Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

....If there was some genuine evidence to show that Jesus was a real person, then it would be possible to make a credible case for his existence. But one thing that these HJ threads have now clearly shown, is that in fact there is no such evidence of Jesus as a real person. Zero. Absolutely none at all (apparently). That's the problem with the Jesus story.

He might have existed. That's not impossible. But the gospel stories and the stories of Paul’s letters are impossible, because they are supernatural. And there is zero evidence of Jesus outside the bible. That's the problem.

Because there is no actual evidence from antiquity for a human Jesus that is why Brainache constantly claims there is an unknown consensus which he himself does not adhere to.

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

Thank you for the kind words.

Presumably, the baptism is supposed to infringe the criterion of dissimilarity (Ehrman doesn't use the word 'embarrassment', I don't think), because it puts Jesus in an inferior position to John, and it assumes he must repent of his sins. This contradicts the view of Jesus as a perfect divine being.

I don't see anything in Mark about Jesus being a divine being. I think that still lay in Christianity's future when this Gospel was written. From a literary point of view, it isn't unusual for the hero to begin his career by receiving some "stamp of approval" from a like-minded prestigious predecessor. From a practical point of view, if this is a historical story, then John has a following and Jesus doesn't at this point in the tale. As gaurded as John is about the Messiah issue throughout the synoptics, just being talked up as a contender by an old pro can only be good for Jesus' ministry.

But then Mark does have John declare Jesus to be the more powerful preacher, who will baptize others with the Spirit. So maybe the writer/editor of Mark realized the problem, and tried to rectify it.

Maybe it's a story point? Jesus doesn't baptize anybody with water, ever, although his staff does and Paul did. (Jesus does exorcisms without hocus pocus, Jesus doesn't get hung up on the letter of the Law,..., Jesus doesn't defend himself before Pilate in Mark; as the song says "You can go your own way." Jesus' theme song?)

Does it all take place in the sub-lunar realm?

Brainache

I must have misunderstood.

I don't believe that, either. However, I did not say or imply that "if you believe there was an Historical Jesus, that that makes you a Theist," contrary to your false claim. My post, from which you cherry-picked a remark about some theists, wasn't describing advocates of a historical Jesus, but advocates of a matched set of ten or eleven ever-unsubstantiated claims about why and how some men supposedly died, none of the men being Jesus. But then you already know that.

 

[Stone]

Brainache at post 1103

They will also tell you that if you believe there was an Historical Jesus, that that makes you a Theist. Eight Bits just did it a few minutes ago.

I said no such thing.

....

What's this then?:

Brainache


Funny you should mention that. The other exchange where you input was so helpful also involved a third-party making points that had come up before in these discussions, and none of these history-denying theists has ever been able to give a satisfactory explanation without ad-hoc invention of facts not in evidence. I would have liked to have seen whether the poster who made those 10 or 11 claims can do better.

I must have misunderstood.

Candidly, I'm surprised at this: I consider both Brainache and eight bits two of the sharpest posters on this board. Perhaps there really was a serious misunderstanding here after all. Of course, I am very familiar with the sleazy tactic of imputing the most fundamentalist motivation to every HJ-er on two sticks! Disgusting. That abounds in the huge RatSkep thread time and again. So it's not as if plenty of Web posters don't do this: It's a fundamental ploy in the myther playbook. But perhaps we're not seeing this tactic here after all -- although I confess it seems hard to read this cited remark another way. Still, in this case, I'm ready to give the poster in question the benefit of the doubt until we hear from him.

That said, I do emphatically feel that the general points made by Brainache and zugzwang concerning such a sleazy tactic, regardless of whether or not we have that here, are spot-on. Just the other day, one of the RatSkep posters actually wrote in so many words that the thread's HJ-ers are fundies, and that outrageous remark got not a murmur from the mods, even though there is an explicit rule there against flagrant misrepresentation, and all the HJ-ers there are emphatically skeptics! Evidently, by now, the tactic's been tried so often that the RatSkep mods just feel completely blase about it. A real shame.

Stone

Edit: Our posts crossed! I'm delighted that a satisfactory explanation has now been offered in the interim by one of the most knowledgeable and alert posters on the board.

