Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Oh, indeed. Clearly, as you say, the early biblical writing does indeed describe Jesus in terms that we would now recognise as fictional.

What I meant is that the Christian church now, today, could hardly admit that Jesus was fictional (and hence the bible all untrue in what it says about Jesus), otherwise it would be in an impossible position trying at the same time to implore people to keep believing in Jesus and the holy bible. Now, in 2014, the church really has no choice except to keep telling the faithful to believe in Jesus and the bible, otherwise it's position becomes patently absurd.

Does the Church have the power to control what people believe?

The Church has presented a Fiction character to the mankind why must I fool myself into believing it has an historical core?

 

[Stone]

Pace, Stone.

Asserting all of that Tacitus Kool-Aid straight from the myther faithheads at Rat Skep was either a deliberate provocation or an act of unbridled stupidity.

It's past time to either provide us that ancient cite you evidently found at Rat Skep(?!), or withdraw the bogus assertion altogether.

Stone

 

[Craig B]

You do not even realize that I have already stated that People BELIEVE the story is true or a source of history.

That is precisely what HJers do. Hjers BELIEVE that the Jesus story has an historical core although they don't have any evidence for the supposed historical core.

HJers do not appear to understand that the story of Jesus is OPEN BLATANT Fiction but was BELIEVED to be true and spread by ILLITERATES.

Belief in and spread of the Jesus story is a direct product of the gullible superstitious ILLITERATES in antiquity.

I really don't think either that the stories about the miraculous birth of Jesus are open blatant fiction, though they are obviously not true. They are derived from OT "prophecies". The author of Matthew thought that there was a prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Jesus was the Messiah ergo Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And so on. Likewise the Christians who believe it don't regard it as open blatant fiction either.

Obviously if the whole of the NT was invented by falsifiers entirely from their imaginations in the late second century to deceive people (as dejudge seems to believe), that would be fiction, but even then it wouldn't be open and blatant unless the forgers publicised their own crimes. But so far are they from having done this that we have no idea who they are (if they ever existed) or when, why, where and how they perpetrated their evil deeds.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You do not even realize that I have already stated that People BELIEVE the story is true or a source of history.

Of course there are people who believe the stories are true. If there weren't people who believed it, we wouldn't be talking about the religion of Christianity today, would we? People believe the story of Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni as well. That doesn't make Joseph Smith a mythical construct, does it? It's like you're saying that a delusional religious leader can't have existed unless his claims, or the stories told about him, make perfectly rational sense. Can you really not see how very bad that argument is?

That is precisely what HJers do. Hjers BELIEVE that the Jesus story has an historical core although they don't have any evidence for the supposed historical core.

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty. You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times.

HJers do not appear to understand that the story of Jesus is OPEN BLATANT Fiction but was BELIEVED to be true and spread by ILLITERATES.

Actually, we understand it quite well. That's why we don't say that Jesus raised the dead, healed the sick, walked on water or rose from death. That's why we do say, "This Jesus bloke may have existed, but if so he was simply a delusional religious figure who inspired a bunch of other people with yet more religious delusions after his death".

Belief in and spread of the Jesus story is a direct product of the gullible superstitious ILLITERATES in antiquity.

You certainly have a way of stating the blindingly obvious. Although at some point, obviously, superstitious members of the literati began to participate in the spread of Christianity as well.

 

[dejudge]

Of course there are people who believe the stories are true. If there weren't people who believed it, we wouldn't be talking about the religion of Christianity today, would we? People believe the story of Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni as well. That doesn't make Joseph Smith a mythical construct, does it? It's like you're saying that a delusional religious leader can't have existed unless his claims, or the stories told about him, make perfectly rational sense. Can you really not see how very bad that argument is?

Again, your analogy is illogical.

Joseph Smith wrote about Jesus Christ, the Eternal God and the Angel Moroni.

The authors of the NT wrote about Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator and the Angel Gabriel.

Neither Jesus Christ nor the Angel Moroni in the Mormon Bible started the Mormon religion. It was JOSEPH SMITH.

It is the very same thing with Jesus, the Son of God, the Creator and the Angel Gbriel in the Christian Bible. Jesus the Son of God, the Creator and the Angel Gabriel did not start the Jesus cult.

It was the authors of the Jesus stories.

In fact, in the Christian Bible itself, it is specifically claimed that Jesus MUST first GO AWAY, must die, and then SEND a Ghost after ascending to heaven before the Gospel can be preached.

In Acts of the Apostles, AFTER Jesus ascended, the Holy Ghost did come down from heaven and Gave the disciples the POWER to preach the Gospel.

