Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[eight bits]

jobberone

I made some statements that are easily verifiable by anyone interested in the topic

As it happens, I am unable to verify with any confidence that even one capital-A Apostle was "martyred," and that term covers a lot of possibilities. You said that it was your view rhat all but one Apostle was. Asking you for the specifics and your sources is routine, here and elsewhere.

I'll give you one.

You implied there were at least ten.

Peter was crucified in Rome and this is attested by Tertullian and Origen as well as Clement who was a contemporary of Peter.

Tertullian was born in the middle of the Second Century, Origen later still. Clement of Rome flourished (supposedly) in the 90's. His life, alone among your sources, might have overlapped Peter's. OK. Where does Clement say that Peter was crucified in Rome? Where does Clement describe Peter's cause of death, even to deny it was of natural causes?

Now are these incontrovertible facts?

Why do you ask? Is there some other kind of fact?

That's the best I can do for you without writing chapters in a book.

Stripped of your complaints about being asked to explain your remarks, you expended about two dozen words upon your speculations about Peter. Granted, you declined to answer why you think his death was related to something he believed about Jesus. Call it 50 words a pop, then. 50 words/case x 11 cases = 550 words. Not much of a book chapter, and not chapters, plural.

(For comparison purposes, this post has about 270 words.)

 

[Craig B]

... Clement of Rome flourished (supposedly) in the 90's. His life, alone among your sources, might have overlapped Peter's. OK. Where does Clement say that Peter was crucified in Rome? Where does Clement describe Peter's cause of death, even to deny it was of natural causes?

Clement's words are far from clear or conclusive.

Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited (5:4). . . . To these men [Peter and Paul] who lived such holy lives there was joined a great multitude of the elect who by reason of rivalry were victims of many outrages and tortures and who became outstanding examples among us (6:1).

(Quoted in Enc. Britt.) I suppose if Peter "endured suffering" it might be supposed that he died as a result of the wicked jealousy that caused it. But these quotes are from Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, and for all we know he believed Peter to have died in Corinth, not in Rome. Also note that he doesn't specifically state that Peter and Paul were tortured, but that their followers were. And what on earth does he mean by attributing these sufferings to "jealousy" and "rivalry"?

 

[Brainache]

jobberone


As it happens, I am unable to verify with any confidence that even one capital-A Apostle was "martyred," and that term covers a lot of possibilities. You said that it was your view rhat all but one Apostle was. Asking you for the specifics and your sources is routine, here and elsewhere.


You implied there were at least ten.


Tertullian was born in the middle of the Second Century, Origen later still. Clement of Rome flourished (supposedly) in the 90's. His life, alone among your sources, might have overlapped Peter's. OK. Where does Clement say that Peter was crucified in Rome? Where does Clement describe Peter's cause of death, even to deny it was of natural causes?


Why do you ask? Is there some other kind of fact?


Stripped of your complaints about being asked to explain your remarks, you expended about two dozen words upon your speculations about Peter. Granted, you declined to answer why you think his death was related to something he believed about Jesus. Call it 50 words a pop, then. 50 words/case x 11 cases = 550 words. Not much of a book chapter, and not chapters, plural.

(For comparison purposes, this post has about 270 words.)

I'm going to jump in here. (I apologise jobberone)

Trying to describe the steps a historian takes in analysing ancient texts is a monumental task and I think it's unfair of anyone to expect jobberone, or Piggy, or me, or anyone else to reproduce it here.

If you really are interested in the subject, here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Wiki can be a good place for a beginner to get an understanding of some of the broader points.

 

[Brainache]

Clement's words are far from clear or conclusive. (Quoted in Enc. Britt.) I suppose if Peter "endured suffering" it might be supposed that he died as a result of the wicked jealousy that caused it. But these quotes are from Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, and for all we know he believed Peter to have died in Corinth, not in Rome. Also note that he doesn't specifically state that Peter and Paul were tortured, but that their followers were. And what on earth does he mean by attributing these sufferings to "jealousy" and "rivalry"?

Can I get a link for that please Craig?

Is it rivalry between Peter and Paul? The followers killing each other?

 

[Belz...]

Giving up on the 60/40?

No. Whatever makes you think that I did ?

You're either extremely confused by me saying that I'm leaning towards one conclusion without reaching it, perhaps because you are yourself unable to see shades of gray on any topic, or you are so obsessed with winning that you are deliberately "misunderstanding" my posts.

 

[Craig B]

Can I get a link for that please Craig?

Is it rivalry between Peter and Paul? The followers killing each other?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...r-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome

Doesn't look as if Clement is describing rivalry between Peter's and Paul's followers, but the words are very obscure.

