Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The fundamental question is: When did Paul make those sounds?

The only surviving dated evidence for Paul and his BS beliefs are from the 2nd century or later.

In other words Paul and his BS beliefs were unknown as is evident in 2nd century or later writings like those attributed to Justin, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, and Arnobius.

The idea that the oldest known texts can be assumed to be the oldest that ever existed is an utterly ridiculous premise.

Your argument is an argument of the "dead"--an argument of SILENCE.

Your SPECULATION that the earliest text is the Pauline Corpus and was composed pre 70 CE without corroborative evidence is absolutely illogical and baseless especially when it has been found that there were multiple fake authors under the name of Paul and that there are at least 18 books of the NT with Fake authorship.

Plus, It would not take 100 YEARS to Fake a letter.

I am dealing with the EXISTING dated evidence.

We have NO sounds from Paul until the 2nd century or later.

I no longer entertain the argument of the "dead"--the argument from Silence.

Only when evidence is ACTUALLY found and dated will I review my position.

 

[pakeha]

Sounds like Paul is saying "We know our beliefs are BS but our faith is so strong that BS becomes Truth^TM"

Then he throws out that anti-intellectualism that has been a part of Christianity from day one.

Yes. It's a fantastic passage, innit?

pakeha

Those passages sound like a marketing plan. So, do you suppose Mark read Paul complaining

For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom

(1 Corinthians 1: 22)

and decided to write his very own book about Jesus with a little something for the Jews, a little something for the Greeks, and of course, a great, big honking crucifixion as a thank you to Paul ("but we proclaim Christ crucified") for all the good advice?

That's one possibility- gMark as a mix of spiritual hucksterism and a 1st century precursor of Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio programme.
I'm a rank amateur so I can't make a call on that, though if gMark were written in Alexandria or Rome, I'd be tempted to put money on it.

From what I've read so far, either city could have produced such a document, whether it be straight-up hagiography, tongue-in-cheek pastiche or something in-between. After all, we're talking about literature from a time period that saw many types of genres and hybrids of genres, where it's almost as easy to establish definite boundaries between literature types as it is between taxa.

 

[Belz...]

Your argument is an argument of the "dead"--an argument of SILENCE.

Sometimes being silent is wiser than constantly repeating oneself.

 

[IanS]

Yes, that what I meant. Sorry not to have more clear in my expression, which perhaps reflects my reservations about the authors of the Jesus hagiography.
Were they true believers? Paid wordsmiths? Novelists?

It's a question that interests me, given that the NT texts fit into identifiable literary genres.
However, I recognise it that the backstory of those writers in no way implies either an HJ or non-HJ- it's simply something that intrigues me.

OK, good. So I think we are on the same page with that stuff.

Though in passing, something that dejudge mentioned in a quite different thread here, and something that I had not actually noticed before, which may be interesting. And it’s this -

- apparently almost all the early NT biblical manuscripts and fragments, i.e. Paul’s letters and the canonical gospels, were discovered not where Jesus and Paul were supposed to have lived and preached around Jerusalem, but in fact in Egypt!

Interesting? Well, in addition to that - what has of course been found in that small region where Jesus and Paul were said to have preached and where all the biblical events were supposedly taking place, are the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So what? Well … although the DSS cover a vast amount of religious & and other community writing all through the relevant period c.170BC to 70AD, they make no mention of anyone who could reasonably be identified as Jesus, (or iirc) Paul, John the Baptist, any disciples or any of the NT biblical figures.

So we appear to have the rather "curious" situation in the which vast amounts of written DSS religious material which actually was from that exact region and that exact same time, makes no mention of Jesus … as if those writers at least were unaware of Jesus. And where the people who were writing the Jesus story, were all writing about it in Egypt instead!

Of course, I have no idea how accurate any of that is. And I have not really tried to check it to see who claimed what about which ancient writing really has been recovered from what parts of the world. But if the above is more-or-less right, then does that not seem very curious indeed?

But whilst I am chucking around off-the-wall un-checked ideas that might be completely mistaken, here’s another one -

- in respect of what David Mo and I were disputing about where Paul got the idea that Jesus had been crucified, one document that I don’t recall being mentioned much here (if at all) is the writing called “the Ascension of Isaiah”.

