Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

Well, he can tell you for himself. But what he said was that he is 100% in favour of the mythology explanation. So for example -

- the reason I would describe myself as an atheist is that I simply don't believe in the existence of God. I am 100%, ie entirely, of the belief that God does not exist.

Even I'm not that much of that belief. Maybe I just can't make the distinction between the two things you're talking about, because they seem like the same to me.

 

[IanS]

Ian


Shows? Evidence doesn't show. Evidence is an observation that someone might possibly estimate is more likely to have been observed given some resolutions of an uncertainity compared with other resolutions of the uncertainty. Different people might disagree about whether some observed circumstance actually does have that contrast, or about how great the contrast is, or even about which resolutions are favored and which are disfavored by some observation. The quality of being observed and having the potential are what suffices for something to be evidence.

It's funny that you and I seem to agree about what are the possible resolutions of the "historical Jesus" uncertainty, and we generally agree where the bulk of the pertinent available observations may be found, but apparently we disagree that those observations include evidence. I suspect that's because of our different definitions of evidence. As it happens, I don't know what your definition of evidence is, just that it is radically different from mine. It's hard to have much of a discussion without some shared sense of what the words mean.

Well the verbiage was so dense and convoluted there that I have to admit that I'm by no means sure of what you are saying. So that being the case, perhaps you would like to say first what you think "evidence" is, rather than me explain what I think should properly be meant by "evidence" valid in any particular situation (in fact, in the particular case of Jesus as described in the bible, which is the sole case under discussion here).

And if you are happy to do that, then it might be easiest of all round if you want to take our present example of Jesus, and describe what you think would be valid evidence of a real Jesus vs. what would definitely not be evidence of a real Jesus.

But one thing worries me here - in debates like this about any religious claims, eg often where theists claim God exists, the religious side very often raises the question of "what is evidence?" as a deliberately deceptive, and really quite dishonest tactic just in order to bog the whole discussion down in an endless argument about dictionary definitions of “evidence” (eg;- I once had a very long and eventually acrimonious debate on RDF about precisely that question of evidence, where a theist who is actually a member here, insisted that we define what we meant by “evidence“. And what ensued was an absolute farce of that particular theist trying to claim that his definitions meant that anything anyone said was "evidence" of the truth of what they had claimed ... it ended with him completely losing his temper and getting suspended, but not before it had become clear that the request for defining evidence is in fact a well worn theist debating tactic). I don’t think you are in any way asking this question dishonestly or as a theist debating tactic, but I am wary of getting side-tracked into an endless semantic discussion of what is, vs. what is not, “evidence” in general, when I think it’s perfectly clear in the present case what is not valid evidence of a real Jesus figure described in the bible (and that is the Jesus figure we are discussing. In fact it’s the only known Jesus figure).

 

[Brainache]

Well the verbiage was so dense and convoluted there that I have to admit that I'm by no means sure of what you are saying. So that being the case, perhaps you would like to say first what you think "evidence" is, rather than me explain what I think should properly be meant by "evidence" valid in any particular situation (in fact, in the particular case of Jesus as described in the bible, which is the sole case under discussion here).

And if you are happy to do that, then it might be easiest of all round if you want to take our present example of Jesus, and describe what you think would be valid evidence of a real Jesus vs. what would definitely not be evidence of a real Jesus.

But one thing worries me here - in debates like this about any religious claims, eg often where theists claim God exists, the religious side very often raises the question of "what is evidence?" as a deliberately deceptive, and really quite dishonest tactic just in order to bog the whole discussion down in an endless argument about dictionary definitions of “evidence” (eg;- I once had a very long and eventually acrimonious debate on RDF about precisely that question of evidence, where a theist who is actually a member here, insisted that we define what we meant by “evidence“. And what ensued was an absolute farce of that particular theist trying to claim that his definitions meant that anything anyone said was "evidence" of the truth of what they had claimed ... it ended with him completely losing his temper and getting suspended, but not before it had become clear that the request for defining evidence is in fact a well worn theist debating tactic). I don’t think you are in any way asking this question dishonestly or as a theist debating tactic, but I am wary of getting side-tracked into an endless semantic discussion of what is, vs. what is not, “evidence” in general, when I think it’s perfectly clear in the present case what is not valid evidence of a real Jesus figure described in the bible (and that is the Jesus figure we are discussing. In fact it’s the only known Jesus figure).