JESUS in the NT itself did NOT Preach the Gospel of Salvation for Remission of Sins by his own crucifixion and resurrection.

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty. You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times.

Anyone who argues that Jesus has an historical core WITHOUT any historical evidence is highly illogical especially when it is known that there were hundreds of myth characters in the 1st century in Jewish, Roman, Greek and Egyptian mythology.

It is quite absurd to use a book of admitted fiction and implausibity to find an historical core knowing that most of the books are forgeries or falsely attributed to fake authors and known to have historical problems, discrepancies and accoutnts that most likely did not happen.

How in the world can CORE Mythology produce Core history without a shred of corroborative evidence?

Romulus was a mundane myth, the Son of God, born of a Vestal Virgin, with a human brother. When Romulus died the day was turned in to night, and after his resurrection he appeared to people in Rome and then ascended to heaven.

Please tell me the Core History of Romulus, the myth founder of Rome.

You know how to get the Core History from Mythology?

 

[eight bits]

Fantasy counterapologetics

It can be fun to speculate about a world where Christian and Muslim clerics would "have to admit" that there was no historical Jesus. The problem, as with so many counterfactuals, is that this datum provides very little to go on in cooking up scenarios for what happens next.

First, why would clerics "have to" do anything? Evidence rarely "proves," it usually increases confidence about something that remains uncertain. The whole idea of faith is to resolve uncertainty in favor of the unlikely.

Second, these are people (Muslim and Christian) who can tell me with a straight face that Mary had a baby but hadn't had sexual intercourse. If I bring up the subject of turkey basters, they assure me that no, that isn't what they mean.

What evidence are we to imagine that will enlighten the question of a historical Jesus, evidence that is more persuasive than a baby is as evidence of earlier sexual experience? The experiment has been done, clerics don't "have to admit" anything. Aromatic crap is their very stock in trade.

And this is, ultimately, why I consider the "criterion of embarrassment" laughable. If telling me that a mother has not yet known a man causes no embarrassment, then I conclude that the teller is incapable of embarassment. Or, if that's too "harsh," then I conclude that natural reason is a lousy predictor of what they'll find embarassing. Either way, the "criterion" fails.

 

[tsig]

Fantasy counterapologetics

It can be fun to speculate about a world where Christian and Muslim clerics would "have to admit" that there was no historical Jesus. The problem, as with so many counterfactuals, is that this datum provides very little to go on in cooking up scenarios for what happens next.

First, why would clerics "have to" do anything? Evidence rarely "proves," it usually increases confidence about something that remains uncertain. The whole idea of faith is to resolve uncertainty in favor of the unlikely.

Second, these are people (Muslim and Christian) who can tell me with a straight face that Mary had a baby but hadn't had sexual intercourse.

What evidence are we to imagine that will enlighten the question of a historical Jesus, evidence that is more persuasive than a baby is as evidence of earlier sexual experience? The experiment has been done, clerics don't "have to admit" anything. Aromatic crap is their very stock in trade.

And this is, ultimately, why I consider the "criterion of embarrassment" laughable. If telling me that a mother has not yet known a man causes no embarrassment, then I conclude that the teller is incapable of embarassment. Or, if that's too "harsh," then I conclude that natural reason is a lousy predictor of what they'll find embarassing. Either way, the "criterion" fails.

When someone says they're going to believe the bible ahead of their own senses there's nothing that will sway them.

 

[The Norseman]

Of course there are people who believe the stories are true. If there weren't people who believed it, we wouldn't be talking about the religion of Christianity today, would we? People believe the story of Joseph Smith's encounter with Moroni as well. That doesn't make Joseph Smith a mythical construct, does it? It's like you're saying that a delusional religious leader can't have existed unless his claims, or the stories told about him, make perfectly rational sense. Can you really not see how very bad that argument is?

We talk about Joe Smith getting the good word through the angel Moroni which is directly analogous to Paul getting the good word through the risen Christ. Why do people insist that because Joe Smith was a real person then Jesus was a real person too?

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. What that historical core was is open to debate...

When people look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions, maybe the method used is faulty. Maybe these differing conclusions means there is no consensus though the opposite is constantly stated with firm absolutism.

...but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty.

Would you say that if a person said, "Jesus exists. Period." they are stating it with epistemological certainty?

You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times.

What would it take for you to invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus?

You certainly have a way of stating the blindingly obvious. Although at some point, obviously, superstitious members of the literati began to participate in the spread of Christianity as well.

When, approximately -- in your view -- did the superstitious members begin to participate in this spread of Christianity? Was it during the very beginning of Christianity as we know it or maybe at a later date?