That is supposed to have been dated around the middle of the 2nd century, say c.150AD. Though as always with these biblical manuscripts I expect the actual date might be long after, or even long before 150AD. And in any case, we might imagine that if it was being written down in 150AD, the actual story might have been in existence from long before 150AD as verbal legend if not in earlier written forms which have long since been lost. Plus of course, Isaiah was an OT prophet supposed to have lived and experienced the things in his stories as far back as the 8th century BC.

So anyway … below is what that story of the Ascension of Isaiah apparently says in verses 9:13-17 (you can find a discussion of this in chapter 10 of Doherty’s book The Jesus Puzzle) … see how close you think this is to what Paul was supposed to have been writing and preaching in the first century AD (but known only at the earliest from P46 dating circa.200AD) -


http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/AscensionOfIsaiah.html

13The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. 14And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. 15And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. 16And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day and will remain in that world for five hundred and forty-five days.

 

[Brainache]

...
So what? Well … although the DSS cover a vast amount of religious & and other community writing all through the relevant period c.170BC to 70AD, they make no mention of anyone who could reasonably be identified as Jesus, (or iirc) Paul, John the Baptist, any disciples or any of the NT biblical figures.

So we appear to have the rather "curious" situation in the which vast amounts of written DSS religious material which actually was from that exact region and that exact same time, makes no mention of Jesus … as if those writers at least were unaware of Jesus. And where the people who were writing the Jesus story, were all writing about it in Egypt instead!

...

Well, you could try reading my thread for a different opinion on this.

Or if you prefer a more Professional Scholarly approach, you could try this blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html

Unfortunately, the outside observer must actually read the documents themselves to grasp this - which first of all are not easy for the non-specialist (to say nothing of for the 'specialist') to know these. Primarily these consist of the most important allusions at Qumran (a term 'scholars' generally use when referring to the Scrolls). These include references such as 'making a Straight Way in the wilderness,' alluded to twice in the document called "The Community Rule" at Qumran and one of the first douments found there in Cave I; and, as is generally well known, associated with the teaching and coming of John the Baptist 'in the wilderness' in the Synoptic Gospels (that is Matthew, Mark, and luke - but not John).

A related terminology is 'the New Covenant,' a phrase originally based on Jeremiah 31:31 and a central theme of the Damascus Document, known of course as the basis of the word 'New Testament' (i.e., the 'New Covenant'). Equally important is the allusion to and exposition of Habakkuk 2:4, perhaps the climax of the Habakkuk Commentary (or, as we in the field call it, 'The Habakkuk Pesher') and perhaps the central Scriptural building block of early Christian theology as set forth by Paul in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews and, of course, in James.

Related to these and, in particular, this last are the repeated reference to the two 'Love Commandments' of 'Piety' and 'Righteousness' (I will capitalize important concepts just as I will italicize important phrases and ideas whether in quotations or part of my own exposition) - in Josephus defined as, 'loving God' and 'loving your neighbor as yourself' - and 'Justification' theology generally. Not only are these the essence, allegedly, of 'Jesus'' (also, I prefer to put 'Jesus'' name in single quotes) teaching in the Gospels and James' in the Letter ascribed to his name in the New Testament and in early Church literature generally; but they are also the basis in the picture provided by Josephus of John the Baptist's teaching and a central category of 'Essene' doctrine as well (see Josephus' famous description of John in The Antiquities - patently more reliable than that in the Gospels based upon it). ...

Or you can ignore it and pretend that the Catholics who did the initial reports on the Scrolls were 100% correct...

 

[dejudge]

Well, you could try reading my thread for a different opinion on this.

Or if you prefer a more Professional Scholarly approach, you could try this blog:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/internal-evidence-vs-exte_b_3722313.html


Or you can ignore it and pretend that the Catholics who did the initial reports on the Scrolls were 100% correct...

You seem to have forgotten that you have already claimed that Ancient History is not about certainity.

Based on your own statement Robert Eisenman is NOT certain and could not be.

 

[Craig B]

And where the people who were writing the Jesus story, were all writing about it in Egypt instead!

No. That's where the papyri survived best, because of the exceptionally dry climate. In other moister areas such documents crumbled away and were lost.

 

[Brainache]

You seem to have forgotten that you have already claimed that Ancient History is not about certainity.

