Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Paul’s letters tell you very clearly and directly where he obtained his Jesus belief. And he is absolutely insistent about it.

On what basis are you totally rejecting Paul’s own very clear explanation of how he came to know that someone called “Yehoshau” was the messiah described in OT scripture?

On what basis do you reject what Paul actually says, and instead substitute a belief of your own which is completely contrary to what Paul says about his own beliefs?

How is it that you know more about Paul’s beliefs than he did himself?

I don't. I simply deny that he obtained no information from the people with whom he was in contact, and if you want to read an exhaustive treatment of this, I have already given it in these threads. If you wish to comment on what I have written, look it up and do so. But don't ask questions that I have answered. I reject what Paul says.

 

[Stone]

I come to suspect that your quarrel is with the proponents of Gospel Jesuses (not many of whom hang around here, as it happens)

"Not many"?...............

NAME EVEN ONE, PLEASE --
N O W !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stone

 

[IanS]

I don't. I simply deny that he obtained no information from the people with whom he was in contact, ....

... I reject what Paul says.

OK, good. So at least that is clear for everyone here to see -


- (a) you are in complete contradiction to what Paul actually said about the origin of his own beliefs. And -

- (b) you claim to know the origin of Paul’s beliefs better than he knew his own beliefs himself.



How do you know better than Paul what he himself believed? Where were you at the time (c.50AD)?

What “information” were these other people able to give to Paul about Jesus?

Can you quote what these other people said they told Paul about Jesus?

 

[Craig B]

OK, good. So at least that is clear for everyone here to see -
- (a) you are in complete contradiction to what Paul actually said about the origin of his own beliefs. And -
- (b) you claim to know the origin of Paul’s beliefs better than he knew his own beliefs himself.

How do you know better than Paul what he himself believed? Where were you at the time (c.50AD)?
What “information” were these other people able to give to Paul about Jesus?
Can you quote what these other people said they told Paul about Jesus?

Good try. But I say it again.

I don't. I simply deny that he obtained no information from the people with whom he was in contact, and if you want to read an exhaustive treatment of this, I have already given it in these threads. If you wish to comment on what I have written, look it up and do so. But don't ask questions that I have answered. I reject what Paul says.

 

[dejudge]

....I simply deny that he obtained no information from the people with whom he was in contact, and if you want to read an exhaustive treatment of this, I have already given it in these threads. If you wish to comment on what I have written, look it up and do so. But don't ask questions that I have answered. I reject what Paul says.

Well, if you REJECT what Paul says then tell us where you got your truth about Paul?

Tell us the people with whom Paul was in contact and the source which confirms what you say?

In the Pauline Corpus Paul conferred with people who had NO Flesh and No Blood when he was called to preach the Gospel of the Son of God.

Again, you discredit your own sources and then turn around and accept what they say WITHOUT corroboration.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Isn’t that the difference?

I don't know. That's why I am hoping that max will help sort it out. I've been confused since yesterday when his "extreme" historical category was essentially that the Gospels are true. That's not a historical position at all - that's just plain Gospel Jesus. He was thinking of that as the end point a spectrum, it seemed, when the actual layout is more like the vertex of a triangle.

As to Ehrman, he's an HJ proponent. I am unhappy that he sometimes talks of being certain of something which I think is doubtful. I don't often agree with dejudge, but I do agree with him that Ehrman is overstating the merits of the case.

Ehrman apparently does believe that Paul's James is a member of Jesus' family, but I don't think that that interpretation is essential to HJ.


Stone

It's so big and red.

One proponent of a Gospel Jesus around here? DOC makes no bones about posting in support of what looks to me like a GJ. He has argued for the truth of parts of the Gospel story that could not be the expereince of any real historical person at all, like the resurrected Jesus.

 

[IanS]

Good try. But I say it again.

Well you are certainly repeating yourself …. and making abundantly clear to everyone that you have no credible answer to any of the questions!

Here again is the post with those questions -

OK, good. So at least that is clear for everyone here to see -


- (a) you are in complete contradiction to what Paul actually said about the origin of his own beliefs. And -

- (b) you claim to know the origin of Paul’s beliefs better than he knew his own beliefs himself.



Q.1 How do you know better than Paul what he himself believed? Where were you at the time (c.50AD)?

