Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

Since dejudge keeps on referring to the Muratorian Canon, which may have been written as early as CE 170 or as late as the fourth century, I decided to have a look at what the document actually said of Paul......

Thanks for a great post.

Yep, still haven't bothered to tell us how you determine the date of Romans, or how you are determining that Romans copied Justin.

You just circle back to the claim that:

Which is the position you started with to begin with, so using your argument as evidence of your argument doesn't really prove anything.


I don't have time tonight, but I'll tell you what.
I'll actually dig up the Greek copies of both and compare the grammar of the line to the rest of each text's grammar and we'll see which text's grammar is different from this line.

It would stand to reason that whichever text holds a grammar that is different from the line in question is the one that copied the line from the other source.

Hey, look at that! Paleography rather than banterography.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

[Belz...]

Please, the HJ argument is based on admitted terrible and very weak evidence.

Please, because the evidence is very weak doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Admitting that it is weak doesn't make your position right because your position is quite different. Stop muddling things.

Your whole argument is flawed because you cannot show that the Muratorian Canon was really composed c 170 CE. You already admitted the Muratorian Canon could have been composed as late as the 4th century but utterly failed to take the later 4th century date in your analysis.

Why don't you make a slight effort and show that it was so late ?

Again, your statement is highly illogical.

I don't trust your ability to identify such statements.

Again all you have done is assume you know when the Pauline Epistles were composed while you have no supporting evidence.

We can see through your act, Dejudge. You can stop playing. You've done quite a bit of assuming, too, and we can tell.

 

[IanS]

Your whole argument is flawed because you cannot show that the Muratorian Canon was really composed c 170 CE. You already admitted the Muratorian Canon could have been composed as late as the 4th century but utterly failed to take the later 4th century date in your analysis.

If it were that late, then it would be pretty much useless for anything regarding the dating of the Pauline epistles.

Tim, with the best will in world - few if any of these dates, either those which you prefer, or those which dejudge prefers, or any dates quoted in Wikipedia or in any writing from any bible scholars (or whatever they wish to call themselves), should be taken without an extremely large pinch of salt.

Most of those dates, especially all the earliest ones, are afaik what the church and theologians have tried to claim for at least the last 1000 years, and are imho quite clearly the most optimistic estimates that the faithful could put on the documents in order to claim they are as nearly as possible contemporary to the time of Jesus. In the absence of independent and proper scientifically accurate dating, which afaik is not a practical proposition for any of the supposedly earliest written fragments, it should be obvious that it is very naïve indeed of anyone to accept at face value the earliest dates given by the church, theologians, and bibles scholars.

If by some magic it was possible for us all to be transported back to those times when Jesus, Paul and the disciples were all thought to have lived, and when the first biblical writing is claimed to have been produced (gosples and letters etc.), then it should surprise nobody here to find that few if any of these people really existed at that time, and that none of the writing had been produced when it was said to have been produced. It should surprise nobody if in fact the gospels and letters etc. (inc. non-Christian writing) was almost all very much later than is now being claimed, and similarly not a surprise to find that some of these characters, and perhaps even all of them, were completely unknown by anyone at that time.

IOW - in all honesty, I think everyone here should be extremely cautious about accepting any of the numerous claimed dates for any of this writing.

On the other hand there is one very large mass of writing from that time which does seem to be both in it’s original form (unlike any of the biblical writing), and fairly accurately dated. But that is not the biblical writing, nor is it any of the very few and extremely brief non-Christian mentions of Jesus, and that is the Dead Sea Scrolls. But significantly perhaps, although the scrolls have been carefully dated to writing produced from circa.170BC all through to about 70AD, they make no mention at all either of Jesus, or of Paul, or of anyone else described in the bible, even though the scrolls were produced by proto-Christian Jewish apocalyptic OT worshippers in almost that exact same small region around Jerusalem, and at the exact same time/date.

 

[Craig B]

... If by some magic it was possible for us all to be transported back to those times when Jesus, Paul and the disciples were all thought to have lived, and when the first biblical writing is claimed to have been produced (gosples and letters etc.), then it should surprise nobody here to find that few if any of these people really existed at that time, and that none of the writing had been produced when it was said to have been produced. It should surprise nobody if in fact the gospels and letters etc. (inc. non-Christian writing) was almost all very much later than is now being claimed, and similarly not a surprise to find that some of these characters, and perhaps even all of them, were completely unknown by anyone at that time.

... the Dead Sea Scrolls ... make no mention at all either of Jesus, or of Paul, or of anyone else described in the bible, even though the scrolls were produced by proto-Christian Jewish apocalyptic OT worshippers in almost that exact same small region around Jerusalem, and at the exact same time/date.

