Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

But there is nobody in the entire world who teaches the MJ as part of a History course at University, except as a demonstration of bad Scholarship.

So what are you doing to correct this ghastly miscarriage of education?

I am cremating the HJ argument right now!!

Why can't you help?

Ghost stories should not be taught in the Universities as history without a shred of supporting evidence.

The stories of Jesus are products of illiteracy, fiction, fraud, and fake authors.

People need to be educated.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are 2nd century products of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

I teach the whole world on the Internet.

 

[Brainache]

I am cremating the HJ argument right now!!

Why can't you help?

Ghost stories should not be taught in the Universities as history without a shred of supporting evidence.

The stories of Jesus are products of illiteracy, fiction, fraud, and fake authors.

People need to be educated.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are 2nd century products of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

I teach the whole world on the Internet.

Well I don't know how to tell you this, but the JREF isn't the most popular forum on the net, and nothing you say here will affect the curricula of Secular Universities. So, cremated or not, HJ is still being taught to the future Historians of the world.

Oh well.

 

[dejudge]

I am cremating the HJ argument right now!!

Why can't you help?

Ghost stories should not be taught in the Universities as history without a shred of supporting evidence.

The stories of Jesus are products of illiteracy, fiction, fraud, and fake authors.

People need to be educated.

Jesus, the disciples and Paul are 2nd century products of Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.

I teach the whole world on the Internet.

Well I don't know how to tell you this, but the JREF isn't the most popular forum on the net, and nothing you say here will affect the curricula of Secular Universities. So, cremated or not, HJ is still being taught to the future Historians of the world.

Oh well.

I have something to tell you too. Bart Ehrman, an HJ teacher, claimed he heard about the Myth Jesus theory after he started to receive E-MAILS.

He is going to get some more E-MAILS advising him that the HJ argument is now dead and was cremated.

We know what is taught in the Universities. We have Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

"Did Jesus Exist?" is filled with logical fallacies, ADMITTED discredited sources, admitted fake authorship, Ghost stories, historical problems, discrepancies and may be the very worst argument in the history of mankind for an HJ.

How did this happen? How did Ghost stories become a part of the curriculum in Universities?

 

[maximara]

I am specifically dealing with the question of the existence/non-existence of an HJ.

The existence or non-existence of Robin Hood and King Arthur require separate and independent inquiries and the results cannot be transferred to an HJ.

I am talking about methodology not results

At this very moment, there is no evidence of an historical Jesus in the time of Pilate. Stories of Jesus are dated no earlier than the 2nd century.

And there is no evidence of King Arthur Pendragon son of Uther Pendragon or Robin Hood former Earl of Huntington in their respective traditional time periods either but they are though to have a historical core.

I cannot go any earlier until new evidence surfaces.

The Jesus story and cult are no earlier than the 2nd century. If there was no Jesus story and cult in the 1st century then it would be expected that no evidence would surface.

This is exactly what has happened.

The problem is just because no one notices it doesn't mean it didn't exist. For instance the John Frum is thought to have originated in the 1930s or even the 1910s even though the first external record is 1940.

There have been many splinter groups of Christianity that it is only thanks to the printing press that we even know existed. Case in point is the Oahspe who you likely haven't ever heard of.

Similarly the only reason anybody today even knows of one particular ruler of Wallachia is because of all the propaganda regarding him that was printed up as examples of Catholic brutality and that he was used as the foundation for one of the most famous vampire in all of fiction. As for his successors or predecessors? Other then the locals nobody cares.

 

[Brainache]

I have something to tell you too. Bart Ehrman, an HJ teacher, claimed he heard about the Myth Jesus theory after he started to receive E-MAILS.

He is going to get some more E-MAILS advising him that the HJ argument is now dead and was cremated.

We know what is taught in the Universities. We have Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?"

"Did Jesus Exist?" is filled with logical fallacies, ADMITTED discredited sources, admitted fake authorship, Ghost stories, historical problems, discrepancies and may be the very worst argument in the history of mankind for an HJ.

How did this happen? How did Ghost stories become a part of the curriculum in Universities?

(my bold) Hilarious!

You have a book, therefore you know all about what they teach at University. Priceless.

Then you say you don't know what they teach at Universities.

Which is it?