Are you saying that the definition of valid evidence is "not what they use to reach the conclusions about Jesus"?

That you will accept other evidence, just not any of the evidence that Historians actually use?

 

[dejudge]

Are you saying that the definition of valid evidence is "not what they use to reach the conclusions about Jesus"?

That you will accept other evidence, just not any of the evidence that Historians actually use?

What evidence do Historians actually use and what evidence do they actually use when they claim Jesus was a Zealot compared to those who are agnostic or that Jesus was a figure of mythology or an Apocalyptic preacher?

Ordinary people can examine written statements and come to a conclusion. Historians write books and ordinary people can understand them.

Everybody use data, evidence, to draw a conclusion.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

Am I correct that the nub of your concern is this?

the religious side very often raises the question of "what is evidence?" as a deliberately deceptive, and really quite dishonest tactic just in order to bog the whole discussion down in an endless argument about dictionary definitions of “evidence”

Simple shut-down: any dictionary "definition" is a lexicographer's summary of some of the ways in which (s)he has seen the word used by educated users of the language, especially people who are paid for published writing or editing. Obviously, that exercise is of great value for many purposes, but learning how to make reliable inferences from evidence is not one of those purposes. Nor would many lexicographers dispute that.

Whether your opponent is honest or not, you can't have a productive discussion of an uncertainty unless there's some agreement about what the evidence bearing on the uncertainty is. I can only think of two ways to achieve that: extensively (make a list - holy crap, a canon - of what's admissible as a source of information in the discussion) or intensively: define and agree to use some general description of what evidence is. In some discussions, maybe you can manage with just examples (an incomplete extensive specification).

And it really is possible that some pairs of people simply aren't going to agree, because they each really and truly do have different ideas about evidence. All in all, best to recognize that right away, because the conversation isn't going to go very far. Regrettable, maybe, but it can't be fixed.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes. That is exactly how Professionals study Ancient History.

By assuming he must have existed?

Wow, that's a pretty messed up Profession.

 

[Brainache]

By assuming he must have existed?

Wow, that's a pretty messed up Profession.

Ha ha. The old sarcasm right back at me! I'm wounded.

But really, you don't actually think that is how Ancient History is studied in Universities do you?

 

[Brainache]

I would just like to point out to anybody paying attention here that IanS still hasn't told us where he got this "Jesus Never Existed" idea from.

I told him I got my Historical Jesus from the pages of Historical Research when he asked me, but he never replied when asked the same question.

I suggested Youtube. He hasn't denied it.

Now, people like to disparage wikipedia as a source of information, and if you don't bother checking anything they might be right. But Youtube?

Really?

 

[IanS]

Ian

Am I correct that the nub of your concern is this?


Simple shut-down: any dictionary "definition" is a lexicographer's summary of some of the ways in which (s)he has seen the word used by educated users of the language, especially people who are paid for published writing or editing. Obviously, that exercise is of great value for many purposes, but learning how to make reliable inferences from evidence is not one of those purposes. Nor would many lexicographers dispute that.

Whether your opponent is honest or not, you can't have a productive discussion of an uncertainty unless there's some agreement about what the evidence bearing on the uncertainty is. I can only think of two ways to achieve that: extensively (make a list - holy crap, a canon - of what's admissible as a source of information in the discussion) or intensively: define and agree to use some general description of what evidence is. In some discussions, maybe you can manage with just examples (an incomplete extensive specification).

And it really is possible that some pairs of people simply aren't going to agree, because they each really and truly do have different ideas about evidence. All in all, best to recognize that right away, because the conversation isn't going to go very far. Regrettable, maybe, but it can't be fixed.

No, that quote is not a main issue (I just wanted to be clear in saying I want to avoid being drawn into any sort of game like that).

OK, well without trying to produce a completely general definition, or alternatively looking at what a dictionary says, lets take an example which has dominated these two threads -

- lets start with any of the canonical gospels - do you think that there is any sentence about Jesus in any of those gospels which is evidence of Jesus living a human life on earth?

If your answer is “Yes”, then can you tell us which sentence that is, and just quote it so that we know which words you are saying do in fact provide evidence of Jesus living on earth?

 

[GDon]

If your answer is “Yes”, then can you tell us which sentence that is, and just quote it so that we know which words you are saying do in fact provide evidence of Jesus living on earth?