Q.2 What “information” were these other people able to give to Paul about Jesus?

Q.3 Can you quote what these other people said they told Paul about Jesus?

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz
"When everyone picks up the same method, applies it to the same facts, and gets a different result, we can be certain that the method is invalid and should be abandoned" - Richard Carrier


Carrier said that? Well, he is new to Bayes. As he gets more into that community, it will be pointed out to him that Bayes teaches that the "when" clause is typical of inference on slender evidence. Bayes won't fix that. Robust agreement on thin evidence requires luck or magic, not math.

While I am a frequent critic here of the (alleged) methodological foundation of the historians' consensus on HJ, the criticism acknowledges that those heuristics are admissible (and would be Bayes-admissible, even), but that they implement choices that can be questionned. Even then, the choices may be fine for professional historians ("Better that a thousand phoney people be accepted as real, than that one real person be considered phoney?"), but not necessarily of any interest or usefulness at all to people who just want to assess the prospects for whether a single person existed when and where it is claimed.

It's my impression that for something like history there will be no infallible method. It's appears that for Carrier the chief virtues of using a valid method like Bayes are

1) that it will help scholars think about the sometimes unstated assumptions they may make on the way to formulating a theory, and

2) make it easy to identify fallacious arguments.

I do agree that in this case the evidence is rather thin, and in my view the robust declarations of 'consensus' are less than warranted by this evidence.

 

[proudfootz]

Yes, that seems to follow from what we know of that period, in that area.

I'm glad we're in agreement!

Yes, but in your opinion was there someone who did ?

Having studied arguments on all sides of the issue, it is my opinion is that there is no conclusive evidence that there was.

 

[IanS]

Ian


I don't know. That's why I am hoping that max will help sort it out. I've been confused since yesterday when his "extreme" historical category was essentially that the Gospels are true. That's not a historical position at all - that's just plain Gospel Jesus. He was thinking of that as the end point a spectrum, it seemed, when the actual layout is more like the vertex of a triangle.

As to Ehrman, he's an HJ proponent. I am unhappy that he sometimes talks of being certain of something which I think is doubtful. I don't often agree with dejudge, but I do agree with him that Ehrman is overstating the merits of the case.

Ehrman apparently does believe that Paul's James is a member of Jesus' family, but I don't think that that interpretation is essential to HJ.

What do you think are the essential points on which all, or almost all, bible scholars would agree as definite evidence of Jesus? That's a completely straight genuine question by the way.

I suspect that almost every biblical scholar who writes to say that Jesus did exist, would agree with Ehrman when he says Paul's letter confirms that James was a real brother. And I say that simply because that one line in Paul's letter does seem to me to be by far the strongest evidence of a living Jesus (although of course I think even that is hopelessly weak as evidence).

Afaik, the next most persuasive element is thought to be the crucifixion. Which iirc Dominic Crossan says is (roughly from memory) “just about the most certain fact in all of history“. But I have yet to see any reliable evidence of that in either the NT or anywhere else (the “evidence” appears to be that someone recently found the “Pilate Stone”…hence Jesus!).

Certainly in these threads, and in fact in most sceptic books, I think the sceptical position is that we are all still waiting to see anything remotely like reliable or credible evidence for a figure who was claimed in what are certainly untrue fictitious terms (and constantly in those terms … by religious fanatics in times of great ignorance and superstition … in devotional stories written centuries later by anonymous religious copyists … with absolutely not one word of any contemporary corroboration at all ... and that’s just not good enough for the most important figure in all of human history).

 

[Craig B]

Well you are certainly repeating yourself …. and making abundantly clear to everyone that you have no credible answer to any of the questions!

Here again is the post with those questions -

I think you're trying to be naughty.

 

[Belz...]

Having studied arguments on all sides of the issue, it is my opinion is that there is no conclusive evidence that there was.

I'm fine with agnosticism on this issue. My problem is with the invention of possible alternative histories to justify concluding that Jesus was a total myth. Carrier seems to be doing that, but I don't see any evidence to conclude that any of that is correct.

 

[IanS]

I think you're trying to be naughty.

I think you have no credible answer.

 

[Craig B]

I think you have no credible answer.

You're pretending you think I haven't given any answer at all, but you know I have.
So you're a naughty boy and I don't care what you think!

