Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

I must show and regurgitate that the Bible is TERRIBLE evidence for an historical Jesus.

I am extremely delighted that you admit that everyone agrees the evidence for an HJ is terrible but you refuse to show the terrible evidence.

I must warn you that your posts are dishonest: you keep repeating something that I've already agreed to, but you make no effort whatsoever to show what point this makes, even after I've repeatedly asked you to do so.

I think you have nothing, and you think that repeating your preconceived conclusion will make it stick. It won't. You're going to have to work harder if you want to convince anyone of your claims.

Jesus was myth from the start.

You have failed to demonstrate this.

 

[Belz...]

You never imagined the day would come when the fallacies of the "historicists" would be exposed.

You're either a colossal poe, or you truly believe that you're about to overthrow history, such as it is, with your super-logic. If the latter (which I like to call the Galileo syndrome), you have an inflated and unjustified confidence in your own skepticism, which, ironically, marks you as a non-skeptic, since self-doubt is the foundation of skepticism.

 

[tsig]

Amateurs telling amateurs that they don't have the authority to make the claims they are making because they are amateurs, while making claims themselves counter to non-amateurs, is ironically entertaining.

Argument from authority.

 

[Brainache]

Argument from authority.

I don't think it's technically an argument from Authority, to appeal to an expert within his field of expertise.

ETA: It may be an appeal, but I don't think it is fallacious.

 

[pakeha]

Well, yes some of it is most likely eye witness such as 1 Peter. Some is probably delivered thru a disciple. Some of it was passed down like the oral tradition was. Some is second hand or more. And there are things added in much later which are in no sense remotely authentic.

Why do you think Peter wrote 1 Peter?
Authorship of the Petrine epistles^WP

 

[Brainache]

Why do you think Peter wrote 1 Peter?
Authorship of the Petrine epistles^WP

I think most of the dispute is about 2 Peter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

...Two different authors[edit]
Most scholars believe that 2 Peter was written by a different author to that of 1 Peter. 1 Peter is essentially traditional, drawing on key Psalms, key chapters of Isaiah, and wisdom sayings some of which are found elsewhere in the New Testament. 2 Peter however, favors a more allusive style and dependent on more obscure sources...[1]

 

[pakeha]

...IOW - the fact that going forward in time through Paul to Mark to Mathew … etc., generally seems to cause an increase in the number of supernatural claims, does not hide the fact that even in the earliest writing of Paul and g-Mark, Jesus is described (without evidence) as a supernatural miracle worker and Son of Yahweh in heaven.

Thanks for saying so clearly what I've been sputtering about for yonks.

I think most of the dispute is about 2 Peter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

I thought so, too, Brainache, til I consulted Google in an attempt to learn more.
Apparently Academe has doubts on the subject of 1 Peter, too.

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.[1]

Graham Stanton rejects Petrine authorship because 1 Peter was most likely written during the reign of Domitian in AD 81, which is when he believes widespread Christian persecution began, which is long after the death of Peter.[2] Current scholarship has abandoned the persecution argument because the described persecution within the work does not necessitate a time period outside of the period of Peter.[3] Many scholars also doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle’s ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.[4] Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul.[3] One theory used to support Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot, however, suggests that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter represents little more than a counsel of despair and introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter,[5] and some see Mark as a contributive amanuensis in the composition and writing of the work.[3][6] On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[7] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance, there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical book of Acts,[8] and the earliest attestation of Peters authorship comes from 2 Peter (80–90 CE) and the letters of Clement(70-140ce).[3] Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter#Authorship

 

[Brainache]

Thanks for saying so clearly what I've been sputtering about for yonks.




I thought so, too, Brainache, til I consulted Google in an attempt to learn more.
Apparently Academe has doubts on the subject of 1 Peter, too.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter#Authorship

Maybe these guys wrote it:

...

Author's note: Much of what follows is excerpted from pp. 788-801 of my James the Brother of Jesus (Viking/Faber&Faber/Penguin, 1997-98); but it has been 'borrowed' so much - sometimes even without attribution - that I felt it might be good to repeat the gist of it in more popular (though admittedly still complex) form here:
...

