Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

If you arrive at your 6:40 probability on the basis of what's written in the bible, as indeed you just implied that you do, and as indeed is inevitable because the bible is the sole entire source of all belief in Jesus, then your 60:40 belief is actually based upon religious faith!

Your argument is unsound. How dif you even formulate such a wrong premise with all that I've told you already ?

 

[Belz...]

Thought you were 60/40 on his existence.

So ? Don't tell me you have trouble following the following two things:

A) Being slightly more convinced by one side of the debate than the other.
B) Arguing that one side is correct.

Furthermore, you seem to have missed the point of the first post you quoted. Care to try again ?

 

[Belz...]

It's OK for you to speculate what goes on in other posters heads?

Tsig, really. You are so careless in your attempt to "gotcha" your opponents that you forgot to read the very next sentence:

(that was me a while ago)

I was extrapolating from the fact that _I_ was like that.

Sheesh, you really could try a little bit harder.

 

[Craig B]

It will save your soil?

Matthew 13

8 but other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold. 9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Brainache]

I'm sure they did write scrolls during that time. The question is, when they wrote about a Roman incursion, if they were referring to this past Pompey event. I think they were. Also they were in the habit of re-copying old scrolls, no doubt, for that was and is a standard Jewish procedure.

OK. I was going to say we should just agree to disagree to avoid more de-rail, but now I'm not sure if this is a de-rail.

But, I have my opinion which is different to yours. Should we debate this back and forth here? Or somewhere else?

I don't mind either way. Or we can agree to disagree, and just move on.

Which do you think is best?

...
That's not my problem, and if you feel the need to pursue it, then you need to find somebody who has made the claim, not me. (I suspect it's the same someone who hectored me recenrtly for not laboring you over some point or other - if you two have something to talk about, don't look to me to play go-between.)
...

I just wanted to comment on this. The reply that you refer to was a response to your claim that (paraphrased) "Everyone agrees that the Myth theories fit the evidence to hand".

I was only pointing out that don't agree that that is the case. I used the example I did because that came first to mind.

I'm sorry if you thought I was hectoring you, I didn't intend it that way.

Since then IanS has offered his reply on this one point. He still hasn't addressed the rest of that post. Oh well.

It will save your soil?

Matthew 13

Now that was funny.

I love it when you talk dirty.

 

[maximara]

This has come up before. I think it is because of a letter describing Egyptians and there superstitious religious practices. Some ancient Roman compares the followers of Christ and Serapis saying they all do anointings and exorcisms etc.

Some people have decided that it means that Serapis and Jesus worship are the same thing.

I'm trying to remember the name of the roman who wrote the letter. He mentions that The Patriarch had to suffer these superstitions when he visited...

Hadrian to Servianus, 134 CE (Quoted by Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. II, p86, 1877):

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle."

Admittedly this appears in the Historia Augusta which "In modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of deliberate mystification written much later than its purported date, however the fundamentalist view still has distinguished support. (...) The Historia Augusta is also, unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution." (The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 2, Latin Literature, Part 5, The Later Principate, E. J. Kenney, Wendell Vernon Clausen, p43, 45, Cambridge University Press, 1983,ISBN 0521273714)

 

[Stone]

Tsig, really. You are so careless in your attempt to "gotcha" your opponents that you forgot to read the very next sentence:



I was extrapolating from the fact that _I_ was like that.

Sheesh, you really could try a little bit harder.

That's not a myther's "yob". A myther's "yob" is to distract with smoke and mirrors, which he's doing admirably.

Stone

 

[Belz...]

That's not a myther's "yob". A myther's "yob" is to distract with smoke and mirrors, which he's doing admirably.

Stone

Didn't you call me a myther a short while ago ?

 

[Brainache]

Hadrian to Servianus, 134 CE (Quoted by Giles, Hebrew and Christian Records, vol. II, p86, 1877):

"Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ are, in fact, devotees of Serapis. There is no chief of the Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Christian presbyter, who is not an astrologer, a soothsayer, or an anointer. Even the Patriarch himself, when he comes to Egypt, is forced by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Christ. They are a folk most seditious, most deceitful, most given to injury; but their city is prosperous, rich, and fruitful, and in it no one is idle."

