Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

Yeah but that wasn't what I was talking about. Brainache seems to claim that some other passage, now removed, existed in Josephus.

Yes that would be difficult to prove. But if an early commentator reports some wording (as seems to be the case in the example given) and it's not there now, then it is permissible to propose a deletion of that kind.

Example. Matthew 2:23 says

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

There is no such prophecy in any extant version of the Jewish scriptures. It may have disappeared over the last two millennia.

 

[dejudge]

Yes that would be difficult to prove. But if an early commentator reports some wording (as seems to be the case in the example given) and it's not there now, then it is permissible to propose a deletion of that kind.

Example. Matthew 2:23 says There is no such prophecy in any extant version of the Jewish scriptures. It may have disappeared over the last two millennia.

Nazareth is not found in the OT and in non-Apologetic writings about Galilee. Josephus wrote nothing of Nazareth although he mentioned places that within a few miles of present day Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth does not even have a prophecy--nothing--no history.

 

[Craig B]

Nazareth is not found in the OT and in non-Apologetic writings about Galilee. Josephus wrote nothing of Nazareth although he mentioned places that within a few miles of present day Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth does not even have a prophecy--nothing--no history.

That's right. It's from one of Matthew's readings. He often gets them wrong, like the two donkeys or the virgin mother, both misunderstandings of old texts. And the Nazarene prophecy probably had nothing to do with Nazareth, but with "Nazirites" like Samson. See what info we can cull, even from Matthew's errors and misreadings!

 

[dejudge]

That's right. It's from one of Matthew's readings. He often gets them wrong, like the two donkeys or the virgin mother, both misunderstandings of old texts. And the Nazarene prophecy probably had nothing to do with Nazareth, but with "Nazirites" like Samson. See what info we can cull, even from Matthew's errors and misreadings!

gMatthew confirms that the author was not writing history at all. It is clear that the author of gMatthew either used gMark or gMark's sources but what is most significant is that virtually all the additional information in gMatthew that is NOT found in gMark is utter fiction.

gMark comprises 16 chapters.

gMatthew comprises 28 chapters.

We have 12 additional chapters of Total Fiction.

For example, we have ONE single verse about the Temptation in gMark 1.13.

In gMatthew 4.1-11 there are ELEVEN verses about the Non historical Temptation by Satan the Devil which could not have happened.

Incredibly, Christians of antiquity believed the stories of Jesus in gMatthew.

The Gospels as found in the NT are clear evidence that the stories were NOT intended to be historical accounts but were written to be BELIEVED.

Any attempt to extract history from the Jesus stories will end in disaster.

 

[Foster Zygote]

gMatthew confirms that the author was not writing history at all. It is clear that the author of gMatthew either used gMark or gMark's sources...

Once again, you display a remarkable talent for stating the blindingly obvious.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Nazareth is not found in the OT and in non-Apologetic writings about Galilee. Josephus wrote nothing of Nazareth although he mentioned places that within a few miles of present day Nazareth.

And, as we all know, Josephus was a perfect, universal encyclopedia of everything that could possibly be known about anything in the Roman Empire during the 1st Century CE. So if he didn't mention a town estimated to have less than 500 inhabitants, then it clearly never existed. We can know this to be true because, of course, historians are no different from accountants and statisticians. If we have a question about the past, then we simply consult 'The Record', and if it isn't to be found in this unmitigated source, then it clearly never existed.

By the way, Sextus Julius Africanus mentions "Nazara" around 220 CE, and archaeological excavation has revealed what might be the remains of a house from the early 1st Century. And Josephus also mentions in a letter to Jonathan that there are 204 cities and villages in Galilee. Did he mention them all by name?

 

[Belz...]

So if he didn't mention a town estimated to have less than 500 inhabitants, then it clearly never existed. We can know this to be true because, of course, historians are no different from accountants and statisticians. If we have a question about the past, then we simply consult 'The Record', and if it isn't to be found in this unmitigated source, then it clearly never existed.

Just like the Jedi archives on Coruscant.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why are we talking about them? This thread is about whether or not there is good evidence to show that Jesus existed. And so far it seems nobody can produce any such evidence at all.

Nobody has attempted to show that Jesus existed, only to point out that it is quite plausible that he existed in a form very different from his later depictions by early Christian writers. The reference to Buddha and Confucius is simply intended to illustrate that the absence of direct evidence is not proof of nonexistence.

It's not like we're proposing anything radical or even supernatural here. Suggesting the possibility of a completely ordinary explanatory scenario isn't something we need to justify with mountains of evidence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Like most of the pro HJ believers here, you are automatically assuming that he must have existed.

