Good luck with that.
Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
- Status
Good luck with that.
eight bits
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,580
pakeha
The Epistles of Paul are mostly business correspondence, Romans being the exception, a learned treatise and model of high prose comporsition. The author was devoted to a form of Christianity (which we have every reason to think was absorbed by later versions, even before he died), but his readers were apparently still "searching," based on Paul's complaints.
We don't know why "Mark" wrote Mark, we just know that some other people liked the story well enough to read it aloud in church. Matthew, too, whose hash of the Jewish scriptures is sufficiently bad that some people propose non-religious original intent. Luke-Acts appears to have been written as a work for hire for a specific client - perhaps a hiring more analogous to one spouse engaging a private detective to check up on the other spouse, rather than catechesis. John is alone among the canonical Gospels in describing itself as a work of public instruction in the faith.
What is "core" Thomas? A book of sayings. The Coptic translation that reaches us has lots of accretions (no Jewish rabbi taught some of those things), and the accretions bespeak a devout Gnosticism, but the "core" isn't so different from the collected sayings of, say, Epictetus. Nobody calls Epictetus "devotional" (although he seems to be profoundly devout in his religion, which is no longer practiced). Why not? Because he isn't read in church, a matter over which he has no control.
Once we're safely near or beyond the turn of the Second Century, and the canon is mostly closed except for late hits and forgeries, frankly never-devotional material becomes relevant. Examples are Pliny-Trajan, churchly business correspondence (1 Clement is, like Paul, thumb-wrestling with the Corinthians, this time over some poorly specified point of church governance or discipline), and Acts of ... works, which are ripping yarns with stock characters whose names and backstories are borrowed from the canon.
Assuming that that view of the literature is justified, the taint of "devotional" may be exaggerated. In fact, we know it is exaggerated, since Mark is often cited interchangably with John when the subject of miracle stories is discussed. Similarly, dismissal because it's all apologetics is bizaarre - who the hell writes about anything unless they have an opinion about the subject?
There's a subtlety here,which I hope you don't mind my pointing to. Just as the basic problem with an HJ is that Jesus is interesting to us almost entirely because of what people did with his legend after Jesus had paid his debt to society, some literature is designated "devotional" chiefly because later people used it in their devotions. The authors may be innocent.
The Epistles of Paul are mostly business correspondence, Romans being the exception, a learned treatise and model of high prose comporsition. The author was devoted to a form of Christianity (which we have every reason to think was absorbed by later versions, even before he died), but his readers were apparently still "searching," based on Paul's complaints.
We don't know why "Mark" wrote Mark, we just know that some other people liked the story well enough to read it aloud in church. Matthew, too, whose hash of the Jewish scriptures is sufficiently bad that some people propose non-religious original intent. Luke-Acts appears to have been written as a work for hire for a specific client - perhaps a hiring more analogous to one spouse engaging a private detective to check up on the other spouse, rather than catechesis. John is alone among the canonical Gospels in describing itself as a work of public instruction in the faith.
What is "core" Thomas? A book of sayings. The Coptic translation that reaches us has lots of accretions (no Jewish rabbi taught some of those things), and the accretions bespeak a devout Gnosticism, but the "core" isn't so different from the collected sayings of, say, Epictetus. Nobody calls Epictetus "devotional" (although he seems to be profoundly devout in his religion, which is no longer practiced). Why not? Because he isn't read in church, a matter over which he has no control.
Once we're safely near or beyond the turn of the Second Century, and the canon is mostly closed except for late hits and forgeries, frankly never-devotional material becomes relevant. Examples are Pliny-Trajan, churchly business correspondence (1 Clement is, like Paul, thumb-wrestling with the Corinthians, this time over some poorly specified point of church governance or discipline), and Acts of ... works, which are ripping yarns with stock characters whose names and backstories are borrowed from the canon.
Assuming that that view of the literature is justified, the taint of "devotional" may be exaggerated. In fact, we know it is exaggerated, since Mark is often cited interchangably with John when the subject of miracle stories is discussed. Similarly, dismissal because it's all apologetics is bizaarre - who the hell writes about anything unless they have an opinion about the subject?
But you do not have anything that Paul or anyone wrote circa 60AD! All you have is the earliest readable copies from c.200AD (or likely somewhat later than that). So you have no idea if those 200AD copies are the same as anything Paul may or may not have ever have written 150 years before. He may for example have written something very different, or may not have ever written any such passages at all.
