Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

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

Out of that big long post, that was all you could find to complain about?

OK I retract 99% of Historians and substitute "A Solid Majority".

Thank you for the opportunity of correcting my error.

Anything else?

 

[Belz...]

Your claim is utter fiction--a deliberate fallacy.

Why do you begin every post with an insult ?

 

[Belz...]

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

Mind answering me, Stone ?

How can you call other posters mythers in a post to me, when you were so wrong about me being a myther not long ago ?

 

[Craig B]

Why do you begin every post with an insult ?

Does that imply that there are no insults in the middle or ends of these posts? I find dejudge's tone quite charming, and I hope the mods treat it with mildness and indulgence.

 

[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. Sorry, I just can't leave this point alone.

The Romans under Pompey in 60 BCE:

... brought his mechanical engines and battering- rams from Tyre, and placing them on the bank, he battered the temple with the stones that were thrown against it. And had it not been our practice, from the days of our forefathers, to rest on the seventh day, this bank could never have been perfected, by reason of the opposition the Jews would have made; for though our law gives us leave then to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with us and assault us, yet does it not permit us to meddle with our enemies while they do any thing else...

(It's not wiki, but it will have to do)
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/antiquities-jews/book-14/chapter-4.html

He built it while they were resting! Oy Vey!

He took one city from a bunch of Priests who were playing Soldier. He then gave that City to Herod to rule as Rome's puppet. Herod married the High Priest's daughter, and the rest is a sordid tale indeed...

Vespasian in the late 60's CE, on the other hand, started in on Galilee with this lot:

...But as Vespasian had a great mind to fall upon Galilee, he marched out of Ptolemais, having put his army into that order wherein the Romans used to march. He ordered those auxiliaries which were lightly armed, and the archers, to march first, that they might prevent any sudden insults from the enemy, and might search out the woods that looked suspiciously, and were capable of ambuscades. Next to these followed that part of the Romans which was completely armed, both footmen ,and horsemen. Next to these followed ten out of every hundred, carrying along with them their arms, and what was necessary to measure out a camp withal; and after them, such as were to make the road even and straight, and if it were any where rough and hard to be passed over, to plane it, and to cut down the woods that hindered their march, that the army might not be in distress, or tired with their march. Behind these he set such carriages of the army as belonged both to himself and to the other commanders, with a considerable number of their horsemen for their security. After these he marched himself, having with him a select body of footmen, and horsemen, and pikemen. After these came the peculiar cavalry of his own legion, for there were a hundred and twenty horsemen that peculiarly belonged to every legion. Next to these came the mules that carried the engines for sieges, and the other warlike machines of that nature. After these came the commanders of the cohorts and tribunes, having about them soldiers chosen out of the rest. Then came the ensigns encompassing the eagle, which is at the head of every Roman legion, the king, and the strongest of all birds, which seems to them a signal of dominion, and an omen that they shall conquer all against whom they march; these sacred ensigns are followed by the trumpeters. Then came the main army in their squadrons and battalions, with six men in depth, which were followed at last by a centurion, who, according to custom, observed the rest. As for the servants of every legion, they all followed the footmen, and led the baggage of the soldiers, which was borne by the mules and other beasts of burden. But behind all the legions carne the whole multitude of the mercenaries; and those that brought up the rear came last of all for the security of the whole army, being both footmen, and those in their armor also, with a great number of horsemen...

http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/flavius-josephus/war-of-the-jews/book-3/chapter-6.html

Our old friend the eyewitness again.

Which do you think this Pesher is more likely to be describing?:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/1QpHab_pesher_habakkuk.html

..."who march through the breadth of the earth to take possession of dwellings which are not their own"] [[Hab 1.6b]].

and they shall march across the plain, smiting and plundering the cities of the earth.

For it is as He said, "to take possession of dwellings which are not their own. They are fearsome and terrible; their justice and grandeur proceed from themselves" [Hab 1.7].

Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim who inspire all the nations with fear [and dread]. All their evil plotting is done with intention and they deal with all the nations in cunning and guile.

"Their horses are swifter than leopards and fleeter than evening wolves" [Hab 1.8].

Their horses step forward proudly and spread their wings; They fly from afar like an eagle avid to devour.

"All of them come for violence; the look on their faces is like the east wind" [Hab 1.8-9a].

[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.
...

Looks more like Vespasian than Pompey to me. YMMV.