You're being dishonest again.

Please point to a single post in which anyone in this thread, or any of the related concurrent threads, has claimed that Jesus must have existed.

 

[maximara]

Hmm.
Time to reread Irenaeus.
dejudge, where does John say Jesus was 50 when he died?
I know you have a lot of information at your fingertips, could you shout me citations and links to these early writers who claimed that, too?
Thanks!

Irenaeus argues in Against Heresies 2:22:4 that Jesus was at least 46 years old when he was crucified.

However it is in Demonstration (74) and NOT Against Heresies that Irenaeus gives us something akin to a date:

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

Per "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ" on rationalwiki (with references):

The key issue is the title "King of the Jews". When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was broken up between this three sons: Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea 4 BCE – 6 CE), Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee 4 BCE - 41 CE), and "Herod" Philip II (Tetrarch of Batanea 4 BCE – 34 CE). Archelaus was removed 6 CE with Judea governed by Roman prefects until Herod Agrippa I came to power in 41 CE. Furthermore, while some later books have called Herod Agrippa II "king of the Jews", he in truth never ruled over the Judea province. (Gelb, Norman (2010) Kings of the Jews: The Origins of the Jewish Nation pg 205)

So the only Herods close to the supposed life of Jesus (c. 6 BCE to c. 36 CE) that were "King of the Jews" (i.e. ruled the Judea province) were Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I. Moreover, we have a reasonable history of Herod Agrippa I from 34 CE (death of John the Baptist) to his death in 44 CE:

1) Due to expressing the desire for Tiberius to hurry up and die so his friend Caligula could become emperor, Herod Agrippa I was thrown in prison and not released until 37 CE when Caligula came to power. By that time Pontius Pilate had been replaced by Marcellus.
2) While Herod Agrippa I did come to Judea as governor in the final year of Caligula's rule (41 CE), he answered to Prefect Marcellus, who in turn answered to Tetrarch Herod Antipas.
3) Due to Herod Agrippa I's advice, Claudius became Caesar in 41 and as a reward a year later Marcellus and Herod Antipas were replaced by Herod Agrippa I, resulting in him being "like Herod the Great before him, king of the Jews." (Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94)

Two of the temporal markers in Demonstration (74) sets Jesus crucifixion at 42-44 CE.

 

[Foster Zygote]

1. It cannot be shown that Jews worshiped men as Gods in the time of Pilate.

That is not an element of modern historical scenarios. The worship of Jesus as God developed over a long time, and not among Jews, but among Pagan converts to Christianity. Like Craig B said, "When Jews heard 'Son of God' they would have been reminded of David or Solomon. When pagans heard it they thought of Hercules or Alexander". You don't seem to have much better an understanding of early Christian history than most fundamentalists do.

2. It cannot be shown that Jews worshiped SACRIFICIED victims as Gods.

Right. But they did believe in making sacrifices to appease God and earn redemption. So the executed Jesus was reinvented as the ultimate sacrificial lamb, who would, once and for all, redeem those who accepted the sacrifice.

3. It cannot be shown that Romans Worshiped Jews as Gods.

4. It cannot be shown that Romans worshiped Crucified Jews as Gods.

Those two are rather redundant. But the fact is that Pagans often did deify humans. Just look at Alexander. The idea that Pagans would accept that a person had had divine qualities is not at all unprecedented.

5. It cannot be shown what OBSCURE HJ preached.

You're right. All we can do is look at what is available, which is what early Christian writers believed that Jesus preached. It is reasonable to assume that some of what an historical Jesus might have originally taught may have made it into the oral traditions that were eventually written down.

But not knowing exactly what Jesus may have taught does not mean that he cannot have existed. We can't know what the motivations were for the person who (most likely) murdered Ötzi the Iceman some 5300 years ago. But just because we can't know why he did it, it doesn't follow that he didn't exist and that Ötzi's death from an arrow in the back was therefor a suicide.

Again, an historical Jesus is an hypothesis. It is a proposed possible explanation for an observed phenomenon. Your style of argumentation might work against Christians who believe that Jesus existed as described in the New Testament. But you haven't done anything to show that a mundane historical origin for the Jesus stories is even unlikely, let alone impossible.

7. The Pauline writers wrote about Hallucination Jesus.

Yes. Clearly, Paul never met an historical Jesus.

8. The Pauline Hallucination Jesus was NOT Obscure HJ.

So, you're complaining that Paul didn't hallucinate a mundane, non-magical religious crank that reflected the likely reality, rather than the exaggerated religious figure of his accounts?