What is this stuff about a "second coming"? If Paul's letters say anything about belief in a second coming, then afaik we only have that from the copies c.200AD and later (mostly, much later). We don't know if Paul (or whoever the author was) ever wrote any such thing around c.60AD.
You are again trying to argue that you must be right about the date of c.60AD (and dejudge wrong to say 180AD) because, you already assumed it must have been written in c.60AD lol
.
Last edited:
LOL indeed. No, I am saying that the existence of post 180 copies indicates that more copies were made and circulated later, when Christianity became a significant sect. When were they composed? Now, if people are using Paul as a source of divine guidance, they don't want him to look like an idiot, do they? And if they are merely making up stories, they can say anything they like about Paul, can't they, like Harry Potter? So why should your Baron Munchausen, your "Severus Archontius", make up a story that Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that Jesus would return while Paul was still alive? Why do we get in some of the literature that Jesus is going to come back any time, or within current lifetimes, and in other works, that his coming is delayed? Because some of these things were written before others were, at quite an early date, moreover.... What is this stuff about a "second coming"? If Paul's letters say anything about belief in a second coming, then afaik we only have that from the copies c.200AD and later (mostly, much later). We don't know if Paul (or whoever the author was) ever wrote any such thing around c.60AD.
You are again trying to argue that you must be right about the date of c.60AD (and dejudge wrong to say 180AD) because, you already assumed it must have been written in c.60AD lol
No, I don't want to argue anything with dejudge, thank you.
LOL again. You're easily amused. No, of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying that internal characteristics of different NT works show that they were written at different times by different hands, and that some of them were written quite early, because they contain prophecies that were subsequently falsified.about the date of 180ADyou cannot do that by saying it must have been c.60AD and not 180AD because you had already assumed 60AD was correct. You are trying argue that you are right because you previously decided you are right lol
I understand all manner of things. LOL.
No, it's not a "fringe internet thing". Many academics (and others) have been writing for over a century now, explaining why they think the biblical description of Jesus could not have been that of a real living figure.
In fact, iirc even the pro-HJ side have themselves several times noted in these threads that even at the time of the biblical writing (first few centuries AD) some people were disputing that Jesus was ever a real person, and saying the Christian beliefs were myth.
What has since happened, particularly after 9-11 and the Islamic terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in NY, is that there has been an explosion in not only internet condemnation of religious fundamentalist beliefs and it’s dangers, but also much more outspoken condemnation of religion in general from authors like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and numerous others.
In other words, 9-11 in particular, became the catalyst for many more people to speak out in opposition to religious belief. And that has encompassed all aspects belief and the claims from mainstream religions such as Christianity and Islam. In the present case of arguments about Jesus as the very basis of all Christian belief and the worldwide edifice of the Christian church with it’s influence on all aspects of western governments, that has re-awakened much earlier questions about even the very existence of Jesus and what evidence is actually being claimed by these so-called academic bible scholars and theologians. And the rather astonishing answer to that, appears to be that the claimed evidence just does not exist at all.
Quite so. Mythicism has gained influence because it is a political statement about the dangers of religious belief, not on the basis of its intellectual or scholarly merit. Atrocities make bad laws, and they make bad doctrines too.
This ideological for you, isn't it?
The rather astonishing thing is that in the relatively brief time you've spent on this subject, you have convinced yourself that you are right and that thousands of professional Scholars are wrong.
I'm not on your side in that battle of wits, I'm telling you that for free.
Well the above makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, except to show that you are continually trying to defend the indefensible.
Look, to put it at its most simple - you cannot possibly know what Paul ever wrote c.60AD, because you don’t have anything that Paul wrote in c.60AD. That’s a fact, right?
You understand that?
Lets’ get that understanding clear from you first of all.
You have just negated almost all Ancient History.
How many of Plato's original writings do we have?
You have evidently inherited dejudge's mantle of authority. I hope it won't turn out to be too big for you. No, we can say, or reasonably assert, that some at least of the Pauline epistles were written at an early date because of a thing called internal evidence.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Thanks for a most thoughtful reply, eight bits.
Your take on Luke/Acts made me smile.
Of course I see your point about defining all the NT as devotional literature.
I think the works of the NT were meant as apologetic literature, as least, the various books read that way to me.
Would hagiography suit the case better?
GDon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
I'm not aware of any evidence that some people were disputing that Jesus was ever a real person. If you know of such evidence, I'd love to see it.