 

[Craig B]

Fantasy counterapologeticsAnd this is, ultimately, why I consider the "criterion of embarrassment" laughable. If telling me that a mother has not yet known a man causes no embarrassment, then I conclude that the teller is incapable of embarassment. Or, if that's too "harsh," then I conclude that natural reason is a lousy predictor of what they'll find embarassing. Either way, the "criterion" fails.

No. That's wrong. Traditionalist - and other - Christians are not "embarrassed" by the story that Jesus raised Lazarus out of his tomb four days after his death. They are embarassed by the story that their sinless miracle-working saviour had himself baptised by John, among a group dunked

... in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

The source that tells us the Lazarus tale omits any explicit statement that John baptised Jesus. It's not miracles that embarrass the evangelists, but fallible humanity or mundane existence. And gradually they remove these features, bit by bit.

 

[zugzwang]

No. That's wrong. Traditionalist - and other - Christians are not "embarrassed" by the story that Jesus raised Lazarus out of his tomb four days after his death. They are embarassed by the story that their sinless miracle-working saviour had himself baptised by John, among a group dunked The source that tells us the Lazarus tale omits any explicit statement that John baptised Jesus. It's not miracles that embarrass the evangelists, but fallible humanity or mundane existence. And gradually they remove these features, bit by bit.

I think the word 'embarrassed' is a stupid one, as it conjures up images of early Christians going crimson-faced.

You can see it as a retro-fitting, whereby, as you say, the mundane and fallible are smoothed over. See the death of Jesus, which in Mark is accompanied by feelings of abandonment, but which in John is marked by 'it is accomplished'. In other words, here, we have the sense of the death being pre-ordained. So there is an increasing theologization, according to a view of Christ as the pre-existent source of all things, and whose life is mapped out from before time. This is very different from the Jesus, who in Mark is constantly squabbling with the Pharisees about minutiae in Jewish law.

You could say that in Mark Jesus preaches about God, as Jewish preachers did, but in John, about himself as God. Christology has come to dominate.

I forgot to mention something else - the Trinity has no place in Mark. Why not? Of course, Christians tend to sort of see the Trinity all over the place in the NT! But it's not there in Mark - why not? Because at the time of writing, nobody had come up with the idea that Jesus was the Second Person, or however it is phrased. Jesus is the agent of God (messiah), but not yet, God. Of course, this does not rule out an MJ, but I think it supports HJ quite strongly.

 

[pakeha]

The only thing I remember is that archaeologists found the remains of an apparently crucified man, and they tried to analyze how the crucifixion had actually operated. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, all the detailed reports on it are behind pay walls. Also it may not help to understand why people were crucified.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/pos...d-man-from-give28099at-ha-mivtar.aspx#Article

Have you looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehohanan? It's not much, but a start.

Thanks, you two!
I've seen both sites but they're not bang in the gold.

Why did the Great Fire in Rome and the Destruction of Jerusalem have to happen to ME, to make more difficult my amateur scrabblings?

So, just like the Mormons when they had to admit that the Native Americans were not the lost tribe of Israel?

How many Mormon churches have disbanded due to archeology?

Ouch. Good catch.

 

[pakeha]

Asserting all of that Tacitus Kool-Aid straight from the myther faithheads at Rat Skep was either a deliberate provocation or an act of unbridled stupidity.

It's past time to either provide us that ancient cite you evidently found at Rat Skep(?!), or withdraw the bogus assertion altogether.

Stone

Who died to make you thread queen, Stone?
I'm checking and rechecking my sources, so I think phrases like 'unbridled stupidity', 'bogus assertions' and 'myther faithheads' are ...inadequate.

 

[IanS]

Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot.

I don’t know how you could possibly write something like the above, or what could possibly be in your mind leading you to say such things.

First thing - "everyone" most certainly does not believe that the biblical stories of Jesus have a "historical core". That is obviously untrue and you only need to look at threads like this to see that many people absolutely do not accept that the biblical stories of Jesus must have a "historical core".

Second thing - when you say "Christianity had to start somehow" that is just a statement of incredulity, ie you are saying you cannot understand how a story like this could possibly be based on fiction ... even though a moments objective thought should tell you that every religion ever known has always been based on a central idea of purely fictional belief in a superhuman figure.

As it happens, all of the biblical writers very clearly say that they were getting their Jesus beliefs from what they believed had been divinely prophesised in their OT. So there is a very obvious and undeniable source for where their Jesus stories came from ... and they even tell you that!