Admittedly this appears in the Historia Augusta which "In modern times most scholars read the work as a piece of deliberate mystification written much later than its purported date, however the fundamentalist view still has distinguished support. (...) The Historia Augusta is also, unfortunately, the principal Latin source for a century of Roman history. The historian must make use of it, but only with extreme circumspection and caution." (The Cambridge History of Classical Literature: Volume 2, Latin Literature, Part 5, The Later Principate, E. J. Kenney, Wendell Vernon Clausen, p43, 45, Cambridge University Press, 1983,ISBN 0521273714)

Thanks for that.

I still think it reads as if he is saying: "They are all as bad as each other. It's a load of superstitious nonsense, if you ask me..."

What do you think?

 

[tsig]

See ? You're doing it again. Instead of arguing the evidence or lack thereof, or argument or lack thereof, you argue the posters. In addition to that, you do it by inventing what's going on in their heads.

So let me get this straight... you can't understand why someone who doesn't believe in god might think that a human existed ? Because that's what this is about: having a person who corresponds to part of the Jesus myth be historically at the source of Christianity. I see no reason why this would require any sort of religious thought.

On the other hand, I could see why someone who doesn't believe in god would want Jesus to NOT exist, so as to further validate their atheistic worldview (that was me a while ago). I'd think that about 100% of "mythers" (for lack of a better term) are agnostics or atheists. So actually, that accusation might have more merit than the reverse.

Alternatively we can stop trying to guess each other's motives and focus on the actual issue. What do you think ?

Tsig, really. You are so careless in your attempt to "gotcha" your opponents that you forgot to read the very next sentence:



I was extrapolating from the fact that _I_ was like that.
Sheesh, you really could try a little bit harder.

Exactly, you were speculating on the reasons that some would be MJ just like I speculated on why some would be HJers.

If I had said "some have a soft spot for Jesus [just like I used to have]" would you have given me a pass?

 

[Belz...]

Exactly, you were speculating on the reasons that some would be MJ just like I speculated on why some would be HJers.

If I had said "some have a soft spot for Jesus [just like I used to have]" would you have given me a pass?

I'd at least give you more slack than someone who's just running his mouth from ignorance.

Anyway, point taken.

However, your tu quoque does not invalidate what I said. Care to address that ?

 

[Brainache]

Brainache
...

I think there was a misunderstanding. I think I was referring to other things we can know about Paul from his writings, which he doesn't tell us directly.

Things like: His level of education, his knowledge of Jewish law, his mastery of rhetoric, his vocabulary, his use of language etc etc.

All that stuff leads me to believe that Paul was either from the Ruling Classes, or he somehow managed to wriggle his way into an Upper Class education.

Either way, he was no Peasant Scribe with a vision IMO.

Brainache
...
Lucky thing I was only talking about the institution narrative. It would take a book chapter at least to sort out what Paul thought of the various members of the James Gang. We wouldn't want that.

Indeed.

I'm sure they did write scrolls during that time. The question is, when they wrote about a Roman incursion, if they were referring to this past Pompey event. I think they were. Also they were in the habit of re-copying old scrolls, no doubt, for that was and is a standard Jewish procedure.

AFAIK, Pompey marched into Judea from Syria, and only took Jerusalem, but I'm open to correction on that.

On the other hand, Titus and Vespasian arrived by ship, coming from directly from Britain. Just like these guys:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

...
[Interpreted, this] concerns the Kittim who trample the earth with their horses and beasts. They come from afar, from the islands of the sea, to devour all the peoples like an eagle which cannot be satisfied, and they address [all the peoples] with anger and [wrath and fury] and indignation.
...

You and I know Rome isn't an Island of the sea, but did those guys know that?

It does suggest arrival in ships though, don't you think?


ETA: For anyone else interested in this idea of a Qumran<->Early Jewish Christianity link, here is the Damascus Document:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q266-273_CD_damascus-document.html

The Habakkuk Pesher:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

Compare those with the Epistles of James and Jude from the Bible:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/james-asv.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1&version=NKJV

There is much more than just these vague similarities, but it was what started me thinking there might be something to all this.

YMMV.

ETA Again: In case you feel like becoming a member of the Qumran Community after you invent your time machine to finally answer this bloody question, here are the rules so you can be prepared:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

I wish you luck on your mission, wish I could go along, but I have a bad back...

 

[Brainache]

Too late to edit my previous reply, I found a longer version of the Damascus Document:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/cd.htm

I think that other one is the Cairo fragment, I think this is the one from Qumran.

For twenty years, however, they remained like blind men groping their way,2 until at last God took note of their deeds, how that they were seeking Him sincerely, and He raised up for them one who would teach the Law correctly,8 to guide them in the way of His heart and to demonstrate to future ages what He does to a generation that incurs His anger, that is, to the congregation of those that betray Him and turn aside from His way.

