Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Because no religion is static or monolithic. Universal reconciliation (the idea that even Hell is temporary and all people will wind up in heaven) goes back to at least the time of Origen and perhaps further and yet there are denominations who would call that view nonsense.

As I said before thanks to the apologists Christianity has locked itself into this Myth, Man or Messiah mindset.

Apostle's Creed: "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting." Not the spirit but body; the creed is very specific here and the majority of Christianity holds to the resurrection of the body so the finding of Jesus' bones (proving him to to be a historical myth) would be a major blow.

The denominations that go for spiritual resurrection or take Jesus' teaching as a philosophy would more or let go on as normal but the denominations that have hung their flag on the resurrection of the body would be up cripple creek without a paddle or a clue how to get out of the mess (other then denying reality).

See the bold: My question remains: Why do you think this would be a problem for Christianity?

They've been saying that a Zombie Jesus cooked a beachside BBQ for his mates for 2000 years. They've made a business of pretending that prayers get answered for just as long. Most religious teaching is a denial of reality,why would this be any different?

Has the study of the genetics of Native Americans had a big impact on the number of Mormons?

 

[proudfootz]

The evident non-existence of Jesus would be of no more interest to christians than the non-existence of Adam and Eve has (no 'original sin' to motivate god to send his only son to imitate a human and get killed).

The non-existence of Abraham hasn't spelled the end of Judaism either.

 

[IanS]

Ian,

That comment was stating that if we were to find some physical evidence that concretely proves that Jesus existed, that such evidence would be more damning to the Christian religion than if no one every found any more material on the figure than what exists today; simply because anything we could find would be a rather mundane figure and individual - not a superhuman divine figure.

One of the sweet ironies is that an historical Jesus actually causes far more damage to the religion than it could ever help, for any historical version of this figure is entirely absent the divine attributes, and those divine attributes summarize the principle backbone of the Christian religion.

Just simply existing doesn't really cut it.
Not being able to prove that existence actually helps more than if the existence was proven (for the religion anyway).

I do not think so. For the reasons that I just gave in reply to Maximara.

On the contrary, it’s actually a very obvious fact that the Christian church sees it as absolutely no threat at all when the most prominent of bible scholars like Bart Ehrman and Dominic Crossan write books saying that Jesus did not perform any of the miracles and that a great deal of what was written in the NT must be untrue. Academics have been writing to say that for a hundred years or more, and that has not damaged the Church or deterred it from preaching the inherent truth of bible for one moment.

And the reason is very clearly because the Church and it’s hundreds of millions of faithful followers see that the most important and essential point by far is that all those bible scholars do confirm that Jesus definitely did exist.

As long as bible scholarships supports the 2000 year old belief that Jesus really did exist, then the Church and Christians worldwide feel completely vindicated in their beliefs. From their point of view, the fact that Ehrman, Crossan and others may say the miracles could not have happened, is just a matter of opinion and faith … they would say miracles can happen, and often do happen. So if Crossan says they don’t happen, then Christians just beg to differ and say they have faith that the bible is correct and truthfully written.

The same applies if Ehrman etc. point out inconsistencies about who did what in the bible, where they say it could not have actually happened as portrayed or at that indicated time etc. To the Church that is just an opinion tinkering at the edges of the subject. It’s an irrelevance to them. And in fact they are probably right to say that! Because anyone could think of dozens of reasons why the detail of what was written about who met whom 2000 years ago, or what the precise date might have been, who was in power, or what exactly could have been meant passages of words that could be argued as ambiguous, is all a matter of quite subjective opinion (or at least as far as Christian belief is concerned).

The key fact is whether or not Jesus existed. If he was never really on the earth at all and was only a legendary figure of fiction, then nothing in the bible is actually true. And that really would be a serious problem for Christianity preaching the inerrant truth of the bible.

This loops back to some of what you said Ian,
What determines the classification of something being historically evident isn't just that the field received an account in writing (though sometimes you come across some entries that definitely give you reason to question if that's how it got put in), but instead, that a writing arrives to the field and the field...essentially vets the material.

Firstly, there's the physical tests on the writing: is it the right age for what it appears to be, is the ink the right kind of ink for the era and region in question, are there any traces on the material that should simply not be there for that region and time, and similar kinds of physical questions?

Secondly, there is the paleographic "vetting", in which the style, prose, physical layout (blocking), grammatical structure, and several similar concepts are compared against the known variables for the period and time.

That just gets us to verifying that the artifact itself is worth reading; that doesn't tell us if the content it accurate or not..

Well the above is simply about getting an approximate idea of when and where the manuscipts might have been writtem, and/or by who they were written. That says zero about whether whether or not the content of what was written, ie the Jesus accounts in this case, were ever true (and most of it could not have been true because 2000 years later modern science has “proved” that miracles and the supernatural are fiction).

So then the content is read in a variety of manners. You would think that it's all done using paleography, or first-hand, but instead usually what happens is someone "edits" the artifact and publishes an academic copy of the artifact in (usually) English (though in the past, sometimes that was German as well).
Then that opens up the availability quite a bit and various scholars dip their hands into the material and toss their "two-cents" around regarding the content (now, typically, this is all very boring and not very quick as most content is extremely specific in case and amazingly benign).

