher, and that the teaching of the living James Gang reflects their professed view of the teaching of the dead man. The usual words for a teacher's relationship to an antecedent in whose name he or she teaches is disciple ot student. I conclude that Paul thinks Peter, James and John are disciples or students of Jesus, who formed their views of Jesus' teaching by aassociating with him while he lived.

Part of my reasoning is that Paul has little in the way of knowledge of, or admitted interest in, the human biography of Jesus; so this (whether true or false) must have come from another source, and you know how Paul disparaged other sources of information on this topic.

I would be cautious here, since Paul writes for a purpose. He may have been obsessed with every minute detail about Jesus' life, and maybe about Jesus' mother's sex liofe, too, but unless some issue came up in a church dispute, slave negotiation, or audition piece for the Romans, we'd never hear about it.

I don't recall that Paul disparages any other source of natural information. I do recall him claiming originality for his religious interpretation of Jesus' death. He also seems ticked off that other teachers teach other things than he does, but at least some of that seems to be about Gentiles' adhererence to Jewish laws and customs, rather than natural information about Jesus.

 

[Belz...]

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

Is that a real person or an imagined one ? If the latter, then no.

 

[dejudge]

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.

The suggestion that "being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth" is most illogical.

It most obvious whoever made such a suggestion has absolutely no idea of what Christians believed or argued in antiquity.

Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" shreds "the silver spoon" suggestion to bits.

The Divinity of Jesus was NOT questioned--ONLY the flesh of Jesus was in dispute.


Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"

Let us examine our Lord's bodily substance, for about His spiritual nature all are agreed.

It is His flesh that is in question.

Its verity and quality are the points in dispute.

Did it ever exist? Whence was it derived?

And of what kind was it?

If we succeed in demonstrating it, we shall lay down a law for our own resurrection.

Marcion, in order that he might deny the flesh of Christ, denied also His nativity, or else he denied His flesh in order that he might deny His nativity; because, of course, he was afraid that His nativity and His flesh bore mutual testimony to each other's reality, since there is no nativity without flesh, and no flesh without nativity.

 

[Brainache]

The suggestion that "being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth" is most illogical.

It most obvious whoever made such a suggestion has absolutely no idea of what Christians believed or argued in antiquity.

Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" shreds "the silver spoon" suggestion to bits.

The Divinity of Jesus was NOT questioned--ONLY the flesh of Jesus was in dispute.


Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"

Look up: Gnostic beliefs in early Christianity to see the "Heresy" he is addressing there. Docetism in particular. They didn't deny he existed, just what his flesh was made of, or if it could be called "flesh" at all. Bunch mystic BS really.

 

[pakeha]

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?

This is also something I ask myself as I gird my loins for a leisurely tour of Madrid's most beautiful churches on the morrow, Good Friday.
Fortunately we'll revive ourselves with champers and oysters afterwards, so I'll simply have to limit myself to exclamations of aesthetic appreciation and remind myself of the well-merited bubbly to keep myself sedately within bounds.

 

[Craig B]

The suggestion that "being born of a virgin was the ancient equivalent of being born with a silver spoon in one's mouth" is most illogical.

It most obvious whoever made such a suggestion has absolutely no idea of what Christians believed or argued in antiquity.

Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ" shreds "the silver spoon" suggestion to bits.

The Divinity of Jesus was NOT questioned--ONLY the flesh of Jesus was in dispute.


Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"

It is a mystery to me, dejudge, why you think anyone will be convinced of anything regarding the reality of Jesus by these copious citations of early Church Fathers with which you favour us. These men lacked historical knowledge, and had minds imbued with mystical and irrational ideas. One of them, Papius, is described by a later author as having "imbecility of intellect". Why you think we should be impressed by them, I have no idea.

 

[dejudge]

Look up: Gnostic beliefs in early Christianity to see the "Heresy" he is addressing there. Docetism in particular. They didn't deny he existed, just what his flesh was made of, or if it could be called "flesh" at all. Bunch mystic BS really.