Also consider this:

:
"As VanderKam notes, the author of the pesher operates from the premise that the words of the prophets concern his own era, which he understands to be the end of human existence as dominated by evil and evil-doers. In fact, he finds this in the interpretation of the first two verses of Habakkuk: "[The interpretation of this concerns the beg]inning of the [final] generation [äwhich will c]ome upon them." (1.2-3) He reiterates this assumption in commenting on the first two verses of chapter 2: "And God told Habakkuk to write what was going to happen to the last generation." (7.1) And so a fundamental assumption of the author is that the words have to do with events of the final days, which are his days.

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

These Peshers weren't handed down for generations, they were used to describe contemporary events. As things changed, they either added to them, or discarded them.

At least according to the guys on that website. If you want to debate about it, I'll have to research a bit more.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

 

[Brainache]

Does that imply that there are no insults in the middle or ends of these posts? I find dejudge's tone quite charming, and I hope the mods treat it with mildness and indulgence.

Indeed, we need more of his robust and informative debating style. I find it quite friendly and just a tiny bit lively...

 

[eight bits]

Ian

I asked you a very simple question, it’s highlighted above.

Your answer to that was the single word “No”.

You also made a statement, that I had assumed something to be true, when I had instead used that something as a hypothesis to explore. The difference between an assumption and a hypothesis has already been explained to you.

The answer to your falsely premised question, then, is no.

And by the way, I don't think you told us the date of the earliest extant readable copy of Didache either.

Nor have I told you anything else about the inventory of physical manuscripts. Manuscript witness is a topic that interests you, and Bart Ehrman, too, but in whose minutiae I have little expertise and less interest. If you want to discuss the finer points of the physical manuscripts, then you need to find somebody else who shares your fascination with them.

Brainache, first

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".

Then perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps I lack accurate information about your view. I understand you to be 90-10 favoring the historical Jesus, and that you have a specific hypothesis you especially favor. 90-10 is an implausibly low degree of confidence if you feel the leading contrary hypotheses don't fit the available evidence well.

If you're only 90-10, and do feel that the available evidence appreciably disparages the leading contrary hypotheses, then the difficulty is straightforwrd: I don't know what you're talking about.

Beyond what I was going for earlier, this controversy is a case where the little available evidence has been almost entirely used up in formulating the leading competing hypotheses. There is very little left over to "test" hypotheses against one another afterwards. To say that the evidence fails to fit a hypothesis that was, for all practical purposes, tailored to fit the evidence is to make a very strong claim about the incompetence of those who hold different views from your own.

Barinache, second and third

As far as Paul goes, we have an interesting problem. Some of the impression of authenticity is that Paul has a disitnctive personality which shows up in his writing. The problem is that his personality includes a robust opinion of his own excellence. God chose well in designating him Apostle to the Gentiles. So, I agree that the author of Romans is "no peasant scribe with a vision," but he may not be the ideal objecctive source for self-descriptions.

As to his opinion about other people, he does seem comfortable when dealing with his own converts and to look forward to a good reception from the Roman church. As you suggest, he is out of step with his fellow Jews. Unfortunately, the ones he talks most about (except Jesus) are his rivals. He apparently has some major substantive disagreements with these people, at least about Gentiles in the movement, and maybe about doctrine, ritual, Jesus' biography and other matters as well. I find it hard to sort out how much is rhetoric (I love it that he calls Peter a hypocrite, You don't live as a Jew, but you expect Gentiles to live that way), and how much is what Paul acknowledges to have been an intense emotional animosity toward Jewish Christians before God had the good taste to choose Paul to set everybody straight.

A complicated man emerges from what is, after all, only a handful of his business letters.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache, first


Then perhaps I was unclear, or perhaps I lack accurate information about your view. I understand you to be 90-10 favoring the historical Jesus, and that you have a specific hypothesis you especially favor. 90-10 is an implausibly low degree of confidence if you feel the leading contrary hypotheses don't fit the available evidence well.

If you're only 90-10, and do feel that the available evidence appreciably disparages the leading contrary hypotheses, then the difficulty is straightforwrd: I don't know what you're talking about.

Beyond what I was going for earlier, this controversy is a case where the little available evidence has been almost entirely used up in formulating the leading competing hypotheses. There is very little left over to "test" hypotheses against one another afterwards. To say that the evidence fails to fit a hypothesis that was, for all practical purposes, tailored to fit the evidence is to make a very strong claim about the incompetence of those who hold different views from your own.

OK. The 10% is more just an acknowledgement that the evidence could be better (to say the least). I am leaving room for the possibility of future evidence or arguments that might change my mind. I'm never 100% certain about anything.

So far, none of the "Myther" evidence has convinced me of their position.

I hope that clarifies my position.