Yes, I think we know that certain people begin by translating and deciphering what is written. And I expect there are endless arguments about who has translated what correctly or incorrectly, and what the actual words were originally supposed to have meant anyway.

Jesus is a bit weird in that the historicity of Jesus went completely backwards from how we normally go about this process.
Jesus, as an historically accepted figure, predated the Western cultural historical society itself - it was inherited.

After being inherited, then the worse kind of work was done, "biblical archaeology", where scholars set out to prove the Bible's accuracy by locating material using the Bible.
That, as a whole, had terrible results (but still oddly has a few remaining adherents; though at a severe cost to approval, as the field of archaeology considers this kind of archaeology to be paramount to us hearing of clergy violating the youth).).

I don’t think it’s a huge problem if you begin with only a book or only with verbal accounts of things, and then proceed from that material to look for actual evidence supporting and confirming what was said and written.

Though in the Jesus case what was written was a set of overwhelming supernatural stories.

So how does Jesus still stand extant?
Good question.

Yes, we do inherit the positive for history and wait for the negative to be proven if the content is capable of being reasoned as possibly true (at least for ancient history), but I think the case of Jesus goes a bit too far, honestly, for the ethics of the field.

If I had absolute rule over history, I'd decree that Jesus is now declared not historical until the case is re-examined from scratch, and theologians would not be accepted independent of secular historians and anthropologists.

Indeed, because in the case of Jesus, all that is “historically evident” is selected writing of faith in the supernatural. There is no actual evidence of Jesus except for that writing of supernatural claims.

Here's the main reason most of the secular scholarship considers it likely for Jesus to have existed (note: I'm not condoning the opinion):
It is the nature of the texts taken in context of the period.

It's not a very strong argument for forum discussions; in fact, it's probably one of the weakest arguments in common discussion.
However, from the perspective of working in the field (as a secular anthropologist or historian would), it carries a pretty compelling amount of weight.

What that "nature of the texts taken in context of the period" means is compare these stories to other texts of all sorts during the time of 2nd c CE back to 1st c BCE.
There is one remarkable aspect; they are entirely unique.

1. No one was writing fictional accounts of alleged real 'walk-among-you-daily' individuals.
   
   Nobody was writing that sort of “account” in the case of Jesus either! What has happened in the case of Jesus is that anonymous writers wrote some centuries later, saying people (who are never named or quoted, so anonymous “people”) had once believed that certain named people called disciples had once accompanied this “walk amongst you daily” messiah and told of how he walked on water and raised the dead and resurrected etc.
   
   Albeit, we have no idea who wrote any of the those anonymous accounts, or of who their anonymous unknown sources were, and nor did any disciple ever write to confirm a single word of it.
   
   So those are not “accounts of a 'walk-among-you-daily individual' ". Those are anonymous accounts of other anonymous informants telling of legendary tales of a “walk amongst you daily miraculous messiah of God”.
   
   
2. No one was creating mythologies that fit this style and form.
   
   
   Well that sounds like an argument from incredulity. Which I doubt is a very sound basis. But -
   
   - what is meant here by “this style or form”? Were there not already detailed accounts of what was done by people like Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David? All of whom are afaik now thought to be quite likely just fictional figures? What about the stories like the exodus into Babylon? That is now thought to be an almost entirely fictional event afaik? What about all the other gods believed at or just prior to that time, e.g. Osiris, Jupiter and the rest; they were all said to have interacted with humans on earth were they not?
   
   
3. No one was writing complete fabrications of text this way about a no-one person, or even some messiah (our closest ballpark would be Zoroaster, but we don't know how that story looked around this time yet; though clearly it had impact on Judaism as well as this Jesus story).
   
   
   See my comments immediately above, because this seems to again ignore Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David etc. Also who Melchizededk? Real or not? A messiah or not? God or not? All the other gods from BC history who interacted with humans on earth, what about them?
   
   
   
4. On the other hand, oral tradition was definitely prevalent, and Hebrew peoples did not tend to write down much about those whom they followed, whereas non-Hebrews definitely did.
   
   
   Isn’t the Hebrew OT stacked full of mythical tales about all sorts of things? People and events, as mentioned above?
   
   
5. The sociopolitical and philosophical content contained within matches the period being claimed; there's nothing that stands remarkably out of place for 1st c BCE to 1st c CE Hebraic politics and philosophy for the bulk of the content (of several texts, not just canonical).
   
   
   Well philosophy and politics are inanimate subjects and not people. The fact that any philosophy and politics suggested in the bible may be thought fitting of the 1st century, is not in any way evidence of a living Jesus is it!
   

So...many professionals look at the stories and decide a conclusion that someone most likely did exist which inspired these stories since, anthropologically speaking, other options don't tend to make sense..

Well if that’s their conclusion on the basis of the above list, then they should not be "professionals" lol. They should move to some other subject entirely.

