Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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.

Paul suggested no such thing in the Pauline Corpus.

It is the complete opposite-- the Pauline writers are claiming to be WITNESSES that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The Pauline writers are giving the impression that they are in DIRECT contact with the living resurrected Jesus.

1 Corinthians 15:15 KJV

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up , if so be that the dead rise not.

The Pauline writer claimed his Gospel was ONLY by revelation of Jesus. We cannot be going over the same thing day after day.

Galatians 1

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In the Pauline Corpus, the Pauline writers did not need the so-called Apostles, they did not need human beings to tell them any thing about the resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writers did not confer with Flesh and Blood when the resurrected Son of God was REVEALED to them.

[Galatians 1

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.

The Pauline writers attempted to historicize a non-historical event--a resurrection.

The purpose of the Entire Pauline Corpus is to deceive the readers into believing Jesus was the Son of God and did resurrect.

The Pauline Corpus and Acts of the Apostles were unknown up to at least c 180 CE or after the writings of Celsus "True Discourse".

 

[Belz...]

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..."?

Sorry for the confusion: no one on the MJ side want to define the terms. I've seen definitions of HJ and MJ from the HJ side.

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.

No, that's not it. I am complaining that people in this thread try to splinter MJ into its many variations in order to avoid having to address specific criticisms about MJ in general, and they do the same thing with HJ in order to avoid having to admit that HJ in general is likely.

Please stop with the hyperbole

I love hyperbole. It's such a nice way to illustrate a point. Case in point: did you understand what I'm trying to say with it ?

 

[pakeha]

Sorry for the confusion: no one on the MJ side want to define the terms. I've seen definitions of HJ and MJ from the HJ side.

No, that's not it. I am complaining that people in this thread try to splinter MJ into its many variations in order to avoid having to address specific criticisms about MJ in general, and they do the same thing with HJ in order to avoid having to admit that HJ in general is likely.



I love hyperbole. It's such a nice way to illustrate a point. Case in point: did you understand what I'm trying to say with it ?

There's always the ahistoric option.

 

[The Norseman]

Sorry for the confusion: no one on the MJ side want to define the terms. I've seen definitions of HJ and MJ from the HJ side.

Alright. I do disagree, however. In my understanding (which could be wrong), it was and has been maximara who consistently posts definitions of a mythical Jesus. I will admit that I do not think anyone on the mythical side has outright stated which one they agree with and argue for.

No, that's not it. I am complaining that people in this thread try to splinter MJ into its many variations in order to avoid having to address specific criticisms about MJ in general, and they do the same thing with HJ in order to avoid having to admit that HJ in general is likely.

Okay. I don't really see it in that manner regarding avoidance. I think that a few posters on the mythical side who are quite consistent while others aren't. I don't wish to call anyone out at this point to demonstrate what I'm talking about, though.

I love hyperbole. It's such a nice way to illustrate a point. Case in point: did you understand what I'm trying to say with it ?

In this case, sure, I got it. It was a little too personal in this case, however. I did not airily dismiss your contributions to this thread as was implied. You are the most masterful person in the whole universe who uses hyperbole () but it'd be best if you use it in a manner which does not promote the implications of personalization.

As to your question, I feel that I do admit that the evidence has been done before in most circumstances. You'll notice that I did ask you for a link to any earlier post you had made, did I not? This certainly means that I believe you when you say you've already posted it and I'm requesting a link.

 

[dejudge]

The Quest for an HJ was directly because the NT portrayed a Jesus of Faith.

The NT defines Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

Please, let us get acquainted with the History of the Quest for an HJ and not get side tracked by Belz's strawman.

The HJ of Nazareth argument is argument AGAINST NT Jesus and was INITIATED in the 18th century by Bible Believers.

No evidence for HJ of Nazareth has ever been found after Multiple failures.

The HJ QUESTERS now want to blame other people for their failures.

