Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

Look at the majority f the literature out there. How much of it has the HJ essentially be the Jesus of the bible?

The majority of what literature? The majority of academic scholarship, or the majority of religious writings of the sort you'd find in a Christian bookstore.

More over why are you conflating the existence of Christians in the 1st century CE with the existence of their founder? John Frum shows that idea is DOA.

Dejudge has specifically claimed that Christianity was a 2nd Century invention. That begs the question...

 

[maximara]

I'm pretty certain that's absolutely true. Completely true. Now explain why such a concept should "scare the crap" out of HJers? Why should any non-believer be in the least worried about the idea that but for certain entirely fortuitous circumstances not of his own making, Jesus would be no better remembered than the individuals mentioned by Gamaliel in Acts 5? No better remembered than Honi the Circle Maker, or Jesus son of Ananias, the apocalyptic raver? Why should that scare anyone but a Christian believer?

Because it means that nothing in the Gospels can be viewed as history; not Jesus life, not his supposed teachings, not even the account of his death.

Time after time, the MJers attribute to the HJers a concern for "belief in the Holy Bible" or for the transcendental super importance of a real Jesus (something special "about their so-called founder") and it is on account of these illusory preoccupations perhaps, that they sometimes display such vehemence, not to say downright hostility, whenever it is suggested that Jesus may have existed as a real person.

How many HJers simply say Jesus existed?

Wells has accepted a HJ being behind the Gospels since 1996 and yet because he views this HJ as not being crucified he has still been called a Christ Myther.

David Straus accepted the existence of Jesus as a historical person and yet is regarded by some as the father of the Christ Myth theory (Dawes, (2001) The historical Jesus question ISBN 0-664-22458-X pages 77–79 Strauss, David Friedrich (2010) The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined by ISBN 1-61640-309-8 pages 39–43 and 87–91)

Sir James George Frazer had to come and directly state "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" because so many people were calling his work Christ Myth and even after that Schweitzer still put him in the men "who contested the historical existence of Jesus" category in 1931.

Constantin-François Volney accepted the idea that confused memories of an obscure historical figure may be part of Jesus story...and yet he is regarded along with Charles François Dupuis as one of the founders of the modern Christ Myth theory.

If HJ as a whole is not in some manner on belief in Christianity then why is there this knee jerk reaction by the HJ community to label any major divination from the Gospel account "Christ Myth" even if they are accepting Jesus as a flesh and blood person, hmmm?

 

[Craig B]

... If HJ as a whole is not in some manner on belief in Christianity then why is there this knee jerk reaction by the HJ community to label any major divination from the Gospel account "Christ Myth" even if they are accepting Jesus as a flesh and blood person, hmmm?

Hmmm indeed. Yes, exactly. You believe that only a religious believer could possibly accept a historical Jesus as a plausible hypothesis, and your hostility towards that hypothesis derives from that understanding. Thus, Dawkins, Hitchens and other atheist commentators become religious believers, who defend the gospels against all deviation (which your spellcheck has hilariously rendered as "divination"), including the most supernatural contents of these gospels, and lose control of their bowels if the least jot or tittle of gospel infallibility is called in question.

It is a mystery how you adopt the weird and untenable view I have cited here. Clearly that is the view of many MJ proponents, as is obvious from these threads, and I am striving to divine its intellectual origin.

 

[maximara]

Hmmm indeed. Yes, exactly. You believe that only a religious believer could possibly accept a historical Jesus as a plausible hypothesis, and your hostility towards that hypothesis derives from that understanding.

There are variations of Christianity that don't take a religious view but look as it as a philosophy so why does religion even enter it?

But that avoids the key issue of why we see so many people who accept a flesh and blood Jesus but not the Gospels account get the Christ Myth or mythist label.

Do we have different definitions of the term "Christ Myth" and everybody is not making sure they are on the same page or is it a deeper issue? What is it that people feel that they need not only defend that Jesus was a flesh and blood person but that the Gospels have some degree of historical merit when the evidence for such a view is nil?