 

[Belz...]

How in the heck does this forum operate?

Usually, by asking the person making a claim for the evidence supporting that claim.

 

[Belz...]

You appear to have little understanding of the argument for and against an HJ of Nazareth.

It's amazing, for someone who's been here for so little time, that you start every single one of your posts by belittling another poster.

You wouldn't be on this forum to fuel your own sense of worth, would you ?

You seem to believe the Bible is literal history.

Ironic, since you're the one who suggested we take the bible at face value when determining if Jesus was a real guy or not.

Jesus the Zealot is supposed to be Jesus of Nazareth in the Bible.

Well, see, that's your problem, again. You conflate two things, and think you've disproven one by disproving the other. I guarantee that most posters can spot what you're doing, and it's utterly unconvincing.

 

[Brainache]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...r-the-Apostle/5632/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome

Doesn't look as if Clement is describing rivalry between Peter's and Paul's followers, but the words are very obscure.

Thanks.

I got the funny impression just from that snippet that he was being sarcastic: "All you people killing each other for these "Holy" men are the best Christians ever"

But I just see sarcasm everywhere these days.

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

I'll confess that my questions to jobberone about Clement were rheorical ones. Still, I am ever open to surprise, but as it happens, you and I seem to read Clement's letter the same way, and to leave the page with similar questions left unresolved.

Brainache

I don't see that my first set of questions to jobberone had anything to do with "historical method." I asked for jobberone's sources. (S)he might have answered "there's a consensus among ancient historians," or told me about a Ouija board, or said that such-and-such ancient authors wrote that's what happened.

In the event, it turned out to be the last one, so that was the focus of ensuing discussion. Clement didn't say. Tertullian and Origen didn't know. Jobberone didn't mention Tertullian's and Origen's sources, and I didn't pursue it. If you'd now care to make a different argument based on "historical method," then let 'er rip. But unless jobberone amends his or her remarks, your wikipedia article wasn't the basis of jobberone's claims, and so isn't the answer to my question.

 

[Brainache]

...
Brainache

I don't see that my first set of questions to jobberone had anything to do with "historical method." I asked for jobberone's sources. (S)he might have answered "there's a consensus among ancient historians," or told me about a Ouija board, or said that such-and-such ancient authors wrote that's what happened.

I'm not sure why you imagined jobberone had access to sources that no one else did.

In the event, it turned out to be the last one, so that was the focus of ensuing discussion. Clement didn't say. Tertullian and Origen didn't know. Jobberone didn't mention Tertullian's and Origen's sources, and I didn't pursue it. If you'd now care to make a different argument based on "historical method," then let 'er rip. But unless jobberone amends his or her remarks, your wikipedia article wasn't the basis of jobberone's claims, and so isn't the answer to my question.

He only has the same sources as everyone else. I got the impression you were expecting him to lay out an elaborate Historical Proof for his assertion that Peter was crucified in Rome. He already said he can't be sure, so I'm not sure what you expect.

Maybe his conclusion is based on a reference in the Talmud, which is Quoted by Hegesippus, about Jacob K'far, who is quoting someone else who... That is how these things sometimes are, so you might be asking for a lot without realising it.

That's all I'm saying.

ETA: Just scrolling back through the thread I found Eight Bits' original request to jobberone. Here it is for anyone interested:

Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
jobberone
There are only a baker's dozen Apostles, so perhaps you could list for each:

Name, cause of death, your source for believing they died that way, and why you think the death was related to something the person believed about Jesus.

Not asking much. No...

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I'm not sure why you imagined jobberone had access to sources that no one else did.

J1 made a statement, and I asked for specifics and sources. Between you and J1, it's as if I had invented something brand new.

I got the impression you were expecting him to lay out an elaborate Historical Proof for his assertion that Peter was crucified in Rome.

J1's twenty-five-words-or-less answer was responsive about one name, cause of death and sources. To all appearances, he or she understood my request as intended.

He already said he can't be sure, so I'm not sure what you expect.

Actually, J1 acknowledged that the claims weren't exactly facts after I asked for specifics and sources. Mark my words, if this specifics-and-sources thing ever catches on, clarifications like that will count as successful uses of the technique.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


J1 made a statement, and I asked for specifics and sources. Between you and J1, it's as if I had invented something brand new.


J1's twenty-five-words-or-less answer was responsive about one name, cause of death and sources. To all appearances, he or she understood my request as intended.


Actually, J1 acknowledged that the claims weren't exactly facts after I asked for specifics and sources. Mark my words, if this specifics-and-sources thing ever catches on, clarifications like that will count as successful uses of the technique.