That's apart from the even simpler observation that all through mans history people have always propagated superstitions and myths of all sorts, which countless people have believed for generation after generation, even though all those superstitious myths are now known to be plainly untrue fiction.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

They are embarassed by the story that their sinless miracle-working saviour had himself baptised by John, among a group dunked

So you tell me, but I don't necessarily believe it.

First, I don't really care what embarrases living Christians, according to their non-believing spokespeople, I care what would embarrass a mid-First Century author. We can agree that John, written near the end of that century, handles things differently than Mark or Paul.

Second, There are at least three things that lead me to doubt that "Mark" was embarrassed by Jesus' baptism, even assuming that I knew his purpose was to promote belief in Jesus as God, as the Messiah before the Passion, or as always having been sinless, all of which I don't know.

2a. Josephus tells me that John's dunking wasn't for the forgiveness of sins, but came afterwards. There's nothing in Mark about Jesus doing anything about his sins, or whether he had any sins to do anything about. Later Christians taught that their baptism removed sins, but John didn't teach that his did, so far as we know.

2b. Mark does seem to be interested in the relationship between Jesus and Dunker John. This makes sense if Mark notices that Jesus is conspicuously light in Jews who consider him a contender for the messiahship. Well, except for his own staff, especially that giant of rabbinical scholarhip, Peter. It might be nice to have somebody noteworthy, neutral and without a foreskin on board, at least seeing the potential, while Jesus was actually around to size up.

2c. Either Jesus or John, or both, get quite an earful from on high. It's flashy enough that you, elsewhere, argue that Mark is depicting God adopting Jesus as his son, right then and there. I disagree, but if that is the moment of some unrepeatable and irreversible change (another later Christian idea, one that can't be tied to surviving information about the Dunker), then that would illustrate what the church sells: forgiveness by and reconciliation with God. There's no cause to be concerned with what happened before; all that matters is what happened afterwards. (And of course so little does what comes before matter that Mark omits it altogether).

Third, the people who compiled the NT (if not all of the authors) apparently believed in the virgin birth. It is simply ludicrous that saying "Our hero's mom skipped the sex thing" increases the credibility of their story with potential converts. Nor is it necessary for their position that God was his biological father. Krishna's birth mother had had several children. So, we need to be skeptical of our own ability to recognize what would be embarrassing (if anything).

Finally, the baptism story, true or false, serves a huge function: it explains why Christians are baptizing people. Baptisms are what the church is trying to encourage people to sign up for. That Jesus was baptized is a crackerjack reason for you to follow suit, if you want Jesus to take a liking to you on judgment day.

"How come Jesus felt he needed to be dunked?' is the kind of question Richard Dawkins would think of, and having thought of it, would think that it poses some crisis for the faithful. Dawkins is not a prime prospect for this sort of thing.

 

[tsig]

Craig B


So you tell me, but I don't necessarily believe it.

First, I don't really care what embarrases living Christians, according to their non-believing spokespeople, I care what would embarrass a mid-First Century author. We can agree that John, written near the end of that century, handles things differently than Mark or Paul.

Second, There are at least three things that lead me to doubt that "Mark" was embarrassed by Jesus' baptism, even assuming that I knew his purpose was to promote belief in Jesus as God, as the Messiah before the Passion, or as always having been sinless, all of which I don't know.

2a. Josephus tells me that John's dunking wasn't for the forgiveness of sins, but came afterwards. There's nothing in Mark about Jesus doing anything about his sins, or whether he had any sins to do anything about. Later Christians taught that their baptism removed sins, but John didn't teach that his did, so far as we know.

2b. Mark does seem to be interested in the relationship between Jesus and Dunker John. This makes sense if Mark notices that Jesus is conspicuously light in Jews who consider him a contender for the messiahship. Well, except for his own staff, especially that giant of rabbinical scholarhip, Peter. It might be nice to have somebody noteworthy, neutral and without a foreskin on board, at least seeing the potential, while Jesus was actually around to size up.

2c. Either Jesus or John, or both, get quite an earful from on high. It's flashy enough that you, elsewhere, argue that Mark is depicting God adopting Jesus as his son, right then and there. I disagree, but if that is the moment of some unrepeatable and irreversible change (another later Christian idea, one that can't be tied to surviving information about the Dunker), then that would illustrate what the church sells: forgiveness by and reconciliation with God. There's no cause to be concerned with what happened before; all that matters is what happened afterwards. (And of course so little does what comes before matter that Mark omits it altogether).

Third, the people who compiled the NT (if not all of the authors) apparently believed in the virgin birth. It is simply ludicrous that saying "Our hero's mom skipped the sex thing" increases the credibility of their story with potential converts. Nor is it necessary for their position that God was his biological father. Krishna's birth mother had had several children. So, we need to be skeptical of our own ability to recognize what would be embarrassing (if anything).

