Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Fair question. Thank you.

The historians are not all agreed around the margins. That's what makes them serious historians rather than robot drones. But the core of the history is not much disputed.

There is no core of history for an historical Jesus of Nazareth or else Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" would have not have been regarded as a failure of facts and logic

In fact, there is nothing at all about a character called Jesus of Nazareth in the writings of non-apologetic sources.

In fact, Ehrman does not even think that the TF is of any real help in the HJ argument.

Plus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 IS EVIDENCE that Galatians was composed AFTER c 93 CE.

 

[dejudge]

Do we have evidence that any mythological figure in the period of Antiquity that preceded the period during which putative historical Jesus lived being considered to exist contemporaneously with the people of that era?

When did the putative historical Jesus live and what source was used? Ehrman has discredited the New Testament by admitting it is filled with discrepancies and contradictions and have also exposed that the NT is filled with forgeries and falsely attributed writings composed far later than was claimed by apologetics.

What is even more devastating is that none of the authors of the Gospels were eyewitnesses according to Ehrman.

The stories of Jesus in the NT is core fiction---not history.

 

[Belz...]

No.

Your answer to "why ?" is "no" ?

The problem is that they aren't doing History.

Much like people who discuss chemistry usually aren't doing chemistry. But if you explain to them why theory A is the way it is, they can grasp it. Telling them to get a degree just makes them suspicious of the theory.

OK sorry. It is obvious if you know the methodology used by Ancient Historians to reach their conclusions.

That doesn't answer my question. I guess you have no idea what I'm talking about, because you keep going back to this.

It isn't a fallacy to appeal to experts in a field that requires experts.

No, but no matter what field you're talking about, knowledge CAN be communicated.

 

[Belz...]

Please, very quickly tell me which Jesus existed, when he existed, where he existed and what source you relied on?

Well that's the problem, isn't it ? The Jesus who existed, if there's such a person at all, which there probably was, was probably next-to-nothing like the bible Jesus or any literary Jesus. From what I understand, he was probably a jewish cult leader and... that's pretty much it. We can't even say if he was executed or not, though again it seems more likely than not.

It's not much to go on.

 

[Belz...]

No. You have to know the study of Ancient History if you want to challenge the Academic Consensus. It is that simple.

True. You need much less knowledge of history to understand the evidence reasoning behind the conclusion, however.

Your position is no stronger than a Truther hawking "Loose Change".

That's a bit of a hyperbole.

 

[Brainache]

True. You need much less knowledge of history to understand the evidence reasoning behind the conclusion, however.



That's a bit of a hyperbole.

I can't help you or any of the others above.

The Academic consensus hasn't disappeared because some people refuse to understand it.

It has been explained satisfactorily enough for me to make up my mind, if you claim it hasn't, you haven't been paying attention.

This obsession with what Bart Ehrman thinks is bizarre to me.

If you think I and others of the HJ persuasion have failed to make a case, so be it. I can't stop you. Go ahead ignore what every Historian has told you, you are much smarter than any Historian, because you aren't bound by rules of methodology.

Maybe we should vote on what happened. Let's make History Democratic! Yay!

Or not.

 

[tsig]

I can't help you or any of the others above.

The Academic consensus hasn't disappeared because some people refuse to understand it.

It has been explained satisfactorily enough for me to make up my mind, if you claim it hasn't, you haven't been paying attention.

This obsession with what Bart Ehrman thinks is bizarre to me.

If you think I and others of the HJ persuasion have failed to make a case, so be it. I can't stop you. Go ahead ignore what every Historian has told you, you are much smarter than any Historian, because you aren't bound by rules of methodology.
Maybe we should vote on what happened. Let's make History Democratic! Yay!

Or not.

Proof that all historians agree on a HJ?

Jibes aren't arguments.

Why do you capitalize historian and history?

 

[Brainache]

Proof that all historians agree on a HJ?

Jibes aren't arguments.

Why do you capitalize historian and history?

To differentiate between the academic study of History and just talking about stuff that happened.