What do you mean by anthropologically speaking? Because what makes very obvious perfect sense, and what is actually a matter of proven fact, is that the messiah stories were being taken from what had been written centuries before in the OT. And the saving messiah belief was in any case the foundation of Jewish religious belief throughout that OT period and earlier from at least the time of David c.1000BC.

I can sympathize with this and I can also agree with it, but, I don't think enough imagination has possibly been put to controlled use in arriving at that conclusion.

For instance, we know that in the 6th c BCE, the Hebrews were in Babylonian exile and mostly remained there until around the 3rd c BCE.

The only comment I’ve heard on this is the one from John Huddlestun in that aforementioned YouTube interview with Richard Dawkins, where Huddlestun says it’s now generally agreed that there really was no such mass exile into Babylon. At most all that may have happened is that few Jews were taken to Babylon where their captors thought those few people had useful skills. But other than that there is no evidence that the exile was true.

We also know this had cultural and lasting impacts on their theological constructs and philosophies; not to mention their political situations.
And we also know that the Zoroaster legends and stories are from roughly around this same time frame.
Further, the messianic expansion of Judaism only really began following their return from this exile, and then following severe instances of corruption surrounding and during the Hazmonean era.
Meanwhile the apocalyptic fashion of Judaism began almost along side of the exilic period.

We also know that other prophetic and messianic claiming individuals surfaced in and around 1st c BCE to 1st c CE.

We know, again, that Hebrew culture did not value writing about the individuals very much and relied more on oral traditions when the content was non-Law instructions.

And, again, we know that non-Hebrew cultures did value writing such accounts down far more than the Hebrew culture did..

I don’t know how we can “know” any of the above by the methods of ancient history, and certainly not if it’s just as vacuous as being “historically evident”. But if we veer off topic into discussing how we know about all those events then we will be here for at least another 1000 pages talking about things that have little or nothing to do with Jesus.

So, rather than just arriving at the conclusion that the texts must be rooted upon some individual due to the numbered considerations above, it stands as possible, that there were stories going around the 1st c BCE to 1st c CE era regarding messianic and prophetic individuals who were outspoken and provocative, and of which were entirely wiped out following the Roman razing of Judah.

What is more certain, rather than carry on with speculation, is that since at least 500BC the OT had been centrally concerned with the belief that God would send a saving messiah. At various times that messiah was thought of in different ways, e.g. as a military or royal leader, or as a highest priestly leader etc. And by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls it seems that the messianic belief had changed to that of a priestly apocalyptic messenger of God who/was warning the people of imminent days of final judgement. Along with that, since c.300BC the region and the people had become heavily influenced by leaders, practices and beliefs from Greece, Persia and Rome (amongst others), and particularly Greek culture and it's religious beliefs, to the extent that Jewish people in the region were no longer reading and writing in their original Hebrew language, but were actually reading and writing mostly in Greek.

What Paul was preaching as an apocalyptic religious messiah, was afaik very similar to what the DSS Essenes had been preaching around Jerusalem since at least about 170BC. So for the very little that Paul says about “Jesus” as the messiah, it’s perfectly obvious that Paul and all Jewish preachers at that time would be preaching from within a culture and environment that had already incorporated all those religious messianic influences for several centuries, i.e. influence from the Greek, Roman and Persian religions/gods, the immediately preceding and still continuing influence from the DSS Essenes (until c.70AD), and their own messiah beliefs which stretch back to the time of David c.1000BC! Not to mention that Paul and later gospel writers repeatedly make very clear that they were taking their messiah beliefs from what they thought was the true meaning of prophecy in the OT since 500BC!

However, these 'holy men' of the culture and era could have impressed the social culture of the Mediterranean (which was in an era of ingesting and mixing religions and philosophies) and that same suite of cultures could have valued the telling of the story of Hebrew holy prophets to the point of summarizing their plight by borrowing from a familiar tangent of Zoroastrian legends since some of these figures could have spoke philosophies quite similar to the Zoroastrian style due to the influences such had on Judaism during the exilic period.

This could have even began in and around the Judean area, as scores of Hellenistic structures litter the Levant region for the period - it is not as if they were absent the area.


This is an example of an alternative to assuming that Jesus probably existed based on the numbered list above's reasoning.

I think I already commented on this material above.

 

[IanS]

The evident non-existence of Jesus would be of no more interest to christians than the non-existence of Adam and Eve has (no 'original sin' to motivate god to send his only son to imitate a human and get killed).

The non-existence of Abraham hasn't spelled the end of Judaism either.

I think the actual reason that Christians in general, and the leaders of the religion in particular, would not regard it as an immediate mortal blow to Christianity if the vast majority of academics began to say Jesus was probably just a fictional character, is simply because those Christians and church leaders would never accept it.

They would certainly wave away any suggestion that Jesus was fictional.

But the question posed here was what would happen in the highly unlikely event (an almost impossible scenario) that the church leaders did ever come to agree that Jesus must have only been fictional after all. And in that supremely unlikely event, I don't see how anyone could argue that the church could continue to preach the truths of Jesus and holy bible, whist effectively adding at the end of every sentence "by the way everything I am telling you is untrue fiction".