I'd start with Paul. Romans 9:

[3] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
[4] Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
[5] Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came​

This shows that Paul regards Christ as living on earth as a Jew. If Paul thinks that Christ died in Paul's recent past (which I would argue by using the context of other passages), then it is stronger evidence for the likely existence of Jesus than if (say) Paul thought Jesus died 500 years before.

Not proof, not certainty, not "for sure". But likely. It is a piece of the evidence for a cumulative case.

 

[dejudge]

I'd start with Paul. Romans 9:

[3] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
[4] Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
[5] Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came​

This shows that Paul regards Christ as living on earth as a Jew. If Paul thinks that Christ died in Paul's recent past (which I would argue by using the context of other passages), then it is stronger evidence for the likely existence of Jesus than if (say) Paul thought Jesus died 500 years before.

Not proof, not certainty, not "for sure". But likely. It is a piece of the evidence for a cumulative case.

The Pauline Jesus was on earth as God's Own Son--the last Adam made a Spirit--God Incarnate.

Why are you wasting time when we have been through the evidence?

The Pauline Jesus was God Creator who made everything in heaven on earth and under the earth.

By the way, the Pauline writer never claimed that Jesus died in the recent past.

The Pauline writer never said he thought Jesus died in the recent past.

It is already known the Pauline writings are products of multiple authors so what you assume is in the RECENT past may indeed be hundreds of years later.

Which Paul thinks Jesus died in the recent past?

Fake Paul.

 

[maximara]

We already know anything is possible. It is possible that Jesus was myth. Right now we are at the EVIDENCE stage. What evidence can you provide?

We have two arguments.

1. Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of mythology.

2. Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history [a human being with human parents].

Actually point 2 itself has two agreements (Remsburg and Marshall):

2a. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man but the Gospels tell us nothing about him ala King Arthur or Robin Hood

2b. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man and stripped of their supernatural and known non-historical elements the Gospels tell a reasonable picture of his life.

We have hundreds upon hundreds of NT manuscripts and Apologetic writings that described Jesus of Nazareth as a figure of mythology from the 2nd century and later.

There is no historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth with human parents--Not even Nazareth is mentioned.

There is no historical trace of his parents, relatives, disciples including Peter and Paul. They all evaporated.

The matter is closed.

The evidence supports that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

The problem with this argument is again Robin Hood and King Arthur ie native is essentially false part of historical myth.

Jesus could have been a real human being but the story about him is essentially false. In other words the Gospel account has no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

No sane person can say George Washington, Davy Crockett, Jesse James , Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley themselves were nonhistorical but also no sane person can argue against these particular stories of them are "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" (very definition of Christ Myth in 1982, 1996 editions of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J)

 

[Brainache]

Actually point 2 itself has two agreements (Remsburg and Marshall):

2a. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man but the Gospels tell us nothing about him ala King Arthur or Robin Hood

2b. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man and stripped of their supernatural and known non-historical elements the Gospels tell a reasonable picture of his life.

...

OK. I'm with you so far.

What about: 2c. Jesus of Nazareth (I wouldn't call him that, but I'll stick with the format) was a flesh and blood man and the gospels can tell us a little about him if we read them critically.*

Would you accept that as a possibility?

*In conjunction with other sources and evidence.

 

[dejudge]

Actually point 2 itself has two agreements (Remsburg and Marshall):

2a. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man but the Gospels tell us nothing about him ala King Arthur or Robin Hood

2b. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man and stripped of their supernatural and known non-historical elements the Gospels tell a reasonable picture of his life.

Point 2a cannot be argued because no evidence will be able to be presented. To make a valid or strong argument one must have data. If the Gospels tell us nothing about Jesus of Nazareth then no argument can be made.

Point 2b constitutes a contradiction. If we strip Jesus of Nazareth of the supernatural and non-historical elements the Gospel tells us Nothing.

Point 2b. cannot be argued because the Gospels would be discredited.

The problem with this argument is again Robin Hood and King Arthur ie native is essentially false part of historical myth.

Jesus could have been a real human being but the story about him is essentially false. In other words the Gospel account has no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

The problem with your argument is that Jesus could have been a figure of mythology.

Romulus, Remus, Achilles, Perseus, Apollo, Jupiter, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and hundreds of characters of antiquity are considered figures of mythology.

No sane person can say George Washington, Davy Crockett, Jesse James , Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley themselves were nonhistorical but also no sane person can argue against these particular stories of them are "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" (very definition of Christ Myth in 1982, 1996 editions of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J)

No sane person can say Romulus, Remus, Achilles, Perseus, Apollo, Jupiter, Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were figures of history.