 

[IanS]

You're pretending you think I haven't given any answer at all, but you know I have.
So you're a naughty boy and I don't care what you think!

You are "pretending" you have answered those questions, but everyone here can see you have never even attempted any answer at all.

Here is the post with those questions again. Where did you even attempt any answer to those questions -

OK, good. So at least that is clear for everyone here to see -


- (a) you are in complete contradiction to what Paul actually said about the origin of his own beliefs. And -

- (b) you claim to know the origin of Paul’s beliefs better than he knew his own beliefs himself.



Q.1 How do you know better than Paul what he himself believed? Where were you at the time (c.50AD)?

Q.2 What “information” were these other people able to give to Paul about Jesus?

Q.3 Can you quote what these other people said they told Paul about Jesus?

 

[proudfootz]

I'm fine with agnosticism on this issue. My problem is with the invention of possible alternative histories to justify concluding that Jesus was a total myth. Carrier seems to be doing that, but I don't see any evidence to conclude that any of that is correct.

Carrier and other scholars are merely examining the literature of early christianity and trying to smoke out what happened, and as such is no more 'inventing history' than Ehramn does when he creates a scenario that posits the certain existence of a man beneath the myth.

As we are reminded that the HJ hypothesis is merely a possibility it behooves us to consider what the case may be if the hypothesis is mistaken.

 

[maximara]

Ian


I don't know. That's why I am hoping that max will help sort it out. I've been confused since yesterday when his "extreme" historical category was essentially that the Gospels are true. That's not a historical position at all - that's just plain Gospel Jesus. He was thinking of that as the end point a spectrum, it seemed, when the actual layout is more like the vertex of a triangle.

Actually it is a historical position:

"We have in effect been looking at two myth in this introductory chapter; two views of the historical Jesus which stand at the opposite ends of a spectrum of opinion about him. At the one end is the view that there never was such a person at Jesus; the Gospels a4e description of a fictitious person. (...) At the other end of the spectrum is the view the that Gospels give us a picture of the historical Jesus, every detail in the Gospels being recorded just as it happened." (Marshall, I. Howard (2001) I Believe in the Historical Jesus Page 24)

Marshall goes on to say both ends of this HJ spectrum are false but there is a lot of stuff between those two extremes. Only three authors I am aware of even try to break this HJ spectrum down into sub categories: Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy-Boyd. More over Eddy-Boyd states that these sub categories are "admittedly over simplistic", "ideal-typical", and a "useful heuristic" ie they should not be taken as absolute definitions.

Go back to the Total/Extreme Historical (Fringe) category for a moment with references:

"Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth." (Remburg)

"The New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories." (Baker)

Note Eddy-Boyd does not quite this far but his fourth category is close to this position treating the Gospels more as historical documents then the other three positions of Christ Myth theory (Philosophical myth); Christ Myth theory (Historical myth on the narrative is essentially false) or Minimalist; and Moderate Historical do.

 

[Stone]

Stone

It's so big and red.

One proponent of a Gospel Jesus around here? DOC makes no bones about posting in support of what looks to me like a GJ. He has argued for the truth of parts of the Gospel story that could not be the expereince of any real historical person at all, like the resurrected Jesus.

Touch-e. There is one in DOC; that's right. Sorry for flying off the handle like that. That was not called for.

I offer my apology for that.

Regrets,

Stone

 

[dejudge]

The problem that MJ theorists have is that the Gospels are not evidence...

The Gospels and Pauline letters describe Jesus as a mythological character from conception to ascension and there is NO corroborative evidence of an historical Jesus.

HJ theorists have discredited the Gospels and the Pauline writers and then turn around and use them as evidence for their HJ without external corroboration from credible sources.

 

[dejudge]

The single uncorroborated statement of unknown date of authorship in Galatians 1.19 is hopelessly weak as evidence for an HJ because the Pauline writer already declared his Jesus was NOT a man in the very first verse of Galatians.


Galatians 1:1 KJV

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)

Jesus was God's own Son.

Even in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 19 it is claimed the Emperor of Rome, Gaius, also called himself the BROTHER of the God Jupiter.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 19.1.1

He also frequented that temple of Jupiter which they style the Capitol, which is with them the most holy of all their temples, and had boldness enough to call himself the brother of Jupiter.