 

[dejudge]

Jews lived throughout the Empire in general harmony with the rest of the population. There were certainly tensions between the Roman government and the radical elements of Judaism, and many in the Empire thought the Jewish religious practices peculiar, even suspicious at times. But Jews enjoyed the protection of the state for their religious practices for a long time. So your claim that Romans would never have converted to Christianity because, "The Romans hated the Jews and wanted them dead in the 1st century" is completely asinine and has no demonstrable basis in fact. Even more asinine is your objection that Romans would never worship a crucified individual as a god because, clearly, they did just that. Of all the fallacious argument that you've presented, these are probably the laziest and most thoughtless.

By the way, are you aware that most people in the Roman Empire weren't Romans? And then there's the fact that 10 - 15% of the population of the Empire was slaves. Remember that Christianity was portrayed by both apologists and antagonists as being popular among slaves.

Your post is embarrassing. Tiberius suppressed the Jewish rites and obliged the Jews to burn their religious vestments and sacred articles and enslaved those who did not comply for life.

Examine Suetonius "Life of Tiberius".

He suppressed all foreign religions, and the Egyptian [334] and Jewish rites, obliging those who practised that kind of superstition, to burn their vestments, and all their sacred utensils.

He distributed the Jewish youths, under the pretence of military service, among the provinces noted for an unhealthy climate; and dismissed from the city all the rest of that nation as well as those who were proselytes to that religion [335], under pain of slavery for life, unless they complied.

Under Gaius, Jews were hunted down whether on land or sea.

Antiquities of the Jews 19

1. NOW this Caius (2) did not demonstrate his madness in offering injuries only to the Jews at Jerusalem, or to those that dwelt in the neighborhood; but suffered it to extend itself through all the earth and sea, so far as was in subjection to the Romans, and filled it with ten thousand mischiefs; so many indeed in number as no former history relates.

It is clear to me that you have no idea of the history of antiquity and is writing what you imagine.

I am doing history.

What are you doing?

The NT is the documented history of what the Jesus cult believed.

The NT clearly states that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost, God Creator, who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, commissioned the disciples to preach and then ascended.

The NT Jesus story is corroborated by Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Arnobius, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Jerome, Eusebius, Optatus, Origen, Rufinus, Chrysostom, Augustine, Severus, the Muratorian Canon, hundreds of NT manuscripts and Codices

Your HJ story is undocumented and baseless.

 

[Craig B]

Your post is embarrassing. Tiberius suppressed the Jewish rites and obliged the Jews to burn their religious vestments and sacred articles and enslaved those who did not comply for life.

Your cited passage doesn't say that. It says

... dismissed from the city all the rest of that nation as well as those who were proselytes to that religion under pain of slavery for life, unless they complied.

 

[dejudge]

Your cited passage doesn't say that. It says

You may have problems with English.

Tiberius suppressed ALL foreign religions including the Jewish religion according to Suetonius.

Suetonius Life of Tiberius

He suppressed all foreign religions, and the Egyptian [334] and Jewish rites, obliging those who practised that kind of superstition, to burn their vestments, and all their sacred utensils.

He distributed the Jewish youths, under the pretence of military service, among the provinces noted for an unhealthy climate; and dismissed from the city all the rest of that nation as well as those who were proselytes to that religion [335], under pain of slavery for life, unless they complied.

 

[pakeha]

Who were those Christians whom Nero was persecuting?

Dunno, Foster Zygote.
Does their existence imply an HJ?
Does the existence of Ebionites imply an historical Ebion?

 

[Craig B]

Dunno, Foster Zygote.
Does their existence imply an HJ?
Does the existence of Ebionites imply an historical Ebion?

Think carefully about this: Does the non-existence of a historical Ebion imply the existence of a mythical Ebion dwelling in a sublunary supernatural domain?