But, we did talk about this way back in this thread, and I found out then that many people disagreed with what I have just said, and agreed instead with you that it would make no difference. So I accept that what you say may be a widespread opinion on this (perhaps the most widespread opinion).

 

[dejudge]

The evident non-existence of Jesus would be of no more interest to christians than the non-existence of Adam and Eve has (no 'original sin' to motivate god to send his only son to imitate a human and get killed).

The non-existence of Abraham hasn't spelled the end of Judaism either.

Judaism is directly based on their Creator GOD--Not Abraham.

Judaism and Christianity would collapse just like any of the numerous ancient religions collapsed.

It is well known that Religions have collapsed.

Human beings have NEVER worshiped the same Gods.

I think at some time a STONE was a God--Now God is a Ghost or some kind of Spirit.

Soon God will be NOTHING.

Human beings do NOT need Religion. There are ENOUGH Laws.

 

[Belz...]

Judaism is directly based on their Creator GOD--Not Abraham.

Judaism and Christianity would collapse just like any of the numerous ancient religions collapsed.

It is well known that Religions have collapsed.

Human beings have NEVER worshiped the same Gods.

I think at some time a STONE was a God--Now God is a Ghost or some kind of Spirit.

Soon God will be NOTHING.

Human beings do NOT need Religion. There are ENOUGH Laws.

That's nice and all but what does it have to do with the topic ?

 

[JaysonR]

That title is now on my wish list. Thanks for the heads-up!

You're welcome!
It's a really good read.

Thanks for such a thoughtful reply.
You've greatly expanded my own understanding of what 1st cent Galilee might have been like before 70.
"The groups that we find up there mostly call upon adherents to live according to the Laws of Moses and remain true to their way of life while at the same time living among a mixture of culture they had no option but to accept."

There's so much more that goes into the formation of the Galilean culture than I really covered there, but that is a generalization of that culture at that time sufficient for the moment (I'll PM you when I get some time).

Amen, brother, amen.

 

[pakeha]

...There's so much more that goes into the formation of the Galilean culture than I really covered there, but that is a generalization of that culture at that time sufficient for the moment (I'll PM you when I get some time). ...

PMs are wonderful, of course, but it seems to me that all of us here could benefit from your years of study, examination and synthesis about the Galilean culture or cultural milieu, if you will.
Unless you think the subject's a derail.

 

[dejudge]

What Paul was preaching as an apocalyptic religious messiah, was afaik very similar to what the DSS Essenes had been preaching around Jerusalem since at least about 170BC. So for the very little that Paul says about “Jesus” as the messiah, it’s perfectly obvious that Paul and all Jewish preachers at that time would be preaching from within a culture and environment that had already incorporated all those religious messianic influences for several centuries....

It is simply erroneous that Paul's preaching was similar to what the DSS Essenes had been preaching.

There is no evidence that the DSS Essenes preached that without the Resurrection of Jesus there would be no remission of sins.

The Pauline writer even claimed that NO-ONE is justified by the deeds of the Laws of God--- What utter theological blasphemous nonsense.

Romans 3:20 KJV

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Deuteronomy 28

15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

16 Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. ...........................................................................................................................22 The LORD shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish..

The God of the Jews would exterminate the if they do NOT carry out the deeds of the Law as suggested by the Pauline writer

The Pauline Revealed Gospel from the Resurrected Jesus is contrary to the Laws of God--contrary to the Word of God in Hebrew Scripture..



Exodus 34:14 KJV

For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Philippians 2:10 KJV

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow , of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth[.

The Pauline writings were fabricated to DESTROY the Jewish Religion ..

The Blasphemous Pauline writings are products of Non-Jews sometime AFTER at least c 180 CE.

 

[maximara]

(trim for space)

What that "nature of the texts taken in context of the period" means is compare these stories to other texts of all sorts during the time of 2nd c CE back to 1st c BCE.
There is one remarkable aspect; they are entirely unique.

1. No one was writing fictional accounts of alleged real 'walk-among-you-daily' individuals.
2. No one was creating mythologies that fit this style and form.
3. No one was writing complete fabrications of text this way about a no-one person, or even some messiah (our closest ballpark would be Zoroaster, but we don't know how that story looked around this time yet; though clearly it had impact on Judaism as well as this Jesus story).
4. On the other hand, oral tradition was definitely prevalent, and Hebrew peoples did not tend to write down much about those whom they followed, whereas non-Hebrews definitely did.
5. The sociopolitical and philosophical content contained within matches the period being claimed; there's nothing that stands remarkably out of place for 1st c BCE to 1st c CE Hebraic politics and philosophy for the bulk of the content (of several texts, not just canonical).

The first two points are easily disproved via the birth stories of Matthew and Luke as they are clearly fictional accounts of an alleged real 'walk-among-you-daily' individual.

