Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Craig B]

... The resurrection could not have happened at all in the distant or recent past.

That's right. Therefore the Pauline corpus was composed after the 180s AD. Mmm. And that is your only argument, which you are willing to repeat interminably until all the people discussing it with you get tired and chuck it. As I now am doing.

 

[dejudge]

See 1 Thess 4:13-18. This is written to reassure people who have experienced the death of some of the faithful prior to the immediately-awaited return of the Lord. Paul is telling them it's OK; these people will come out of their graves when Jesus returns. The rest of us, including me, will still be alive. This argues against your absurd thesis that the Pauline corpus was concocted in the late second century.

You just simply believe the Bible.

When did Paul claim he wrote 1 Thessalonians?

In Acts, there no such thing as a Pauline Epistle to the Thessalonians.

You got your date of authorship for 1 Thessalonians from Chinese Whispers.

There are Christian writers of the 2nd century or later who wrote nothing of the Pauline Corpus like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix and Arnobius.

It is virtually impossible for you to show who was the real Paul and what and when the real Paul wrote unless you are a Bible believer.

 

[dejudge]

... The resurrection could not have happened at all in the distant or recent past.

That's right. Therefore the Pauline corpus was composed after the 180s AD. Mmm. And that is your only argument, which you are willing to repeat interminably until all the people discussing it with you get tired and chuck it. As I now am doing.

I am merely exposing your fallacy that Paul thought Jesus died in the recent past because Jesus was raised from the dead.

A resurrection is fiction--never happened in the past.

You also seem completely unaware that there are many 2nd century or later Christian writers who did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

It is from the late 3rd century or early 4th century where all Christians writers acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Stone]

You really will never address what I write, will you? You'll just keep churning out the same stuff, regardless.

A lesson that FRDB and RatSkep learned long ago. It's still surprising that at RatSkep this sort of "discussing" has actually won him a few fans. But there are also posters at RatSkep and elsewhere who continue to wonder at this getting such a free pass. You see, you describe this quite succinctly: "just keep churning out the same stuff, regardless". Now, isn't there a term for a poster who does that year in, year out, regardless of how others are steering the discussion?..............

Stone

 

[Belz...]

Now that made me laugh.

But the curious thing as well, is that generally there are not that many arguments for mythicism, are there?

I think the main thing that MJ has is that it provides possible alternatives, in the absence of serious evidence either way. We might consider HJ more probable, but probability doesn't change reality. We don't really know what the reality is, in this case, so it's always good to challenge ourselves with alternatives.

What I find unfortunate is people on both sides of this issue exhibiting great confidence where there is no reason for this confidence to exist.

 

[Belz...]

It is simply a fallacy that son of God means a really good Jew. There is no statement in gMark that Jesus was a Jew.

Do you realise how silly what you wrote is ? I realise you want Jesus to be mythical, but how could he be anything but a Jew ?

Plus, a "really good Jew" cannot walk on the sea, instantly transfigure with the resurrected Moses and Elijah.

I think you skipped much of Eight's post.

 

[Belz...]

You just simply believe the Bible.

Are you done lying about other posters ? You have brought absolutely no argument to this debate, and have done nothing but attack other posters. You have nothing of value to add on this topic, obviously, and you are far from being skeptical of your own beliefs, which makes your claims very suspect.

 

[tsig]

I think the main thing that MJ has is that it provides possible alternatives, in the absence of serious evidence either way. We might consider HJ more probable, but probability doesn't change reality. We don't really know what the reality is, in this case, so it's always good to challenge ourselves with alternatives.

What I find unfortunate is people on both sides of this issue exhibiting great confidence where there is no reason for this confidence to exist.

I said that not only don't we know, we can't know whether or not Jesus actually existed but that statement has been ignored in the drumbeat for Historical Consensus and the firm intent to categorize everyone who won't agree with an HJ as a dreaded Myther, destroyer of Academia and an ignoramus.

 

[dejudge]

Do you realise how silly what you wrote is ? I realise you want Jesus to be mythical, but how could he be anything but a Jew ?

It is you who want to make Jesus a figure of history claiming he was a Jew. There is ZERO claim in gMark that Jesus was the actual son of a Jew.

There is no genealogy for Jesus in gMark and there is no mention of a human father for him. We also have virtually nothing about his mother except a name.

Plus, in all the genealogies in the Gospels, Jesus is EXCLUDED.

However, in gJohn 1, Jesus was the Logos God Creator.

