Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Foster Zygote]

It is a monstrous fable that an obscure crucified criminal was called a Messiah by Jews after he was dead.

Yet that's just what some did.

Again, the radical reinterpretation of what the messiah was going to do was why the Jesus movement was largely rejected within Judaism. The vast majority of Jews, even those who bought into the messianic prophecies, just couldn't buy this very different interpretation, born out of a refusal to admit that Jesus had failed as the messiah. The Gospel of Matthew is a perfect illustration of this conflict between early Christians and mainstream Judaism.

Jews do not look for their Messiah in a Graveyard.

Jews do not look in Tombs for their King.

And that's just what many Jews said to those in the Jesus movement. You certainly don't seem to see 1st Century Jews as a diverse group of people with many sub-groups with differing ideas.

Please, please, please!!!

What does James Brown have to do with this?

Your assumed obscure criminal does not make sense before c 70 CE when the Jewish Temple of their God was still standing, there were High Priests and the Jews practiced the Laws of their God of sacrifice for remission of sins.

Right, because prior to the First Jewish-Roman War, all Jews thought as one unified whole. There were never any divisions within Judaism, never any anti-Temple factions, no apocalyptic sects. Is that what you are saying?

The killing of a known man for remission of sins would be Blasphemy to the Jews.

Please explain. I want to know why it would have been considered blasphemy according to Jewish law.

 

[Belz...]

What a monstrous fable.

No, you just haven't followed this topic since the beginning.

It does not make any real sense to start a new religion with a known lie.

Which kinda works against your argument that it's a hoax.

 

[Craig B]

No, you just haven't followed this topic since the beginning.



Which kinda works against your argument that it's a hoax.

It's a monstrous forged fictional hoax lie fable.

 

[dejudge]

Again, known by whom?

Joseph Smith lied his arse off with the Book Of Mormon. That lie was certainly known by him, and proved rather successful, yes.

You also keep insisting that no one would have joined a religious movement based around a criminal. Yet one person's criminal is another person's hero. Criminal or hero: the definition often depends on which side of the conflict the definer is on.

Your statement is highly illogical and absurd

You mean that people in America knew Moroni and Jesus of the Mormon Bible were living as human beings during the time of Joseph Smith?

You mean that people in America actually conversed with Moroni and Jesus of the Mormon Bible and that they told people in America that Joseph Smith was lying?

When Joseph Smith told people in America about his visions from Jesus, the Son of God and Moroni people BELIEVE it was true. There were NO human beings living in America who were known as Jesus and Moroni to confirm the claims of Joseph Smith.

The same thing happened with the Jesus cult.

The stories of Jesus were written in the 2nd century or later.

The 2nd century Jesus cult BELIEVED Jesus, the Son of God, existed as described in the time of Pilate c 27-37 CE

If Paul, the Jews and Romans in Galilee and Jerusalem were really contemporaries of an actual human Jesus in the time of Pilate then the Pauline Corpus would be a product of KNOWN lies.

If Paul actually claimed a known crucified criminal Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead and that he was seen by over 500 persons then he would be a known monstrous liar.

A known crucified criminal does not make sense to start a new religion.

Paul would have to be a complete idiot and completely insane to travel around the Roman Empire telling people to worship a known crucified criminal as a God who was caught red-handed in criminal activity.

Moroni and Jesus in the Mormon Bible were not known to be actual human beings, known criminals or contemporaries of Joseph Smith and the people of America.

Your HJ would be a known lie--the obscure crucified criminal-and would be THEOLOGICALLY worthless to start a new religion.

 

[Craig B]

Paul would have to be a complete idiot and completely insane to travel around the Roman Empire telling people to worship a known crucified criminal as a God who was caught red-handed in criminal activity.

He did have problems. 1 Cor 1:23

but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles

However, if he had said, "We preach as a god, a crucified criminal caught red handed in criminal activity" he would have had even more problems, I think.