 

[zugzwang]

That Ratskep thread has become like the 7th circle of hell, endlessly rewinding and repeating itself. I think a lot of HJ supporters have just quit, as there is no point in going through the same arguments repeatedly. There is something about amateur history which can become very peculiar, I suppose it lends itself to barmy theories. I'm not saying that mythicism is barmy really, but it seems rather undeveloped.

 

[dejudge]

That Ratskep thread has become like the 7th circle of hell, endlessly rewinding and repeating itself. I think a lot of HJ supporters have just quit, as there is no point in going through the same arguments repeatedly. There is something about amateur history which can become very peculiar, I suppose it lends itself to barmy theories. I'm not saying that mythicism is barmy really, but it seems rather undeveloped.

Your post is contradictory. You imply that those who have evidence for an historical Jesus have been overrun by those who have nothing but barmy theories.

It is the reverse. There was never any evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth and this is causing many HJ supporters to quit.

HJ of Nazareth is a Chinese Whispers based argument.

 

[Belz...]

Your post is contradictory. You imply that those who have evidence for an historical Jesus have been overrun by those who have nothing but barmy theories.

It is the reverse. There was never any evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth and this is causing many HJ supporters to quit.

There's no convincing evidence, but I continue to say that your contention that there is NO evidence is false and coloured by your bias against religion.

There probably isn't anyone here more anti-religion than me, by the way.

 

[dejudge]

There's no convincing evidence, but I continue to say that your contention that there is NO evidence is false and coloured by your bias against religion.

There probably isn't anyone here more anti-religion than me, by the way.

Again, you promote a fallacy. There is neither evidence or non-convincing evidence.

Not one writer of antiquity outside the Bible and apologetics wrote about Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Roman citizens since 37-41 CE.

You will never ever and is incapable of identifying the non-convincing evidence.

Stop the Chinese Whispers.

 

[Belz...]

Again, you promote a fallacy.

I suppose you couldn't be bothered to mention which one ?

There is neither evidence or non-convincing evidence.

Of course there is. The gospels, weak as they are, are evidence. The epistles, the very existence of Christianity. This is all evidence that must be taken into account. If you don't find that convincing, fine. Neither do I. But to call it 'not evidence' is a misrepresentation of the facts, and isn't a very good way to find the truth behind all this.

You will never ever and is incapable of identifying the non-convincing evidence.

Again you demonstrate that your conclusion is a priori, setting yourself up to ignore any and all evidence or reasoning ever presented.

Do you consider yourself a skeptic ?

 

[zugzwang]

Your post is contradictory. You imply that those who have evidence for an historical Jesus have been overrun by those who have nothing but barmy theories.

It is the reverse. There was never any evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth and this is causing many HJ supporters to quit.

HJ of Nazareth is a Chinese Whispers based argument.

I'm not implying that at all. Once again, you are allowing your ideological predilections to overwhelm logic.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache


I don't believe that, either. However, I did not say or imply that "if you believe there was an Historical Jesus, that that makes you a Theist," contrary to your false claim. My post, from which you cherry-picked a remark about some theists, wasn't describing advocates of a historical Jesus, but advocates of a matched set of ten or eleven ever-unsubstantiated claims about why and how some men supposedly died, none of the men being Jesus. But then you already know that.

I'm not psychic.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

 

[Brainache]

Again, you promote a fallacy. There is neither evidence or non-convincing evidence.

Not one writer of antiquity outside the Bible and apologetics wrote about Jesus of Nazareth who was worshiped as a God by Jews and Roman citizens since 37-41 CE.

You will never ever and is incapable of identifying the non-convincing evidence.

Stop the Chinese Whispers.

I'm still waiting for my own fallacy exhibition. Where is it dejudge?

Have at me, churlish Knave...

I demand it!

 

[dejudge]

I'm still waiting for my own fallacy exhibition. Where is it dejudge?

Have at me, churlish Knave...

I demand it!

Your HJ [Jesus associated with John the Baptist] is from the Bible yet you claimed no-one looks for HJ in the Bible.

It took seconds to demolish you.

 

[Brainache]

Your HJ [Jesus associated with John the Baptist] is from the Bible yet you claimed no-one looks for HJ in the Bible.

It took seconds to demolish you.

Still waiting for you to expose the fallacies in my actual arguments.


ETA:
NSFW Language


At least it wasn't a total waste...