Jesus was not the son of a Jew. Jesus was the Son of God in gMark.


Mark 1:1 KJV ---

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Mark 3:11 KJV

And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried , saying , Thou art the Son of God.

 

[Brainache]

I said that not only don't we know, we can't know whether or not Jesus actually existed but that statement has been ignored in the drumbeat for Historical Consensus and the firm intent to categorize everyone who won't agree with an HJ as a dreaded Myther, destroyer of Academia and an ignoramus.

Don't forget all those dishonest arguments that have been made. We shouldn't forget all of the disingenuous strawmen arguments put up by people defending a personal bias in the face of an Academic Consensus.

Don't forget that tsig.

 

[The Norseman]

That's right. They take a look at the bible stories and then study the history of the time and place and see what is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity.

So far, the best option is a human teacher.

If you have an answer which is more plausible, please present it.

Your current arguments are unconvincing.

IanS has already put forth a convincing theory of a mythical Jesus (for lack of a better term) but since you're already an avowed 90% believer in a Jesus the Zealot, I'm not really certain whether you're being fair when you claim pretty much everything else that has been said on the topic remains unconvincing to you. Can you see what this may look like to others in this thread? I mean, that's a huge amount of let's say inertia that must be overcome in your instance. I'm going to presume that in order to sway you at all, there essentially needs to be some new writings that are unearthed which say conclusively that Jesus was made up in some manner. The current evidence seems quite overwhelming to you that a corporeal Jesus the Zealot existed according to other statements you've made, yes?

What I find more curious, however, is those who have said they're 60/40 in favor of an historical Jesus who cling just as doggedly to their 60/40 as do you to your 90%. To me, it strains credibility that they're that close to being 50/50.

 

[The Norseman]

I'm unsure what you think "my theory" is. I'm talking about what's in a text, which is a fact, and what readers do with the text, which is just about anything they like.

Are you saying that this is an okay thing to do? I mean, take the text and place whatever spin on it they like?

Mark provided an excellent example of how a phrase changes meaning depending on conext. For the Jewish characters "a son of God" was pretty much synonymous with "really good Jew," although not all the Jewish characters think that Jesus is a good Jew. For the centurion, "a son of a god" is a man who died well, like Hercules, without complaint despite the agony. Centuries later, Nicene readers will take it as meaning that Jesus' father was the incorporeal Jewish God. Centuries later still, Muslim readers will take the phrase as blapshemy, and point to it as a blatant example of how both Jews and Christians have managed to mangle the teachings of the prophets Allah sent to them. Cenutries later still, Mormons will imagine that Elohim visited Earth and boffed a Jewish girl, ... and I have left several out.

Can you cite your sources as to these various contextual meanings and could you also provide some evidence that your interpretation of the context in the bible is an accurate context. Which historians back up your claims, in other words.

Stick to the text, and don't assume that the author even knows what Mattie or Luke's religious opinions will turn out to be, much less that he would agree with them. There are already enough fanciful readings of Mark.

I find this odd that you then go on to making up your own stuff here, such as:

Nobody walks on the sea in Mark. If you want an explanation of how somebody might see somebody else walking on the sea, in bad light after hauling nets for a few hours, then take an introductory psychology course. Or just read the ghost sighting reports that are all over the web.

You mean be seen that way by some of the people we were just discussing, the ones who saw a ghost on the water, now seeing this after being marched up a hill in the desert sun. You have an odd notion of what "instantly" means. This probably took days to make it work, even for a talented perfomance artist like Jesus.

That's in John, about a generation later. In Mark, Jesus and his handsome assistants mime sharing the food you brought with you with your neighbors. People catch on, and everybody eats. Jesus apparently didn't bring any food himself personally, although as you say, the boys did, and thus they had props for the mime.

You can make up stuff that people two thousand years ago wrote as miracles. So, then...what? I don't understand. Going back and retconning these miracle stories as being stage magic or what have you doesn't suddenly mean that there is any basis for reality that a corporeal Jesus existed to do those things.

I hope you can clarify for me please.

As opposed to what? The story is he's a Jewish man. It's a tzedek story. The hero of a tzedek story is a Jewish man. How would all the things you mentioned, even if they were in the text as you have spun them, which they are not, but if they were, how would they promote a human miracle worker to the rank of a god walking the Earth? They don't. Stories about gods walking the Earth feature the god doing niftier things than these. Crap, even God's staff can gnosh with Abraham and then blow up Sodom. WTF does Jesus do, in Mark or any other synoptic Gospel, that begins to compare with that? - and those dudes weren't even God.