This is what you asked for:

Quote:
Originally Posted by eight bits View Post
jobberone
There are only a baker's dozen Apostles, so perhaps you could list for each:

Name, cause of death, your source for believing they died that way, and why you think the death was related to something the person believed about Jesus.

I don't think it's a reasonable request, given the complicated nature of the explanations required to understand the answers.

Unfortunately it is a case where "look it up yourself", is the best answer. Why would you trust his answer anyway?

What you wanted, if he were to attempt to explain it in the detailed way you so graciously requested, was a book.

 

[maximara]

I'd say IanS and Maximara are simply saying that there is no evidence to conclude that he did exist. Dejudge is the only one flatly claiming that he didn't exist.

Or if Jesus did exist his only connection to the Jesus of the Bible may be his name ala the John Frum examples I have previously provided.

 

[maximara]

I've mentioned some of them. I would suggest you read all the variants of the Testimonium and the scholarly debate surrounding them. I would pay particular attention to the Agapius version.

There is a letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan, Tacitus, Talmudic references, Galen, Lucian and others. One can argue each element singularly of course but I find it difficult to dismiss them all including the historical aspects of the Canon.

Problem is all Pliny the Younger shows is there was a group that revered a being called Christ; Pliny give us no information as to if this Christ was a human being what his real name was or even when he lived.

Thanks to modern technology we now know our oldest copy of Tacitus has been tampered with and he was actually talking about Chrestians which means he may have been referencing a splinter group of the followers of the pagan god Chrestus who was also known as Serapis and Osiris.

Talmudic references are very late and put their Jesus c100 BCE.

Galen and Lucian were limited by the Euhemerism mind set of the day which considered Zeus and Heracles to have once been flesh and blood kings.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

What you wanted, if he were to attempt to explain it in the detailed way you so graciously requested, was a book.

And your evidence for that is what?

My evidence for denial is that I accepted without complaint two dozen words to cover three of the four things I asked for. Since the alleged cause of Peter's death was public execution, a few additional words about the charges would have sufficed, if the charges had something to do with his beliefs about Jesus.

Unfortunately it is a case where "look it up yourself", is the best answer.

No. I asked for his or her sources. I already know that plenty of stories about the Apostles can be found in many ancient and not-so ancient sources. However,

- there is no place to "look up" whether any of those people existed,

- if they did exist, then there is no place to "look up" who all of them were (different sources agree on some names, but not all, and different reconciliations of the various lists are proposed) - So, which "all of the Apostles except one" are we discussing? That's not in any book.

- the only one of them whose death is in the canon (for whatever that's worth) is James (as in brother of John, son of Zebedee).

James, execution by sword, Acts 12:1-3, no reason given, but killing him was popular.

Killing a criminal can be popular for many reasons, for example, perhaps he committed a nasty crime. Anyway, an associate of the Apostles is also killed earlier in the same book,

Stephen, execution by stoning, Acts 6:8 through 7 (entire), charged with blasphemy against Moses and God (6: 11), unrelated to belief in Jesus.

(Note that that's two deaths, answered in the style requested, done in fewer than 50 words.)

- apart from James, there is no place to "look up" how any of the others died, including Peter, because this information is unknown. (I can of course consult Acts of Peter, and right after the part where he defeats the other Simon in a magicians' contest held in and over the Roman forum, Peter runs away, gets a tongue lashing from the formerly dead Jesus, the famous "Quo vadis?" encounter, and then ends up crucified, and I do mean ends up.)

The early estimated date on that little gem of historical information is 150.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspeter.html

So, you'll excuse me is I find this "information" discussable. But we can't have that discussion until we get the sources on the table, and we can't have the discussion with J1 unless J1 tells us his or her own sources. You'll notice Acts of Peter wasn't listed as one of J1's sources. Good thing I asked instead of guessing, eh?

It's not my problem that a big claim can be made in a few words, and more words are needed to back it up than to talk it up. However, I gave a focused template for a possible answer, and in the three cases where it's been used, it has required only 25-50 words per case.

So, you were about to explain why a book would be needed ...

(This post is about 575 words - just about the same estimated length as would have been required to answer. So, between us, we've consumed more bandwidth discussing the length of an answer than an answer would have taken. And would I be surprised if you aren't yet finished complaining about it?)

 

[Belz...]

Or if Jesus did exist his only connection to the Jesus of the Bible may be his name ala the John Frum examples I have previously provided.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if that were true.