Christians admitted their Jesus existed as God Creator, God Incarnate--NOT the historical Jesus.

You don't even know that Docetism does not require an historical Jesus.

Christians DENIED an historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus was regarded as a falsehood.

Origen's "Against Celsus"

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

 

[Brainache]

Christians admitted their Jesus existed as God Creator, God Incarnate--NOT the historical Jesus.

You don't even know that Docetism does not require an historical Jesus.

Christians DENIED an historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus was regarded as a falsehood.

Origen's "Against Celsus"

Why do you think that is significant?

Why do you think it has anything to do with the way Historians approach this subject?

How stupid do you think Professional Historians are?

 

[Craig B]

Christians admitted their Jesus existed as God Creator, God Incarnate--NOT the historical Jesus.

You don't even know that Docetism does not require an historical Jesus.

Docetism is regarded as a monstrous heresy by devout Christians.

Christians DENIED an historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus was regarded as a falsehood.

Exactly so. Now what does this suggest to you? Why, yes! It means the people who think HJ is probable are not Christians. Doesn't it? The HJers are asserting something that Christians deny, and that they regard as a falsehood. Just so.

 

[steve s]

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.

IIRC, at the beginning of the book of Mormon there's a list of people who swear they saw the golden tablets. It doesn't even make sense for Mormonism to be in existence to the extent it is without the golden tablets because the golden tablets are central to the religion.

Steve S

 

[Craig B]

I would be cautious here, since Paul writes for a purpose. He may have been obsessed with every minute detail about Jesus' life, and maybe about Jesus' mother's sex liofe, too, but unless some issue came up in a church dispute, slave negotiation, or audition piece for the Romans, we'd never hear about it.

I agree entirely, and I was even trying to say something like that when I mentioned

little in the way of knowledge of, or admitted interest in, the human biography of Jesus

He may have known more about Jesus than he tells us, and if he had an avid interest in Jesus' biography, he doesn't reveal it.

 

[proudfootz]

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

Yet you continue to post things alleging you know what other people's motivations are.

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.

So, if 'anti-MJ bias' is a possible and very believable reason for the continued vitriol seen on this topic, we can agree this is as on-topic as your 'conclusions'?

Key word: seem.

You offer your 'anecdotal evidence', so it's only fair everyone should be free to offer theirs.

I can't say I like your posts. You have an axe to grind, which never results in interesting or useful discussions.

Is that a fact? I have some ulterior motive?

I note you don't use the word 'accusation' but in ordinary English this sounds very much like one.

So far you've accused me of lying and being biased,

As I have also been accused.

you've used mirror arguments, repeated my own posts to me, etc.

I sometimes think it's good for posters to see how they appear to others.

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.

I have advanced plenty of arguments.

But apparently some are so fascinated by the alleged axe I have to grind, they are obsessed with attacking me instead.

 

[proudfootz]

This is also something I ask myself as I gird my loins for a leisurely tour of Madrid's most beautiful churches on the morrow, Good Friday.
Fortunately we'll revive ourselves with champers and oysters afterwards, so I'll simply have to limit myself to exclamations of aesthetic appreciation and remind myself of the well-merited bubbly to keep myself sedately within bounds.

That sounds like fun!

One hopes it won't be too awfully crowded with the holiday and all.

 

[proudfootz]

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.

The thing about bible studies is that it does essentially appear to be based on personal intuition, what this or that person feels is more or less likely.

This probably explains why the ongoing quest for an historical Jesus only spins off new versions of a Jesus the same way christianity spins off new sects.

 

[dejudge]

Docetism is regarded as a monstrous heresy by devout Christians.

What???

Docetists were DEVOUT Christians.


There may have been Docetists Christians before the Jesus cult.

Christians DENIED an historical Jesus.

The historical Jesus was regarded as a falsehood.