Nor is this to say anything about Agrippa II whom, Josephus tells us as well, gave him 99 letters later in Rome, where all were living comfortably (which helped him in writing The Antiquities, c. 93 CE - the latter anyhow providing a superior picture by adding several important details to The War, twenty years earlier); nor his whole family, including Bernice, by this time rumored to be her brother Agrippa's incestuous lover (as she certainly so appears in Acts), who later became Titus' mistress as well (which liaison caused him not a little harm in Rome - what a 'checkered career' this Bernice had), and participated in the deliberations to destroy the Temple .

To add to these, Acts 24:24 also pictures their second sister Drusilla, who had divorced another husband - who himself had circumcised himself and converted to Judaism at her more pious father Agrippa I's specific request - to marry Felix (whom, after Pontius Pilate, even Josephus acknowledges to have been Palestine's most brutal Governor - their son, Antonius Agrippa, Josephus also informs us, was even killed at Pompeii in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE), and, for that matter, even Paul. All, including Felix, are pictured in long, convivial conversations with Paul here at the end of Acts (Chapters 24-26 - probably about the longest in Acts).

These seem to have marketed their own version of Jewish "Messianism", which, at the very least, was presented as submissive and deferential to the power of Rome and its Emperors - this, not to mention marketing a healthy dose of Greco-Alexandrian, Hellenistic anti-Semitism. So this really does begin to give insight into the difficult question of who could have written the original accounts upon which so many of Gospel episodes - in whatever the Gospel - in the form we have them are based and which, however transformed, really do take a lot of 'special' knowledge to have created. This question, though puzzling scholars for generations, in the light of what we have only briefly sketched out above may not be as difficult to gain a modicum of insight into as many may think.
...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html

...

Just one hypothesis.

 

[dejudge]

I think most of the dispute is about 2 Peter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

The article clearly states that most Scholars conclude that Peter was not the author of the two Epistles of Peter yet you continue with your open propaganda and fallacies.

Both Epistles have been disputed--not just 2 Peter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles

Most scholars today conclude that Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.

Now the conclusion that both Epistles are essentially forgeries or falsely attributed to the Apostle Peter is extremely significant because it confirms that writers for the Church presented bogus information about the books and authors of THEIR OWN CANON.

Church writings cannot be accepted as history WITHOUT external non-apologetic corroboration but there is a massive problem. Church writings about Jesus of Nazareth, Peter and Paul are WITHOUT external non-apologetic corroboration--NONE--ZERO--NOTHING.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement makes very little sense.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[TimCallahan]

Please, your argument is virtually worthless. Luke does not have a genealogy of Jesus.

My point, which you have completely missed, is that Luke refers to Adam as "the son of God". I'm sure you would agree with me that neither the Jews in general nor the gospel writers viewed Adam as the flesh and blood son of God. Hence, in this specific reference, "son of God" is an honorific.

Please stop your fallacies immediately.

Again, disagreeing with you does not automatically make my argument a fallacy. And, again, disparaging those who disagree with you, telling them they are illogical, that their arguments are worthless, is gratuitously insulting and utterly uncalled for. You can just as easily say, "I believe you are wrong, because . . ." No need to be offensive.

The author of gLuke specifically wrote about the genealogy of the SUPPOSED father of Jesus.

Okay, granted. My point is - once again - that the genealogy of the supposed father of Jesus includes the reference to Adam as the son of God. Yet, it's obvious that Luke, while asserting that Jesus was the literal son of God certainly wasn't referring to Adam as such. It's my argument that Mark's Jesus was essentially mortal and the references in Mark to Jesus as the son of God are demonstrably honorific, both in the case of the baptism narrative and when the High priest identifies the son of God with the Christ (i.e. Messiah).

Now, please tell us the real father of Jesus in gLuke.

You could not have forgotten the Ghost!!!

The Ghost conception of Jesus in gLuke is the most detailed of all the Gospels.

I'm not contending that either Matthew or Luke saw Jesus as entirely mortal. Both present him as the son of a divine father and a human mother. John goes even further, making Jesus not just a God-man, but the divine Logos, identical to God. My argument is that Mark's Jesus is essentially a human being upon whom the Holy Spirit descends.

Luke 1 CEB

It is really useless trying to use gLuke to prove or argue Jesus was a human being. It is virtually impossible to do so.

Once again, all I was using Luke for was his reference to Adam as the son of God in his genealogy of Joseph. Is this beginning to sink in?

Now, for the third time, I ask: Why are you so upset about my position, which is not that far from yours?