Eh?

 

[TimCallahan]

Again, all you have done is assume you know when gLuke was written. It is already known that Justin identified his sources for his story of Jesus. It was the Memoirs of the Apostles--Not gLuke--that was used by Justin.

Justin alluded to verses in the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin's First Apology

Let me see if I understand you correctly. First, you say that Justin Martyr referred to the memoirs of the apostles. Then I point out to you that one of the verses to which Justin alludes as part of the memoirs of the apostles is from Luke. So, Justin is saying that this is material that he and other Christians received as memoirs of the apostles. Your response is that Luke copied it from Justin. So, to support your position, you are now saying that Justin lied when he said this verse was part of the memoirs of the apostles.

You will, no doubt respond that Im being illogical, or that Im misquoting you, or some other crap. The fact is that whenever evidence is pointed out to you that disputes your view, you ignore it. A case in point is that when I pointed out to you that Pliny the Younger (62 - 113), writing to Trajan (emperor 98 - 117) about his prosecution of Christians ca. CE 110, they weren't really Christians related to those who were called Christians after CE 180. Yet, you offer nothing to support this view.

Whenever I have tried to pin you down on what you believe, for example, when I asked you to give us what you saw as the actual timeline for the development of Christianity, you refuse to offer specifics. When people disagree with you, you become insulting and abusive. When people call you on flaws in your arguments, you complain about their ill-treatment of you. These are all attributes of a troll, which is what you are - a troll and nothing more.

 

[maximara]

As far as I can tell Maximara's position is that anyone who doesn't accept the gospel stories at face value is talking about a "Jesus Myth" theory.

So basically all Historians are already mythers, therefore Jesus was a Myth. QED.

No, my point is that "historical Jesus" has two meanings:

1) The story of the Gospels Jesus is, once all the supernatural stuff is explained or removed is a reasonable historical account.


This "historical Jesus" definition is what is being used when people like Sir James George Frazer, John Remsburg, John Robertson, G. R. S Mead, Alvar Ellegård, and G. A. Wells from Jesus Myth (1996) to present day are classified as "Christ Mythers".

Herbert George Wood in his 1934 Christianity and the nature of history MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.]: The University Press pg 40 classified Christ-myth theories as part of the "theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." which brings us to the second "historical Jesus" definition:


2) Jesus existed as a human being as opposed being a totally fictional creation like Doctor Who but the story of the Jesus in the Gospels is on par with those of King Arthur "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"

This definition is where apologists have issues with the Christ Myth.

No sane Christ Myther is saying that there wasn't the possibility that a flesh and blood would be messiah (ie Christ) named Jesus was killed for his preachings but rather the Gospel account tells us nothing about that man just as Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn doesn't tell you anything about the real Davy Crockett.

 

[Brainache]

...
No sane Christ Myther is saying that there wasn't the possibility that a flesh and blood would be messiah (ie Christ) named Jesus was killed for his preachings but rather the Gospel account tells us nothing about that man just as Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn doesn't tell you anything about the real Davy Crockett.

Read it and weep for sanity:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/jesus.html
Although the link in this one I noticed leads to a 404 "Page not found" message. Funny:

Did Jesus Exist? (2002)
Critical review of Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle. Finds it is not proven, but nor is it inconceivable that Jesus didn't exist.

http://www.richardcarrier.info/BooksbyRichardCarrier.html#PH

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

I won't bother quoting from those links, because I'm not sure what will persuade you that this new "Jesus Myth" Theory is a real thing.

Cheers.


ETA: It's not really Richard Carrier claiming no possibility, it's his fans who don't really understand the arguments. I don't think they are stupid or insane people, I just think they let their bias override their skepticism on this issue.

YMMV

 

[Brainache]

...No sane Christ Myther is saying that there wasn't the possibility that a flesh and blood would be messiah (ie Christ) named Jesus was killed for his preachings but rather the Gospel account tells us nothing about that man just as Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn doesn't tell you anything about the real Davy Crockett.

Here's another link for anyone who thinks that the "MJ Theory" is a myth:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794

This is a summary of the current state of the debate after the mini blog war between myself and Bart Ehrman over his latest book, Did Jesus Exist?, which attempted to argue against various scholars (both legitimate and crank) who have concluded, or at least suspect, that Jesus never really existed, but was an invention in myth, like Moses or King Arthur or Ned Ludd. Some of this exchange involved other people, or were tangential to Ehrman’s book. But I will give a state-of-play for everything.
In one case I have concluded I was too harsh. But in every other case my criticisms have stood without valid rebuttal. Most were simply ignored (and thus no rebuttal was even attempted). For others, attempts to rebut them have only generated increasingly ridiculous errors of facts and logic to waggle our head at. Which in the end has only made historicists look just like the hack mythicists they rightly critique. This is not the way to argue for the historicity of Jesus...

