Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

You are misremembering. The passage in question is "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." by Irenaeus.

Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ

(...)

Picking other timelines from the Gospels

The key issue is the title "King of the Jews". When Herod the Great died, his kingdom was broken up between this three sons: Herod Archelaus (Ethnarch of Judaea 4 BCE – 6 CE), Herod Antipas (Tetrarch of Galilee 4 BCE - 41 CE), and "Herod" Philip II (Tetrarch of Batanea 4 BCE – 34 CE). Archelaus was removed 6 CE with Judea governed by Roman prefects until Herod Agrippa I came to power in 41 CE. Furthermore, while some later books have called Herod Agrippa II "king of the Jews", he in truth never ruled over the Judea province. (Gelb, Norman (2010) Kings of the Jews: The Origins of the Jewish Nation pg 205)

So the only Herods close to the supposed life of Jesus (c. 6 BCE to c. 36 CE) that were "King of the Jews" (i.e. ruled the Judea province) were Herod the Great and Herod Agrippa I. Moreover, we have a reasonable history of Herod Agrippa I from 34 CE (death of John the Baptist) to his death in 44 CE:

* Due to expressing the desire for Tiberius to hurry up and die so his friend Caligula could become emperor, Herod Agrippa I was thrown in prison and not released until 37 CE when Caligula came to power. By that time Pontius Pilate had been replaced by Marcellus.
* While Herod Agrippa I did come to Judea as governor in the final year of Caligula's rule (41 CE), he answered to Prefect Marcellus, who in turn answered to Tetrarch Herod Antipas.
* Due to Herod Agrippa I's advice, Claudius became Caesar in 41 and as a reward a year later Marcellus and Herod Antipas were replaced by Herod Agrippa I, resulting in him being "like Herod the Great before him, king of the Jews." (Crossan, John Dominic (1996) Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story pg 94)

More over in Against Heresies 2:22:4, Irenaeus argued that Jesus had to be a minimum of at least 46 if not 50 years old when he was crucified. Irenaeus himself quotes Luke, establishing that Jesus was about 30 when he was baptized and when this was: in the "fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (c. 29 CE).

Even if you push Jesus's supposed birth date in Matthew to c. 6 BCE (Herod the Great killing children two years old and younger), putting Jesus at 34 in c. 29 CE (there is no year zero), you don't get to the required minimum 46 years of age until 41 CE, which requires the Caesar to be Claudius (41-54 CE) and the Herod "king of the Jews" to be Agrippa I (42-44 CE). That leaves the problem of Pontius Pilate, who not only had been recalled to Rome in 36 CE, but with a Herod "king of the Jews" in charge would not have been needed.

----

It is not Claudius who becomes "unstuck" but Pontius Pilate and Against Heresies gives us a hint as to why: Irenaeus is trying to hold to his idea that Jesus was past the age of 46 when he was crucified. Yet in Against Heresies 1:27:2 this very same Irenaeus wrote:

"But Jesus being derived from that father who is above the God that made the world, and coming into Judæa in the times of Pontius Pilate the governor, who was the procurator of Tiberius Cæsar"

So either Irenaeus believed Pontius Pilate was procurator under Tiberius and became governor under Claudius, he wasn't sure when Pontius Pilate's rule was, or he was trying to make a philosophical argument and ignoring that history was telling him it was rubbish.

Epiphanius has much the same issues when he writes "or the rulers in succession from Judah came to an end with Christ's arrival. Until he came the rulers were anointed priests, but after his birth in Bethlehem of Judea the order ended and was altered in the time of Alexander [Jannaeus], a ruler of priestly and kingly stock." and yet elsewhere puts Jesus firmly in the 1st century CE.

These and similar issues point to early Christians either being totally ignorant of actual history or disregarding it when it suit their goals...neither of which is particularly helpful if you are using them to show Jesus was an actual person of 1st century Galilee rather then some composite possibly time shifted character ala Robin Hood.

No, I told you, I found him already.

You can stop looking now:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

 

[Elagabalus]

...You are misremembering ...

Oh, dear! Rational wiki looks about as accurate as christian Wiki or whatever they call it.


And they want donations?!! Harumph!!

 

[dejudge]

You don't know what you are talking about.

I don't know why you think YOUR unsolved problem is solvable without evidence.


You have already confirmed you don't know the arguments of real historians.

Real historians argue that there is virtually no ACTUAL contemporary evidence for an HJ.


The NT is a just a compilation of STUPID Ghost stories of God, Jesus his Son, Satan the Devil, the angel Gabriel, a Holy Ghost, Suicidal demons, Talking Clouds, Resurrected dead, and conferences with Ghosts.

The HJ question has been SOLVED----The HJ argument is void of logic, facts, pre 70 CE evidence and initiated by Bible Believers.

Please publish a book, I need a good laugh.

If you want a GOOD Laugh read the books or listen to debates by those who argue for an Historical Jesus.

What a Big Joke!! HJers arguing over the RESURRECTION.

Buy books by William Craig and get a GOOD Laugh--HJ was a resurrected being.

William Craig's HJ is a Ghost.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-...or-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman

William Lane Craig argues that his HJ actually existed as a RESURRECTED being.

Of course, ever since my conversion, I believed in the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of my personal experience, and I still think this experiential approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to knowing that Christ has risen.

It’s the way that most Christians today know that Jesus is risen and alive.

But as a result of my studies, I came to see that a remarkably good case can be made for Jesus’ resurrection historically as well, and I hope to show tonight that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation of certain well-established facts about Jesus.

 

[eight bits]

max

You are misremembering. The passage in question is "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." by Irenaeus.

Misremember what? We see in your quote that a writer with an agenda can assert wrong timing for when people lived, especially when there are people of similar names (like a different Herod) and of similar activities (like a different early emperor) to confuse. You had suggested to me that there might be something distinctive about ostensibly ancient Rabbinical anti-Christian propaganda which conflates two Jesuses, but evidently there is not. Fact-mangling is par for the course in propaganda.

In any case, Claudius was not, contrary to Irenaeus' report, a contemporary of King of the Jews Herod, nor did Pilate work for Claudius. The report, then, asserts falsehoods about Claudius's place in time. Regardless of why that happened, Clauudius came unstuck in time, as did any and all among the four men mentioned, according to the false report which I correctly recalled you to have mentioned.

You and I have, of course, discussed Epiphanius. You misread him. That was interesting to discuss the first time, long ago, but it is uninteresting to discuss further.

 

[Brainache]

If you want a GOOD Laugh read the books or listen to debates by those who argue for an Historical Jesus.

What a Big Joke!! HJers arguing over the RESURRECTION.

Buy books by William Craig and get a GOOD Laugh--HJ was a resurrected being.

William Craig's HJ is a Ghost.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-...or-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman

William Lane Craig argues that his HJ actually existed as a RESURRECTED being.

Yes. William Lane Craig is a Christian Apologist.

He does not agree with my understanding of the HJ. He thinks Jesus was magical, like you do. I don't.

Is that the best argument you have? Accusing me of being a Christian? Hilarious.

 

[David Mo]

You personally may interpret the Deuteronomy verse as "some people, but not everyone, who hangs a tree," (…)
I don't see how nailing even comes up in a discussion of Paul or Deuteronomy. (…)
In any case, if you have an earlier source than John for the use of nails(…) Phillipians 2: 8 has no relation to Russian executions (…)
I have no interest in discussing what's in your dictionary.(…)
I haven't read it I have read Luke. He refers to Pharisees' archonton as people contemporary with Paul. It follows that Jews of the period can and may be referred to as archonton. (…)
As I wrote in my post, Jeremiah is a character in II Chronicles (35;25, for instance)(…)
If I were looking for other possible sources for Paul's reamrk, I wouldn't waste time with wikiwoo's theories about Lives of the Prophets

Or my English is very bad or you do not read it correctly.
You attribute me ideas that I have not expressed and you become entangled in considerations that are out of place. It would take too much effort to me to undo all these confusions. So I'll try to focus on the issue:

Do you deny that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified?

Perhaps if we return on this point we will centre the question.

 

[David Mo]

David - I probably should not try to interject any comments into what is essentially and ongoing discussion between yourself and Eight-Bits.

Your clever comments are ever welcome, Ian

So if Paul was getting that idea from his personal interpretation of the OT, or even as I suggested earlier from a version of the Ascension of Isaiah (regarding that as part of “scripture" : in which respect see the quotes and links below), then Paul may quite easily have believed that Jesus had been put to death by some historic form of crucifixion at the hands of his own Jewish people.

The Asccension of Isaiah is not a text of the Scripture, but an apocryphal. It was written after Paul's writings, even admitting the early dates proposed by Carrier. The most accepted dates are even later. This text is considered clearly Christian.
Your interpretation doesn’t fit with facts, but if I remember correctly the Jewish traditions about death of Isaiah speak of been sawed, not crucified.

Because those 500 only claimed to see a vision of a spiritual messiah at some date after they believed that messiah had died. So, on that basis, the messiah could have died centuries before their visions.

The most natural interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, 3-8 is a sequential one without any lapse.

“Caesar first went to the home of some friends. He went to the home of Marius, Septimius Severus and the Caius' wife. After this he went to the Senate.” Nobody would think that Caesar went to the Senate two weeks after calling his friends.

In addition, you know the usual interpretation of "brother of the Lord" that I find more reliable.

Your interpretation is unjustified and unnatural.

 

[Belz...]

We have already established that "Brother Of The Lord" actually meant "Brother", not cousin, and not Disciple or Apostle.

Wait. Have we ?

 

[eight bits]

David

Do you deny that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified?

No. Paul taught that Jesus was gibbeted. Roman crucifixion is consistent with that, and I am comfortable that that could well have been what Paul meant. However, there are other ways for somebody to be killed and their corpse to be gibbeted, as other posters here have pointed out. Those ways would conflict with what other writers wrote after Paul died, but do not definitely contradict anything found in Paul.

Brainache

We have already established that "Brother Of The Lord" actually meant "Brother", not cousin, and not Disciple or Apostle.

Did I miss that memo?

(With thanks to Belz..., for pointing out that sentence.)

 

[IanS]

Your clever comments are ever welcome, Ian



The Asccension of Isaiah is not a text of the Scripture, but an apocryphal. It was written after Paul's writings, even admitting the early dates proposed by Carrier. The most accepted dates are even later. This text is considered clearly Christian.
Your interpretation doesn’t fit with facts, but if I remember correctly the Jewish traditions about death of Isaiah speak of been sawed, not crucified.



The most natural interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, 3-8 is a sequential one without any lapse.

“Caesar first went to the home of some friends. He went to the home of Marius, Septimius Severus and the Caius' wife. After this he went to the Senate.” Nobody would think that Caesar went to the Senate two weeks after calling his friends.

In addition, you know the usual interpretation of "brother of the Lord" that I find more reliable.

Your interpretation is unjustified and unnatural.

Well the point about the Isaiah text is that it is not by any means certain that it was only written and only known after Paul had written his letters. That's what Carrier explains in that link. And that much is fairly clear.

The point is that we really don't know how early that story of the Ascension of Isaiah was being told. It could quite easily have been told as a verbal story long before Paul was even born. And it could even have been produced in written form before Paul wrote his letters.

And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that.

At any rate, what seems undeniable here, is that the story of the Ascension of Isaiah was known from a fairly early date and probably not far in date from the time of the writing of Paul and the earliest canonical gospels … it certainly seems it was not many centuries after the NT writing … it’s from a point quite close in time (apparently), and that is sufficient to place it in the possible time-frame where it could have been known to the writer of Paul’s letters and the canonical gospels.

As far as the vision of the 500 is concerned, and the idea that there is some sort of “natural reading” of that passage which means that Jesus had recently died, that so called “natural reading” simply does not exist beyond wishful thinking - the fact of that matter is that there is actually nothing in that passage which dates the death of Christ, and nothing which even has any of those named people saying that they had any idea when their Christ died.

 

[Craig B]

And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that.

Do we need to go through this again?

As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arabic_and_Syriac_Josephus

 

[IanS]

And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that.

Do we need to go through this again?

As is common with ancient texts, however, there are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century, and the oldest of these are all Greek minuscules, copied by Christian monks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus#Arabic_and_Syriac_Josephus

What on earth has the 11th century date of Josephus got to do with the fact that the earliest copy we have of any Pauline writing apparently dates to c.200AD as P46?

We are not talking here about Josephus at all.

The point about P46 and it’s date of c.200AD (and perhaps even much later than that), is that by that date (e.g. c.200AD) it may well be long after the story of Isaiah’s Ascension was known amongst 1st century Jewish preachers like Paul.

 

[Craig B]

What on earth has the 11th century date of Josephus got to do with the fact that the earliest copy we have of any Pauline writing apparently dates to c.200AD as P46?

We are not talking here about Josephus at all.

The point about P46 and it’s date of c.200AD (and perhaps even much later than that), is that by that date (e.g. c.200AD) it may well be long after the story of Isaiah’s Ascension was known amongst 1st century Jewish preachers like Paul.

That is NOT the point of this passage in your last post, which is what I am commenting on, about the date of Paul being indicated by the earliest manuscript, not by internal evidence.

And that’s apart from the fact that we really don’t know the date of Paul’s letters. We do not for example have anything at all written by “Paul” (whoever that actual author was) anywhere near the dates of 55-65AD so often quoted by bible scholars. The earliest known copy is P46, which is usually dated to around 200AD, but it could actually be considerably later than that.

That's the point I'm referring to. We're talking about Josephus because if a manuscript date of 200 casts doubt on the date of Paul, then all the more does a date of post 1000 cast doubt on the date of Josephus, obviously. By that silly reasoning, I mean.

 

[IanS]

That is NOT the point of this passage in your last post, which is what I am commenting on, about the date of Paul being indicated by the earliest manuscript, not by internal evidence. That's the point I'm referring to. We're talking about Josephus because if a manuscript date of 200 casts doubt on the date of Paul, then all the more does a date of post 1000 cast doubt on the date of Josephus, obviously. By that silly reasoning, I mean.

What? What a twisted and tangled mess that above post is!

The point, which is unarguable, is that we actually have no idea what Paul may have written about any of this at any date earlier than P46 (and the hopelessly late date for extant copies of Josephus is another subject entirely).

 

[Craig B]

The point, which is unarguable, is that we actually have no idea what Paul may have written about any of this at any date earlier than P46 (and the hopelessly late date for extant copies of Josephus is another subject entirely).

You wish! It is equally unarguable that we have no idea what most ancient authors may have written about prior to mediaeval redaction and copying. We need to depend on internal evidence, and this we have for Paul. King Aretas, remember? Proconsul Gallio. The Temple in pre-70 working condition.

 

[clayflingythingy]

We have already established that "Brother Of The Lord" actually meant "Brother", not cousin, and not Disciple or Apostle.

Where, and by whom, has this been established? I thought there was still a good deal of scholarly debate over this phrase? (Putting aside the silly RCC interpretation that it meant "cousin".)

 

[pakeha]

...These and similar issues point to early Christians either being totally ignorant of actual history or disregarding it when it suit their goals...neither of which is particularly helpful if you are using them to show Jesus was an actual person of 1st century Galilee rather then some composite possibly time shifted character ala Robin Hood.

This brings up another issue: why do so many people associated with Jesus have this time shift problem? ...

Yes.
This disregard or ignorance of actual history is why those mentions of historical data in the Gospels and Acts doesn't convince me of the plausibility of an HJ, other than as a composite figure.

...The point about P46 and it’s date of c.200AD (and perhaps even much later than that), is that by that date (e.g. c.200AD) it may well be long after the story of Isaiah’s Ascension was known amongst 1st century Jewish preachers like Paul.

Do you reckon the IA was written and circulated before Paul's epistles?
I'm off to reread what I have on the IA.

 

[IanS]

The point, which is unarguable, is that we actually have no idea what Paul may have written about any of this at any date earlier than P46 (and the hopelessly late date for extant copies of Josephus is another subject entirely).

You wish! It is equally unarguable that we have no idea what most ancient authors may have written about prior to mediaeval redaction and copying. We need to depend on internal evidence, and this we have for Paul. King Aretas, remember? Proconsul Gallio. The Temple in pre-70 working condition.

I don’t “wish” anything. You are the one who’s indulging in wishful thinking all the time.

I am just pointing out what appears to be the fact of the matter (according to all bible scholars, afaik), that we do not actually know what Paul himself really ever wrote or said about his messiah beliefs. We only know what an unknown Christian copyist produced under Paul’s name around 200AD.

And I am just pointing out that by that date of 200AD, Jewish people in that region may have already known the story of Isaiah’s Visions. And that story of Isaiah’s vision is very close indeed to the description that Paul gave as his Jesus belief.


Remember too that According to the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah was a prophet living around 700BC. So his visions etc. are presumably supposed to be things that happened to him around 700BC. Notice also, that two of the Dead Sea Scrolls contain parts of the book of Isaiah, and those scrolls are thought to be fairly accurately dated to around 100BC. So the story of Isaiah and the writing of the OT books of Isaiah long pre-dates the time of Paul.

 

[Craig B]

Remember too that According to the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah was a prophet living around 700BC. So his visions etc. are presumably supposed to be things that happened to him around 700BC.

For about two centuries scholars have recognised that Isaiah consists of two or more separate texts stuck together by later redactors. Per wiki.

Proto-Isaiah/First Isaiah (chapters 1–39)

Deutero-Isaiah/Second Isaiah (chapters 40–54), with two major divisions, 40–48 and 49–54, the first emphasising Israel, the second Zion and Jerusalem

Trito-Isaiah/Third Isaiah (chapters 55–66) A collection of oracles by unknown prophets in the years immediately after the return from Babylon.

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

 

[IanS]

For about two centuries scholars have recognised that Isaiah consists of two or more separate texts stuck together by later redactors. Per wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

And so?

All you have done above is just give a Wiki link to the whole of a Wiki article. What is it in that article that you think contradicts anything I said above?

If you look at my earlier link to what Carrier says, I think he covers all the above points on what is said in Wiki, and concludes with the comments I already quoted from him above re. the possible date of writing for the Vision of Isaiah.