 

[dejudge]

Still waiting for you to expose the fallacies in my actual arguments.


ETA:
NSFW Language


At least it wasn't a total waste...

You are done.

Your HJ is associated with Paul.

Your HJ is from the Bible.

...Good thing no one is looking for the HJ in the bible then

 

[Brainache]

You are done.

Your HJ is associated with Paul.

Your HJ is from the Bible.

That's right. They take a look at the bible stories and then study the history of the time and place and see what is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity.

So far, the best option is a human teacher.

If you have an answer which is more plausible, please present it.

Your current arguments are unconvincing.

 

[dejudge]

I don't see anything in Mark about Jesus being a divine being.

Why are you looking in the Bible for HJ? People don't look in the Bible for HJ.

Now, You have not read gMark or do not understand it.

In the very first chapter of gMark, the Jesus character is introduced as God's beloved Son.

Mark 1:11 NAS

and a voice came out of the heavens : "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

At the transfiguration Jesus is confirmed to be the Beloved Son of God.

Mark 9:7 NAS

Then a cloud formed, overshadowing them, and a voice came out of the cloud, "This is My beloved Son, listen to Him!"

At the trial, Jesus in gMark declared he is the Son of God [the Blessed]

Mark 14

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN

At the crucifixion, Jesus is declared to be the Son of God in gMark.

[Mark 15 NAS

When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God !"

Now, to show that gMark's Jesus was not human the author claimed Jesus walked on the sea.

Mark 6:48 NAS

at about the fourth watch of the night He came to them, walking on the sea ; and He intended to pass by them.

At the transfiguration, the author gMark again showed that his Jesus was not human.

Mark 9:2 NAS

Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves . And He was transfigured before them

gMark's Jesus was not a human being.

You cannot look for HJ in gMark.

 

[dejudge]

That's right. They take a look at the bible stories and then study the history of the time and place and see what is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity.

So far, the best option is a human teacher.

If you have an answer which is more plausible, please present it.

Your current arguments are unconvincing.

You have already admitted that no-one looks in the Bible for HJ. Again, please identify the non-apologetic source outside the Bible that Jesus was a human teacher.

You have nothing but fallacies.

Where did you look for your Jesus of Nazareth?

Silence.

 

[Brainache]

You have already admitted that no-one looks in the Bible for HJ. Again, please identify the non-apologetic source outside the Bible that Jesus was a human teacher.

You have nothing but fallacies.

Where did you look for your Jesus of Nazareth?

Silence.

Rather than type it all again, I thought I'd just cross-post this here:

...
I am going to attempt to explain how Historians reach their conclusions about HJ.

Like my "Jesus-in-a-nutshell" description earlier on one of these threads; I take full responsibilities for all errors and omissions:

Imagine Historians as trying to build a three dimensional Venn Diagram in their heads. They acquire data about Jesus and classify it into different sets, sub-sets and super-sets.

Some of these classifications are; Religious stories, Historical Narratives, Information about the time and place, Anthropological data, Textual analysis, Archaeological data... etc.

This data is then classified according to source and location etc and ranked according to the principles of the Historical Method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
They don't just make it up as they go along. They have as many rules as any Scientist. Some of it of course comes down to subjective expert opinion, but it's the same for all Ancient History. They have to make the most of the evidence to hand.

They build this sort of holographic Venn diagram in their heads ( writing it all down in their formal Historian jargon, of course) and see where and how this data all intersects.

The reason the HJ varies, is that different Scholars weigh different evidence in their own way. But they all agree on a human being at the intersection of those sets of data.

I hope I'm not misrepresenting it too much.

This is why I go further than Belz... in my opinion. I, after reading all of this data and seeing the arguments, am not satisfied to say "we just can't know".

I'd put my HJ confidence level at about 90% right now. That might change in the light of future information. I can't say.

 

[dejudge]

[quote="Brianache]I'd put my HJ confidence level at about 90% right now. That might change in the light of future information. I can't say.[/quote]

You are merely inventing your confidence level based on no evidence from antiquity. Your Jesus is based on the Bible---Bible Jesus is a figure of Faith.

 

[Brainache]

You are merely inventing your confidence level based on no evidence from antiquity. Your Jesus is based on the Bible---Bible Jesus is a figure of Faith.

I believe you have said that already.

Your position is clear.