ETA The Ebionites didn't assert the existence of a historical Ebion. They asserted the existence of a non-divine, non-virgin born, historical Jesus. The Ebionites are another piece of evidence, and a significant one (where of course all the evidence is weak), in favour of Jesus having originated as a credible historical figure within the Jewish messianic movements.

 

[pakeha]

Think carefully about this: Does the non-existence of a historical Ebion imply the existence of a mythical Ebion dwelling in a sublunary supernatural domain?

No, it doesn't.
Still, it's curious you say that because according to Epiphanius
" They say that Christ was not begotten of God the Father, but created as one of the archangels ... that he rules over the angels and all the creatures of the Almighty, and that he came and declared, as their Gospel, which is called Gospel according to Matthew, or Gospel According to the Hebrews, reports: "I am come to do away with sacrifices, and if you cease not sacrificing, the wrath of God will not cease from you."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.16,4-5) "

ETA The Ebionites didn't assert the existence of a historical Ebion. They asserted the existence of a non-divine, non-virgin born, historical Jesus. The Ebionites are another piece of evidence, and a significant one (where of course all the evidence is weak), in favour of Jesus having originated as a credible historical figure within the Jewish messianic movements.

Perhaps I'm reading my source* incorrectly, but I have the impression they were perceived differently, at least by Epiphanius, than you've represented them. And the fact is we have have their texts via Epiphanius, correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5411-ebionites agrees with you, however.
I wonder why Epiphanius wrote of their beliefs as he did?

Irenaeus didn't love them either
"2. Those who are called Ebionites agree that the world was made by God; but their opinions with respect to the Lord are similar to those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They use the Gospel according to Matthew only, and repudiate the Apostle Paul, maintaining that he was an apostate from the law. As to the prophetical writings, they endeavour to expound them in a somewhat singular manner: they practise circumcision, persevere in the observance of those customs which are enjoined by the law, and are so Judaic in their style of life, that they even adore Jerusalem as if it were the house of God."
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103126.htm

They were high on Eusebius' hate list, too
"1 The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. "
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_eusebius_iii27.htm

Very, very curious Epiphanius claimed something so divergent for these people's views.


In any case, the beliefs of some cultists hardly represent evidence of an historical Jesus, but rather data for a belief system at that time, IMO.





*http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites-panarion.html

 

[Craig B]

... I wonder why Epiphanius wrote of their beliefs as he did?

I suspect a measure of sectarian religious prejudice, of which, regrettably, the writings of Epiphanius are not entirely free. I must treat with reserve a dissertation which denounces Ebion, or Ebionus, a non-existent person, gestated in the void in Epiphanius' brain that ought already to have been occupied by a knowledge of the meaning of the very word "Ebion"; particularly when the dissertation starts with words like these:

Ebion, the founder of the Ebionites, arose in the world in his turn as a monstrosity with many forms, and practically represented in himself the snake-like form of the mythical many-headed hydra ... [He] took any and every doctrine which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly and unconvincing, thoroughly contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all.

I will leave respect for the reliability of Epiphanius to dejudge and others who may hold him in higher esteem than I do.

 

[Belz...]

It is likely this last part that scare the crap of many HJers...that there is nothing really special about their so called founder

Nothing special. So you agree that it's quite likely ?

 

[Belz...]

If HJ as a whole is not in some manner on belief in Christianity then why is there this knee jerk reaction by the HJ community to label any major divination from the Gospel account "Christ Myth" even if they are accepting Jesus as a flesh and blood person, hmmm?

1) Pics or it didn't happen.

2) If your entire understanding of this issue is a struggle against a religion, you're not going to make much progress.

I don't think anyone in this thread is religious in any way.