Based on other sources the Sanhedrin trial account is "clearly fictional", so is Pilate's solution to dealing with the mob demanding Jesus' crucifixion. The real Pilate's solution to mobs causing a disturbance was brutally simple--have Roman soldiers go out and kill them until they dispersed.

The whole Judas betrayal is "clearly fictional" as we known that supposedly Jesus preached in the open...so having soldiers go and get the guy as what happened to several of the would be messiahs in Josephus doesn't occur to Pilate?

The third point is disproven by Apollonius of Tyana often refereed to as the Pagan Christ. Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997) is an excelent snapshot of the time period and it shows how easily people were to believe in the fantastic. For example, according to Acts Paul and Barnabas were regarded as the manifestations of Hermes and Zeus (Acts 14:8-18)

Point four is nonsense as the only way we know of some of these other would messiahs is via Josephus, a "Hebrew person" and no non-Hebrew mentions many of them. Also we need to remember that Jewish people got clobbered by the Romans twice: 70 and 130s CE. Having the majority of your people killed or thrown into slavery isn't conducive to keeping what record you do have intact.

The final point is again nonsense. The Gospel account is a sociopolitical and philosophical train wreck

 

[Craig B]

The Pauline writings were fabricated to DESTROY the Jewish Religion

The Blasphemous Pauline writings are products of Non-Jews sometime AFTER at least c 180 CE.

So these centuries-later fabricators weren't mere hoax forgers but blasphemers too! Is there no limit to their iniquities? And they forged the whole NT while they were at it. Astonishing.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

Regarding the impact of a physical Jesus discovery upon Christianity.
The only way such a discovery would not negatively impact Christianity more than help it would be if the remains were absent of pathological markings of the era.

However, if the remains were any form of standard for the era - even marginally, it would be a considerable problem for the religion.

This isn't about whether or not the figure stands against some creed or not in regards to the body still existing or not; it has to do with a much larger problem - how would any divine, or even just really special healer prophet, figure be such while at the same time having medical issues in their own body?

The only versions of Christianity which would not be troubled by this are the those who only see the Jesus figure as a philosopher.

Counter to this, if no body is ever found, then that won't cause a conclusion for the religion; the religion will be free to continue to mark up Jesus however they wish as their constructs already use the absence of any body as evidence of Jesus' divinity (whether that makes logical sense to someone not in the religion or not).

Regarding Paleographic Arguments
Oh, yes; there are some texts which receive much debate (those are the fun ones ).

Regarding "Biblical Archaeology"
It is a huge problem only because of the manner in which it was done.
In fact, that period of archaeology (or said, the complete ethical failure of it) was really important as it greatly influenced the ethics of the field from that point on - it is still one of the examples of how not to do archaeology (the other staple is Egyptian archaeology of the 19th and early 20th c CE).

Regarding the Summary of a Common Argument (bulleted list)
Keep in mind that what I wrote was a very generalized summary, and that I noted that that particular argument is very poor for a forum conversation.
That particular form of argument takes far too much information being conveyed to really function in this setting.

The best that I can do here is just provide the gross outline, which each of those bullet items could be thought of like a chapter in a book.


However, in keeping in mind that while I sympathize with the argument, that I do not agree with it, I will do my best to answer some of your questions about it.

Regarding 1:
So those are not “accounts of a 'walk-among-you-daily individual' ". Those are anonymous accounts of other anonymous informants telling of legendary tales of a “walk amongst you daily miraculous messiah of God”.

That is part of the consideration; we don't even have other texts which do this in the visceral manner in which these texts do.
The caliber of daily-life constructs in the texts are impressive, regardless if we take them as complete fabrication or not.

Consider for a moment, other myths. Are we able to slide these text's tales into belonging with other myths of the cultures around in form and style?
Not directly, no.

There's clear borrowing in some manners, but nothing which clearly marks it to belonging to mythical writings of any given culture.

My considerations on these points are that it equally does not belong to biographical chronicles, as the form and style equally does not fit there.

I don't think that the previous leads to the chronicle conclusion, but instead indicates there is a new literary form and social format evolving which should not be ignored from cultural identification (something I personally feel is tragically lacking in the field).

Regarding 2:
Were there not already detailed accounts of what was done by people like Moses, Abraham, Solomon, David?

No; the absolute closest that you get is Job.
And also, I think that's something overlooked often in this argument.
That Job is the only other story which alleges such a concept as a nearly daily life type setting is, I think, not considered enough when reflecting upon the cultural formation of these texts.

However, the direct answer is no; those are not comparable stories to Jesus.
They would be if those stories were of more granular detail and revolved specifically around the individual more, but those stories are from an older period which wrote rather differently - more about the events and actions than the philosophies, they also lacked much in daily-life detail by comparison, and also focused more on being the parable instead of conveying parables within.

Regarding 3:
All the other gods from BC history who interacted with humans on earth, what about them?
Those stories are very much more like the stories of Genesis than of Jesus, and most deities of the era in this region did not interact in an personalized method - not that we can take the texts to outright be claiming that Jesus is a god, either, as that is an interpretation of theology later which constructed the divinity of Jesus using arguments derived from the texts, but not in the texts directly, or absolutely.