Again, I agree that the Christ of Pauline Christianity was a fusion of the Jewish messiah with the concept of Greek man-gods, such as Dionysos. This fusion doesn't seem to have completely taken place when the Gospel of Mark was written, ca. CE 70 or a bit later. It had certainly taken place by the time the Gospel of John was written, sometime between CE 125 and 180. Further, we agree, I believe, that Paul largely dispensed with any historical Jesus there may have been, in favor of the Christ of his revelation / hallucination. Finally, we agree that the gospels are virtually worthless as historical documents.

What we disagree on is relatively minor. I think there may have been a real messianic pretender upon which the myth is based, much the way the Arthurian myth was based on a real Briton war leader - possibly Ambrosius Aurelianus - who, for a time defeated the invading Anglo-Saxons. In the case of Arthur, he may also have been initially created by fusing the exploits of more than one such leader into a single hero. Likewise, Jesus may be a fusion of a rabbi who preached a doctrine similar to the of the Greek cynic philosophers and a messianic pretender.

 

[jobberone]

There is not a great deal of unequivocal evidence for anyone I can think of off the top of my head who lived 2000 years ago.

You can pick apart most anything written then and later and it has been ad infinitum. I'm not aware of any single source of evidence that is or hasn't been controversial surrounding Jesus of Nazareth et al.

It is the preponderance of the weight one uses to decide this. You just cannot judge these kinds of matters with hard data.

 

[tsig]

There is not a great deal of unequivocal evidence for anyone I can think of off the top of my head who lived 2000 years ago.

You can pick apart most anything written then and later and it has been ad infinitum. I'm not aware of any single source of evidence that is or hasn't been controversial surrounding Jesus of Nazareth et al.

It is the preponderance of the weight one uses to decide this. You just cannot judge these kinds of matters with hard data.

How about a Ouija board then?

A burning in the bosom?

 

[Stone]

Further, we agree, I believe, that Paul largely dispensed with any historical Jesus there may have been, in favor of the Christ of his revelation / hallucination.

T.C.: Obviously, I salute your credentials. But at the end of the day, I still have yet to see how there can possibly be a greater likelihood for Paul's presumed dispensing with a historical J. than for Paul's acknowledgement of same. Knowing ancient data as you do, one would hope you wouldn't need reminding that ancient historiography trades in degrees of likelihood, not in rigidly certain proofs. That being so, degrees of likelihood are all that can -- sensibly -- be extracted from the tiny handful of authentic Paulines.

In that tiny handful, we have an assortment -- not just one, but a whole assortment -- of Paul cites that plainly reference a human biography en masse. Do you honestly not see what a huge stretch it is to individually discount each and every cite for reasons that are restricted to the four corners of each individual cite in each case? At that rate, one -- sooner rather than later -- must infer a series of coincidences as long as your arm in order to countenance the questioning of each and every cite for so many ridiculously unrelated reasons.

It's useless to ignore this assortment of cites as a whole and to pretend there's no overall pattern to them. Likewise, if one chooses to feverishly question so many cites instead, it's also useless ignoring the serious obligation that comes with coincidentally explaining away each and every cite, once one opts for the notion that each and every one is coincidentally dubious. Explaining away each one individually abuts against two many coincidences. If one's a serious scholar, any such feverish effort obliges one to likewise generate some parsimonious explanation that accounts for all such cites in Paul as a whole, if one has decided to reject whatever data each cite individually points to. As I recall, no one here has tried a single parsimonious reason for coincidentally rejecting each one -- and personally, I feel a serious professional scholar should really attempt that before concluding that "Paul largely dispensed with any historical Jesus".

I've provided the most telling Paul cites below as a P.S. for general readers of this thread. You obviously know them cold. Please, in responding, don't just rehearse the individual arguments for querying each and every individual cite all over again. I know all those arguments backwards and forwards, thank you. Ultimately, I find them useless in constructing one parsimonious explanation for the whole lot -- and again, that's what is needed if you, as a serious scholar, really want to maintain that "Paul largely dispensed with any historical Jesus".

I'm also not interested in what anyone else here may have to say in response to my query, frankly. I only want to hear from someone with professional credentials. It looks as if TC has that. SFAIK, the rest of you don't.

