Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[annnnoid]

You must have forgotten to mention that Academics have not yet reached any consensus but are actively DEBATING the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus

Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion historically facts. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

most scholars of Biblical history believe that the gospels of the Bible are sufficient evidence to say that Jesus, or some human seed for the stories who we may as well tag "Jesus", did exist, and his existence can be assumed from them

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his (Jesus) non-existence as effectively refuted.

Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert E. Van Voorst "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

" Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."wp

These three individuals (and the relevant wiki page and previous quotes) presumably summarize the consensus of the academic fields relating to the HJ (they explicitly make that very claim). Based on the above statements it is possible to conclude with far-above-average certainty that Jesus did, in fact, live on this planet 2,000 or so years ago.

It may be reasonable to wonder about the conclusions and how they were arrived at. What is not reasonable…is to dispute the academic integrity or credentials of those who study in the various relevant fields…or to question the dimensions of the consensus (unless, of course, you have some means of substantiating your claims).

Thus…the very fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus is, itself, evidence of the robust nature of what is being agreed upon. There is, IOW, no equivocation. ‘…certainly existed’ …’ non-existence effectively refuted’…’ universal assent’ … ‘virtually all agree’. Doubt…apparently…is not evident.

Have to say…I find it downright bizarre…this vociferous, obstinate, refusal to acknowledge the academic conclusions on this matter. Especially on a skeptic forum. It’s blatantly irrational (is there another word to describe a refusal to agree with a group of experts who are that certain ["universal assent"] of their conclusion???) and suspiciously unreasonable. Speaking as one acutely familiar with all manner of neurosis…I’d say we ought to invent one for this situation (JDS....Jesus Denial Syndrome). Maybe start a thread offering counseling.

 

[tsig]

Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion historically facts. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

most scholars of Biblical history believe that the gospels of the Bible are sufficient evidence to say that Jesus, or some human seed for the stories who we may as well tag "Jesus", did exist, and his existence can be assumed from them

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his (Jesus) non-existence as effectively refuted.

Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert E. Van Voorst "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

" Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."wp

These three individuals (and the relevant wiki page and previous quotes) presumably summarize the consensus of the academic fields relating to the HJ (they explicitly make that very claim). Based on the above statements it is possible to conclude with far-above-average certainty that Jesus did, in fact, live on this planet 2,000 or so years ago.

It may be reasonable to wonder about the conclusions and how they were arrived at. What is not reasonable…is to dispute the academic integrity or credentials of those who study in the various relevant fields…or to question the dimensions of the consensus (unless, of course, you have some means of substantiating your claims).

Thus…the very fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus is, itself, evidence of the robust nature of what is being agreed upon. There is, IOW, no equivocation. ‘…certainly existed’ …’ non-existence effectively refuted’…’ universal assent’ … ‘virtually all agree’. Doubt…apparently…is not evident.

Have to say…I find it downright bizarre…this vociferous, obstinate, refusal to acknowledge the academic conclusions on this matter. Especially on a skeptic forum. It’s blatantly irrational (is there another word to describe a refusal to agree with a group of experts who are that certain ["universal assent"] of their conclusion???) and suspiciously unreasonable. Speaking as one acutely familiar with all manner of neurosis…I’d say we ought to invent one for this situation (JDS....Jesus Denial Syndrome). Maybe start a thread offering counseling.

I see, the consensus proves itself.

 

[dejudge]

Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion historically facts. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

What? Do you not understand that you are talking about a SUBSET of Historians?

Historians who are Agnostic about the existence of Jesus do not consider that his baptism and crucifixion are historical facts.

Historians who argue that Jesus was a figure of mythology reject any claim that his baptism and crucifixion are historical facts.

I am afraid you are not really familiar with Scholarly opinions and not familiar with historical facts.

1. It is documented in writings of antiquity that Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

2. It is documented in writings of antiquity that Jesus was God Creator.

3. It is documented in the writings of antiquity that Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee.

4. It is documented in the writings of antiquity that Jesus transfigured on a mountain and Elijah and Moses instantly resurrected simultaneously in the presence of Peter, James and John.

5. It is documented in the writings of antiquity that Jesus resurrected.

6. It is documented in the writings of antiquity that Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud.

It is an historical fact that Jesus of Nazareth is documented in the writings of antiquity as a figure of mythology.

NT manuscripts and Codices have been recovered and dated and they do show what people of antiquity wrote about Jesus, the Son of God born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[Brainache]

I see, the consensus proves itself.