Regarding 4:
Yes, and those were also written scores of years following the alleged life of such individuals and events listed in them, as well, they were written by Temple Scribes and not by common hands (which these texts clearly are not written by any Temple Scribe).


Regarding 5:
Quite right; it only outlines that there is nothing of this form which denies entry into the period. That may seem small in matter, but it is important. If such didn't fit, then we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation to begin with.


Regarding the Summary of Conclusion:
Well if that’s their conclusion on the basis of the above list, then they should not be "professionals" lol. They should move to some other subject entirely.

Keep in mind that I am summarizing a large amount of information, and this is also my compressed representation of others.
They are professionals, and in the details that go into this argument in full nature, I can understand the reasoning for considering this option - it is a reasonable option.
I do not think it likely, but for reasons that have little to do with the arguments that you can find presented.

What do you mean by anthropologically speaking? Because what makes very obvious perfect sense, and what is actually a matter of proven fact, is that the messiah stories were being taken from what had been written centuries before in the OT. And the saving messiah belief was in any case the foundation of Jewish religious belief throughout that OT period and earlier from at least the time of David c.1000BC.
True, but nothing quite like this at all (also; the Jury is out on the Davidic Kingdom - at best, the possibility of such a "Kingdom" would be quite humble indeed, based on what we have been able to find so far).

So while I say "true", I disagree with your dates.
1000 BCE is 200 years after the first archaeological distinction of Hebrew peoples separate from their fellow Canaanite family.

The texts of the "Old Testament" don't really start showing up until around (at earliest) the 9th c BCE, and mostly from about the 7th and 6th c BCE eras (I compiled notes in a timeline [right hand side])

However, yes, messianic stories were not foreign to the Hebrew culture; what is, is the manner in which it is conveyed and the values focused upon in so doing.

If you mix Daniel and Job together and add a little Zoroaster, you kind of come close - but not exact - to these stories (which, is something that I think is particularly overlooked in the field).


Regarding the Exilic Period
The exilic period clearly occurred; that is clear as it could be.
It was not as complete as the Roman's later annihilation, and indeed Babylon set up a vassal in Judah.

However, that period clearly existed and clearly wiped out and drove out a sizable amount of the population.

Firstly, this is when the Kingdom of Israel (Northern Kingdom, counter to Kingdom of Judah in the South) was wiped from the planet to never again return.
This is also the period which marks the end of the 1st Temple Period and after which brings us the 2nd Temple Period.

Judah itself has archaeological scars from this period.

Huddlestun himself, of course rather accurately, cites the exilic period as the distinction point between pre and post-Monotheistic Hebrew culture.

So yes, this period definitely did happen, but no, the exilic period did not erase all of the peoples from the land; nor did it need to for influence of culture in literature (which, this period defines a distinction in Hebrew literature).

Regarding "Knowing"
I don’t know how we can “know” any of the above by the methods of ancient history, and certainly not if it’s just as vacuous as being “historically evident”. But if we veer off topic into discussing how we know about all those events then we will be here for at least another 1000 pages talking about things that have little or nothing to do with Jesus.
If you ever want more detail on those items, just let me know and I'd be happy to share what I am aware of regarding how we "know" these things.

Regarding the Final Thoughts
What is more certain, rather than carry on with speculation, is that since at least 500BC the OT had been centrally concerned with the belief that God would send a saving messiah. At various times that messiah was thought of in different ways, e.g. as a military or royal leader, or as a highest priestly leader etc. And by the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls it seems that the messianic belief had changed to that of a priestly apocalyptic messenger of God who/was warning the people of imminent days of final judgement. Along with that, since c.300BC the region and the people had become heavily influenced by leaders, practices and beliefs from Greece, Persia and Rome (amongst others), and particularly Greek culture and it's religious beliefs, to the extent that Jewish people in the region were no longer reading and writing in their original Hebrew language, but were actually reading and writing mostly in Greek.

What Paul was preaching as an apocalyptic religious messiah, was afaik very similar to what the DSS Essenes had been preaching around Jerusalem since at least about 170BC. So for the very little that Paul says about “Jesus” as the messiah, it’s perfectly obvious that Paul and all Jewish preachers at that time would be preaching from within a culture and environment that had already incorporated all those religious messianic influences for several centuries, i.e. influence from the Greek, Roman and Persian religions/gods, the immediately preceding and still continuing influence from the DSS Essenes (until c.70AD), and their own messiah beliefs which stretch back to the time of David c.1000BC! Not to mention that Paul and later gospel writers repeatedly make very clear that they were taking their messiah beliefs from what they thought was the true meaning of prophecy in the OT since 500BC!

Yes, textual shifts in the post-exilic period became increasingly apocalyptic and messianic; though messianic was something which really only gets a following around 1st c BCE (note: Daniel is not in the 200 BCE Hebrew Canon).
Moses is about the only "messiah"-like figure previous to the emergence of the Jesus stories - if by the term we are referring to the Messianic movement sense of the term, and not just simply the repeated use of the phrase for all prophets and praised Kings (for which, Jesus is not comparable).