Barinache[sic], second and third

As far as Paul goes, we have an interesting problem. Some of the impression of authenticity is that Paul has a disitnctive personality which shows up in his writing. The problem is that his personality includes a robust opinion of his own excellence. God chose well in designating him Apostle to the Gentiles. So, I agree that the author of Romans is "no peasant scribe with a vision," but he may not be the ideal objecctive source for self-descriptions.

As to his opinion about other people, he does seem comfortable when dealing with his own converts and to look forward to a good reception from the Roman church. As you suggest, he is out of step with his fellow Jews. Unfortunately, the ones he talks most about (except Jesus) are his rivals. He apparently has some major substantive disagreements with these people, at least about Gentiles in the movement, and maybe about doctrine, ritual, Jesus' biography and other matters as well. I find it hard to sort out how much is rhetoric (I love it that he calls Peter a hypocrite, You don't live as a Jew, but you expect Gentiles to live that way), and how much is what Paul acknowledges to have been an intense emotional animosity toward Jewish Christians before God had the good taste to choose Paul to set everybody straight.

A complicated man emerges from what is, after all, only a handful of his business letters.

Oh yes, the "Self-Loathing Jew" thing was just a joke about that comedic stereotype.

Paul is definitely not a straightforward character.

 

[tsig]

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?)

It's clear you have no proof of the Consensus.

 

[Brainache]

It's clear you have no proof of the Consensus.

It's clear you have no consensus of proof.

 

[pakeha]

There's no "if" about it, jobberone
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9646807&postcount=1028




Are you saying the recorded beliefs of Maimonides on the subject, based on oral traditions, are evidence of Jesus' existence?
Isn't that an argument from authority^WP? ...

I've already said i misspoke about him being first century. There is no doubt as to when he lived. Since I've corrected that why do you continue to say I said he was first century. It's obvious I DON"T think he is a first century author. I haven't even bothered to go back and read what I wrote as we addressed it. Are you continuing to bring that up to attack my credibility?

Yes, I'm saying that Maimonides knew the oral tradition as well as anyone. And that includes the story of Jesus of Nazareth. The oral tradition is faithfully reproduced as is the text of the Torah and other works. I'm not aware of a mainstream Judaic controversy Jesus never existed or is myth although there certainly is myth surrounding the beliefs of the Christians along with anathema and blasphemy. There is no greater blasphemy than declaring yourself God on earth or 'I AM'.

Sorry to offend you, jobberone, by pointing out your mistake.
I was simply stating there was no "if" about it, since you appeared to be hedging on the subject.

I'm intrigued by the argument that because the Judaic tradition doesn't claim Jesus was a made up story, that's an argument in favour of an historical Jesus to whom blasphemous mythology was attached.
It doesn't seem very convincing, actually.
In fact, it reminds me of the argument that Stonehenge is a medieval structure, since it isn't mentioned in the Domesbook.

Off to go back over the Clement discussion and the Pliny-Trajan correspondence on the subject of the elusive beliefs of the Christians.

Just a thought, though.
Why Pliny would find the Christians' beliefs confusing in 110CE?
Weren't the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels in circulation by then?

 

[tsig]

It's clear you have no consensus of proof.

Your claim, your burden.

 

[Craig B]

Ok. Sorry, I just can't leave this point alone.

Evidently not. The references to the Kittim seem to me to be generalised descriptions of the behaviour of the Romans, conquering and plundering one people after another, in many lands. That is after all exactly what Pompey was up to. Look at the words.

"For behold, I rouse the Chaldeans, that [bitter and hasty] nation" [[Hab 1.6a]].

Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim [who are] quick and valiant in war, causing many to perish. [All the world shall fall] under the dominion of the 14/ Kittim, and the [wicked . . .] they shall not
believe in the laws of [God . . .]


Interpreted, this concerns the Kittim who inspire all the nations with fear [and dread]. All their evil plotting is done with intention and they deal with all the nations in cunning and guile.

[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.

Interpreted, this concerns the commanders of the Kittim who despise the fortresses of the peoples and laugh at them in derision. To capture them, they encircle them with a mighty host, and out of fear and terror they deliver themselves into their hands. They destroy them because of the sins of their inhabitants.

Repeated references to "peoples", the "earth", "all the nations" and so on.

 

[Brainache]

Evidently not. The references to the Kittim seem to me to be generalised descriptions of the behaviour of the Romans, conquering and plundering one people after another, in many lands. That is after all exactly what Pompey was up to. Look at the words. Repeated references to "peoples", the "earth", "all the nations" and so on.

Those guys lived in a very small world. They are talking about the cities of the Decapolis and the former Seleucid City-states that they knew of in what we now call Armenia, Iran and Iraq.