The closest were the docetists, who thought that Jesus existed and interacted with people, but that he wasn't made of flesh. But this seems to have arisen from beliefs that flesh was somehow corrupted, so that Jesus could not have had a fleshly body. If the Gospel of Mark and the proposed set of genuine letters of Paul are the earliest layers we have, then that belief appears to be a later belief.
Your above statement is directed at Belz, but if we are to believe Bart Ehrman, the evidence for an historical Jesus is quite strong. He is leaning to Jesus not being divine but he certainly believed Jesus existed. Ehrman even stated there are good reasons to believe Jesus was betrayed by Judas.
Last edited:
No! I just explained to you that 9-11 has led many more people to question all aspects of religious belief, inc. more people looking at what various authors (inc. academics) had been writing for over 100 years to highlight the virtual complete lack of any credible evidence for the existence of Jesus (the importance of which is the place of Jesus as the entire basis of worldwide Christianity).
What you are disparagingly calling "mysticism" (and you know very well you are trying to be belittling and disparaging - nobody here is fooled by any contrary claims about that) is in these threads, nothing more than sceptics expressing doubt and dissatisfaction with 2000 years of what appear to be completely fraudulent claims of "overwhelming evidence" of a real Jesus.
Contrary to that sort of claim of "overwhelming evidence" eg from Bart Ehrman and "virtually every other scholar on the planet" (according to Ehrman), it actually turns out, as shown repeatedly in this thread, that there is actually NO credible genuine evidence of Jesus.
There is plenty of evidence that the people who wrote the NT bible held all sorts of supernatural and utterly impossible religious beliefs about a messiah from Yahweh who came to be called "Yehoshua". But impossible supernatural beliefs from appraisingly ignorant 1st century street preachers are not evidence that their barking mad beliefs were ever true.
Bottom Line - what is the actual evidence of Jesus as a living person, please?
What internal evidence are you talking about? There is no internal evidence to date any Pauline letter to c 60 CE.
The claim that Paul wrote Thessalonians early because of statements about the Second Coming has been shown to be quite illogical.
Christians have claimed and are still making predictions about the Second Coming in the 21st century.
Please, you have already been debunked so stop your Chinese Whispers about internal evidence for early dates of the Pauline Corpus.
There is NONE and you know it.
Not even the supposed author of Acts wrote anything about the Pauline Corpus. The supposed author of Acts and Paul were Buddies and traveled together "all over" the Roman Empire and specifically stated that no-one had written any letter about Paul up to the time he came to Rome. See Act 28.21
Please, stop your Chinese Whispers. Stop your myth.
You have already been alerted that there is no internal evidence at all in the Pauline Corpus to date them before c 70 CE.
The internal evidence ONLY shows that there may have been about SEVEN different authors using the name Paul in the Pauline Corpus.
Last edited:
Thank you, but I don't have to agree, do I?
I am taken aback. Look at the passage you cite from my post. I have written "mythicism", not "mysticism". That is an accepted term to designate that doctrine, in no way disparaging. Please see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
So you are under a misapprehension caused by a misreading of a word which you yourself have copied from my post.
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2008
- Messages
- 453
As a mostly lurker who enjoys these threads I must say they have degenerated to the point nothing useful has come from them in a long time IMHO.
Pro HJ supporters keep screaming "consensus" while their opponents keep asking for evidence.
The same old arguments are made time after time. This thread and others feels like Groundhog Day.
If the question of "James, the Lord's brother" could be settled then all arguments would be over and done. But it won't be, so the best we can say is "we don't know" IMHO.
Carry on.
Pro HJ supporters keep screaming "consensus" while their opponents keep asking for evidence.
The same old arguments are made time after time. This thread and others feels like Groundhog Day.
If the question of "James, the Lord's brother" could be settled then all arguments would be over and done. But it won't be, so the best we can say is "we don't know" IMHO.
Carry on.
That is precisely the problem with the HJ argument. It is based entirely on blind faith. In fact, Ehrman has a lot of Faith in the Bible even though he discredited the NT as a source of historical problems, discrepancies, cotradictions and events that most likely did not happen.
Ehrman argued that the Triumphal entry of Jesus in Jerusalem and the proposed exchange between Jesus and Barabbas were most lilkely fiction.
You seem to have no idea that Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?--the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth was declared to be a Failure of facts and logic by Richard Carrier.
In fact, Carrier said he would not recommend "Did Jesus Exist?" to anyone.
You're trying to launch another year or so of frenetic controversy, are you not?
- Status