The period in question was that whereof it is written, like a stubborn heifer, Israel was stubborn' [Hos. 4.16J. It was the time when a certain scoffer arose to distil upon Israel the waters deceptive4 and to lead them astray in a trackless waste, bringing low whatsoever had once been high, diverting them from the proper paths and removing the landmarks which their forbears had set up, to the end that through his efforts those curses cleaved to them which had been prescribed when the Covenant was concluded, and they were delivered to the sword. Thus was avenged that breach of the Covenant which they had committed in seeking smooth things and in preferring delusion and in being constantly on the watch to breach the faith and in choosing to walk proudly and in justifying the wicked and condemning the righteous, and in abrogating the Covenant and annulling the pact, and in assailing the life of the righteous and abhorring all whose conduct was blameless, and in pursuing them with the sword, and in raising a general clamor against them. God then grew angry with their horde and utterly destroyed all their throng and treated all their works as an abominable thing unclean...

It's all a bit "fire and brimstone" really.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache
...
Lucky thing I was only talking about the institution narrative. It would take a book chapter at least to sort out what Paul thought of the various members of the James Gang. We wouldn't want that.

Just to add a little more to what I said about this above:

I understand that you are having a little dig at me for complaining about your request to jobberone earlier. I don't have a problem with that, it's all part of the "friendly and lively way" we discuss things here at JREF.

Having said that, I'll offer another of my "opinions-in-a-nutshell":

Sifting through all of Paul's rhetorical games and semantics (a skill I learned here at JREF) in his letters, his opinion of those people seems to be: "They are a bunch of jumped-up Nobodies", but at the same time he also appears to be saying: "I'm just as good as them!".

"Self-Loathing Jew", anyone?

 

[dejudge]

No, it puts you in opposition to 99% of Historians. It is an established Consensus, just like in any other Academic field.

Your claim is utter fiction--a deliberate fallacy.

You have no sources, no data, no actual study for all historians of the world about the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Please supply the data for the historians in European countries or cease your fallacious invention.

 

[Brainache]

Your claim is utter fiction--a deliberate fallacy.

You have no sources, no data, no actual study for all historians of world about the existence or non-existence of Jesus of Nazareth.

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the debate.

Your position is clear.




(Is it against the rules to copy and paste the same response from now on?)

 

[dejudge]

Why is Brianache continuing to promote the fallacious non-sense that 99% of Historians have an established consensus that Jesus existed when he cannot supply any statistics, data, or study to support his claim?

It is not even certain that 00.1 % of historians worldwide have given any opinion on the existence of Jesus or have even examined any evidence for HJ.

Brianache's fallacies are undermining the intergrity of the forum and are completely unacceptable.

If he is not prepared to present any data for his claims then he should withdraw the nonsense immediately.

Brianache Please, provide data for the following and identify your sources.

1. How many historians are there worldwide?

2. How many historians worldwide have examined evidence for Jesus of Nazareth?

3. How many historians worldwide are agnostic about the existence of Jesus ?

4. How many historians worldwide argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology?

 

[Robrob]

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the debate.

Your position is clear.

(Is it against the rules to copy and paste the same response from now on?)

Is it against the rules for you to support your claim?

No, it puts you in opposition to 99% of Historians. It is an established Consensus, just like in any other Academic field.

 

[Stone]

I have no expectation that this synthesis will be more honestly addressed this time than it was earlier -- i.e., not at all. But it is exasperating to constantly read the refrain that no one has submitted any synthesis or precis of the scholarly consensus today. Here, for the umpteenth time, is that synthesis. First, Pakeha's useful taming of my explication of the methodology(ies) behind the consensus --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9603160&postcount=443

-- and second, some of the textual data that's most pertinent to that consensus --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9604546&postcount=452

Why do I bother.............

Stone

 

[Brainache]

I have no expectation that this synthesis will be more honestly addressed this time than it was earlier -- i.e., not at all. But it is exasperating to constantly read the refrain that no one has submitted any synthesis or precis of the scholarly consensus today. Here, for the umpteenth time, is that synthesis. First, Pakeha's useful taming of my explication of the methodology(ies) behind the consensus --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9603160&postcount=443

-- and second, some of the textual data that's most pertinent to that consensus --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9604546&postcount=452

Why do I bother.............

Stone

Thank you Stone.