 

[dejudge]

I am specifically dealing with the question of the existence/non-existence of an HJ.

The existence or non-existence of Robin Hood and King Arthur require separate and independent inquiries and the results cannot be transferred to an HJ.

I am talking about methodology not results

I am talking about the existing evidence from antiquity.

At this very moment, there is no evidence of an historical Jesus in the time of Pilate. Stories of Jesus are dated no earlier than the 2nd century.

And there is no evidence of King Arthur Pendragon son of Uther Pendragon or Robin Hood former Earl of Huntington in their respective traditional time periods either but they are though to have a historical core.

I am dealing with the evidence from antiquity--not what people today thought.

I cannot go any earlier until new evidence surfaces.

The Jesus story and cult are no earlier than the 2nd century.

If there was no Jesus story and cult in the 1st century then it would be expected that no evidence would surface.

This is exactly what has happened.

The problem is just because no one notices it doesn't mean it didn't exist. For instance the John Frum is thought to have originated in the 1930s or even the 1910s even though the first external record is 1940.

You seem to have little idea of the significance of evidence. If something did not exist then there would be no evidence of its existence.

In other words, the ONLY time it can be argued that a thing does not exist or did not is precisely when there is no evidence of its existence.

I have no problem at all arguing that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology because there is no evidence of his historicity.

As soon as new evidence surfaces then I may review my position.

Please, don't tell me anything about John Frum, right now. Frum's existence is irrelevant.

I am dealing with a specific matter--the existence/non-existence of Jesus of whom there is no 1st century history except as a Ghost or the Son of one.

There have been many splinter groups of Christianity that it is only thanks to the printing press that we even know existed. Case in point is the Oahspe who you likely haven't ever heard of.

Now that you present some new information I have done a quick search and found that the Oahspe is a 19th century Bible or revelation which makes it completely irrelevant to the HJ/MJ argument.

Similarly the only reason anybody today even knows of one particular ruler of Wallachia is because of all the propaganda regarding him that was printed up as examples of Catholic brutality and that he was used as the foundation for one of the most famous vampire in all of fiction. As for his successors or predecessors? Other then the locals nobody cares.

The problem with your analogy is that it is irrelevant after I DID some research on Wallachia.

I cannot assume that the non existence of evidence for an HJ means that there was an HJ but nobody noticed.

If you did not commit a crime then it would be expected that no evidence would exist to show you are guilty.

My argument that the Jesus story and cult began in the 2nd century is completely compatible with the recovered dated evidence.

Stories of Jesus are dated no earlier then the 2nd century.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Christians do not believe in an historical Jesus. Christians believe in a Jesus of Faith.

But their faith, as articulated in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, professes a man who was born on Earth and died there during the First Century CE. Whatever they believe happened beyond history before and afterwards, they believe that he lived a human life as mortal flesh and blood.

This is simply an observed fact about the modern world. If we disagree about it, then there is nothing in it for you and me to discuss; we can only agree to disagree.

 

[dejudge]

(my bold) Hilarious!

You have a book, therefore you know all about what they teach at University. Priceless.

Then you say you don't know what they teach at Universities.

Which is it?

Bart Ehrman is considered a leading expert on the Bible and he teaches at a University.

It is quite logical that he would write about what he teaches at University.

By the way, I have more than 1 book.

Philo, Jopephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger, Cassius Dio, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, the Epistles, Hebrews, Revelation, Clement, Ignatius, Aristides, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Irenaeus, Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Rufinus, Optatus, Julian and others.

 

[David Mo]

The problem is that Jesus Christ like King Arthur Pendragon or Robin Hood, Earl of Huntington tends to bring to mind a certain version of the person who in all odd is fictional in nature.

You are right. “Jesus of Galilee” would have been a more appropriate or neutral expression.

I tend to agree with Remsburg that there feels just enough to say that there likely was a human being named Jesus but also the Gospels tell us nothing about that man; nothing about what he preached, nothing about anything he did, or even how he died.

This seems excessive to me. You are right about many evangelical passages, but not in others. We must distinguish between degrees of probability between probable, implausible or simply impossible accounts. For example, between Jesus' existence, that is plausible enough for me, and the resurrection accounts, that are simply impossible.

In general we can just express our mistrust or denial of the historical value of the Gospels and wait to see if someone suggests a specific passage worthy to discuss.