Based on your own statement Robert Eisenman is NOT certain and could not be.

Who said anything about "certainty"?

I'm talking about opinions on the content of Ancient Documents, not faith.

Please realise that there is a huge difference between expressions of Scholarly opinion and declarations of faith.

Your arguments all boil down to statements of faith in your position. We can all see you believe it, but you have yet to present a good argument for anyone else to believe it.

Scholars have written books explaining their opinions, you just make declarative statements about "Fakes", "Forgeries" and "Hoaxes" without even attempting a reasoned argument.

You give us no choice but simple contradiction: You are wrong.

 

[Belz...]

Who said anything about "certainty"?

Simplistic world views require certainty. Doubt is anathema to non-skeptics.

 

[dejudge]

No. That's where the papyri survived best, because of the exceptionally dry climate. In other moister areas such documents crumbled away and were lost.

Your argument is really worthless because manuscripts were found in Judea and they make no mention of Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul.

The Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence against you.

Nothing survived anywhere pre 70 CE for Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul.

No archaelogical findings, no artifacts, no manuscripts in any place with exceptionally dry climate--Nothing pre 70 CE.

The argument for HJ was never supported by existing evidence.

 

[Brainache]

Your argument is really worthless because manuscripts were found in Judea and they make no mention of Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul.

The Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence against you.

Nothing survived anywhere pre 70 CE for Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul.

No archaelogical findings, no artifacts, no manuscripts in any place with exceptionally dry climate--Nothing pre 70 CE.

The argument for HJ was never supported by existing evidence.

Another statement of your faith?

Where is the reasoning that makes you conclude that the absence of some manuscripts indicates one way or the other whether or not there was an Apocalyptic Preacher called 'Jesus'?

You still have not presented a good argument.

 

[dejudge]

Your argument is really worthless because manuscripts were found in Judea and they make no mention of Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul.

The Dead Sea Scrolls is evidence against you.

Nothing survived anywhere pre 70 CE for Jesus, the Jesus cult and Paul.

No archaelogical findings, no artifacts, no manuscripts in any place with exceptionally dry climate--Nothing pre 70 CE.

The argument for HJ was never supported by existing evidence.

Another statement of your faith?

Where is the reasoning that makes you conclude that the absence of some manuscripts indicates one way or the other whether or not there was an Apocalyptic Preacher called 'Jesus'?

You still have not presented a good argument.

Your statement is without logic.

The absence of manuscripts in the 1st century pre 70 CE and the recovery of 2nd century or later texts for the Jesus story, the Jesus cult and Paul allows the argument that the story of Jesus and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

This is a basic and fundamental logical deduction.

If the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later then we would expect to find evidence from the 2nd century or later.

That is exactly what has happened.

If one is charged with a crime it is expected that there would be evidence. If there is none then acquittal is completely reasonable.

It is completely reasonable and extremely logical to argue based on actual EXISTING dated evidence.

The existing dated recovered evidence fully supports the argument that the Jesus story, cult and Paul originated in the 2nd century or later.

If NEW evidence surfaces then I will review my position.

The HJ argument is a well established dead end argument without a shred of supporting evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

ALL existing sources of antiquity which mentions Jesus of Nazareth the Christ are from the 2nd century or later.

My argument cannot be overturned using the existing evidence of all antiquity.

 

[Brainache]

Your statement is without logic.

The absence of manuscripts in the 1st century pre 70 CE and the recovery of 2nd century or later texts for the Jesus story, the Jesus cult and Paul allows the argument that the story of Jesus and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

This is a basic and fundamental logical deduction.

...

No, it is naive and stupid.

You have no way to explain how it is possible for someone to fake all of that stuff, because it isn't.

It is an argument from ignorance.

The rest of your post was the usual nonsense on repeat.

 

[dejudge]

Your statement is without logic.

The absence of manuscripts in the 1st century pre 70 CE and the recovery of 2nd century or later texts for the Jesus story, the Jesus cult and Paul allows the argument that the story of Jesus and cult originated in the 2nd century or later.

This is a basic and fundamental logical deduction.

If the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century or later then we would expect to find evidence from the 2nd century or later.

That is exactly what has happened.