 

[dejudge]

He did have problems. 1 Cor 1:23

You BELIEVE Paul.

You have been caught red-handed.

 

[Craig B]

You BELIEVE Paul.

You have been caught red-handed.

OK, Paul was lying. Christ crucified wasn't a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. They loved the idea of a crucified messiah!

 

[Brainache]

OK, Paul was lying. Christ crucified wasn't a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. They loved the idea of a crucified messiah!

Possibly my favourite so far.

Love your work Craig.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your statement is highly illogical and absurd

The first sentence wasn't a statement, it was a question. One which you obviously can't answer.

The second two statements you obviously disagree with. You think it is absurd that Joseph Smith lied and was believed by many. And you think it is absurd that a person can be regarded as a criminal by one group, but as a hero by another.

Seriously, you couldn't make it more clear that you can't even comprehend what I said, and thus you just repeated one of your stock denials.

You mean that people in America knew Moroni and Jesus of the Mormon Bible were living as human beings during the time of Joseph Smith?

What is Ed's name are you talking about? Why the hell would anyone who thought Joseph Smith was a liar conclude that the Jesus and Moroni he claimed to meet were anything but products of his imagination?

You mean that people in America actually conversed with Moroni and Jesus of the Mormon Bible and that they told people in America that Joseph Smith was lying?

When Joseph Smith told people in America about his visions from Jesus, the Son of God and Moroni people BELIEVE it was true. There were NO human beings living in America who were known as Jesus and Moroni to confirm the claims of Joseph Smith.

What in the world are you on about? Seriously, you said that it makes no sense to found a religion on a known lie, and I asked you "by whom what the lie known?". I then pointed out that most religions have been founded upon lies and misbeliefs. Your "counter argument" makes no sense.

The same thing happened with the Jesus cult.

The stories of Jesus were written in the 2nd century or later.

The 2nd century Jesus cult BELIEVED Jesus, the Son of God, existed as described in the time of Pilate c 27-37 CE

If Paul, the Jews and Romans in Galilee and Jerusalem were really contemporaries of an actual human Jesus in the time of Pilate then the Pauline Corpus would be a product of KNOWN lies.

Again, known by whom?

If Paul actually claimed a known crucified criminal Jesus was the Son of God who was raised from the dead and that he was seen by over 500 persons then he would be a known monstrous liar.

Firstly, Paul never claimed that Jesus was god.

Secondly, you are claiming that people can't believe lies unless the lies are told about something that happened almost a hundred years earlier.

A known crucified criminal does not make sense to start a new religion.

Can you name a religion origin narrative that does make sense? Does the story of a con-man meeting an angel and magically translating golden plates into a holy book make sense to you? The the Xenu narrative from Scientology make sense to you?

Paul would have to be a complete idiot and completely insane to travel around the Roman Empire telling people to worship a known crucified criminal as a God who was caught red-handed in criminal activity.

Why do you continue to ignore anything that you don't want to be true? Why do you keep pretending that Paul, and every other early Christian writer, portrayed Jesus as God from the beginning? You are just lying to yourself in the same way that religious fundamentalists do, because you want something to be true.

Paul didn't portray Jesus as a "criminal". He portrayed him as a righteous man who was rejected by the wicked and turned over to the Evil Empire to be killed. It's like you're saying that no one would follow Martin Luther King because he was a known criminal who'd done time in jail.

Moroni and Jesus in the Mormon Bible were not known to be actual human beings, known criminals or contemporaries of Joseph Smith and the people of America.

Your HJ would be a known lie--the obscure crucified criminal-and would be THEOLOGICALLY worthless to start a new religion.

Your arguments just don't get any better.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You BELIEVE Paul.

You have been caught red-handed.

Again, if a Christian told you that the Earth orbits the sun, would you feel compelled to disagree with him?

