Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[TimCallahan]

Looking at this page (page 59), I see that 28 out of the 36 posts on it are arguments between dejudge (whom I now have on ignore) and everyone else. That's over 3/4 of all the posts on this page so far. From what I can see of the quotes of dejudge's posts and the responses to them, it's the same old crap. This guy lives for and on contention. By responding to him, over and over, when you have already answered his arguments, you are wasting time and feeding the troll.

 

[Brainache]

You are quite right Tim. Here is one post that wasn't a response to those silly arguments:

I have no doubt that what you say is true, although I was referring to Josephus' descriptions of the early stages of the revolt whenever the Zealots took control of a city, the first thing they did was torch all debt and court records.

He says it was mostly because it was a war of "Rich versus Poor". A classic class struggle really, maybe the first recorded example of its kind.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-2/chapter-4.html

1. AT this time there were great disturbances in the country, and that in many places; and the opportunity that now offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings. And indeed in Idumea two thousand of Herod's veteran soldiers got together, and armed and fought against those of the king's party; against whom Achiabus, the king's first cousin, fought, and that out of some of the places that were the most strongly fortified; but so as to avoid a direct conflict with them in the plains. In Sepphoris also, a city of Galilee, there was one Judas (the son of that arch-robber Hezekias, who formerly overran the country, and had been subdued by king Herod); this man got no small multitude together, and brake open the place where the royal armor was laid up, and armed those about him, and attacked those that were so earnest to gain the dominion.

2. In Perea also, Simon, one of the servants to the king, relying upon the handsome appearance and tallness of his body, put a diadem upon his own head also; he also went about with a company of robbers that he had gotten together, and burnt down the royal palace that was at Jericho, and many other costly edifices besides, and procured himself very easily spoils by rapine, as snatching them out of the fire. And he had soon burnt down all the fine edifices, if Gratus, the captain of the foot of the king's party, had not taken the Trachonite archers, and the most warlike of Sebaste, and met the man. His footmen were slain in the battle in abundance; Gratus also cut to pieces Simon himself, as he was flying along a strait valley, when he gave him an oblique stroke upon his neck, as he ran away, and brake it. The royal palaces that were near Jordan at Betharamptha were also burnt down by some other of the seditious that came out of Perea.

3. At this time it was that a certain shepherd ventured to set himself up for a king; he was called Athrongeus. It was his strength of body that made him expect such a dignity, as well as his soul, which despised death; and besides these qualifications, he had four brethren like himself. He put a troop of armed men under each of these his brethren, and made use of them as his generals and commanders, when he made his incursions, while he did himself act like a king, and meddled only with the more important affairs; and at this time he put a diadem about his head, and continued after that to overrun the country for no little time with his brethren, and became their leader in killing both the Romans and those of the king's party; nor did any Jew escape him, if any gain could accrue to him thereby. He once ventured to encompass a whole troop of Romans at Emmaus, who were carrying corn and weapons to their legion; his men therefore shot their arrows and darts, and thereby slew their centurion Arius, and forty of the stoutest of his men, while the rest of them, who were in danger of the same fate, upon the coming of Gratus, with those of Sebaste, to their assistance, escaped. And when these men had thus served both their own countrymen and foreigners, and that through this whole war, three of them were, after some time, subdued; the eldest by Archelaus, the two next by falling into the hands of Gratus and Ptolemeus; but the fourth delivered himself up to Archelaus, upon his giving him his right hand for his security. However, this their end was not till afterward, while at present they filled all Judea with a piratic war...

These "Robbers" and "Bandits" were burning down Palaces and destroying Roman installations wherever and whenever they could, for years even before the official start of the Revolt.

 

[dejudge]

Looking at this page, I see that 28 out of the 36 posts on it are arguments between dejudge (whom I now have on ignore) and everyone else. That's over 3/4 of all the posts on this page so far. From what I can see of the quotes of dejudge's posts and the responses to them, it's the same old crap. This guy lives for and on contention. By responding to him, over and over, when you have already answered his arguments, you are wasting time and feeding the troll.

What is your problem?

I have shown that the HJ argument is not really based on any evidence of antiquity but is a failure in facts and logic.

The fundamental requirements to argue for an HJ are missing.

1. Jesus of Nazareth is all myth.

2. Jesus of Nazareth has no history.

3. There are no eyewitness reports of Jesus even in the NT which was supposedly written by the very disciples, relatives or their acquaintances.