9. The Pauline Hallucination Jesus was the Son of God.

You do realize that "Son of God" was a fairly common title and did not, to the Jews at least, imply divine qualities as Hercules being the "son of Zeus" did to Pagan cultures, yes?

10. The Pauline Hallucination Jesus was RAISED from the dead.

Again, your complaining that a religious hallucination didn't make perfect sense in an entirely naturalistic way?

Obscure HJ is NOT in or out the Bible.

It's funny, but you can't find anything about Joseph Smith being a con-man in any official Mormon accounts of his life.

Obscure HJ makes no sense whatsoever if Pauline writings are authentic and Gaius was GOD of the Roman Empire c 37-41 CE.

ONLY Hallucination Jesus makes sense if Pauline writings are authentic.

ONLY Hallucination Jesus can resurrect.

If you are truly unable to distinguish between a real person and exaggerated, even impossible stories made up about him by superstitious people, then that is truly sad. And if you can understand, but simply persist in this exercise because you feel some psychological need for conflict, however stupid the argument you employ may be, then that is also sad.

1 Corinthians 15:17 NAS

HALLUCINATION JESUS is the "founder" of the Christian Faith if Pauline writings are authentic.[/QUOTE]

 

[dejudge]

Once again, you display a remarkable talent for stating the blindingly obvious.

Except those with the remarkable talent who use the blindingly obvious Ghost story called gMatthew to support the claim that their Itinerant Jesus was from Nazareth.

 

[Elagabalus]

Yeah but that wasn'T what I was talking about. Brainache seems to claim that some other passage, now removed, existed in Josephus.

Yes, it is included in the wiki page about Josephus. I don't believe it is a popular view. Here is a quote from Tim O'Neill describing what is more, I believe, the mainstream view. Regrettably this is from a ongoing spat on the amazon review page of Nailed (So I should probably put this in the other thread!) so consider the source. Sorry about the link etc. etc

Here

...Try actually looking at the Greek, not an English translation. In Antiquities XX.9.1 the phrase Josephus uses is τον αδελφον; Ιησου του λεγομεν;ου Χριστου; ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah"). In Origen's Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17 we find the identical phrase: τον αδελφον; Ιησου του λεγομεν;ου Χριστου;. In Contra Celsum II:13 we find it again: τον αδελφον; Ιησου του λεγομεν;ου Χριστου;. And in Contra Celsum I.47 we find it with one word changed to fit the context of the sentence grammatically: αδελφος; Ιησου του λεγομεν;ου Χριστου;.

"It should be noted that Josephus does not ever say what Origen attributes to him."

Origen was a Christian exegete who read his sources through the lens of his beliefs. We have several other examples where he tells us Josephus "says" things that Josephus does not actually say. If you read the sequence of events that follow the mention of James' death, they lead one from the other to the outbreak of the war with the Romans and it's disasterous consequences. Of course *we* can see that Josephus isn't saying these things were a consequence of James' execution, but Origen is reading them as though they are. That the death of James led to the destruction of Jerusalem was an existing trope in Christian tradition and Origen is reading his source through that filter. See W. Mizugaki, "Origen and Josephus" in *Josephus, Judaism and Christianity*, ed. Louis H. Feldman and Gohei Hata (Wayne State University Press, 1987) pp. 325-337 for a detailed analysis of Origen exegetic readings of Josephus...

Unfortunately, I have only been able to dig up a google preview of Josephus, Judaism and Christianity and it only goes to page 193 or so.

 

[Navigator]

Except those with the remarkable talent who use the blindingly obvious Ghost story called gMatthew to support the claim that their Itinerant Jesus was from Nazareth.

I am under the impression that Mary and Joseph went to Egypt with Jesus. Nothing is noted about his upbringing until he is 12 and stuns the religious leaders with his insights.

Would it not be fair to assume that while in Egypt he received his insightful instruction through the Egyptian belief systems, especially in regard to afterlife beliefs and concepts to do with hell and heaven etc?


ETA
Oh...and the ability to perform magic tricks as well

 

[dejudge]

When we examine the NT we can clearly see that there was NO intention of writing history.

We have TWO versions of gMark.

1. The short gMark found in the Sinaiticus Codex.

2. The long gMark found in the Alexandrinus Codex.

There are 12 additional verses ADDED to the short gMark in the long version.

Again, we see that the author of the long version ADDS a completely NON-HISTORICAL account about the post resurrection activities of Jesus.

Again, the completely fictitious post resurrection commission of the disciples by Jesus AFTER he was supposedly already dead is now the FOUNDATION of Christian Belief.

In the Pauline Corpus, the non-historical resurrection is the basis for Remission of Sins and the Christian Faith.