Finally, the baptism story, true or false, serves a huge function: it explains why Christians are baptizing people. Baptisms are what the church is trying to encourage people to sign up for. That Jesus was baptized is a crackerjack reason for you to follow suit, if you want Jesus to take a liking to you on judgment day.

"How come Jesus felt he needed to be dunked?' is the kind of question Richard Dawkins would think of, and having thought of it, would think that it poses some crisis for the faithful. Dawkins is not a prime prospect for this sort of thing.

I always thought the baptism was to show that Jesus had taken over the leadership of John's group. It was far from embarrassing Jesus it is honoring him.

 

[Brainache]

I always thought the baptism was to show that Jesus had taken over the leadership of John's group. It was far from embarrassing Jesus it is honoring him.

But Baptism was for the remission of sin and the Baptiser has seniority over the Baptised. So if Jesus is being Baptised by JTB, it means: 1) That Jesus had sinned and therefore was not God, and: 2) JTB was senior to Jesus in the God business.

That was how Mark tells it, by the time John was written, Jesus just walks by and JTB falls down and worships him.

The story changes over time in one direction: ie away from mortal towards Divine.

 

[IanS]

Ouch. Good catch.

It' not a good catch. It's entirely irrelevant!

First of all (afaik) the Mormons believe in Jesus and the bible, so their example is not relevant unless it's being claimed here that the Mormons are now in that situation of themselves agreeing that Jesus was mythical and the bible entirely fiction … is that what the Mormons leaders say?

Secondly, the Mormons are a virtual irrelevance compared to worldwide mainstream Christianity. And especially irrelevant outside of the USA, and where the USA is very much special case for all sorts of quite extreme sects of religious belief, and certainly an extreme case for fundamentalist Christianity in particular.

But the USA is not everywhere in the world. No doubt fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the USA would be the last people to accept that the evidence was ever against their literal beliefs in Jesus and the bible. But that sort of extreme Christian belief is not really the case any more in Europe where afaik in countries like the UK support for religion in general, and for Christianity in particular, has been falling steadily year-by-year for most of the past century.

For most people around the world, nothing at all hangs on anything that groups like the Mormons believe. Their case is not remotely comparable to worldwide Christianity.

 

[Brainache]

It' not a good catch. It's entirely irrelevant!

First of all (afaik) the Mormons believe in Jesus and the bible, so their example is not relevant unless it's being claimed here that the Mormons are now in that situation of themselves agreeing that Jesus was mythical and the bible entirely fiction … is that what the Mormons leaders say?

Secondly, the Mormons are a virtual irrelevance compared to worldwide mainstream Christianity. And especially irrelevant outside of the USA, and where the USA is very much special case for all sorts of quite extreme sects of religious belief, and certainly an extreme case for fundamentalist Christianity in particular.

But the USA is not everywhere in the world. No doubt fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the USA would be the last people to accept that the evidence was ever against their literal beliefs in Jesus and the bible. But that sort of extreme Christian belief is not really the case any more in Europe where afaik in countries like the UK support for religion in general, and for Christianity in particular, has been falling steadily year-by-year for most of the past century.

For most people around the world, nothing at all hangs on anything that groups like the Mormons believe. Their case is not remotely comparable to worldwide Christianity.

Except that they still believe a bunch of nonsense which has been shown to be impossible.

Showing them your "proof of no Jesus" (as if such a thing is possible), would just make them laugh at you. They aren't about to stop believing because of what some egghead professor tells them.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I don’t know how you could possibly write something like the above, or what could possibly be in your mind leading you to say such things.

Is there some reason why you didn't include the next sentence?

What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty.

That makes it pretty clear that I am saying that Christianity obviously has an historical origin, or it wouldn't exist today, and that no one in this thread has, as implied by dejudge, stated that they believe without any reservation that the only possible origin lies with an historical Jesus. I could have attributed your response to poor reading comprehension had I only written what you quoted. But the next sentence makes so clear my intent that I can only surmise that you omitted it so that you could beat up on a strawman.

 

[zugzwang]

It's an interesting point, that Christianity must have an historical origin. This does not entail a historical Jesus, of course. But Christianity did not start supernaturally!

This sounds too obvious, but I think it throws an interesting light on all the various arguments, since we are looking for some clue as to the historical origin. This might be in an HJ, or in a spontaneously emerging set of stories about a legendary Jesus, or in a group which explicitly worshiped a celestial (non-human Jesus), or in a set of forged documents. I can't think of another possibility, but there probably is one.

There are various problems with all of those alternatives of course!