4. Non-apologetic sources wrote nothing of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Brainache]

What is your problem?

I have shown that the HJ argument is not really based on any evidence of antiquity but is a failure in facts and logic.

The fundamental requirements to argue for an HJ are missing.

1. Jesus of Nazareth is all myth.

2. Jesus of Nazareth has no history.

3. There are no eyewitness reports of Jesus even in the NT which was supposedly written by the very disciples, relatives or their acquaintances.

4. Non-apologetic sources wrote nothing of Jesus of Nazareth.

Please stop.

You have done nothing of the sort. At this point everyone knows you are completely ignorant on this topic and your arguments are stupid.

Give up already.

 

[jhunter1163]

Dejudge, do you have any argument at all other than "Nuh-uh!!!"

 

[maximara]

Maximara: Concerning Tacitus' reference to the "Chrestians", I asked a bit earlier what was your basis for arguing that Chrestians wasn't simply a misspelling of Christians. You asserted, IIRC, that the Chrestians were followers of Serapis. Could you elaborate on that for me?

It is from a letter supposedly from Hadrian to Servianus, 134 CE (Quoted by Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. II, p86, 1877)

The only problem with the letter is it appears in Historia Augusta which "In modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of deliberate mystification written much later than its purported date, however the fundamentalist view still has distinguished support. (...) The Historia Augusta is also, unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution." (The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 2, Latin Literature, Part 5, The Later Principate, E. J. Kenney, Wendell Vernon Clausen, p43, 45, Cambridge University Press, 1983,ISBN 0521273714)


The passage is as follows:

Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle.

----

Serapis was connected with Osiris-Apis and was proclaimed Osiris in full rather then just the ka part of him. Early statues claimed to be of Serapis resemble those of Hades-Pluto while the later ones have Serapis with long curly hair and a long curly beard...a depiction of Jesus that would not become universal until nearly the 9th century.

 

[dejudge]

This is most fascinating. The posters here who argue for an HJ of Nazareth have now resorted to ad hominem--a logical fallacy.

There was supposed to be a massive consensus by historians which should have been supported by evidence from antiquity.

Where is that evidence for the HJ argument?

There are many characters in the NT and some are corroborated or mentioned in non-apologetic sources like Pilate the Procurator, Tiberius the Emperor, Caiaphas the High Priest, John the Baptist, King Herod the Great, the Tetrarchy of the Sons of Herod, Festus, Bernice, Claudius Caesar however Jesus, the 12 disciples and Paul are completely missing.

Josephus mentioned multiple characters called Jesus but none was called Jesus of Nazareth.

1. Jesus son of Ananus.

2. Jesus son of Gamaliel

3. Jesus son of Sapphias

4. Jesus son of Sie.

5. Jesus son Damneus

6. Jesus the brother of James.

7.Tacitus never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and appears to have never even mentioned Christians but people called ChrEstians.

8. Pliny the younger never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth and those whom he tortured and executed did not in the letter to Trajan.

What is even more startling is that HJers who are arguing that Jesus was the Christ in Josephus are also simultaneously claiming the same Christ in Josephus was an itinerant preacher.

Something has gone radically wrong.

Some are also claiming Jesus was a zealot, a Cynic, a rabbi, a messianic pretender, a prophet so it is clear that there is no real evidence but sheer guessing and imagination.

This was predicted by Albert Schweitzer--HJ is the product of each author's own imagination.

Like the Flat Earth theory--the Bible is the basis for HJ argument.

1. Nazareth is from the NT.

2. The baptism by John is in the NT.

3. The crucifixion is in the NT.

The HJ argument must end in disater just like the Flat Earth.

 

[Jules Galen]

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

Yeah...right.

After 2000 years of Prophecy "Non-Fulfillment", why do people even argue about whether some guy existed...or not.

If Jesus existed, then he was a liar. If Jesus did not exist...then it's just the same - it's all lies.

 

[Belz...]

You are just repeating your same debunked arguments over and over. You are attempting to historicise your myth Jesus--the itinerant preacher--without a shred of evidence.

It is illogical to use the historical data for Kim Jong il and Benny Hinn for Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

Whether or not Kim Jong il or Benny Hinn lived or did miracles needs separate inquiries and the results cannot be transferred to the inquiry into the existence or non-existence of the Son a Ghost.

I repeat, Jesus of Nazareth perfectly matches mythology--all myth and no history.

Kim Jong il and Benny Hinn have documented history.