I might talk about the history of rock and roll, or the history of my family, but that stuff that professionals do in Universities is History.

I said almost all Historians. And every Historian who has come through these threads. If you can find a post in any of these HJ threads by a real Historian who says: "Keep up the good work Myth-Boys, that's the way to do History!", instead of :"Um, that's not how History works. Here let me show you..."? I'll eat my hat.

The poor Historian who has tried to help people gets insulted and he leaves. And we are left with a lot of bloviating know-it-alls crowing about how useless Academia is.

Good luck with that.

 

[Belz...]

I must address this claim of consensus because it seems to be used as propaganda to cover the very weak argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Is this just an impression, or do you have evidence of this ?

 

[Belz...]

How does an admitted Agnostic like Brainache help the argument for Bart Ehrman's historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth?

Is it your claim that only one with a vested interest in the theological ramifications of Jesus' historical veracity would support the theory of the historical Jesus ? Because if it is, it's complete nonsense.

 

[Brainache]

Is it your claim that only one with a vested interest in the theological ramifications of Jesus' historical veracity would support the theory of the historical Jesus ? Because if it is, it's complete nonsense.

Thank you. At last somebody else gets it. I think Belz... always got it. Sometimes it takes a while to see that that is what some "Mythers" want to believe.


Can someone come up with a better word than "Mythers"? It sounds horrible.

 

[Belz...]

The Academic consensus hasn't disappeared because some people refuse to understand it.

Of course it hasn't. But you must understand that YOU aren't alone. It convinced you, great. But it should bother you that, unlike other fields and topics, it's a lot harder to convince otherwise reasonable people that the consensus is the best explanation.

If you think I and others of the HJ persuasion have failed to make a case, so be it. I can't stop you. Go ahead ignore what every Historian has told you, you are much smarter than any Historian, because you aren't bound by rules of methodology.

Maybe we should vote on what happened. Let's make History Democratic! Yay!

I have no clue what this rant has to do with the topic. You're just saying nonsense, now, or you're confusing me with another poster.

 

[Brainache]

Of course it hasn't. But you must understand that YOU aren't alone. It convinced you, great. But it should bother you that, unlike other fields and topics, it's a lot harder to convince otherwise reasonable people that the consensus is the best explanation.

When people like Nick Terry try, they get shouted down. They can't have it both ways. They put their fingers in their ears and go LALALALA until the Historian goes away. Then they say, "See, he can't explain it! I win!"

Was it you who said comparing them to Truthers was going too far? I disagree.

ETA: I think "Mythers" have become the new "Truthers".

I have no clue what this rant has to do with the topic. You're just saying nonsense, now, or you're confusing me with another poster.

That was not aimed at you, sorry. It was directed at anyone who wants to dismiss the entire Academic Discipline of Ancient History because it can't offer 100% certain answers.

Sorry for the confusion.

ETA: To Clarify: Sorry, but if you aren't qualified in the study of Ancient History, you don't get to vote. It isn't Democratic, but no Academic discipline is. You have to be qualified or at the very least, present arguments that meet the standards of Ancient History as it is currently studied in secular Universities throughout the world, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

That's the general "you", not anyone in particular. It applies to everyone, myself included.

It is that simple.

 

[Stone]

It was directed at anyone who wants to dismiss the entire Academic Discipline of Ancient History because it can't offer 100% certain answers.

And if any modern professional academic who purports to specialize in Ancient History claims such certainty when it comes to every detail for the bios of counter-cultural fringe subversives like a Jesus or a Diogenes, that claim is fraudulent, and the one making the claim is a fraud. This is why some people outside the field of Ancient History, those who may be infatuated with the proofs on display in the fields of science or math, will never make good historians.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

It is an ongoing thing that I add to as I get the urge.

I think Jesus was a Zealot. I think Paul was a Herodian.

Please, what are your sources for claiming Jesus was a Zealot? There is no such source.

You are not doing history at any level --you are doing the "urge".