If you think the description in that Pesher and other references in the DSS to the "Kittim" destroying all the lands of Judea, are references to Pompey and his Sabbath day earth-works, I'm frankly dumbfounded.

I guess we will indeed just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Craig B]

Those guys lived in a very small world. They are talking about the cities of the Decapolis and the former Seleucid City-states that they knew of in what we now call Armenia, Iran and Iraq.

If you think the description in that Pesher and other references in the DSS to the "Kittim" destroying all the lands of Judea, are references to Pompey and his Sabbath day earth-works, I'm frankly dumbfounded.

I guess we will indeed just have to agree to disagree.

Well, at least let us understand each other. I'm saying that the Pesher description is a generalised characterisation of the behaviour of the Romans. Now, the Judaeans first came into close contact with the Romans in consequence of Pompey's incursion, which put an end to the independent Jewish Kingdom. At this point the sectarian apocalypticists start writing about the Romans. They are not writing day to day notices of Pompey's (or Vespasian's) military operations. They are describing the Romans in a general sense.

 

[Brainache]

Well, at least let us understand each other. I'm saying that the Pesher description is a generalised characterisation of the behaviour of the Romans. Now, the Judaeans first came into close contact with the Romans in consequence of Pompey's incursion, which put an end to the independent Jewish Kingdom. At this point the sectarian apocalypticists start writing about the Romans. They are not writing day to day notices of Pompey's (or Vespasian's) military operations. They are describing the Romans in a general sense.

I disagree with your understanding of what a "Pesher" actually was:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q266-273_CD_damascus-document.html

"The documents called 4QpPsa (4Q171) and 1QpHab are examples of a genre of which a number of instances were found in the caves. Each is a pesher (plural, pesharim), that is, a commentary on a book of the Old Testament, claiming that its wording predicts events in the life of the Teacher and his opponents. Significantly, only one copy of each pesher was found in the caves, whereas multiple copies of other documents were found. The pesharim are an ephemeral genre of literature, referring to events in the author's own immediate circumstances, with the claim that they fulfilled prophecies. Once events changed, and the prophecies were seen to fit subsequent events better, the earlier document would be regarded as invalid. This would mean that no copies were made, each of the pesharim being an original...

More than that will probably have to wait. It's late again, I'll reply to whatever in the morning.

Cheers.

 

[Belz...]

It's clear you have no proof of the Consensus.

Even then, consensus isn't proof.

 

[Craig B]

I disagree with your understanding of what a "Pesher" actually was:
http://www.preteristarchive.com/BibleStudies/DeadSeaScrolls/4Q266-273_CD_damascus-document.html

I didn't say what it was. I said it contained a description of the behaviour of the Romans towards the "nations" and "peoples" of the "earth".

 

[dejudge]

Out of that big long post, that was all you could find to complain about?

OK I retract 99% of Historians and substitute "A Solid Majority".

Thank you for the opportunity of correcting my error.

Anything else?

Again, your statement is known fiction. From the very start you had no data, no statistics, no study that showed that 99% Historians have established that Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history.

After you have been busted you now invent another piece of fiction "A solid Majority".

You might as well retract your new invention because we all know that you just made it up.

 

[IanS]

You also made a statement, that I had assumed something to be true, when I had instead used that something as a hypothesis to explore. The difference between an assumption and a hypothesis has already been explained to you.

The answer to your falsely premised question, then, is no.
.

Sorry, you’re statement is once again a 100% untrue evasion.

Below is the full exchange, from which it is 100% certain that you said Jesus might have been the person who got the idea of the bread and wine from the earlier DSS Essene’s (see the unmistakeable highlight of your own words below). And to which I replied “that would be assuming Jesus existed in the first place” (see the unmistakable quoted highlight below).

Those quotes and highlights show beyond all doubt that the truth is that -


Fact-1 …. It was you who began by saying Jesus might have got the idea from the DSS Essene's.

Fact-2 … I replied simply pointing out that your speculation that Jesus may have got if from the Essene's, assumes Jesus was real (he could not get anything from the Essene's if he was not real).


So all your prevarication & squirming posts are 100% completely untrue, and the truth is that your first claim that Jesus himself might have got the idea from the Essene's DSS, was most certainly a case of a statement (your statement) requiring the assumption that Jesus was real.

Just concerning ideas such as the above - one very obvious source from which Paul may have got the idea of a messiah who shares a ritual meal of wine and bread, is from the earlier Essene community of that same region.

Also an obvious source from where Jesus might have gotten the idea.

Well that would be assuming Jesus existed in the first place. And we can't make that assumption, since there is no evidence of him.
.