By the way, if your Jesus was an itinerant preacher, then Jesus called Christ in Josephus is NOT your HJ.

Your HJ is a myth--no documented history.

This line of argument has been debunked and countered and is now considered null and void.

You lose.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is completely without logic.

Your posts are completely without value.

 

[Belz...]

This is most fascinating. The posters here who argue for an HJ of Nazareth have now resorted to ad hominem--a logical fallacy.

You have no idea what an ad hominem is. This is even more fascinating, because for someone who uses the word "fallacy" so often, you don't seem to have the first clue of what the term means.

 

[Belz...]

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

Yeah...right.

After 2000 years of Prophecy "Non-Fulfillment", why do people even argue about whether some guy existed...or not.

If Jesus existed, then he was a liar. If Jesus did not exist...then it's just the same - it's all lies.

And this has relevance to the historical question of his existence how ?

 

[JaysonR]

This is most fascinating. The posters here who argue for an HJ of Nazareth have now resorted to ad hominem--

Not quite.
Some folks are out of emotional patience in having you insult them, ignore their points, unreasonably dismiss presentations without proven or accepted reason, and repeated the same posts again and again without interest in any discussion, but instead quite openly on a campaign to beat your conclusion against your chest endlessly in some social war you perceive as of value and existent.

No one is resorting, as that would suggest they lack reason and evidence.
Instead, you have simply conducted your position by that of the above for such length, that folks are now realizing that you are not interested in considerate discussion, but only blind allegiance to you conclusion, with considerable gaps in evident education in a few fields of study.

So you are seeing some folks simply expressing their frustrations with your obstinant and insulting pattern of behavior.

You are mistaken to think this indicates evident or reasoned success.
Instead, you should see this as an incredible failure on your part to be communicable.

Your debate and discussion skills have much want for improvement, as does your general education on history and anthropology.

 

[Foster Zygote]

"Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:27 NAB)

Yeah...right.

After 2000 years of Prophecy "Non-Fulfillment", why do people even argue about whether some guy existed...or not.

If Jesus existed, then he was a liar. If Jesus did not exist...then it's just the same - it's all lies.

Christianity has had a major impact on the overall history of the world. From an anthropological standpoint, it is a fascinating subject of study. The same goes for any religion, but especially those that have had the greatest effect on humanity. It's not a matter of whether it's true or not that makes it a worthwhile pursuit, but rather the question of how it came to be and why it has had such an impact. Even if virtually no one practiced any of the forms of Christianity any more, it would still be a fascinating anthropological subject, just like the religions of ancient Europe, Mesoamerica or Egypt.

 

[dejudge]

It is just as I expected from HJers--just ad hominem attacks.

The HJ argument was never anything but logical fallacies.

Everytime a new HJ is introduced the Pauline Corpus is rubbished.

1. If Jesus was really a dead Zealot then Paul was a known madman or known liar.

2. If Jesus was really a dead Cynic then Paul was a known madman or a known liar.

3. If Jesus was really a dead prophet then Paul was a known madman or a known liar.

4. If Jesus was really a dead messianic pretender then Paul was a known madman or a known liar.

5. If Jesus was really a dead rabbi then the Paul was a known madman or a known liar.

6. If Jesus was really a dead Apocalyptic then Paul was a known madman or a known liar.

7. If Jesus was a myth then Paul was a known madman or a known liar.

Essentially, the Pauline Corpus is a pack of lies or the product of madmen.

How did Paul manage to be in contact with a dead man?

By the time Paul met Jesus he may have been dead for years if he did live.

The Pauline Corpus is not history but another one of those ghost stories in the NT.

In effect, the Pauline Corpus is the history of the afterlife the dead.

 

[JaysonR]

Dejudge, my comment had nothing to do with HJ, nor MJ.
I was explaining how your poor conduct was consequenting poor posts to you in return.

You're still managing to be needlessly belligerant.

I bet you even have me in your mind as some "foolish" HJ supporter simply because I have challenged your methods and proposals.

 

[jhunter1163]

Dejudge, your argument appears to be that the entire body of early Christian writing is forged. You have provided no evidence about who might have done the forging, when they did it, why they did it, or why, since they were making up stories out of whole cloth anyway, did they not invest "Paul" with more gravitas by actually having him meet Jesus rather than just seeing him in a vision. You have been asked all of these questions repeatedly, and have given no cogent answers at all, preferring to imply that anyone who rejects your evidenceless claims must be a closet theist. That's not an ad hominem; that's just a statement of fact.