Thank you,

Stone

P.S.: [Pauline cites] Galatians 1:18-19
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

1 Corinthians 2:8
8 None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 7:10
10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband

1 Corinthians 9:5
5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife,[a] as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 9:14
14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1 Corinthians 11:23b-25
23b The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

[dejudge]

I'm also not interested in what anyone else here may have to say in response to my query, frankly. I only want to hear from someone with professional credentials. It looks as if TC has that. SFAIK, the rest of you don't.

These forums and threads were not set up for your own private and exclusive use. If you do not want to hear from posters why do you think they want to hear from you in the first place?

You have already been told, but you won't listen, that you cannot ASSUME the Pauline Corpus is historically reliable.

You MUST first get corroboration for the Pauline Corpus from external non-apologetic sources if you want to use it as a credible historical source.

Please, just go and get corroboration for 1 Corinthians or any Pauline letter if you want to be taken seriously.

The days when posters assume the Pauline Corpus is historically reliable without corroboration is over--those days are done.

This is a new era.

If you have no evidence from antiquity for what you claim then you must stop talking or stop promoting Chinese Whispers.

 

[Brainache]

T
The days when posters assume the Pauline Corpus is historically reliable without corroboration is over--those days are done.

This is a new era.

...

A New World Order?

Crikey!

I hope the camps are nice...

 

[dejudge]

My point, which you have completely missed, is that Luke refers to Adam as "the son of God". I'm sure you would agree with me that neither the Jews in general nor the gospel writers viewed Adam as the flesh and blood son of God. Hence, in this specific reference, "son of God" is an honorific.

Well, tell me the father of Adam in Genesis? Who made Adam in Genesis?

In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was the last Adam--- a Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV----And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

It is virtually impossible to use the Bible to argue that Jesus was a human being.

...My argument is that Mark's Jesus is essentially a human being upon whom the Holy Spirit descends.

You are wrong. Jesus is IDENTIFIED as the Son of God in gMark and WALKS on the sea to PROVE he did NOT have human flesh. gMark's Jesus ONLY appeared to be human but was really a Phantom like Marcion's Son of God.

gMark's Jesus would transfigure after he walked on the sea.

I believe, that Paul largely dispensed with any historical Jesus there may have been, in favor of the Christ of his revelation / hallucination...

The Pauline writers had no hallucinations. There was no character identified as Jesus the Christ of Nazareth in the history of Jews. And if Jesus died he still told Paul nothing.

Paul was aware of gLuke.

The Pauline authors were fabricating their Epistles no earlier than c 180 CE using the story of Jesus.

 

[Stone]

A New World Order?

Crikey!

I hope the camps are nice...

I can understand the urge to make jokes like that in the face of feverish non sequiturs like those you're responding to here. But candidly, it's been precisely that sort of carrying on with those types of implicit "New-World" arguments, which we see from DeJudge, etc., that I've now seen plenty of elsewhere in many an on-line thread on this topic during the past five years, at least. It's been one of the biggest ongoing causes for my frequent -- and unwelcome -- bouts of exasperation. And frankly, the way such assertions like DeJudge's are repeated again and again in quick succession by some repetitive poster or other can become deeply disturbing. I actually view it as less bizarre and more a serious warning today than I once did. Over the years, it's been largely the proliferation of patterns of "argument" like this that's turned me into "a bull with a red flag" whenever I see this strenuously promulgated. During much of the 00s, I was actually amused by this occasionally! Can you believe that? But no more.

Now I wonder if we will have the luxury of joking about this for much more than half a generation or so. I've seen a distinct thought-control tint to many of these carryings-on. It may really come to the point where there are indeed camps, if such addled "reasoning" is not ridiculed now. So maybe we'll be sorry we joked about it. Perhaps there may ultimately be camps for any serious scholars after all, and peer-vetted research may have to go underground. Never underestimate the viciousness that can go into any know-nothing attempts to discredit any specialist "elite" in any academic area. You need go no further than a place like Texas to understand that.

The saddest irony may be that once all religions have become a minority as a whole, the plurality of the "Brights" may have merely brought in one jackbooted truckload of Kool-Aid for another, if wacko thinking like DeJudge's is left entirely unchallenged in the open marketplace.