Influences from other cultures stretched back much further than 300 BCE.
There really isn't an era of Hebrew culture that isn't influenced by another culture.


For Paul, DSS, and Essenes; that is far too lengthy of a conversation for here, but I have gone over it in pretty substantial detail in Brainache's thread Paul The Herodian and the DSS.

In brief form, the DSS dates are older than 170 BCE (they correlate to the Hasmonean dynasty), there is no inherent link in full between Essenes and DSS (though there is a compelling argument for at least a partial link of some form), and there is a dramatic difference between Pauline texts and the DSS.


In general, no, there isn't a thriving Jesus-like culture in the Hebrew culture prior to these Jesus stories.

That said; that does not compel the conclusion that Jesus therefore existed.
Instead, it just notes that a new form arose and should be noted for the influences which gave it rise (again, something that is not so widely investigated as one would expect).

 

[JaysonR]

PMs are wonderful, of course, but it seems to me that all of us here could benefit from your years of study, examination and synthesis about the Galilean culture or cultural milieu, if you will.
Unless you think the subject's a derail.

It would, yes.

I'll just make a new thread at some point that follows the region through time.
I'm just debating how to do it specifically, as I could write it in three different ways depending on how wide of a scope I want to cover....so...once I work that out and carve out some time, I'll get that written and posted.

 

[pakeha]

...Regarding 1:
So those are not “accounts of a 'walk-among-you-daily individual' ". Those are anonymous accounts of other anonymous informants telling of legendary tales of a “walk amongst you daily miraculous messiah of God”.

That is part of the consideration; we don't even have other texts which do this in the visceral manner in which these texts do.
The caliber of daily-life constructs in the texts are impressive, regardless if we take them as complete fabrication or not.

Consider for a moment, other myths. Are we able to slide these text's tales into belonging with other myths of the cultures around in form and style?
Not directly, no.

There's clear borrowing in some manners, but nothing which clearly marks it to belonging to mythical writings of any given culture.

My considerations on these points are that it equally does not belong to biographical chronicles, as the form and style equally does not fit there.

I don't think that the previous leads to the chronicle conclusion, but instead indicates there is a new literary form and social format evolving which should not be ignored from cultural identification (something I personally feel is tragically lacking in the field). ...

I've been reading about the literature of the 1st century and here's a blog which compares elements of contemporary literature with the Jesus story
vridar.org/2009/12/27/popular-novels-behind-the-gospels/

""Innocent heroes, betrayals, unjust judges, crucifixions, patient endurance, empty tombs, faith in the gods to deliver . . . . They are all as much the stuff of ancient popular fiction as they are of the canonical gospels."

There's a great deal more in the blog.

 

[IanS]

Ian,

Regarding the impact of a physical Jesus discovery upon Christianity.
The only way such a discovery would not negatively impact Christianity more than help it would be if the remains were absent of pathological markings of the era.

However, if the remains were any form of standard for the era - even marginally, it would be a considerable problem for the religion.

This isn't about whether or not the figure stands against some creed or not in regards to the body still existing or not; it has to do with a much larger problem - how would any divine, or even just really special healer prophet, figure be such while at the same time having medical issues in their own body?

The only versions of Christianity which would not be troubled by this are the those who only see the Jesus figure as a philosopher.

Counter to this, if no body is ever found, then that won't cause a conclusion for the religion; the religion will be free to continue to mark up Jesus however they wish as their constructs already use the absence of any body as evidence of Jesus' divinity (whether that makes logical sense to someone not in the religion or not).

OK, Jayson thanks for all of that very long reply. It’s actually getting far too lengthy for me to find the time replying on each of those points now. I’ll try to get around to some of it, because although I think we are broadly agreeing on the essence of most of it, if not precise details (such as whether David was thought to have existed around 1000BC, as distinct from when anyone later first wrote to mention him … or exactly how much was written pre Jesus about all sorts of gods and rulers interacting with people on earth), but for now just on the above quoted part -

- firstly what you are posting is quite definitely within the category “opinion” (as indeed mine is). We are guessing at what effect a fictional Jesus would have on current day Christian belief. However …

… if skeletal remains of Jesus were found, and medically diagnosed to be showing signs of normal human disease, such as osteoarthritis or rotted teeth etc., then that would not be any barrier at all to current day Christianity instantly claiming that such medical conditions were totally irrelevant. Because as I just pointed out, it would be supremely easy for the church to say that Jesus had merely assumed the fleshy body of a man in order to appear on the surface of the Earth and interact with God’s chosen people. And in fact that is precisely the explanation which has filled two completed books from Earl Doherty, and it is said by Carrier to be the same explanation he will give in what he claims to be more “scholarly” detail in his now overdue book. I.e., both saying that Paul’s letters really reveal that Paul thought of Jesus as a spirit figure from heaven who was then thought by others (not necessarily by Paul) to somehow (unexplained) "take on" human form in order to have any interaction with mortal people on earth.