 

[David Mo]

David

There would be no way for Paul to discuss Jesus' career without promoting the status of his business rivals, the James Gang. Further, no teaching of Jesus that reaches us has any relevance to the benefits of membership sold by Paul to his Gentile constituency, that is, never dying and learning to fly. Thus, I don't see a basis in Paul's avoidance of Jesus' first career for your conclusion about the Gang's reliability as a source of Jesus stories for Paul. (...)

In any case, the BS being rebutted is that Paul says that he had no other source for an earthly Jesus than his own visions, amplified only by his personal understanding of Jewish scripture. Paul says no such thing. On the contrary, he discusses meetings, both amicable and hostile, with people who definitely promote a different perspective on the Jesus phenomenon than Paul does, some of whom may possibly have had personal knowledge about the earthly Jesus.

I didn't give any "reliability" to the "gang" of Jerusalem. On the contrary. I only said that Paul suggest that the resurrection stories were told to him by some witnesses ("most of whom are still alive"). And I supposed these witnesses were probably members of the Jerusalem congregation. It sounds well.

I would not do any supposition about the reasons why Paul says scarcely nothing about Jesus' life. Paul seems to accept the authority of James and Peter and this suggested that both were authoritative figures in early Christianity. I don't get into whether they really existed or not. Neither if Paul spoke with them or not. But Paul uses these figures in his favor and we'll never know the degree of distortion he introduces in his rapport of the mutual relations.

It is likely that in his journeys to Jerusalem somebody told him more about Jesus' life and sayings than the resurrection stories. If Paul didn't pay attention to this he had his particular reasons. Most likely they didn't fit his personal view of the Christ. A merely Jewish Christ without gentile projection, perhaps.

"If", "probably", "perhaps", "we don't know"... Yes. All this is conjectural and very unstable.

POST SCRIPTUM: What the devil means “BS”?

 

[IanS]

I think the Doherty's point of view on this subject is a relevant one from the mythicism. You can see it here:

http://vridar.org/2010/05/02/applying-sound-historical-methodology-to-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/

I avoid linguistic considerations because I am not an expert in this specialized field.

Regarding the other non technical arguments I think they are very disputable. But in general, the argument that the expression "brother of the Lord” differentiates contextually James to the others mentioned along him seems consistent. It discards the use of "brother" in a more general sense as “disciple” or similar. Doherty's suppositions in order to weaken this implication seem to me more inconsistent. There is no reasonable motive to suppose that John or Peter don't were called "brother" because they would be familiar with the Galatians or so. Yes, it introduces the shadow of a doubt, but sustained by nothing it is a weak objection.

Either Paul wants to say that James was the blood brother of Jesus or someone very close to him. In both cases the supposition that he was a source of information about Jesus seems coherent.

But if James or any other close person informed Paul about Jesus in his journeys to Jerusalem it must be said they were very bad "informers" because Paul tells practically nothing in his letters about the life or sayings of Jesus. Moreover, his stories about Jesus' appearances post mortem are incredible or disagree with the other evangelical sources.

If I was a Christian I would get a big headache with Paul accounts of their own adventures. I would be specially reluctant to admit their accounts without seeing the opposite point of view. But to admit he says that he saw the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem, why not? Another different thing is to know what they said each other.

I’m not sure from your post above whether you are disagreeing with me, or not. But in the link which you gave, Neil Godfrey makes almost exactly the same points that I have made here at least a dozen times before concerning Paul’s mention of “James”.

Ellegard too made all those same points in his book.

It is clearly unsafe, for all the reasons already given many times, to take that one brief sentence, or rather just it's final three words (added in the style of an afterthought), written in a Christian devotional copy 150 years after Paul was supposed to have died, as reliable evidence that a person named James was an actual family brother of Jesus (something which James himself, apparently never claimed at all).

We could go through all those same points again. I could list all the objections all over again for the 12 or 20th time. But we keep doing that in this thread. At the behest of the HJ posters, we keep going over the same few points from the biblical writing, literally hundreds of times … but always without the HJ side ever being able to cite any credible reliable evidence of anyone ever knowing a living Jesus … and especially not being able to cite anything independent from the clearly fanatical devotional religious writing of the bible ….