Seriously,

Stone

 

[Brainache]

I can understand the urge to make jokes like that in the face of feverish non sequiturs like those you're responding to here. But candidly, it's been precisely that sort of carrying on with those types of implicit "New-World" arguments, which we see from DeJudge, etc., that I've now seen plenty of elsewhere in many an on-line thread on this topic during the past five years, at least. It's been one of the biggest ongoing causes for my frequent -- and unwelcome -- bouts of exasperation. And frankly, the way such assertions like DeJudge's are repeated again and again in quick succession by some repetitive poster or other can become deeply disturbing. I actually view it as less bizarre and more a serious warning today than I once did. Over the years, it's been largely the proliferation of patterns of "argument" like this that's turned me into "a bull with a red flag" whenever I see this strenuously promulgated. During much of the 00s, I was actually amused by this occasionally! Can you believe that? But no more.

I see people like this as adolescents who will eventually grow up and realise that they don't know everything.

Just like CT's, Bigfoot, UFO's, Ancient Aliens, Psychics, whatever, there will always be a certain percentage impervious to reason, but I think mostly they just grow up.

Now I wonder if we will have the luxury of joking about this for much more than half a generation or so. I've seen a distinct thought-control tint to many of these carryings-on. It may really come to the point where there are indeed camps, if such addled "reasoning" is not ridiculed now. So maybe we'll be sorry we joked about it. Perhaps there may ultimately be camps for any serious scholars after all, and peer-vetted research may have to go underground. Never underestimate the viciousness that can go into any know-nothing attempts to discredit any specialist "elite" in any academic area. You need go no further than a place like Texas to understand that.

I think you are being a bit dramatic Stone. And thankfully for me Texas is a long way away.

The whole world isn't like the Bible Belt you know.

The saddest irony may be that once all religions have become a minority as a whole, the plurality of the "Brights" may have merely brought in one jackbooted truckload of Kool-Aid for another, if wacko thinking like DeJudge's is left entirely unchallenged in the open marketplace.

Seriously,

Stone

I don't think it's that bad.

I believe that one belly laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms.... I stole that, and I'm keeping it.

 

[zugzwang]

I can understand the urge to make jokes like that in the face of feverish non sequiturs like those you're responding to here. But candidly, it's been precisely that sort of carrying on with those types of implicit "New-World" arguments, which we see from DeJudge, etc., that I've now seen plenty of elsewhere in many an on-line thread on this topic during the past five years, at least. It's been one of the biggest ongoing causes for my frequent -- and unwelcome -- bouts of exasperation. And frankly, the way such assertions like DeJudge's are repeated again and again in quick succession by some repetitive poster or other can become deeply disturbing. I actually view it as less bizarre and more a serious warning today than I once did. Over the years, it's been largely the proliferation of patterns of "argument" like this that's turned me into "a bull with a red flag" whenever I see this strenuously promulgated. During much of the 00s, I was actually amused by this occasionally! Can you believe that? But no more.

Now I wonder if we will have the luxury of joking about this for much more than half a generation or so. I've seen a distinct thought-control tint to many of these carryings-on. It may really come to the point where there are indeed camps, if such addled "reasoning" is not ridiculed now. So maybe we'll be sorry we joked about it. Perhaps there may ultimately be camps for any serious scholars after all, and peer-vetted research may have to go underground. Never underestimate the viciousness that can go into any know-nothing attempts to discredit any specialist "elite" in any academic area. You need go no further than a place like Texas to understand that.

The saddest irony may be that once all religions have become a minority as a whole, the plurality of the "Brights" may have merely brought in one jackbooted truckload of Kool-Aid for another, if wacko thinking like DeJudge's is left entirely unchallenged in the open marketplace.

Seriously,

Stone

I don't know if you read Hoffman's blog, but he seems to be mounting a twin attack at the moment, first, at mythicism, which he seems to regard with increasing contempt, although perhaps not with as much sense of foreboding as you, and secondly, at various styles of atheist self-presentation today, which he sees as well, how does he put it, 'a movement of overheated malcontents' (that's actually from Jacques Berlinerblau).

Ignoring the second point, since it's o/t, I don't see Hoffman as thinking that the academy itself is threatened by mythicism, but maybe you do, in the sense that it enshrines a kind of anti-intellectual movement, that rubbishes history itself, and valorizes amateurism and hobbyism.

I don't know, quite honestly, if you are right or not, about the threat to intellectual/academic integrity. A lot of it is internet froth, isn't it? I mean that like creationism, the internet has given mythicism new wings!