It is clear that the authors of Jesus stories in the NT had NO intention of writing history.

The author of the long gMark claimed Jesus RESURRECTED and commissioned the disciples to preach the Gospel. It did NOT happen.

All the other authors of the NT BELIEVED the post resurrection was history--even Paul.

The NT does not reflect history--it is a compilation of the stories people of antiquity BELIEVED.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Except those with the remarkable talent who use the blindingly obvious Ghost story called gMatthew to support the claim that their Itinerant Jesus was from Nazareth.

We've got two different authors, clearly writing independently because they tell contradictory stories about Jesus life, going out of their way to explain how someone was born in Bethlehem, but came to grow up in Nazareth. We know of the "prophecy" regarding Bethlehem that they were attempting to retrofit into their stories, so we know why they wanted to depict Jesus as being born there. But why would they independently make up differing narrative elements that have Jesus growing up in Nazareth? Remember, according to Josephus, there were just over two hundred cities and towns in Galilee, so the likelihood that it was a coincidental convergence is very low.

So, can you offer a better explanation for the actions of both authors than that Jesus was already popularly regarded as having come from the town of Nazareth?

 

[Foster Zygote]

When we examine the NT we can clearly see that there was NO intention of writing history.

We have TWO versions of gMark.

1. The short gMark found in the Sinaiticus Codex.

2. The long gMark found in the Alexandrinus Codex.

There are 12 additional verses ADDED to the short gMark in the long version.

Again, we see that the author of the long version ADDS a completely NON-HISTORICAL account about the post resurrection activities of Jesus.

Again, the completely fictitious post resurrection commission of the disciples by Jesus AFTER he was supposedly already dead is now the FOUNDATION of Christian Belief.

In the Pauline Corpus, the non-historical resurrection is the basis for Remission of Sins and the Christian Faith.

It is clear that the authors of Jesus stories in the NT had NO intention of writing history.

The author of the long gMark claimed Jesus RESURRECTED and commissioned the disciples to preach the Gospel. It did NOT happen.

All the other authors of the NT BELIEVED the post resurrection was history--even Paul.

The NT does not reflect history--it is a compilation of the stories people of antiquity BELIEVED.

Again, you state the blindingly obvious as though you think you are revealing something revolutionary. Do you really think that the many, many New Testament scholars who argue that an historical Jesus likely existed don't know about the interpolation of the last twelve verses of Mark? Do you?

Do you really think that those same scholars regard the gospels, either canonical or apocryphal, as accurate histories? They aren't stupid, dejudge. They know that they are the magical tales of religious believers. And they are examining and cross examining those documents to see what they can learn about how these religious beliefs originated and evolved.

You like to admonish people to educate themselves. But the irony is that your arguments have done nothing more than demonstrate your own ignorance, not only of New Testament textual criticism, but also of logic in general.

 

[Brainache]

Or was it his intepretation of what is already there, minus the interpolations ?

I'm not sure we can take that passage as a particularily good case for the assumption that there was another passage in there that has been since removed.

He isn't the only one who mentions it. Irenaeus, Papias and Clement also make mention of it. There may be others, I'm not sure.

But yes, as with most of this stuff, it comes down to interpretation and "educated guesswork" on the part of Experts.

I'm not sure if this is such a minority position though, I don't think Eisenman is the only one saying it. It's one of those things which is tantalising because interpreted one way, it points to real "Da Vinci Code" type Ancient shenanigans. Everybody loves a good bit of Ancient Shenanigans, so maybe there's nothing to it, except for over-excited Historians looking for a scandal. I don't know.

Just another data point in this over-crowded subject.

 

[pakeha]

Irenaeus argues in Against Heresies 2:22:4 that Jesus was at least 46 years old when he was crucified.

However it is in Demonstration (74) and NOT Against Heresies that Irenaeus gives us something akin to a date:

"For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified."

Per "Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ" on rationalwiki (with references):



Two of the temporal markers in Demonstration (74) sets Jesus crucifixion at 42-44 CE.

Thanks as always, maximara.


Wait, what?
Jesus wasn't crucified under Pontius Pilate (recalled to Rome in 37 CE)?

 

[pakeha]

Yes, it is included in the wiki page about Josephus. I don't believe it is a popular view. Here is a quote from Tim O'Neill describing what is more, I believe, the mainstream view. Regrettably this is from a ongoing spat on the amazon review page of Nailed (So I should probably put this in the other thread!) so consider the source. Sorry about the link etc. etc

Here

Thanks for the link!
Could you give us some idea as to why you think that quote of TON describes "what is more, I believe, the mainstream view", please?