 

[maximara]

I think you ougt to see this page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory#David_Strauss

You will see as you are quoting certain mythicists that aren't, in the sense given to the word mythicist in this forum and that you use.

I have seen that page; in fact, I reference it ever so often.

You seem to have either missed or ignored the whole Inherent problems in the arguments for and against section which goes into detail (one could argue too much detail ) regarding the various ways "myth", "historical Jesus", "fiction" and even the very terms "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" have been used over about a century.

In fact, in that very section is this:

Meaning of the whole term

The term "Jesus myth theory" or "Christ Myth theory" has been used to describe the following ideas:

[...]

The Gospel Jesus didn't exist and GA Wells' Jesus Myth (1999) is an example of this. Note that from Jesus Legend (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd.
---

Also Wells has stated that even before Jesus Legend (1996) he was arguing that Paul's Jesus was a legendary mythical character. Per Price's 2012 statement in The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems pg 387-8 ("For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus.") this would put all of Wells in the historical category.

The reality is myth does NOT mean entirely fictional story as some on both sides of the fence think it means as explained in the Meaning of "myth" in Christ/Jesus myth debate section of the very page you linked to!

"Myth: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events." (Oxford dictionary)

A Historical myth's "may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" is especially problematic for the Jesus story because per the examples of the George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn and Jesse James and the Widow (also in the page you linked ) you can have an actual historical person in a totally fictitious story. And if the Gospels are in that "narrative is essentially false" category then they are useless in finding a historical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Of course anyone is free to use any definition they want, as long as they make known what it is. But confusion has arisen. Some people simply mean that Jesus didn't exist, therefore he was, by default, a "myth" in the sense of something that is said to exist, but doesn't. Others use the word in a stronger sense, that a pre-existing mystery story about a spiritual saviour developed prior to the gospels, and inspired them. These are two very different positions.

Actually as I have shown using John Frum as a template there can be over lap between the two positions:

1) There is a prexisting Messiah cult that Paul as Saul persecutes

2) He has his vision and creates a schism cult that revers Jesus

3) Inspired by Paul's teaching various people take up the name Jesus putting their own spin on the message with perhaps one of them being killed as a result.

4) Paul hears of these other Jesuses and writes his warning in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

5) Paul dies

6) The first Gospel is written and the teachings of one of the after Paul "Jesus" figures is used with a fictional life and death created to fit Paul's vision.

7) This first Gospel become the go to work for all later Gospels both canonal and noncanonal.

As you can see from this off the cuff example you can have a preexisting myth and Jesus as a flesh and blood man at the same time. In fact, this is a variation of one of John Robertson's 1900 myth theories. Since the Jesus in this example came after Paul the Gospel Jesus didn't really exist because he is before Paul.

 

[Craig B]

Actually as I have shown using John Frum as a template there can be over lap between the two positions:

1) There is a prexisting Messiah cult that Paul as Saul persecutes

2) He has his vision and creates a schism cult that revers Jesus

3) Inspired by Paul's teaching various people take up the name Jesus putting their own spin on the message with perhaps one of them being killed as a result.

4) Paul hears of these other Jesuses and writes his warning in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4

5) Paul dies

6) The first Gospel is written and the teachings of one of the after Paul "Jesus" figures is used with a fictional life and death created to fit Paul's vision.

7) This first Gospel become the go to work for all later Gospels both canonal and noncanonal.

As you can see from this off the cuff example you can have a preexisting myth and Jesus as a flesh and blood man at the same time. In fact, this is a variation of one of John Robertson's 1900 myth theories. Since the Jesus in this example came after Paul the Gospel Jesus didn't really exist because he is before Paul.

I have implicitly included your schema. It is the strong myth. I have said, either the Jesus story is inspired by a myth, or it is inspired by a person. You have given a version of the myth Jesus.