Yes tsig. They don't actually look at any of these old books and things. They don't analyse or compare or confer. They just go inside their ivory towers and party it up laughing at all the gullible sheep who buy their nonsense.

That's how Academia works. You've got them bang to rights tsig!

 

[Brainache]

Despite divergent scholarly opinions on the construction of portraits of the historical Jesus, almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion historically facts. James Dunn states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

most scholars of Biblical history believe that the gospels of the Bible are sufficient evidence to say that Jesus, or some human seed for the stories who we may as well tag "Jesus", did exist, and his existence can be assumed from them

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed

biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his (Jesus) non-existence as effectively refuted.

Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees"

Robert E. Van Voorst "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

" Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed."wp

These three individuals (and the relevant wiki page and previous quotes) presumably summarize the consensus of the academic fields relating to the HJ (they explicitly make that very claim). Based on the above statements it is possible to conclude with far-above-average certainty that Jesus did, in fact, live on this planet 2,000 or so years ago.

It may be reasonable to wonder about the conclusions and how they were arrived at. What is not reasonable…is to dispute the academic integrity or credentials of those who study in the various relevant fields…or to question the dimensions of the consensus (unless, of course, you have some means of substantiating your claims).

Thus…the very fact that there is such an overwhelming consensus is, itself, evidence of the robust nature of what is being agreed upon. There is, IOW, no equivocation. ‘…certainly existed’ …’ non-existence effectively refuted’…’ universal assent’ … ‘virtually all agree’. Doubt…apparently…is not evident.

Have to say…I find it downright bizarre…this vociferous, obstinate, refusal to acknowledge the academic conclusions on this matter. Especially on a skeptic forum. It’s blatantly irrational (is there another word to describe a refusal to agree with a group of experts who are that certain ["universal assent"] of their conclusion???) and suspiciously unreasonable. Speaking as one acutely familiar with all manner of neurosis…I’d say we ought to invent one for this situation (JDS....Jesus Denial Syndrome). Maybe start a thread offering counseling.

I don't think you and I usually agree on anything, but I definitely agree with this post.

It is a sad fact of life that subjects like this actually do require a bit of study to get your head around it. No one can grasp all of the nuances by just watching a documentary or something, same as any Academic discipline.

 

[GDon]

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”.

Just to go around the merry-go-round one more time... I didn't "inadvertently" agree, I actually DO agree. We only have what Paul regarded or believed. The question then is (as more than just I have pointed out to you repeatedly) what is the best explanation for Paul's belief, taking all the texts into consideration?

And I specifically said it as part of a cumulative case. IF Paul thought that Jesus lived on earth in Paul's recent past, then this raises the possibility that there actually was a Jesus, than if Paul thought that Jesus died (say) 500 years before.

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.

"Could not possibly have believed it"? Why speak in absolute terms like that? I've explicitly stated many times that I am talking about "the best explanation". Not "certainty", not "for sure", but best explanation. And I am talking about "cumulative case". Not any one sentence or any one passage, but viewing the texts as a whole.

It's not that I don't understand where you are coming from, but I simply don't understand why you don't know where I am coming from, despite my repeated statements of my position.

Seriously, the only reason I've kept at this till now is that I'm fascinated by how many times you can misunderstand what I and others here have been explaining to you.

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.

Yes, and we have gone through this before as well. No need to go through this again.

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.

I agree. But the claim that Jesus was a Jew who was crucified and around whom beliefs that he was God is hardly an extraordinary one, and I believe is the best explanation based on the texts we have of Paul and the Gospels.

Anyway, I'll drop off this merry-go-round now. Thanks for your time.

 

[Brainache]

...
Anyway, I'll drop off this merry-go-round now. Thanks for your time.

Well said Gdon. I hope you stick around the forum, we need as many rational people as we can get in here.

 

[dejudge]

But the claim that Jesus was a Jew who was crucified and around whom beliefs that he was God is hardly an extraordinary one, and I believe is the best explanation based on the texts we have of Paul and the Gospels.

The Gospels actually state the conception of Jesus and it is certain that it is stated Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

In fact, there is no genealogy for Jesus.

Both genealogies in the Gospels, gMatthew and gLuke, exclude Jesus.

We know why there is no genealogy for Jesus when we read gJohn and Pauline letters.

It is certain that Jesus was God the Creator according to gJohn and the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus and God are one in the Bible.