… when is anyone ever going to produce any credible reliable piece of independent evidence to show that any person at that time had ever met Jesus? Where does any traceable person of the time ever write to say they met Jesus and to give any sort of reliable details to show that their claims were reliable in any way at all?

Where is the evidence?

 

[Belz...]

Kinda reminds me of the term 'god'; none of us can have a rational, meaningful discussion without some kind of common definition.

I agree, which is why I and others have provided said definition in the last couple of days alone.

If all of these historians/scholars are utilizing the same Historic Method, then how come they all seem to do what you're complaining about, as I've now repeatedly shown?

There are a lot of posts, here. What am I complaining about that they are doing, and what does it have to do with my argument ?

Perhaps you can help by providing a common definition we can all use and with which all scholars agree.

I already have. Seriously, you're almost down to denying that I've posted in this thread at all, ever. At which point do you admit that something you don't agree with has been done anyway ?

 

[eight bits]

David

I didn't give any "reliability" to the "gang" of Jerusalem.

Of course, I don't know anything about the James Gang except what I read in the papers, but Paul does afford Cephas-Peter corresponding and complementary status with himself ("Apostle to the ___s"), and when Paul was scheduling meetings for his first return visit to Jersusalem, he pointedly did not speak to those many "brothers, most of whom are still alive." Peter or James might easily have been his source for all the sightings before his own. Regardless of what you said, Paul said he was selective about those early meetings in Jerusalem.

I don't get into whether they really existed or not. Neither if Paul spoke with them or not.

Well, they or somebody very much like them are key figures for an HJ who counts. If there was no natural way in which Jesus of Galilee affected Paul's knowledge, then J o' G is not the historical focus of Gentile Christianity. Without some version of the James Gang, there would be only the ghost to play that role. It wouldn't much matter whose ghost Paul thought he saw, or if it was anybody's ghost at all.

What the devil means “BS”?

Manure from male cattle. It means something which is so obviously untruthful that it cannot be taken seriously as a fact claim. The "B" is for bull. Since the "S" is the initial of an Anglo-Saxon term for manure, the abbreviation is necessary to prevent the language filters from having a cow, so to speak.

 

[Craig B]

And then you end by quoting to me a load of superstitious nonsense about Paul saying hundreds of people had seen visions of the risen Jesus. As if that was somehow supposed to be evidence that any of those people knew James to be the family brother of Jesus!

That is nonsensical. Whether he was the blood brother of Jesus or not, Paul listed him by name among visionaries of Jesus. Of course James didn't see the risen Jesus! But Paul accords him the honour of naming him in a list of those whom Paul says did. That means he was an important person in Paul's eyes. As I have also pointed out, James orders people about, including Paul, and Paul obeys, even in the matter of a purification rite in the Temple. My point is--I'm sorry if you don't get it--that by Paul's account this James is an important person, ruling over disciples who certainly did know Jesus, so he had contact with at least them, and was a potential source of information, blood brother of Jesus or not.

Stop believing, if you really do, that I accept supernatural stories from the Book of Acts or the epistles, or anywhere else. This is all nonsense that I have refuted umpteen times, and it stretches my credulity that you can still honestly propose that I am a believer in the infallibility of any religious writings. Such a suggestion is manifestly false, and quite pointless.

 

[Craig B]

Dup post deleted

 

[IanS]

That is nonsensical. Whether he was the blood brother of Jesus or not, Paul listed him by name among visionaries of Jesus. Of course James didn't see the risen Jesus! But Paul accords him the honour of naming him in a list of those whom Paul says did. That means he was an important person in Paul's eyes.

That is precisely zero evidence of James ever knowing Jesus, is it! And it’s also zero evidence of Paul believing that James knew Jesus.

The fact that Paul may have regarded James as an important leader in the church, is absolutely zero evidence that either of them ever met Jesus, is it!

As I have also pointed out, James orders people about, including Paul, and Paul obeys, even in the matter of a purification rite in the Temple. My point is--I'm sorry if you don't get it--that by Paul's account this James is an important person, ruling over disciples who certainly did know Jesus, so he had contact with at least them, and was a potential source of information, blood brother of Jesus or not.

What? Where did Paul’s letters ever show that “disciples certainly did know Jesus”? Where in Paul’s letters is there any reliable evidence from any named disciple claiming to have known Jesus?