 

[maximara]

Actually point 2 itself has two agreements (Remsburg and Marshall):

2a. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man but the Gospels tell us nothing about him ala King Arthur or Robin Hood

2b. Jesus of Nazareth was a flesh and blood man and stripped of their supernatural and known non-historical elements the Gospels tell a reasonable picture of his life.

Point 2a cannot be argued because no evidence will be able to be presented. To make a valid or strong argument one must have data. If the Gospels tell us nothing about Jesus of Nazareth then no argument can be made.

Point 2b constitutes a contradiction. If we strip Jesus of Nazareth of the supernatural and non-historical elements the Gospel tells us Nothing.

Point 2b. cannot be argued because the Gospels would be discredited.

Totally nonsensical per the examples of Robin Hood and King Arthur.

Point 2b would be the absolute minimal Jesus ie in 1st century Galilee or earlier a man preached a message that resulted in him being crucified by the local officials. Remember this is Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's minimal definition of a historical Jesus ie a flesh and blood man as opposed to Dr. Who or King Lear but the stories about him have no more validity then those of King Arthur.

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLAR; DEAL WITH IT.

The problem with this argument is again Robin Hood and King Arthur ie native is essentially false part of historical myth.

Jesus could have been a real human being but the story about him is essentially false. In other words the Gospel account has no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley.

The problem with your argument is that Jesus could have been a figure of mythology.

Romulus, Remus, Achilles, Perseus, Apollo, Jupiter, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and hundreds of characters of antiquity are considered figures of mythology.

The problem is you have three types of mythology: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.

Christopher Columbus sailing west to prove the Earth was round is as much a historical myth as the stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood; the only difference is Columbus is on the "slightly colored and the narrative essentially true" part of the historical myth spectrum while King Arthur and Robin Hood are on the "small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" side.

No sane person can say George Washington, Davy Crockett, Jesse James , Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley themselves were nonhistorical but also no sane person can argue against these particular stories of them are "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" (very definition of Christ Myth in 1982, 1996 editions of International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J)

No sane person can say Romulus, Remus, Achilles, Perseus, Apollo, Jupiter, Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel were figures of history.

No more figures of history then the miracle working rose from the dead Jesus of the Gospel.

But that doesn't mean there wasn't flesh and blood people behind the stories as far as the Euhemerism mind set goes.

Remember that Romulus and Remus are considered legend ie historical myth. Jupiter aka Zeus was at one time considered to be a flesh and blood king who died on Crete (Zeus Is Dead: Euhemerus and Crete, S. Spyridakis, The Classical Journal, Vol. 63, No. 8, May, 1968, pp. 337-340.) and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos (Preparation of the Gospel (10.12))

If anything it is this Euhemerism mind set is what Justin Martyr really meant when he wrote "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." ie just as you made exaggerations of whom you call the sons of Jupiter who actually lived so the same had been done to Jesus Christ.

The "small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false" part of the historical myth spectrum must terrify apologists; otherwise why would they label ideas that go this route "Christ Myth" as seen with Frazer, Robertson, Mead, Wells post Jesus Myth, and many others? Why? Because it accepts that there was a Jesus but that the Gospels tell nothing about him...other then he existed in the past at sometime.

 

[Belz...]

Point 2b would be the absolute minimal Jesus ie in 1st century Galilee or earlier a man preached a message that resulted in him being crucified by the local officials.

I don't think the crucified bit is even required.

 

[IanS]

I'd start with Paul. Romans 9:

[3] For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
[4] Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
[5] Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came​

This shows that Paul regards Christ as living on earth as a Jew. If Paul thinks that Christ died in Paul's recent past (which I would argue by using the context of other passages), then it is stronger evidence for the likely existence of Jesus than if (say) Paul thought Jesus died 500 years before.

Not proof, not certainty, not "for sure". But likely. It is a piece of the evidence for a cumulative case.

Well, … none of the above quotes are in any way evidence of Jesus. Those quotes are only (at most) evidence that the author of Paul said that he believed various things about “Christ”. There is zero evidence of a living Jesus there.

Look at the highlight in your quote - you yourself are there inadvertently agreeing that these sort of statements are only what Paul “regarded”, ie believed”, about an entity he calls “Christ”.