One cannot invent who Jesus was based on what they think without the supporting evidence.

For example, in gMark, a character called Pilate is mentioned without any additional description.

In order to find out who Pilate was one cannot simply go by the "urge" one must find additional details in some other source.

In the writings of Josephus, there are more details of Pilate. He is described as Procurator of Judea in the time of Tiberius.

On the other hand, in gMark there is a character called Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God.

There is no external source of antiquity which claimed Jesus was a Zealot and that he attempted to fight against the Romans or Herodians.

Jesus the Zealot is an invention without a shred of historical support.

Your claim that Jesus was a Zealot is like claiming Pilate was the Emperor of Rome.

It is completely unacceptable for you to simply guess who your Jesus was without a shred of evidence from antiquity.

Based on the abundance of evidence--Jesus in the Bible was a figure of mythology--the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

 

[dejudge]

I can't help you or any of the others above.

The Academic consensus hasn't disappeared because some people refuse to understand it.

You keep bringing up this unknown Academic consensus. Your claim that Jesus was a Zealot is contrary to Ehrman's Jesus. Obviously there is no known Academic consensus. Please, we had enough of your unknown consensus which you yourself ignore.

 

[Brainache]

Please, what are your sources for claiming Jesus was a Zealot? There is no such source.

You are not doing history at any level --you are doing the "urge".
{snip}.

No. My source is the Hypothesis put forward by the Historian Robert Eisenman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Eisenman

I'm not "doing history" at all, he is. I'm not qualified. Neither are you. Neither of us gets to make up our own "Theory" without supporting it and going through the whole tedious rigmarole that Professional Historians have to go through. Sorry, we don't get to be instant experts.

Real knowledge comes from study, not reading a paperback and watching a few documentaries.

If you have a problem with a specific aspect of what I have written in that thread about Eisenman's Hypothesis, take it up with me there. Doing so here would be a derail.

 

[Brainache]

You keep bringing up this unknown Academic consensus. Your claim that Jesus was a Zealot is contrary to Ehrman's Jesus. Obviously there is no known Academic consensus. Please, we had enough of your unknown consensus which you yourself ignore.

Please, the consensus is that the HJ was most likely an itinerant Jewish Preacher in the first half of the first century of the common era.

Lots of different people have superimposed their opinions on that. What do you want me to do about it?

One thing they all agree on is the core essentials. If you want to make a case, it has to account for the core essentials of what we already know about a HJ.

Otherwise you are just wasting your time.

I don't know how else to put it.

 

[maximara]

Please, the consensus is that the HJ was most likely an itinerant Jewish Preacher in the first half of the first century of the common era.

A supposed consensus that has been maintained largely though a mixture of religious and political intimidation in many countries. When in 2006 a professor at a major college in the United States can be fire for saying the story of Adam and Eve is a myth what chance does the idea that Jesus may have no more substance then John Frum have?

I might add that the consensus in the old USSR for nearly all of its existence was that the Christ Myth theory was VALID and was even printed in university text books (Nikiforov, Vladimir. "Russian Christianity" in Leslie Houlden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 749.)

In fact, the whole consensus argument goes down the garbage chute once you include Russia, India, and about any Asian nation you can name.

"In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris."

 

[Brainache]

A supposed consensus that has been maintained largely though a mixture of religious and political intimidation in many countries. When in 2006 a professor at a major college in the United States can be fire for saying the story of Adam and Eve is a myth what chance does the idea that Jesus may have no more substance then John Frum have?

I might add that the consensus in the old USSR for nearly all of its existence was that the Christ Myth theory was VALID and was even printed in university text books (Nikiforov, Vladimir. "Russian Christianity" in Leslie Houlden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 749.)

In fact, the whole consensus argument goes down the garbage chute once you include Russia, India, and about any Asian nation you can name.

"In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism and Confucianism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris."

OK, so can you cite for me some of the Chinese Historians denying the Historicity of Jesus? I don't want the moon, just one or two should do for our purposes. I'd like to see the arguments.

Thanks.