 

[pakeha]

I suspect a measure of sectarian religious prejudice, of which, regrettably, the writings of Epiphanius are not entirely free. I must treat with reserve a dissertation which denounces Ebion, or Ebionus, a non-existent person, gestated in the void in Epiphanius' brain that ought already to have been occupied by a knowledge of the meaning of the very word "Ebion"; particularly when the dissertation starts with words like these:

Ebion, the founder of the Ebionites, arose in the world in his turn as a monstrosity with many forms, and practically represented in himself the snake-like form of the mythical many-headed hydra ... [He] took any and every doctrine which was dreadful, lethal, disgusting, ugly and unconvincing, thoroughly contentious, from every sect, and patterned himself after them all.

I will leave respect for the reliability of Epiphanius to dejudge and others who may hold him in higher esteem than I do.

Well, yes, Epiphanius used somewhat robust language.
As did Eusebius on the same subject.

Off to read a bit more!

ETA
It seems Epiphanius used the 'monster' image as a literary devise.
"One unique feature of the Panarion is in the way that Epiphanius compares the various heretics to different poisonous beasts, going so far as to describe in detail the animal's characteristics, how it produces its poison, and how to protect oneself from the animal's bite or poison."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius_of_Salamis

 

[maximara]

Nothing special. So you agree that it's quite likely ?

Well look at our givens:

1) Jesus was a very common name in the 1st century BC to 1st century CE

2) There were a lot of would be messiahs from 4 BCE to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

Based on that it is impossible to say there wasn't a chance of an obscure teacher named Jesus in Galilee in the 100 BCE to 100 CE period. But, and this is the important point there is also nothing to say that Jesus was the core of the Gospel Jesus.

If you really look at classic Christ Mythers ie c1900 the majority were not saying Jesus didn't exist but that there was nothing in the Gospels that led back to a clear and definitive person.

 

[Craig B]

... If you really look at classic Christ Mythers ie c1900 the majority were not saying Jesus didn't exist but that there was nothing in the Gospels that led back to a clear and definitive person.

That's indeed what they said and I have quoted them with approval. But if you have read the three threads with attention, as I know you have done, you will find that some of the modern counterparts of these thinkers adopt a more robust view. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Canadian writer Earl Doherty (B.A. in Ancient History and Classical Languages) argues in The Jesus Puzzle (2005) and Jesus: Neither God nor Man—The Case for a Mythical Jesus (2009) that Jesus originated as a myth derived from Middle Platonism with some influence from Jewish mysticism, and that belief in a historical Jesus emerged only among Christian communities in the 2nd century. He writes that none of the major apologists before the year 180, except for Justin and Aristides of Athens, included an account of a historical Jesus in their defenses of Christianity. Instead the early Christian writers describe a Christian movement grounded in Platonic philosophy and Hellenistic Judaism, preaching the worship of a monotheistic Jewish god and what he calls a "logos-type Son".

In practice this leaves no space for any random wandering preacher.

And I deny that there was an existing myth from Middle Platonism, or that Jesus was an unearthly being who was "crucified" in a supernatural realm, or that Paul never believed Jesus to have been a physical person living on earth.

Where "mythicism" nearly means, "we really don't have a lot of evidence, so the guy most probably didn't exist at all in any recognisable form" - like Robin Hood - then that kind of mythicism is unobjectionable. But people are saying more than that, and to the extent that they are, the burden of proof of a pre existing myth falls on them.

As to dejudge and his Hardouinesque theories, about the forgery of the entire NT hundreds of years after the events it relates, well I've already said more than enough about that. Also I hope I have no further occasion to defend people who accept as probable the existence of HJ, against the charge that they are believers in the truthfulness of the holy scriptures, and in effect Christian adherents. That's crackers.

 

[IanS]

At last! A correct statement. Yes there definitely is such evidence - the NT - and I do indeed ask if that evidence is sufficient. Good. We've established that. Here we go again. We have evidence.

Craig - I'm sorry but you appear to have absolutely no understanding or conception at all what "evidence” of something actually is, or indeed what could possibly count as "evidence". You appear to be so completely und utterly uncomprehending about it to the point of being wilfully deluded.