If you are going to sway people with your argument, you need to present it better and back it up with positive evidence, not just saying "Jesus could not have been the son of a ghost!" We know Jesus was not the son of a ghost. You need to give us a more plausible narrative than the currently accepted one (that is, that a wandering preacher got himself crucified in the first half of the first century and his followers subsequently spread wildly fabricated tales of his exploits far and wide). So far, you have not done so.

 

[Craig B]

What is your problem?

I have shown <snip>

Nothing. You have stated a few things dozens of times, paying not the least attention to any counter arguments.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, your argument appears to be that the entire body of early Christian writing is forged.

Your post represents the sort of nonsense that is being regurgitated in an endless loop of unwarranted ad hominem attacks.

I never argued that the entire body of early Christian is forged but you seem not to care.

Let me attempt to shut up these fallacies one more time.

I have not argued that the following are forgeries:

1.Aristides' Apology

2.Justin's First Apology

3. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

4. Theophilus' To Autolycus.

5. Athenagoras' Plea for the Christians.

6. Minucius Felix's Octavius

7. Arnobius' Against the Heathen

You have provided no evidence about who might have done the forging, when they did it, why they did it, or why, since they were making up stories out of whole cloth anyway, did they not invest "Paul" with more gravitas by actually having him meet Jesus rather than just seeing him in a vision. You have been asked all of these questions repeatedly, and have given no cogent answers at all, preferring to imply that anyone who rejects your evidenceless claims must be a closet theist. That's not an ad hominem; that's just a statement of fact.

Not even historians like Bart Ehrman can answer those questions---There is simply not enough available evidence.

Bart Ehrman admitted in "Did Jesus Exist"? that the Gospels and some of the Pauline letters are forgeries.

If you are going to sway people with your argument, you need to present it better and back it up with positive evidence, not just saying "Jesus could not have been the son of a ghost!" We know Jesus was not the son of a ghost. You need to give us a more plausible narrative than the currently accepted one (that is, that a wandering preacher got himself crucified in the first half of the first century and his followers subsequently spread wildly fabricated tales of his exploits far and wide). So far, you have not done so.

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost just like Romulus was the founder of Rome or like Perseus was born of a Virgin or like the creation story of Adam and Eve.

Why do you want to historicize obvious myth fables?

We know Romulus was not really the founder of Rome and did not really have a human brother named Remus so you want a plausible story?

Plutarch's Romulus is one of the plausible stories that people in antiquity believed.

You want a plausible creation of Adam and Eve--look in Genesis. It must have been plausible and that is the very reason Jews and Christians of antiquity believed the creation story of Adam and Eve.

You want plausible stories of Jesus--READ the Bible--Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost was extremely plausible in antiquity.

1. Ignatius believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity..

2. Aristides believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

3.Justin believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

4. Irenaeus believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

5. Tertullian believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

6. Hippolytus believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

7. Origen believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

8. Clement of Alexandria believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

9. Eusebius believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

10. Jerome believed it was extremely plausible in antiquity.

Even Marcion's Phantom was extremely plausible in antiquity.

Examine Justin's First Apology.

And, as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is even now teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is His Son, and preaches another god besides the Creator of all, and likewise another son.

And this man many have believed, as if he alone knew the truth, and laugh at us......

Marcion's Phantom was so plausible that many believed and the Marcionites would laught at Justin.

 

[pakeha]

...While some fragments exist older, almost no texts of any kind from Judea survived out of the 1st c CE.
We have text fragments before that century and after it, but almost everything from Judea within the 1st c CE was completely lost since the Romans purposefully destroyed the largest collections of texts and records in Judah when they destroyed the temple and seized the city.
It helped none, either, that before the Romans, there were invasions by "Edomites" who also destroyed large amounts of the city.

The only reason that the Dead Sea Scrolls survived in such volume was that they were hidden away inside of hard to reach caves for the very specific purpose of avoiding their destruction.

Claiming that we don't have records of Judaic events by Judaic hands from within Judea from the 1st c CE like we have records from Romans about Roman events from within the Roman empire is not evidence of anything about what Hebrew peoples didn't participate in, nor who in Judah did not exist in any respect.

It is not an equal comparison, and this is also why the only texts about this century which survive are texts found outside of Judea.
Anything within Judea was completely destroyed and nearly all Hebrew peoples left their land....

Thanks for such a clear overview of the "why" there is virtually no documentation dating from the Judea of the 1st century.