Belz has already OPENLY admitted he never claimed to have had evidence for an HJ..

The Quest and argument for an HJ are known established failures based on logical fallacies and no supporting evidence from antiquity.

 

[Belz...]

Alright. I do disagree, however. In my understanding (which could be wrong), it was and has been maximara who consistently posts definitions of a mythical Jesus. I will admit that I do not think anyone on the mythical side has outright stated which one they agree with and argue for.

Maximara's been the worst offender in mudding the waters on this issue, in my opinion, to the point that I have no idea what he's arguing for, anymore.

In this case, sure, I got it. It was a little too personal in this case, however.

I do tend to easily become annoyed in discussions, and that colours my posts.

You are the most masterful person in the whole universe who uses hyperbole

Do you have any evidence of this ? I ask because I intend to get my nobel prize for figures of speech.

As to your question, I feel that I do admit that the evidence has been done before in most circumstances. You'll notice that I did ask you for a link to any earlier post you had made, did I not? This certainly means that I believe you when you say you've already posted it and I'm requesting a link.

Can you remind me what that request is, please ? I'm a bit lost with all the back-and-forth posts.

 

[Belz...]

The Quest for an HJ was directly because the NT portrayed a Jesus of Faith.

The NT defines Myth Jesus--the Jesus of Faith.

When are you going to realise that you're not convincing anyone here ?

 

[IanS]

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.

Your sentence makes it sound as if Paul only learned of what you call “the resurrection stories” because various people had personally told Paul that they had seen a risen spirit of Jesus. As if those people were the source of Paul’s belief in a resurrected Jesus. But that is of course wrong, as Paul’s letters make abundantly clear.

In his letters, Paul makes very clear that his source for belief in a risen Jesus, is OT scripture. Not anything any believer may, or may not, ever have said to Paul about their own spiritual visions.

No doubt in the 1st century, early Christians were constantly claiming to witness all manner of religious spirits. Not just visions of a spiritual Jesus, but all sorts of angels, demons, devils, gods & God, spirits of all sorts. Even today, in fact every day, thousands of Christians swear to see visions of Jesus, God, the Virgin yMary etc.

But be clear - Paul’s letters say quite clearly that his resurrection belief is obtained according to scripture as a matter of faith and revelation from God. Not because he did not know about it until various people told him they had seen a vision of Christ risen from the dead.

See the relevant quote below -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_of_Paul_the_Apostle

The conversion in Paul's letters
In his surviving letters, Paul's own description of his conversion experience is brief. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians,[9:1] [15:3-8] he describes having seen the Risen Christ:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
— 1 Cor. 15:3–8, NIV

 

[maximara]

Sorry for the confusion: no one on the MJ side want to define the terms. I've seen definitions of HJ and MJ from the HJ side.

No, that's not it. I am complaining that people in this thread try to splinter MJ into its many variations in order to avoid having to address specific criticisms about MJ in general, and they do the same thing with HJ in order to avoid having to admit that HJ in general is likely.

Maximara's been the worst offender in mudding the waters on this issue, in my opinion, to the point that I have no idea what he's arguing for, anymore.

The highlighted part demonstrates you have no idea about what you are talking about.

splinter (verb): break or cause to break into small sharp fragments (Oxford dictionary)

For the Jesus lived around 100 BCE, the Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character, Jesus Agnosticism, the story of rather then the man is a myth, and the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure" to be splinters of the MJ they would have to be PART OF THE LARGER MJ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Therefore ignoring these splinters is 'avoiding having to address specific criticisms' because it ignores the more general MJ theory.

Logic is your friend.

Again a Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall, in this century has laid out two ways how Jesus can be historical and therefore also laid out two ways Jesus can be nonhistorical:

1) Jesus as a flesh and blood man existed but the Gospel stories of him have no more historical validity then the stories of King Arthur.
2) Jesus is totally fictional creation on par with King Lear or Dr Who.