You actually believe, and you say it very clearly above, (and you have said it many times before) that just because the NT says something, then that mere writing itself is evidence that what it says is actually true! It is NOT. That is not evidence of the truth of what it says.

Just because anonymous 1st century religious fanatics who never knew Jesus, wrote to say that others had once told stories about a messiah being executed, that is not any kind of evidence of the truth of anything they say.

At very best, that is only evidence that the anonymous biblical writers (their copyists in fact), believed that other unknown people had once said that still earlier unknown people had previously said various things about someone named Jesus.

The biblical writing is only evidence of peoples religious 1st century beliefs. No more than that. It is evidence of their beliefs. Not evidence that their beliefs were true.

There might have once been some genuine evidence of Jesus to be discovered, if indeed he ever actually existed. That would be something such as external corroboration from credible confirmed contemporary sources who gave checkable details of the claimed events. But in fact it appears no such corroboration or support has ever been found. None. Zero.

However, to the contrary there is of course plenty of undeniable evidence to show why that biblical writing was untrue fiction.

 

[maximara]

That's indeed what they said and I have quoted them with approval. But if you have read the three threads with attention, as I know you have done, you will find that some of the modern counterparts of these thinkers adopt a more robust view. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

That article in wikipedia is a mess, been a mess for years.

In fact the idea that Constantin-François Volney accepted the idea that confused memories of an obscure historical figure may be part of Jesus story has been eliminated from the current version of that article.

See Jesus myth theory at rationalwiki for a less biased and more balanced version of what the Christ Myth theory really is.

Please note the quotes of "Christ Myther" Arthur Drews, John M. Robertson, and James George Frazer in that article regarding a flesh and blood Jesus being part of the myth.

Then you have the other definitions for Christ Myth theory which again have been stricken from the wikipedia article

In practice this leaves no space for any random wandering preacher.

And I deny that there was an existing myth from Middle Platonism, or that Jesus was an unearthly being who was "crucified" in a supernatural realm, or that Paul never believed Jesus to have been a physical person living on earth.

Where "mythicism" nearly means, "we really don't have a lot of evidence, so the guy most probably didn't exist at all in any recognisable form" - like Robin Hood - then that kind of mythicism is unobjectionable. But people are saying more than that, and to the extent that they are, the burden of proof of a pre existing myth falls on them.

I agree regarding the existence of any pre existing myth though as with John Frum c1910 we may never find any.

As to dejudge and his Hardouinesque theories, about the forgery of the entire NT hundreds of years after the events it relates, well I've already said more than enough about that. Also I hope I have no further occasion to defend people who accept as probable the existence of HJ, against the charge that they are believers in the truthfulness of the holy scriptures, and in effect Christian adherents. That's crackers.

If you want to see the highlighted view cranked up to insane levels read Joseph Wheless' 1930 Forgery In Christianity . That really sad thing about that work is there are some good ideas buried amongst the Illuminati level conspiracy he alleges was going on.

 

[Craig B]

Craig - I'm sorry but you appear to have absolutely no understanding or conception at all what "evidence” of something actually is, or indeed what could possibly count as "evidence". You appear to be so completely und utterly uncomprehending about it to the point of being wilfully deluded.

I will happily respond, as I have said, by discussing with you whether the criteria used in critical analysis of the disparate sources constituting the gospels are at all valid; if so, to what extent; and what conclusions may reasonably be drawn from such an analysis. But to the kind of invective you have written, cited above, I have no comment or reply to make.

 

[Belz...]

Well look at our givens:

1) Jesus was a very common name in the 1st century BC to 1st century CE

2) There were a lot of would be messiahs from 4 BCE to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

Based on that it is impossible to say there wasn't a chance of an obscure teacher named Jesus in Galilee in the 100 BCE to 100 CE period. But, and this is the important point there is also nothing to say that Jesus was the core of the Gospel Jesus.

That wasn't my question. Do you agree that it's likely that such a preacher man was at the source of Christianity ?