If one is charged with a crime it is expected that there would be evidence. If there is none then acquittal is completely reasonable.

It is completely reasonable and extremely logical to argue based on actual EXISTING dated evidence.

The existing dated recovered evidence fully supports the argument that the Jesus story, cult and Paul originated in the 2nd century or later.

If NEW evidence surfaces then I will review my position.

The HJ argument is a well established dead end argument without a shred of supporting evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE.

ALL existing sources of antiquity which mentions Jesus of Nazareth the Christ are from the 2nd century or later.

My argument cannot be overturned using the existing evidence of all antiquity.

No, it is naive and stupid.

You have no way to explain how it is possible for someone to fake all of that stuff, because it isn't.

It is an argument from ignorance.

The rest of your post was the usual nonsense on repeat.

Your post exposes your lack of logic which was expected.

You have nothing. You have no corroborative evidence from the 1st century for dead end HJ argument.

At one time you claim Ancient History is not certain and at other time you argue that you are certain of events in the Bible.

You are not certain of HJ and not certain of the evidence.

It is certain that it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after he was raised from the dead, commissioned the diciples and ascended in a cloud in the recovered 2nd century or later writings.

It is certain that Apologetic writings from the 2nd or later argued that Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was a 2nd century or later Myth.

The Jesus story is just a stupid ridiculous Ghost story propagated by ancient illiterates.

 

[Brainache]

Your post exposes your lack of logic which was expected.

You have nothing. You have no corroborative evidence from the 1st century for dead end HJ argument.

At one time you claim Ancient History is not certain and at other time you argue that you are certain of events in the Bible.

You are not certain of HJ and not certain of the evidence.

It is certain that it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after he was raised from the dead, commissioned the diciples and ascended in a cloud in the recovered 2nd century or later writings.

It is certain that Apologetic writings from the 2nd or later argued that Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was a 2nd century or later Myth.

The Jesus story is just a stupid ridiculous Ghost story propagated by ancient illiterates.

That is not a reasoned argument.

Once again we have a statement of faith.

This is a Skeptic's site. You have to do better than that.

ETA: Here is a little reminder from Richard Carrier (still waiting for that book...):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

...I quite agree with (1) and (2). I’ve made both points myself over the years. But Fincke lays out the reasoning well. He concludes, for example, that until “secular historians…at least become widely divided over” the matter of historicity (emphasis on widely and the minimal benchmark of divided), atheists who are not themselves experts in the field should not be “advocating for one side or the other routinely and prominently.” (There is a growing division, BTW, but it’s not yet wide…although I know other historians who privately confess they are willing to concede agnosticism about historicity but who won’t admit it in public, so the division is wider than we know–but until more go public, we can’t know how wide.) Meanwhile, Fincke explains, “we should either be agnostic on the issue,” as Fincke is, or “defer to historical consensus,” or, “if we really find [e.g.] Carrier’s arguments compelling” then we should “still be cautious and qualified in our declarations, acknowledging that we are agreeing with a minority view (and one that even Carrier seems far from certain about).”
Amen.
In aid of that last parenthetical, I can announce one spoiler: in my book On the Historicity of Jesus (at the publisher now and expected this February, if their production timeline goes to plan) I conclude that, using probability estimates as far against my conclusion as are at all reasonably possible (probabilities I believe are wildly too generous), there could be as much as a 1 in 3 chance that Jesus existed. When using what I think are more realistic estimates of the requisite probabilities (estimates I believe are closer to the truth), those chances drop to around 1 in 12,000...

 

[dejudge]

Your post exposes your lack of logic which was expected.

You have nothing. You have no corroborative evidence from the 1st century for dead end HJ argument.

At one time you claim Ancient History is not certain and at other time you argue that you are certain of events in the Bible.

You are not certain of HJ and not certain of the evidence.

It is certain that it is claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator that walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after he was raised from the dead, commissioned the diciples and ascended in a cloud in the recovered 2nd century or later writings.

It is certain that Apologetic writings from the 2nd or later argued that Jesus was the Son of God and born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

Jesus of Nazareth was a 2nd century or later Myth.

The Jesus story is just a stupid ridiculous Ghost story propagated by ancient illiterates.

That is not a reasoned argument.

Once again we have a statement of faith.

This is a Skeptic's site. You have to do better than that.