Remsburg, Robertson, Barker, and Jesus Legend on Wells are all samplings of mythers who are in the first category and two of those are in this century.

Let me put it as bluntly as possible.

Does Wells from Jesus Legend on accept a historical Jesus being behind the Gospels? Yes.

Is Jesus Legend classified as "Christ Myth" by MJer and HJers? YES (Price, Doherty, Stanton, Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd)

Therefore the 'Jesus is a totally fictional creation on par with King Lear or Dr Who' can NOT be the definition being used to classify Wells Jesus Legend as a Christ Myth book which leaves us with Marshell's other definition of 'Jesus as a flesh and blood man existed but the Gospel stories of him have no more historical validity then the stories of King Arthur'.

In fact, on Carrier's blog this version of the Christ myth theory is presented to him and his reply is as follows:

"It’s just a different theory. Although as defined above, it’s essentially historicity agnosticism (there is a “possibility” a real man lay behind it) so it isn’t exclusive to the Doherty thesis, just a larger umbrella that the Doherty thesis fits under (G.A. Wells I believe is now more in that camp, of historicity agnosticism).

I personally find little merit to the “possibility” theory because it doesn’t explain anything (Paul’s letters become less explicable, for example, as also certain other evidence in and outside the NT), whereas the cosmic Jesus theory explains so much. So I would certainly allow for the possibility some actual Jesus started it all. I just consider that very improbable on currently available evidence."

Please note that historicity agnosticism is classified as part of the Christ Myth by Eddy-Boyd in their book Jesus Legend.

You can hem and haw all you want about splintering the meanings of MJ and all other nonsense but at the end of the day there it is: a definition of MJ that accepts the man but denies the Gospel story. If you are going to talk about the MJ in general as you claim then that must be part of the definition you use.

 

[The Norseman]

Do you have any evidence of this ? I ask because I intend to get my nobel prize for figures of speech.

I think the best evidence is your mere presence. In fact, I had heard that it was thought that you would be placed in the new pantheon of living gods.

Can you remind me what that request is, please ? I'm a bit lost with all the back-and-forth posts.

Heh. I had pretty much forgotten myself. Here is my original question: "Perhaps you can help by providing a common definition we can all use and with which all scholars agree."

And then you replied that you had already done so and I, because I don't remember you doing so, asked if you could just post a link to it. That was basically it.

 

[maximara]

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

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.

As I have stated before the supernatural aspects of the Gospel account have never been an issue but rather the nonsupernatural details that simply don't match up with what other records show:

* The Sanhedrin trial account is totally at odds with the records on how that court actually operated in the 1st century.

* Jesus preaches in the open so there is no need for the whole Judus betrayal. A real Roman official would have sent a modest group of soldiers and got the guy as what happened with John the Baptist.

* Pontius Pilate is totally out of character based on other accounts. Josephus relates two accounts where Pilate's solution to mobs causing a disturbance was brutally simple--have Roman soldiers go out and kill them until they dispersed. Moreover it is never really explained in the Bible why if Jesus' only crime was blasphemy why Pilate would need to be involved. If Jesus crime has been sedition then there would be no reason for Pilate to involve Herod Antipas or for the Sanhedrin to be involved for that matter.

* The crucified were left to rot as a warning to others unless there was intervention on the behalf of an important person per The Life Of Flavius Josephus (75)

* Given Jesus short time on the cross and reports of him being out an about afterword certainly the Romans might have wondered if they had been tricked yet there is nothing in the reports of the Romans acting in this matter. Carrier describe how the Romans would have handled the situation and it is totally at odds with the account in Acts.

Sure you could argue that the general overview is plausible but there are many examples in known fiction where that is used to make the character more "real" so it doesn't really count for much.

For all we know Paul heard stories of a preacher named Jesus whose efforts to gather a following failed and he disappeared into obscurity real fate unknown.

Then Paul's has his visions and in his mind uses those vague stories to create a Jesus that for all intents exists only in his mind.