You are saying there was a real existing myth, and no real peripatetic apocalypticist preacher. What you have done is propose a chronology and mechanism for the mutation from the salvation myth sublunary, to the alleged (but non-existent in your hypothesis) terrestrial, human figure. I say "non-existent" because the hypothesised renamed Jesus figure is artificial, an imitation of reality.

Consider Robin Hood. Let us imagine a real outlaw hears tales of a mythical outlaw Robin Hood, and changes his name to conform to this, improving also his skill in archery. He wouldn't be a real Robin Hood. He'd be an imitation Robin Hood, inspired by the mythical figure.

Your view is possible, but others are possible too, no doubt.

 

[dejudge]

OK, Paul was lying. Christ crucified wasn't a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. They loved the idea of a crucified messiah!

You got caught red-handed again.

You forgot you just said Paul had problems.

You have Pauline problems.

Your HJ was not a crucified Messiah.

 

[Belz...]

It's a monstrous forged fictional hoax lie fable.

And a false fake one at that.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is highly illogical and absurd

You keep saying stuff like this as though it meant anything.

I can call your post a banana but it means nothing unless I prove it.

You have Pauline problems.

Your sound bites are juvenile and useless.

 

[dejudge]

Actually as I have shown using John Frum as a template there can be over lap between the two positions:

1) There is a prexisting Messiah cult that Paul as Saul persecutes

Where is the evidence of a pre-existing Messiah cult?

The Entire NT cannot be accepted as historical accounts of Jesus, the disciples and Paul without external corroboration.

2) He has his vision and creates a schism cult that revers Jesus

How can you ever prove that Paul had visions and prove he had them in the 1st century?

Visions are not even sources of history but sources of imagination.

It is not a good idea to speculate without supporting evidence or without sources.

Not a single manuscript of the Jesus story has ever been recovered in Jerusalem or Galilee and dated to the 1st century pre 70 CE.

 

[dejudge]

... The Gospel of Matthew is a perfect illustration of this conflict between early Christians and mainstream Judaism.

The Gospel of Matthew is a forgery or falsely attributed and is not an eyewitness account.

gMatthew is a perfect example of fraud, fiction or mythology.

Jews do not look for their Messiah in a Graveyard.

Jews do not look in Tombs for their King.

And that's just what many Jews said to those in the Jesus movement. You certainly don't seem to see 1st Century Jews as a diverse group of people with many sub-groups with differing ideas.

What Jews are you talking about? You just made that up! There is no evidence from antiquity that "MANY Jews said anything to your assumed 1st century Jesus movement"

 

[DOC]

The Gospel of Matthew is a forgery or falsely attributed and is not an eyewitness account.

gMatthew is a perfect example of fraud, fiction or mythology.

For the umpteenth time, you make an "Argument by assertion", other disagree:

http://www.awmi.net/bible/mat

And if you are going to assign a name to a gospel, why assign the name of a hated tax collector, Matthew was a tax collector. If I was going to invent a religion, I wouldn't say the founder was an IRS agent.

Also we have no eyewitness writings for "Alexander the Great" who conquered Jerusalem and much of the known world, does that mean he didn't exist. Almost everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from writers writing about 300 years after his death.

 

[tsig]

I have implicitly included your schema. It is the strong myth. I have said, either the Jesus story is inspired by a myth, or it is inspired by a person. You have given a version of the myth Jesus.

You are saying there was a real existing myth, and no real peripatetic apocalypticist preacher. What you have done is propose a chronology and mechanism for the mutation from the salvation myth sublunary, to the alleged (but non-existent in your hypothesis) terrestrial, human figure. I say "non-existent" because the hypothesised renamed Jesus figure is artificial, an imitation of reality.

Consider Robin Hood. Let us imagine a real outlaw hears tales of a mythical outlaw Robin Hood, and changes his name to conform to this, improving also his skill in archery. He wouldn't be a real Robin Hood. He'd be an imitation Robin Hood, inspired by the mythical figure.

Your view is possible, but others are possible too, no doubt.

False dichotomy.