Please don’t say you have no idea where he could have got any such idea from, or that he could not possibly have believed it unless it was true. Because Paul himself (fortunately for us today, if we would like to determine the truth) tells clearly and repeatedly where he got his messiah beliefs from. And just because someone believes something, that does make their belief true. And especially not in the case of 2000 year-old uneducated fanatical religious beliefs in a supernatural Son of Yahweh who rises from the dead in full view of everyone, etc.


Is it possible that we could have valid acceptable evidence of Jesus? Yes of course it is. If you were citing the sort of written and archaeological evidence that we have for thousands of Roman emperors, Egyptian Pharaohs, ancient kings and queens etc., then everyone would accept that as valid evidence that the person almost certainly existed. There may be such evidence of Jesus somewhere, that is not impossible and I would not rule that out (not at all). But so far nobody on this forum has produced anything remotely like that. And nobody here (or on RatSkep, or the old RDF) has ever been able to quote any such evidence from any bible scholar or so-called "historian" either.

 

[eight bits]

Ian

- lets start with any of the canonical gospels - do you think that there is any sentence about Jesus in any of those gospels which is evidence of Jesus living a human life on earth?

No. Going back to my explanation of what I understand evidence to be, I can't imagine any isolated record of some few thoughts which somebody had (what a sentence is) being more or less likely depending upon whether or not somebody else had really lived earlier than the thinker.

However, I can imagine some ways that an intergenerational conversation (what each of the canonical testaments is, and for the New Testament, what it and its sequel in non-canonical literature are) might develop being more or less likely depending on whether or not the earliest participants in the conversation were real people, compared with just an imagined antecedent for whoever actually did begin the conversation.

dejudge

The Pauline Jesus was on earth as God's Own Son--the last Adam made a Spirit--God Incarnate.

In Paul? Do you have letter, chapter and verse for that "God incarnate" portion? Even Satan is a Son of God, or hangs out with Sons of God, so we needn't labor that phrase coming from a Jewish author. Also, is there any progress on your providing letter, chapter and verse for your earlier but related "How did Paul as a Jew manage to fool people all over the Roman Empire that a dead Jesus was God Creator?" which you seem to repeat in this post?

 

[dejudge]

Totally nonsensical per the examples of Robin Hood and King Arthur.

I am extremely delighted you gave Robin Hood and King Arthur as examples of figures of history because this confirms you have no idea of history.

You are doing pseudo history.

You seem not to realize that the historicity of Robin Hood and King Arthur are uncertain.

You seem to have assumed that they existed.

But it gets far worse.

By making references to Robin Hood and King Arthur you have actually shown that once the stories about them tell us nothing then it becomes virtually impossible to locate them.

If you discard all the stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur then you will virtually have nothing or very little left.

Plus, without any credible historical information, you will not even be able to determine all the legendary material about Robin Hood and King Arthur.

Now, please tell me the actual biography of Robin Hood and King Arthur if the stories about them tell us nothing.

Who is Robin Hood without the "Hood" ?

Who is King Arthur without the "King"?

You are doing Pseudo history--History without data--history from imagination.

Point 2b would be the absolute minimal Jesus ie in 1st century Galilee or earlier a man preached a message that resulted in him being crucified by the local officials. Remember this is Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's minimal definition of a historical Jesus ie a flesh and blood man as opposed to Dr. Who or King Lear but the stories about him have no more validity then those of King Arthur.

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLAR; DEAL WITH IT.

The reconstruction of the past requires Data. To do history one must have DATA.

If you strip away the DATA for Jesus then you cannot reconstruct his biography.

Howard Marshall ASSUMES that the crucifixion of Jesus is NOT legendary material.

Howard Marshal utterly fails to understand that the crucifixion of Jesus is just as legendary as his conception by the Holy Ghost if he did not exist.

Howard Marshall is doing Pseudo history--history from assumption and speculation.

Howard Marshall cannot strip away the data for Jesus of Nazareth.

Howard Marshall cannot strip away the data for Romulus.

Howard Marshall cannot strip away the data for Achilles.

If you strip away the data for Romulus and Achilles then you are doing Pseudo history.

It is the data that DEFINES the character.

The data for Jesus, Achilles and Romulus DEFINE them as figures of mythology.

 

[Belz...]

I am extremely delighted you gave Robin Hood and King Arthur as examples of figures of history because this confirms you have no idea of history.

I think in your zeal you may have missed the point entirely.