An argument from incredulity? I'm sure there were god stories where they were much cooler and some which were much lamer. That doesn't impact whether or not these particular Jesus stories were made up. As I said, IanS has stated numerous times a position which fits the available evidence quite nicely that does not rely on a corporeal Jesus, nor does it rely on this mountain of guesswork, "maybes" and "just-so stories" to reach a conclusion that there was a corporeal Jesus.

And yes, once again, what's discussed is what somebody else will see. Not what happens, just what people see. Except, of course, he couldn't make those guys see it. Bad light didn't help this time.

What's being discussed is what the text says, not what you think it really means.

 

[Brainache]

IanS has already put forth a convincing theory of a mythical Jesus (for lack of a better term)

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

All I've seen from him is vague assertions and ignorance of the history of the Ancient Near East.

I don't think we are reading the same thread...

You don't mean "John Frum", do you?

but since you're already an avowed 90% believer in a Jesus the Zealot, I'm not really certain whether you're being fair when you claim pretty much everything else that has been said on the topic remains unconvincing to you. Can you see what this may look like to others in this thread? I mean, that's a huge amount of let's say inertia that must be overcome in your instance.

Nope, it's a fair amount of book-lernin'. Something which appears lacking in my opponents, who appear to get these ideas from Youtube.

I'm going to presume that in order to sway you at all, there essentially needs to be some new writings that are unearthed which say conclusively that Jesus was made up in some manner. The current evidence seems quite overwhelming to you that a corporeal Jesus the Zealot existed according to other statements you've made, yes?

What would sway me is a cohesive theory which better explains the evidence in hand. So far the Myth people haven't come up with one. When/if they do, I'll be very interested to see it.

Reading how they think Historians work, is like watching Truthers talk about Engineers. It's just sad.

What I find more curious, however, is those who have said they're 60/40 in favor of an historical Jesus who cling just as doggedly to their 60/40 as do you to your 90%. To me, it strains credibility that they're that close to being 50/50.

I don't get that either. But you'll have to ask them about that.

 

[The Norseman]

Now that made me laugh.

But the curious thing as well, is that generally there are not that many arguments for mythicism, are there? There is a lot of nit-picking about various HJ arguments, and a lot of assertive stuff, as dejudge seems to do here, e.g. 'Jesus is born of a ghost and a virgin, now don't you dare to contradict that!', but not a lot of solid building up a case for a mythic Jesus. I suppose Earl Doherty would be a prime candidate here, but then the evidence for the sub-lunar realm seems thin on the ground.

Jesus was crucified in the air, in the realms of the heavenly pleroma! OK, but where are the citations for that?

It's called the bible. Maybe you've heard of it?

You're also going to have to quote dejudge saying that which you are implying because his argument hasn't been anything close to that. I guess it's my turn to gleefully shout "STRAWMAN" and do a happy dance like many HJers do in these threads.

CraigB

Yes, I remember that GDon once said on Ratskep that mythicism requires a very high Christology from the beginning through to the end. I found this to be illuminating, since there seem to be bits in the gospels that are not very high Christology. Well, the mythicists can get round this by arguing that the original mythic Jesus was humanized, (i.e. low Christology), in order to make him palatable and more credible. But this is becoming very complicated and conspiratorial, isn't it?

Also, who did this, when, where?

This isn't "Ratskep" so if you'd care to make arguments here that address these issues, then please do so. For example, you might begin by explaining the term "Christology" which hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, been used before on JREF.

 

[Brainache]

This isn't "Ratskep" so if you'd care to make arguments here that address these issues, then please do so. For example, you might begin by explaining the term "Christology" which hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, been used before on JREF.

It has come up in this thread or the "history-denying..." thread recently. It has to do with the depiction of Jesus and how his "divinity" changes according to time and place.

"Low Christology" is like gMark, where there is no Virgin birth and the miracles are more of the "faith healer" Charismatic Preacher type. This Jesus is a more like a man inspired, than a God incarnate.

"High Christology" is generally later in the tradition and has things like the virgin birth and more magical elements in the myths and a Jesus who is a God-Man, not just an inspired Prophet.


That is the general gist of it, I think. Others can correct me...

 

[zugzwang]

It's called the bible. Maybe you've heard of it?