If this is a Skeptic site why are you and Christians on this site arguing for an HJ using the Bible as a credible historical source?

I argue that the Jesus story is a ridiculous stupid Ghost story invented sometime in the 2nd century or later and propagated by illiterates of antiquity.

I am a Skeptic.

You argue like a Bible Believer.

Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

If this is a Skeptic site why are you and Christians on this site arguing for an HJ using the Bible as a credible historical source?

I argue that the Jesus story is a ridiculous stupid Ghost story invented sometime in the 2nd century or later and propagated by illiterates of antiquity.

I am a Skeptic.

You argue like a Bible Believer.

Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?

I never believed that.

You are not being skeptical, you are just repeating statements of faith.

Please stop calling me a liar, just because you can't tell the difference between a Jewish Preacher and God, doesn't mean we all suffer this affliction.

 

[dejudge]

Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?

I never believed that.

You are not being skeptical, you are just repeating statements of faith.

Please stop calling me a liar, just because you can't tell the difference between a Jewish Preacher and God, doesn't mean we all suffer this affliction.

What?

Don't you realize your posts are recorded? You have actually claimed that James was Jesus' own brother and that you expected him to know about the Lord.

Examine your own post in a thread you started.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9576208&postcount=38

I tend to think it more likely that James' teachings match that of Jesus than Paul's do. Paul never even met Jesus. James was Jesus' own brother. Who do you think knew Jesus better?

This applies if Jesus was real or mythical. You have to expect a "Brother Of The Lord" to know a bit more about "The Lord" than the enemy-turned-convert Paul.

There is something radically wrong with your arguments they suffer from problems relating to veracity.

You believe Galatians 1.19.

 

[Brainache]

What?

Don't you realize your posts are recorded? You have actually claimed that James was Jesus' own brother and that you expected him to know about the Lord.

Examine your own post in a thread you started.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9576208&postcount=38



There is something radically wrong with your arguments they suffer from problems relating to veracity.

You believe Galatians 1.19.

Galatians is not the only place James is called "Brother of The Lord" or Brother of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

James (Hebrew: יעקב Ya'akov; Greek Ἰάκωβος Iákōbos, also could be Anglicized as Jacob), first Bishop of Bishops,[2] who died in 62 or 69, was an important figure of the Apostolic Age. He is distinguished from the Apostle James, son of Zebedee by various epithets; he is called James the brother of the Lord by Paul (Galatians 1:19), James the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just by Hegesippus and others, "James the Righteous", "James of Jerusalem", "James Adelphotheos" (Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀδελφόθεος), and so on.
In a third century letter pseudographically ascribed[3] to the second century Clement of Rome, James was called as the "bishop of bishops, who rules Jerusalem, the Holy Assembly of Hebrews, and all assemblies everywhere."[4] But like the rest of the early Christians, information about his life is scarce and ambiguous. In the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, Jesus names James his successor: "The disciples said to Jesus, 'We know that you will depart from us. Who will be our leader?' Jesus said to them, ;Where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into existence.'"[5] Apart from a handful of references in the synoptic Gospels, the main sources for his life are the Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline epistles, the historian Josephus, Eusebius and St. Jerome who also quote the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus and Epiphanus.[6] The Epistle of James in the New Testament is traditionally attributed to him, and he is a principal author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. In the extant lists of Hippolytus of Rome,[7] Dorotheus of Tyre, the Chronicon Paschale, and Dimitry of Rostov, he is the first of the Seventy Apostles, though some sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia,[8] state that "these lists are unfortunately worthless"...

It isn't difficult to look these things up.

 

[dejudge]

Do you still Believe Galatians 1.19 is an historical account of Jesus?

I never believed that.

I tend to think it more likely that James' teachings match that of Jesus than Paul's do. Paul never even met Jesus. James was Jesus' own brother. Who do you think knew Jesus better?

This applies if Jesus was real or mythical. You have to expect a "Brother Of The Lord" to know a bit more about "The Lord" than the enemy-turned-convert Paul.

Galatians is not the only place James is called "Brother of The Lord" or Brother of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

It isn't difficult to look these things up.

Your are compounding your problems with veracity.


You are confirming that you not only believe Galatians 1.19 but other sources which you claim mention the Lord's brother.