Years (perhaps even decades) later one person creates a story that fit Paul's visions which became the basis for Marcon's "Luke" which in turn became the go to reference for all the other Gospels canonal and noncanal.

 

[Craig B]

For all we know Paul heard stories of a preacher named Jesus whose efforts to gather a following failed and he disappeared into obscurity real fate unknown.

Then Paul's has his visions and in his mind uses those vague stories to create a Jesus that for all intents exists only in his mind.

Years (perhaps even decades) later one person creates a story that fit Paul's visions which became the basis for Marcon's "Luke" which in turn became the go to reference for all the other Gospels canonal and noncanal.

I think that's an almost incredible scenario. At all events it's much less plausible than that there existed a person on whom the "stories" were based.

 

[Belz...]

The highlighted part demonstrates you have no idea about what you are talking about.

splinter (verb): break or cause to break into small sharp fragments (Oxford dictionary)

Yes, that is what I am accusing you of doing. Thanks for telling me what I already knew.

For the Jesus lived around 100 BCE, the Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character, Jesus Agnosticism, the story of rather then the man is a myth, and the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure" to be splinters of the MJ they would have to be PART OF THE LARGER MJ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Stop shouting. No one listens to people who shout all the time.

Therefore ignoring these splinters is 'avoiding having to address specific criticisms' because it ignores the more general MJ theory.

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about, though. I am saying that you are on the one hand selectively using the multiple MJ scenarios to avoid addressing criticism about MJ in general, and on the other hand conflating HJ scnarios with MJ scenarios in order to pretend that your opponents are really arguing your case. If that's not what you're doing, then I'm wrong, but it sure seems like it.

Logic is your friend.

Politeness is yours.

 

[Belz...]

Heh. I had pretty much forgotten myself. Here is my original question: "Perhaps you can help by providing a common definition we can all use and with which all scholars agree."

You mean for an HJ ?

Well I did so perhaps 2 days ago. Let me try to put one together again:

HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE.

It'd be hard for me to make the hypothesis more precise because I don't think we have evidence to even say, for instance, that he was put to death, though that would surely fit nicely with the development of the religion.

 

[The Norseman]

I think that's an almost incredible scenario. At all events it's much less plausible than that there existed a person on whom the "stories" were based.

Why did you cut out the entire first part of maximara's post which makes your plausibility quite implausible?

 

[The Norseman]

You mean for an HJ ?

Well I did so perhaps 2 days ago. Let me try to put one together again:

HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE.

It'd be hard for me to make the hypothesis more precise because I don't think we have evidence to even say, for instance, that he was put to death, though that would surely fit nicely with the development of the religion.

Okay, thank you. No snark -- I will do my utmost to remember your post and cease calling for your definition.

I do, however, disagree based on the idea that no current scholar begins and ends their historical Jesus at this Lowest Common Denominator. I have given evidence to support my position and it'd be great if someone (doesn't have to be you Belz...) would provide some evidence to support the position that this LCD historic Jesus is what they say exists.

To be sure, this LCD Jesus is the beginning, but only on the JREF is it also the end.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, thank you. No snark -- I will do my utmost to remember your post and cease calling for your definition.

I do, however, disagree based on the idea that no current scholar begins and ends their historical Jesus at this Lowest Common Denominator. I have given evidence to support my position and it'd be great if someone (doesn't have to be you Belz...) would provide some evidence to support the position that this LCD historic Jesus is what they say exists.

To be sure, this LCD Jesus is the beginning, but only on the JREF is it also the end.

To be fair I don't think we can say much more on Jesus with _any_ sort of certainty. I'd be willing to add his execution to the definition, but not much else. A connection to John the Baptist might fit well in there, as well. That sort of thing.

 

[maximara]

You mean for an HJ ?

Well I did so perhaps 2 days ago. Let me try to put one together again:

HJ: The hypothesis that the "Jesus" of the bible is based upon a historical preacher, somewhere in Judaea around the early 1st century CE.