You're also going to have to quote dejudge saying that which you are implying because his argument hasn't been anything close to that. I guess it's my turn to gleefully shout "STRAWMAN" and do a happy dance like many HJers do in these threads.



This isn't "Ratskep" so if you'd care to make arguments here that address these issues, then please do so. For example, you might begin by explaining the term "Christology" which hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, been used before on JREF.

1. Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was crucified in the heavenly pleroma?

2. I cited the stuff about the heavenly realm in the air because those are some of the ideas in Earl Doherty, one of the prime mythicists.

3. Christology has certainly come up on another thread; anyway, it refers to the nature and person of Jesus, thus, 'low Christology' means Jesus is human; 'high' means he is divine and human; and I suppose there is ultra-high - only divine, not human. Hence, the adage that mythicism requires a very early and very high Christology.

 

[Stone]

What would sway me is a cohesive theory which better explains the evidence in hand. So far the Myth people haven't come up with one.

True, they instead ignore or handwave away half the evidence that's already there! One poster here had it nailed quite well: [paraphrase] "It's perfectly easy to come up with vague and half-baked "what-if"s for one datum or the other in isolation; but it becomes absurd when an entire assortment of data is speciously massaged en masse!" (I believe it may have been Jobberone (sp.?) who wrote that.)

Stone

 

[The Norseman]

I must have missed that. Do you have a link?

No, I do not. He has said it at least a half dozen times in the two most active threads that you're participating in.

All I've seen from him is vague assertions and ignorance of the history of the Ancient Near East.

I don't think we are reading the same thread...

Sadly, I think this proves my point that you're not looking for any new evidence or interested in re-examining the existing evidence.

You don't mean "John Frum", do you?

No. I do think the "John Frum" concept has merit in providing a believable alternate explanation for the evidence we currently have. If that makes me a Myther with all the attendant mocking and derision, then so be it.

Nope, it's a fair amount of book-lernin'. Something which appears lacking in my opponents, who appear to get these ideas from Youtube.

I'm sorry that you think this is an acceptable characterization of those who do not think the evidence shows any corporeal existence of Jesus. I wonder if you think you should be taken seriously in these threads when you consistently post like this. Should I take you seriously? It's a fair question, but let me anticipate your answer being that you "couldn't care less what anonymous people on the internet think of you" and that your position is the only rational one and you couldn't care less of I or anyone is convinced of this huge mountain of evidence which has convinced an overwhelming consensus of all historians.

What would sway me is a cohesive theory which better explains the evidence in hand. So far the Myth people haven't come up with one. When/if they do, I'll be very interested to see it.

I think IanS has come up with one but it's combined with what many others like HansMustermann, dejudge, Kapyong, and several others who I can't remember off the top of my head have all said.

A made up Jesus figure fits all the evidence we have and is a reasonable alternate theory to the one where Jesus was a real figure that the Christian religion was founded upon.

Reading how they think Historians work, is like watching Truthers talk about Engineers. It's just sad.

You are yourself not an historian by your own statements. How do you know with such precise detail how Historians work and yet others do not? The very same others, I might add, that happen to be your opponents in this debate.

 

[The Norseman]

It has come up in this thread or the "history-denying..." thread recently. It has to do with the depiction of Jesus and how his "divinity" changes according to time and place.

"Low Christology" is like gMark, where there is no Virgin birth and the miracles are more of the "faith healer" Charismatic Preacher type. This Jesus is a more like a man inspired, than a God incarnate.

"High Christology" is generally later in the tradition and has things like the virgin birth and more magical elements in the myths and a Jesus who is a God-Man, not just an inspired Prophet.


That is the general gist of it, I think. Others can correct me...

Ah, okay, thank you. I haven't yet read up on the "history-denying..." thread to the point where it came up.

 

[The Norseman]

1. Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus was crucified in the heavenly pleroma?

I believe you are right and I stand corrected. I cannot now remember what point I was trying to make, so if I remember, I'll restate it.

2. I cited the stuff about the heavenly realm in the air because those are some of the ideas in Earl Doherty, one of the prime mythicists.

Okay. I have not yet read any of Doherty's books, so I'll take your word for it.

3. Christology has certainly come up on another thread; anyway, it refers to the nature and person of Jesus, thus, 'low Christology' means Jesus is human; 'high' means he is divine and human; and I suppose there is ultra-high - only divine, not human. Hence, the adage that mythicism requires a very early and very high Christology.

Thank you for the clarification. I haven't yet read the other thread where it first came up.