So the flesh and bones of the human form which Jesus adopts, can still decay and suffer just as any human flesh, blood and bone, and just as Jesus apparently did on the cross. But their key claim is that whilst the flesh suffers, the spirit of the real Jesus lives on and rises back to his heavenly home.

So it would not matter one iota to the current day church if anyone identified the remains of Jesus and proved that the body had suffered various human ailments. The body is not Jesus. The body was just a shell or "form" which the true Jesus, a spirit of God, had to use in order to appear on earth as if he were a man.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

Why would Jesus' physical body have medical issues of the era, yet the figure be capable of healing any and every affliction placed in front of him without much effort at all, including raising others from death?

One would have to produce some exotic excuses.

I don't think that's as easy to dismiss as not ever finding a body, for the latter permits any injected claim, while the former greatly reduces the options.


As to David and 1000 BCE; Huddlestun even points out the same information I was referring to.

 

[JaysonR]

pakeha,

True, but notice how we have to cherry pick and stitch a large diversity of select parts from other stories to pull together a comparison, and in even doing so the function of that stitching doesn't net the same result as the Jesus stories?

Further, most of the comparisons that were being made in that blog were very gross comparisons and not very accurate in a specific sense.

For instance, Wanderings and Signs is incredibly vague (the description used) and does not describe the nature of the way those accounts are told very specifically; only that such basic concept as this existed.

The stories, while clearly not a chronicle, are distinct in their fashion and produced a new genre (which sadly did not end up being used to tell the stories of other figures; it would have been interesting if it had provoked more than one tale).

 

[dejudge]

So these centuries-later fabricators weren't mere hoax forgers but blasphemers too! Is there no limit to their iniquities? And they forged the whole NT while they were at it. Astonishing.

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar who argues for an HJ, admitted the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that at least 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Why don't you get familiar with writings of antiquity?

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things..

1.Justin Maryr in " Dialogue with Trypho" admitted that he considered some Christians as Blasphemers and Atheists.

2. Eusebius in "Church History" claimed 2 Peter does NOT belong in the Canon.

3. The Muratorian Canon admits that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER Revelation--[after 70 CE].

4. Chrysostom admitted that Christians did NOT EVEN KNOW that Acts of the Apostles existed.

5.The author of "Against Heresies" claimed gMark was composed AFTER Peter and Paul was dead.

6. Origen in "Commentary on Matthew 1" claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed.

 

[Craig B]

1.Justin Maryr in " Dialogue with Trypho" admitted that he considered some Christians as Blasphemers and Atheists.

Great! We're getting there. I've been asking you who your forgers of the NT were, and now you're telling me that the people Justin called Blasphemers were the ones who fabricated the gospels hoax well after 180 AD. Thanks!

But wait a minute. Oh damn! Justin died some time before 180, and he was already acquainted with the Synoptic gospels.

Justin uses material from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) in the composition of the First Apology and the Dialogue, either directly, as in the case of Matthew,[39] or indirectly through the use of a gospel harmony, which may have been composed by Justin or his school.

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

So you must be spouting balderdash again. That makes me very sad, dejudge, because the mythicists on this thread keep telling me how cogent and to the point you are. Maybe you're one of their myths.

Tell me, dejudge, have you ever been in the superterrestrial, sublunary sphere ... ?

 

[dejudge]

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar who argues for an HJ, admitted the Gospels were NOT written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and that at least 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Why don't you get familiar with writings of antiquity?

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho
Quote:
there were many, my friends, who, coming forward in the name of Jesus, taught both to speak and act impious and blasphemous things..
1.Justin Maryr in " Dialogue with Trypho" admitted that he considered some Christians as Blasphemers and Atheists.

2. Eusebius in "Church History" claimed 2 Peter does NOT belong in the Canon.

3. The Muratorian Canon admits that the Pauline letters to Churches were composed AFTER Revelation--[after 70 CE].

4. Chrysostom admitted that Christians did NOT EVEN KNOW that Acts of the Apostles existed.

5.The author of "Against Heresies" claimed gMark was composed AFTER Peter and Paul was dead.

6. Origen in "Commentary on Matthew 1" claimed Paul was ALIVE AFTER gLuke was composed.

Great! We're getting there. I've been asking you who your forgers of the NT were, and now you're telling me that the people Justin called Blasphemers were the ones who fabricated the gospels hoax well after 180 AD. Thanks!

But wait a minute. Oh damn! Justin died some time before 180, and he was already acquainted with the Synoptic gospels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr

So you must be spouting balderdash again. That makes me very sad, dejudge, because the mythicists on this thread keep telling me how cogent and to the point you are. Maybe you're one of their myths.

Tell me, dejudge, have you ever been in the superterrestrial, sublunary sphere ... ?

What a bunch of nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

You yourself discredit and reject almost all of the story of Jesus from conception to ascension as a pack of lies, implausibility, or fiction and INVENT your HJ from your own imagination. You also admit the NT was manipulated.