In fact, even if the HJ people are correct and there was a Jesus who preached in the first century and became the template for the gospels and epistles, he still is a far cry from being anything we'd call the historical Jesus, unless he said and did quite a number of things attributed to the man, and THAT I find very unlikely.

 

[dejudge]

Habakkuk Pesher.

ETA: But he is using an assumed name, so it might take a while to spot him.

What?? The Habakkuk Pesher was composed around the 1st century BCE and is a commentary on the book of Habakkuk in the Hebrew Bible.

The Habakkuk Pesher was composed before Jesus of Nazareth was even born based on the Gospels.

 

[TimCallahan]

Problem is all Pliny the Younger shows is there was a group that revered a being called Christ; Pliny give us no information as to if this Christ was a human being what his real name was or even when he lived.

Thanks to modern technology we now know our oldest copy of Tacitus has been tampered with and he was actually talking about Chrestians which means he may have been referencing a splinter group of the followers of the pagan god Chrestus who was also known as Serapis and Osiris.
Talmudic references are very late and put their Jesus c100 BCE.

Galen and Lucian were limited by the Euhemerism mind set of the day which considered Zeus and Heracles to have once been flesh and blood kings.

Can you give us a link or some other reference on the hiited area?

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


And your evidence for that is what?

The amount of information required to fulfill your request. I don't think you are reading what I wrote.

My evidence for denial is that I accepted without complaint two dozen words to cover three of the four things I asked for. Since the alleged cause of Peter's death was public execution, a few additional words about the charges would have sufficed, if the charges had something to do with his beliefs about Jesus.


No. I asked for his or her sources. I already know that plenty of stories about the Apostles can be found in many ancient and not-so ancient sources. However,

Same as anyone else's. What a strange question.

- there is no place to "look up" whether any of those people existed,

- if they did exist, then there is no place to "look up" who all of them were (different sources agree on some names, but not all, and different reconciliations of the various lists are proposed) - So, which "all of the Apostles except one" are we discussing? That's not in any book.

- the only one of them whose death is in the canon (for whatever that's worth) is James (as in brother of John, son of Zebedee).

James, execution by sword, Acts 12:1-3, no reason given, but killing him was popular.

Killing a criminal can be popular for many reasons, for example, perhaps he committed a nasty crime. Anyway, an associate of the Apostles is also killed earlier in the same book,

Stephen, execution by stoning, Acts 6:8 through 7 (entire), charged with blasphemy against Moses and God (6: 11), unrelated to belief in Jesus.

(Note that that's two deaths, answered in the style requested, done in fewer than 50 words.)

- apart from James, there is no place to "look up" how any of the others died, including Peter, because this information is unknown. (I can of course consult Acts of Peter, and right after the part where he defeats the other Simon in a magicians' contest held in and over the Roman forum, Peter runs away, gets a tongue lashing from the formerly dead Jesus, the famous "Quo vadis?" encounter, and then ends up crucified, and I do mean ends up.)

The early estimated date on that little gem of historical information is 150.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspeter.html

So, you'll excuse me is I find this "information" discussable. But we can't have that discussion until we get the sources on the table, and we can't have the discussion with J1 unless J1 tells us his or her own sources. You'll notice Acts of Peter wasn't listed as one of J1's sources. Good thing I asked instead of guessing, eh?

It would have been even better if you'd bothered to go look these things up for yourself rather than expect people to spoon feed you information.

It's not my problem that a big claim can be made in a few words, and more words are needed to back it up than to talk it up. However, I gave a focused template for a possible answer, and in the three cases where it's been used, it has required only 25-50 words per case.

So, you were about to explain why a book would be needed ...

Sorry, I thought you wanted an actual answer to your question. I didn't think you'd be satisfied with being fobbed off with a 25 word answer to a question like this:

There are only a baker's dozen Apostles, so perhaps you could list for each:

Name, cause of death, your source for believing they died that way, and why you think the death was related to something the person believed about Jesus.

You think it would only take 50 words per Apostle to answer something like that satisfactorily? That is madness.

(This post is about 575 words - just about the same estimated length as would have been required to answer. So, between us, we've consumed more bandwidth discussing the length of an answer than an answer would have taken. And would I be surprised if you aren't yet finished complaining about it?)

Your estimates are way off. And this has become a derail. So I won't bother talking about your unreasonable requests anymore.

What?? The Habakkuk Pesher was composed around the 1st century BCE and is a commentary on the book of Habakkuk in the Hebrew Bible.

The Habakkuk Pesher was composed before Jesus of Nazareth was even born based on the Gospels.

Well then, there is no need for you to worry about my crazy ideas, is there?

Was there anything else you wanted to rave about?