Exactly so. Now what does this suggest to you? Why, yes! It means the people who think HJ is probable are not Christians. Doesn't it? The HJers are asserting something that Christians deny, and that they regard as a falsehood. Just so.

Exactly WRONG.

You are NOT familiar with WRITINGS of the Jesus cult of Christians. You are NOT familiar with the Multiple versions of Beliefs of the Jesus cult. It is claimed Some Jesus cult Christians also believed Jesus was human.

Please read "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus, De Principiis attributed to Origen, Refutation of All Heresies attributed to Hippolytus, On the Flesh of Christ attributed to Tertullian.

1. Some Christians believed Simon Magus was God.

2. Some Christians believed the Son of God was a Phantom.

3. Some Christians believed Jesus was only a man.

4. Soms Christians believed Jesus was ONLY God.

5. Some Christians believed Jesus was 100% God and 100% man--God Incarnate.

6. Some Christians did NOT believe the Jesus story.

7. Some Christians believed Jesus was NOT born.

8. Some Christians were Docetists.

9. Some Christians believed Jesus was God Creator.

10. Some Christians believed Jesus was the Last Adam--A Spirit.

It is obvious that Christians had NO established historical records of Jesus or else they would NOT have INVENTED multiple irreconcilable version of their Jesus.

Origen admitted Christians had many different versions of Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit. See De Principiis attributed to Origen.

 

[proudfootz]

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 allegedly 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 ?

That is an interesting question.

My own hypothesis is that whether or not there was an historical Jesus the cultural trends were already in motion at the time this man was supposed to have lived. That rather seems to be the import of what is often claimed that 'apocalyptic preachers' and 'would-be messiahs' were a dime a dozen at that time.

This is a claim that cuts both ways: if there was a widely held expectation of a messiah, and any person could more or less fill that role. The necessary pre-conditions for a messianic cult already existed. In my view this dilutes the importance of any person who might be put forward as filling that vacancy.

I agree the existence of Caesar, or Alexander, or Noah, or whomever is a separate question. dejudge makes the same point. We're all in agreement there!

 

[dejudge]

That is an interesting question.

A theory can be developed using the EXISTING manuscripts, Codices, Apologetic and Non-Apologetic writings.

The HJ theory is NOT based on EXISTING texts.

There is NO story in or out the Bible and no contemporary evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a little known preacher who was crucified because he created a disturbance at the Jewish Temple in the time of Pilate.

The HJ theory is virtually worthless because it is unsupported.

In order to reconstruct the past one should have WITNESSES, Evidence or data.

We have recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story dated to around the 2nd century or later.

We have NO existing manuscripts of the Jesus story in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

Non-Existing, never seen, unknown evidence cannot be used to develop any theory at any level.

When NEW DATA is found theories may be MODIFIED to accomodate the new details.

c 117-138 CE Aristides explained how the Jesus cult of Christians BEGAN.

It began WITHOUT an historical Jesus.


Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

 

[Brainache]

A theory can be developed using the EXISTING manuscripts, Codices, Apologetic and Non-Apologetic writings.

The HJ theory is NOT based on EXISTING texts.

There is NO story in or out the Bible and no contemporary evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a little known preacher who was crucified because he created a disturbance at the Jewish Temple in the time of Pilate.

The HJ theory is virtually worthless because it is unsupported.

In order to reconstruct the past one should have WITNESSES, Evidence or data.

We have recovered manuscripts of the Jesus story dated to around the 2nd century or later.

We have NO existing manuscripts of the Jesus story in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

Non-Existing, never seen, unknown evidence cannot be used to develop any theory at any level.

When NEW DATA is found theories may be MODIFIED to accomodate the new details.

c 117-138 CE Aristides explained how the Jesus cult of Christians BEGAN.

It began WITHOUT an historical Jesus.


Aristides' Apology

Where did you learn this absurd idea about how History is studied?

Did you just make it up, or is there a Lunatic teaching this nonsense somewhere?

People need to know so they can avoid whatever "School" inflicted this codswallop on you.