Jesus are God are the same Myth.

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Colossians 1

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Colossians

That's not one of the seven letters for which there is broad consensus that Paul wrote them. Which is fine if you personally want to include it on what you call your "Pauline corpus," as long as we're now clear that that's what you're talking about.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


That's not one of the seven letters for which there is broad consensus that Paul wrote them. Which is fine if you personally want to include it on what you call your "Pauline corpus," as long as we're now clear that that's what you're talking about.

You really have no evidence at all for what you are claiming. Please tell me who wrote Colossians and claimed Jesus was God Creator?


You seem to have no idea that Christians of antiquity wrote that Jesus was God the Creator.

You seem to have no idea that Christians of antiquity claimed Paul wrote Colossians.

The "real" Paul is the writer who fabricated the Epistles sometime after 180 CE or After Celsus' True Discourse.

Early pre 70 CE Paul is a Fake. All writings which mention Paul before c 180 CE are forgeries or false attribution.

No Pauline writings have ever been found and dated to any time before c 70 CE.

That is exactly what I expected based on Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

In the Gospels and Pauline Corpus Jesus was either born of a Ghost and a Virgin or was God Creator.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

My post concerned how you personally use the term Pauline corpus. My evidence for my claim that you include Colossians in your version of the Pauline corpus is your quoting from Colossians as part of your Pauline corpus in your post # 828. That other people use the term for seven other specific letters of Paul, and why they choose those seven letters, has already been repeatedly discussed in this and several other historical Jesus threads.

Those are the only two claims in my post. You have diambiguated what you were talking about. That satisfies my curiosity about your teachings at this time.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge

My post concerned how you personally use the term Pauline corpus. My evidence for my claim that you include Colossians in your version of the Pauline corpus is your quoting from Colossians as part of your Pauline corpus in your post # 828. That other people use the term for seven other specific letters of Paul, and why they choose those seven letters, has already been repeatedly discussed in this and several other historical Jesus threads.

Those are the only two claims in my post. You have diambiguated what you were talking about. That satisfies my curiosity about your teachings at this time.

The Pauline Corpus refers to all letters under the name of Paul in the Canon. Scholars have deduced that the Pauline Corpus is a product of multiple authors.

This discovery now makes it virtually impossible to determine that any letter in the Corpus is authentic since up to the 2nd century Christians wrote nothing of Paul and the Pauline Corpus.

 

[maximara]

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.

Actually the King Arthur example comes from Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall himself:

"The position is somewhat different with reference to, say, King Arthur, an early English king who finds mention in the history books but is described by modern writers as half- mythical." (pg 14 I Believe in the Historical Jesus)

"Arthur existed, but the stories about him are works of imagination." pg 27

These are just the more quotable examples; Marshall actually spends some two full chapters on this matter stating "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about."

You are doing pseudo history.

No I am not. The guts of this ALL comes from Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall in a 2004 book DEAL WITH IT.

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

That was Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall's point:

"The first was to express the belief that the person called Jesus really existed, as opposed to the possibility that there was no such person" pg 27

You seem to have assumed that they existed.

Not me but rather Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall:"Arthur existed, but the stories about him are works of imagination." pg 27

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.

Not true. The stories of Robin Hood and King Arthur set a time and place to start your search.

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.

References to a 'Robin hood' have been found in original (ie not copies) local records as far back as 1262 Berkshire.

"At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him" (Thomas Charles-Edwards in 1991. 'The Arthur of History', R. Bromwich, A. O. H. Jarman, B. F. Roberts (eds.) pg 27)

Thomas Charles-Edwards is a historian that is an emeritus academic at Oxford University as well as Fellow of the Royal Historical Society and British Academy and a Founding Fellow of the Learned Society of Wales. So Marshall is basing his statement on one of the foremost modern historians of the period Marshal is using for his examples.

You might as well contest the views of Albert Einstein on general physical theory (from what I have seen Thomas Charles-Edwards work is that good)

 

[maximara]

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

I agree and in fact it appears Marshall's statement regarding Arthur is based on a 1991 statement by one of the most noted historians of the period in question: Thomas Charles-Edwards

"At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him" (Thomas Charles-Edwards)

I should mention that Marshall spends about one full chapter on the two definitions of historical Jesus. In fact, the bulk of chapter 2 (A question of definition) which is the followed up goes over evidence and its evaluation by historians.