It'd be hard for me to make the hypothesis more precise because I don't think we have evidence to even say, for instance, that he was put to death, though that would surely fit nicely with the development of the religion.

Okay, thank you. No snark -- I will do my utmost to remember your post and cease calling for your definition.

I do, however, disagree based on the idea that no current scholar begins and ends their historical Jesus at this Lowest Common Denominator. I have given evidence to support my position and it'd be great if someone (doesn't have to be you Belz...) would provide some evidence to support the position that this LCD historic Jesus is what they say exists.

To be sure, this LCD Jesus is the beginning, but only on the JREF is it also the end.

I agree and again the Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ page at rationalwiki shows the problem with such a minimumal Jesus:

Jesus as historical myth and The Tabula Rasa Jesus

Remsburg pointed out:
"A Historical myth according to Strauss, and to some extent I follow his language, is a real event colored by the light of antiquity, which confounded the human and divine, the natural and the supernatural. The event may be but slightly colored and the narrative essentially true, or it may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false."

So even if Jesus is a historical myth (ie was a flesh and blood man) you could have the issue of the Gospel narrative being essentially false and telling you nothing about the actual Jesus other than he existed--effectively putting him on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur, who have had historical candidates suggested as much as 200 years from when their stories traditionally take place.

To make Jesus more than that a researcher has to assume some parts of the Gospels narrative is essentially true. But which parts? In answering that question all supporters of a "historical Jesus" get into the Miner problem of effectively turning Jesus into a Tabula Rasa on which they overlay their own views.
-----

As I said before you could have Paul simply hear stories about some local preacher named Jesus whose efforts to create a following failed and who then drifted off never to be heard again.

Paul has his vision and in his mind creates his own Jesus.

Then years or decades later someone creates an elaborate life story for Paul's Jesus.

Sure you could argue that the Gospel account at its most basic level is plausible but there are many examples in known fiction where that is used to make the character more "real" so it doesn't really count for much.

In fact it can be argued it is in the details of the nonsupernatural events that suggest the whole Gospel account is a fiction. In this example the only thing to connect the "historical" Jesus to the Gospel one is the name...nothing else.

That is akin to saying that since you can find the name Clark Kent in a 1920's New York City phone directory that Superman must have been based on a real person. It doesn't come off as a plausible theory but an ad hoc theory to salvage a position that so devoid of actual evidence that no other reasonable action is left.

 

[dejudge]

///Sure you could argue that the Gospel account at its most basic level is plausible but there are many examples in known fiction where that is used to make the character more "real" so it doesn't really count for much.

The Gospel accounts as stated are not plausible. The assumption that any account of Jesus is plausible requires corroborative evidence but there is none.

Fictional accounts at their basic level may appear plausible.

 

[dejudge]

As is evident the HJ argument is a dead end established failure.

Those who argue for an HJ just keep on going in debunked regurgitated un-evidence circles.

The evidence for an HJ in the 1st century pre 70 CE does not exist and there are ONLY actual recovered dated manuscripts from the 2nd century or later of the Jesus stories and cult.

Essentially, the argument that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later cannot be debunked at all based on the actual existing recovered dated evidence.

The Only source outside of Apologetics to mention a character called Jesus the Christ is a copy of Antiquities of the Jews copied perhaps 1000 years later.

As soon as it was discovered that writings attributed to Josephus was manipulated then ONLY a 1st -2nd century copy of Josephus can be used to argue for an historical Jesus.

It cannot be assumed that anything about the character called Jesus is authentic when the very NT itself, the very Bible of the Jesus cult, is itself riddled with forgeries or falsely attributed writings, fiction, historical problems, discrepancies and implausibility.

Until new evidence surfaces then I conclude that Jesus, the disciples, Paul and stories about them are really 2nd century fabrications with no historical value pre 70 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri