Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

How do you figure that?

How do I figure that extrapolating from the Frum story to Jesus myself rather than have you do it makes it my hypothesis rather than yours ? Really ?

With this as are blueprint we can put together several Christ mythers theories but the one that is off the cuff obvious is as follows:

Ah, thank you ! That does answer my question.

 

[Belz...]

Getting into this late and I'm not reading all of this.

Where are some getting the idea that the non-existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth is an established fact? In fact I'd say the majority of historians with that interest would state the opposite is true.

I'd say IanS and Maximara are simply saying that there is no evidence to conclude that he did exist. Dejudge is the only one flatly claiming that he didn't exist.

 

[pakeha]

I thought I should post this in this thread, because it was kind of Off-Topic in the "History-denying atheist activists" thread.



So, what do you think History experts?

How far off the mark am I?

I can take it. Have at me.

Well, given the OP, I'd have to ask what Ehrman thinks of your idea
"I think at some point, one of the people pushing this Apocalyptic Worldview got it into his head that he was "THE ONE", just like Neo, or Jim Jones... He was crucified and his followers were confident that he was at that very moment standing before God who was about to open the gates of Salvation ("Yehosh'ua") and unleash the Angels of war."

 

[Brainache]

Well, given the OP, I'd have to ask what Ehrman thinks of your idea
"I think at some point, one of the people pushing this Apocalyptic Worldview got it into his head that he was "THE ONE", just like Neo, or Jim Jones... He was crucified and his followers were confident that he was at that very moment standing before God who was about to open the gates of Salvation ("Yehosh'ua") and unleash the Angels of war."

I think at 24 pages in, it's safe to say this thread has drifted into the general HJ debate that these threads always do, no matter where they start.

This thread has covered everyone's HJ, from Schweitzer to Vermes and Beyond! (sorry I don't know why I said that)

So Why not Brainache on the Historical Jesus?

What are you, a snob?

ETA: But to be slightly serious for a moment. I'm not sure about any of this, it might not be that: " one of the people pushing this Apocalyptic Worldview got it into his head that he was "THE ONE", just like Neo, or Jim Jones..." It could be that he just fell foul of the Authorities somehow, and his followers did the rest. I'm not sure.

 

[pakeha]

Nor am I sure about that or much else about this shadowy figure.
But seriously why not consult Ehrman?
Granted, he's not a fan of Eisenman's, but if you asked nicely, he might have something interesting to say.
And yes, his views ARE the subject of the thread, aren't they?

 

[Brainache]

Nor am I sure about that or much else about this shadowy figure.
But seriously why not consult Ehrman?
Granted, he's not a fan of Eisenman's, but if you asked nicely, he might have something interesting to say.
And yes, his views ARE the subject of the thread, aren't they?

Oh, sorry you mean email him or something? If so I think he is probably busy preparing himself for this, I would be:

http://ehrmanblog.org/brian-jesus-members/

Monty Python’s Life of Brian provoked a furious response in some quarters when it first appeared in 1979, even leading to cries of ‘blasphemy’. However, many students and teachers of biblical literature were quietly, and often loudly, both amused and intrigued. Life of Brian in fact contains numerous references to what was then the cutting edge of biblical scholarship and Life of Jesus research, founded on the recognition of the historical Jesus as a Jew who needs to be understood within the context of his time. Implicitly, in setting ‘Brian’ within the tumultuous social and political background of his age, Life of Brian sets Jesus within it also. It assumes the audience has some knowledge of the gospel accounts, which directly inform the comedy.

Ever since Philip Davies first wrote on the film 15 years ago, other scholars too have turned their gaze to consider exactly what Life of Brian does in regard to Jesus scholarship, and have increasingly delved into its curious corners to reflect on what it says both about the tumultuous times of Jesus and also contemporary scholarly discussions. Biblical scholarship has moved on greatly in the past 25 years, and various aspects of Life of Brian correlate with themes now intensely explored. Every Bible scholar knows what ‘blessed are the cheese-makers’ means among us!...

 

[Brainache]

Nor am I sure about that or much else about this shadowy figure.
But seriously why not consult Ehrman?
Granted, he's not a fan of Eisenman's, but if you asked nicely, he might have something interesting to say.
And yes, his views ARE the subject of the thread, aren't they?

I also don't think he wants to get involved in these debates. I've also heard that he isn't interested in the opinions of unpublished amateurs like me:
http://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-bayes-theorem-jesus-existence-2/

Carrier, Bayes Theorem, and Jesus’ Existence

As most of you know, I’m pretty much staying out of the mythicist debates. That is for several reasons. One is that the mythicist position is not seen as intellectually credible in my field (I’m using euphemisms here; you should see what most of my friends *actually* say about it….) – no one that I know personally (I know a *lot* of scholars of New Testament, early Christianity, and so on) takes it at *all* seriously as a viable historical perspective (this includes not just Christians but also Jews, agnostics, atheists – you name it), and my colleagues sometimes tell me that I’m simply providing the mythicists with precisely the credibility they’re looking for even by engaging them. It’s a good point, and I take it seriously.

In that connection I should say that I can understand how someone who hasn’t spent years being trained in the history of early Christianity might have difficulty distinguishing between serious scholarship that is accepted by experts as being plausible (even when judged wrong) and the writings of others that, well, is not. But experts obviously don’t have that problem, and the mythicists simply are not seen as credible. They don’t like that, and they don’t like it when it someone points it out, but there it is.

The other reason for staying out of the fray is that some of the mythicists are simply unpleasant human beings – mean-spirited, arrogant, ungenerous, and vicious. I just don’t enjoy having a back and forth with someone who wants to rip out my jugular. So, well, I don’t. (They also seem – to a person – to have endless time and boundless energy to argue point after point after point after point after point. I, alas, do not.)

 

[dejudge]

Well that's not true. We have the gospels and the Pauline works, which are extremely weak, but there nonetheless. We also have the existence of Christianity, which must be explained. How do you explain it ?

Actually, your statement is not true. You probably don't understand what 'historical' means. The Gospels specifically described the conception and birth of Jesus of Nazareth--he was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Essentially Jesus created himself in the Gospels..

The Pauline Corpus is fully compatible with the Gospels. Jesus was God Creator and God's own Son.

Jesus created himself in the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels and the Pauline Corpus is pure unadulterated mythology.

The word 'Christian' has nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity of Jesus. The word 'Christian' is derived from the Greek word meaning Anointed and PREDATES the story of Jesus by hundreds of years.

In the Septuagint, King David was Christ.

Please, get familiar with the Bible before you make statements that are full of errors.

It is virtually impossible to use the books of the Bible as evidence for an historical Jesus.

In the Bible, Jesus of Nazareth is an established figure of mythology--a figure of faith.

 

[dafydd]

Actually, your statement is not true. You probably don't understand what 'historical' means. The Gospels specifically described the conception and birth of Jesus of Nazareth--he was born of a Ghost and was God Creator.

Essentially Jesus created himself in the Gospels..

The Pauline Corpus is fully compatible with the Gospels. Jesus was God Creator and God's own Son.

Jesus created himself in the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus wrote those?

 

[Brainache]

Jesus wrote those?

Created himself, apparently by being mythical in the first place...

 

[dejudge]

I wasn't telling you about how 100% sure I am of anything.

I just try to limit my inputs on this to real Historians. It saves time.

I've only read bits and pieces of the bible.

Anything else?

You are still evading the question. Are you qualified as an historian?

 

[Brainache]

You are still evading the question. Are you qualified as an historian?

No. I have said as much many times throughout the course of this debate. The big difference between you and me, is that I'm not just making up some oddball theory that is totally removed from anything anyone with any qualifications has ever thought. Ever.

If you have any sources of anyone qualified as a Historian who shares your ideas, I'll be very surprised.

And before you go off at me about "my Theory" take a look at this bloke. Sure there's only one of him, but that's one more than you've got:

http://www.roberteisenman.com/

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

ETA: He is not just another Bible student either:

Education[edit]
Eisenman (like Thomas Pynchon [2]) majored for two and a half years in Engineering Physics (a course theoretically which was to prepare students to enter nuclear physics), graduated B.A. from Cornell University in Physics and Philosophy in 1958. He received an M.A. Degree in Hebrew and Near Eastern Studies with Abraham Katsh from New York University in 1966.[3] He received a Ph.D. Degree from Columbia University in Middle East Languages and Cultures in 1971 with a Minor in Jewish Studies and a Major in Islamic Law where he studied with Joseph Schacht. He was a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow at the American Schools of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 1985–86 and, in 1986–87, he was a Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Oxford, England.

 

[dejudge]

No. I have said as much many times throughout the course of this debate. The big difference between you and me, is that I'm not just making up some oddball theory that is totally removed from anything anyone with any qualifications has ever thought. Ever.

If you have any sources of anyone qualified as a Historian who shares your ideas, I'll be very surprised.

And before you go off at me about "my Theory" take a look at this bloke. Sure there's only one of him, but that's one more than you've got:

http://www.roberteisenman.com/

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

ETA: He is not just another Bible student either:

Now, Jesus the Zealot is an oddball theory.

There is ZERO evidence in the entire writings of antiquity that claim or show that Jesus of Nazareth was a Zealot.

Jesus the Zealot is just as oddball as the claim that Jesus was crucified in a heavenly realm.

 

[Brainache]

Why are you evading the question? Are you a qualified historian?

Now, Jesus the Zealot is an oddball theory.

There is ZERO evidence in the entire writings of antiquity that claim or show that Jesus of Nazareth was a Zealot.

Jesus the Zealot is just as oddball as the claim that Jesus was crucified in a heavenly realm.

The answer was the first word of the post you strange person. I'll repeat it for the ten millionth time:

NO.

Got it now?

But again, unlike you I'm not making it up. I'm telling people about what a Historian thinks. He might be wrong, but I enjoy learning about this stuff.

ETA: That obviously was a reaction to something dejudge edited out of his post. I guess he learned "no", means "no".

 

[pakeha]

I also don't think he wants to get involved in these debates. I've also heard that he isn't interested in the opinions of unpublished amateurs like me:
http://ehrmanblog.org/carrier-bayes-theorem-jesus-existence-2/

I meant posting on the fellow's blog and asking HIS opinion on the subject.

 

[pakeha]

No. I have said as much many times throughout the course of this debate. The big difference between you and me, is that I'm not just making up some oddball theory that is totally removed from anything anyone with any qualifications has ever thought. Ever.

If you have any sources of anyone qualified as a Historian who shares your ideas, I'll be very surprised.

And before you go off at me about "my Theory" take a look at this bloke. Sure there's only one of him, but that's one more than you've got:

http://www.roberteisenman.com/

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

ETA: He is not just another Bible student either:

No, not another bible student.
But from there to historian?

 

[Brainache]

I meant posting on the fellow's blog and asking HIS opinion on the subject.

Because it appears to be behind some kind of paywall. I'm not a big Ehrman fan. I haven't read any of his books. I'm only in this thread because this is where the HJ debate is.

I don't particularly care what Bart Ehrman's opinion is. I wanted the Mythicists in the thread to tell me what was implausible about my scenario.

None of them has done so yet, even after pages and pages of moaning about how implausible the HJ is.

So, sorry if I seem less than polite to you, but I find the invincible ignorance on display from some posters (not you) just deplorable.

 

[Brainache]

No, not another bible student.
But from there to historian?

Well from physics, to language, to Law, to History, but yeah. His early maths and physics training help him avoid some of the logical traps that some Bible Scholars seem to fall for. He also isn't coming at the question from a "Bible Studies" perspective, like so many others. *cough*Ehrman*cough*

 

[pakeha]

Well from physics, to language, to Law, to History, but yeah. His early maths and physics training help him avoid some of the logical traps that some Bible Scholars seem to fall for. He also isn't coming at the question from a "Bible Studies" perspective, like so many others. *cough*Ehrman*cough*

To History?
Where's the historian's qualification?
And yes, of course you're right.
Ehrman on the DSS is hilarious, if you like your humour dark.

 

[pakeha]

Because it appears to be behind some kind of paywall. I'm not a big Ehrman fan. I haven't read any of his books. I'm only in this thread because this is where the HJ debate is.

I don't particularly care what Bart Ehrman's opinion is. I wanted the Mythicists in the thread to tell me what was implausible about my scenario.

None of them has done so yet, even after pages and pages of moaning about how implausible the HJ is.

So, sorry if I seem less than polite to you, but I find the invincible ignorance on display from some posters (not you) just deplorable.

I confess.
I was teasing you about posting on Ehrman's blog.
I have a deep-rooted aversion to paywalls, possibly due to some ideological bias.

The thing is, I think you're confusing "mythicist" with "skeptic".
dejudge is a mythicist, of course, but I think the rest of us here are more accurately described as skeptics.
I could be wrong, of course.

Anyway, for the humour of it, if posting on Ehrman's blog doesn't appeal to you, Brainache, there's always the option of leafing through
http://www.brill.com/handbook-study-historical-jesus-4-vols

Just €926,00 or $1,200.00!