 

[maximara]

dejudge


That's not one of the seven letters for which there is broad consensus that Paul wrote them. Which is fine if you personally want to include it on what you call your "Pauline corpus," as long as we're now clear that that's what you're talking about.

This is why when talking about Paul's writings I try to say definitive Paul ie Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

 

[maximara]

The Gospels actually state the conception of Jesus and it is certain that it is stated Jesus was born after his mother was made pregnant by a Holy Ghost.

In fact, there is no genealogy for Jesus.

Both genealogies in the Gospels, gMatthew and gLuke, exclude Jesus.

We know why there is no genealogy for Jesus when we read gJohn and Pauline letters.

It is certain that Jesus was God the Creator according to gJohn and the Pauline Corpus.

Jesus and God are one in the Bible.

Jesus are God are the same Myth.

John 1

Colossians 1

There are reasons historical Jesus supporters like to throw John out--it has loads of problems.

1) John implies Jesus ministry was a minimum of three years long.

It's a lot harder to miss a guy whose been preaching all over the countryside for three years opposed to one.

2) John implies Jesus was a minimum of 46 years old...which is impossible with the generally accepted c6 BC - c36 CE timeframe.

In fact these points were raised c180 CE by Irenaeus who in Demonstrations (74) flat out states "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him (ie Jesus) to be crucified." This would put Jesus' crucifixion no earlier then 42 CE...well after Pontius Pilate was called back to Rome in 36 CE.

 

[dejudge]

This is why when talking about Paul's writings I try to say definitive Paul ie Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

What?? How in the world can you be definitive about Paul when you have zero corroborative evidence?

Not even the writers of the Church knew when Paul really lived, when he died and what he really wrote.

Do you not understand that the Pauline Corpus is a compilation of multiple UNKNOWN authors of unknown date of authorship?

Do you not understand that there is ZERO corroboration in the very NT that Saul/Paul wrote any of letters in the Corpus?

You have NO writings at all of antiquity that can identify the real Pauline Corpus.

Please, you are either promoting Chinese Whispers, or not familiar with writings of antiquity.

I have no interest in your widespread presumptions and speculation about Saul/Paul.

Over a hundreds years ago it was established that the Pauline Corpus was NOT composed in the 1st century.

 

[dejudge]

Actually the King Arthur example comes from Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall himself:

"The position is somewhat different with reference to, say, King Arthur, an early English king who finds mention in the history books but is described by modern writers as half- mythical." (pg 14 I Believe in the Historical Jesus)

"Arthur existed, but the stories about him are works of imagination." pg 27

You have confirmed that I Howard Marshall is a pseudo historian.

There are no credible historical sources, no artifacts, no archaeological findings for King Arthur just a bunch of ancient myth fables.

Marshall must have imagined King Arthur existed without the supporting data.

Pseudo history is based on imagination--not data.

 

[Belz...]

What?? How in the world can you be definitive about Paul when you have zero corroborative evidence?

If you weren't so combative, maybe you'd have an easier time interacting with people here. Would you please calm down ? Right now you're flailing your arms about and it isn't helping.

 

[maximara]

Yes tsig. They don't actually look at any of these old books and things. They don't analyse or compare or confer. They just go inside their ivory towers and party it up laughing at all the gullible sheep who buy their nonsense.

That's how Academia works. You've got them bang to rights tsig!

I think tsig was going more along Horace Miner's 1956 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" train of thought.

As Burke pointed out some 20 years later in Day the Universe Changed all research requires you to have a preconceived idea on what to look for and even on what is acceptable evidence.

The Piltdown hoax is a prime example of this blindness. As early as 1913 (David Waterston of King's College London) it was said that the Piltdown find was not what it appeared to be with it being implied a fraud as early 2915 (G.S. Miller) and flat out stated as such in 1923 (Franz Weidenreich a Jewish German anatomist and physical anthropologist).

But because Piltdown fit into the then accepted theory that the brain evolved first it was accepted and finds that didn't not fit into that model got initially rejected. Nationalism and cultural prejudice also played a part.


We know that there were Piltdown like efforts to shows Jesus was historical (The infamous Letters of Pontius Pilate case in point) but if as the apologists claim Jesus was such a well documented person then such forgeries testifying to his existence would not be needed.

The only rational reason for such forgeries is because the evidence at the time was recognized as shaky and curiously much of this appears in the 4th century...just as the New Testament canon is being established. And if the evidence was thought to be so shaky in the 4th century that such forgeries need to be created what does that say about the acceptance of such evidence in the 21st?