This appears to be Freudian slip, where you are automatically assuming that people ("disciples") "certainly" did know a living Jesus. You are automatically assuming Jesus certainly existed!

Stop believing, if you really do, that I accept supernatural stories from the Book of Acts or the epistles, or anywhere else. This is all nonsense that I have refuted umpteen times, and it stretches my credulity that you can still honestly propose that I am a believer in the infallibility of any religious writings. Such a suggestion is manifestly false, and quite pointless.

Please quote where I ever said that you believe in the supernatural.

 

[Craig B]

Please quote where I ever said that you believe in the supernatural.

And then you end by quoting to me a load of superstitious nonsense about Paul saying hundreds of people had seen visions of the risen Jesus. As if that was somehow supposed to be evidence that any of those people knew James to be the family brother of Jesus!

Again, quoting superstitious nonsense as evidence, you now say is not believing in the supernatural. Why do you think I quoted it as evidence unless you are suggesting I think it's true? But I quoted it, not to establish that, but to stress the importance Paul attached to James.

Now, you have it that disciples didn't know Jesus, and Peter and John presumably didn't know Jesus either. Fine.

 

[IanS]

Again, quoting superstitious nonsense as evidence, you now say is not believing in the supernatural. Why do you think I quoted it as evidence unless you are suggesting I think it's true? But I quoted it, not to establish that, but to stress the importance Paul attached to James.

Now, you have it that disciples didn't know Jesus, and Peter and John presumably didn't know Jesus either. Fine.

That does not say that I ever claimed you believe in the supernatural, does it! No, it does not. What I said was that, what you had quoted from Paul was a load of superstitious nonsense where Paul claimed that 500 people saw Jesus return from the dead ... that claim is "a load of superstitious nonsense" isn't it!

So again - please quote where I claimed that you believe in the supernatural.

And by the way your highlighted sentence is beginning now to look even more like a real Freudian slip, where you are coming perilously close to talking as if you really are claiming to believe it's a fact that disciples definitely did know Jesus and hence you believe Jesus must have been real (otherwise disciples could not have "known him").

 

[The Norseman]

I agree, which is why I and others have provided said definition in the last couple of days alone.

Then I'm confused as to why you said, "[g]iven that no one here seems willing or able to define MJ or HJ..." yet now state that "...I and others have provided said definition..."?

There are a lot of posts, here. What am I complaining about that they are doing, and what does it have to do with my argument ?

I think you're right that I read too much into what you said then and I apologize. It seemed to me that you have been complaining recently in other posts that there are multiple ideas of what Jesus was and I responded that, if all scholars are utilizing the same Historic Method, why do all of these differing Jesuses pop up.

I already have. Seriously, you're almost down to denying that I've posted in this thread at all, ever. At which point do you admit that something you don't agree with has been done anyway ?

Please stop with the hyperbole; I think I get what you're saying, but jesus, could you maybe just link to a post that best expresses what I missed instead of acting offended? This **** ain't personal and we all -- myself included -- need to try a little better at keeping our cool.

 

[pakeha]

dejudge


Paul's "gospel" appears at 2: 15-21, which may be summarized by it climactic two verses:

yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me. Insofar as I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God who has loved me and given himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Paul's gospel preached to the Galatians and summarized above has nothing to do with Jesus' earthly career before he died, but instead describes a relationship that Paul enjoys with whom he preaches to be the formerly dead, but now risen Jesus. Since Paul's gospel doesn't depend on following the Jewish law, the spiritual relationship (christosis) that Paul enjoys with the risen Jesus is also available to Paul's Gentile readers.

Interestingly, we have some noncanonical evidence that "playing at christosis" was a part of early Christian worship, based on the Second Century Odes of Solomon.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/odes.html

See Ode #3, for instance (Charlesworth translation linked from preceding link):



I would imagine that this could be easily integrated into your forged-Paul hypothesis, since the Odes would be a fine source for that much of Galatians, and be available to the forger(s) just in time to be put to good use.

But forged or not, it is BS that Paul says that he had no other source for an earthly Jesus than his own visions, amplified only by his personal understanding of Jewish scripture. Paul says no such thing.

Thanks for the link, eight bits.
Those odes were new to me.