ETA: I think I see where our misunderstanding is now. If he is saying there was a man, but we can't know details, then I'm ok with that.

It's when he goes on about Doherty's "Celestial Realm", that I have a problem.

 

[dejudge]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. First, you say that Justin Martyr referred to the memoirs of the apostles. Then I point out to you that one of the verses to which Justin alludes as part of the memoirs of the apostles is from Luke. So, Justin is saying that this is material that he and other Christians received as memoirs of the apostles. Your response is that Luke copied it from Justin. So, to support your position, you are now saying that Justin lied when he said this verse was part of the memoirs of the apostles.

Why can't you actually repeat what I write?

Justin Martyr c 150 CE stated clearly that he used the Memoirs of the Apostles so I cannot assume he knew of gLuke.

Justin Martyr also clearly stated that it was the Memoirs of the Apostles and the books of the Prophets that were read in the Churches in his time c 150 CE.

I cannot assume Justin Martyr knew of gLuke when no known apologetic author before Justin acknowledged a Gospel according to Luke.

It is no earlier than c 180 CE that we first hear of a Gospel according to gLuke in "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

You will, no doubt respond that Im being illogical, or that Im misquoting you, or some other crap. The fact is that whenever evidence is pointed out to you that disputes your view, you ignore it. A case in point is that when I pointed out to you that Pliny the Younger (62 - 113), writing to Trajan (emperor 98 - 117) about his prosecution of Christians ca. CE 110, they weren't really Christians related to those who were called Christians after CE 180. Yet, you offer nothing to support this view.

How many times must I point out to you that it is illogical to assume that any mention of Christians must refer to a cult who worshiped Jesus or believed the story of Jesus?

Even in the 1st century, since the time of Claudius, c 41-54 CE, magicians and their followers were called Christians.

In any event, in the Pliny letter to Trajan and Trajan's letter to Pliny, there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth by Trajan, Pliny or those who were eventually executed or tortured.

...Whenever I have tried to pin you down on what you believe, for example, when I asked you to give us what you saw as the actual timeline for the development of Christianity, you refuse to offer specifics. When people disagree with you, you become insulting and abusive. When people call you on flaws in your arguments, you complain about their ill-treatment of you. These are all attributes of a troll, which is what you are - a troll and nothing more.

You are making a bunch of fallacious statements . I have specifically repeated multiple times with the supporting evidence that many writers up to at least c180 CE did not acknowledge Paul and the Pauline Corpus like Aristides, Justin Martyr, Celsus and Arnobius.

I have also made reference to Against Heresies 2.22 where Irenaeus supposedly argued at least around c 180 CE that Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or c 50 CE which renders the Pauline Corpus to be historically and theologically bogus.

If Jesus Christ was or believed to be crucified at around c 50 CE then Paul did not preach Christ crucified since 37-41 CE in the time of Aretas.

You have no corroborative non-apologetic evidence at all, none, that can show gLuke and any letter in the Entire Pauline Corpus was composed in the 1st century or even before c 180 CE.

 

[Craig B]

... I have also made reference to Against Heresies 2.22 where Irenaeus supposedly argued at least around c 180 CE that Jesus was crucified about 20 years after the 15th year of Tiberius or c 50 CE which renders the Pauline Corpus to be historically and theologically bogus.

If Jesus Christ was or believed to be crucified at around c 50 CE then Paul did not preach Christ crucified since 37-41 CE in the time of Aretas.

I have raised this - exactly the Aretas point - and I have dealt with Irenaeus in #1749 and #1750. Do you intend to address my arguments, or are you going to continue to churn out the same stuff, regardless of what anyone else presents to you as an argument or observation?

 

[dejudge]

ETA: I think I see where our misunderstanding is now. If he is saying there was a man, but we can't know details, then I'm ok with that.

Your post shows the bankruptcy and lack of logic of the HJ argument.

You know that there are no details for an HJ but still say that Jesus of Nazareth was a man.

Belz has already admitted that everyone agrees the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is TERRIBLE, that it is very weak and he is not convinced there was an HJ.

The HJ argument is baseless--with terrible and very weak evidence.

 

[dejudge]

I have raised this - exactly the Aretas point - and I have dealt with Irenaeus in #1749 and #1750. Do you intend to address my arguments, or are you going to continue to churn out the same stuff, regardless of what anyone else presents to you as an argument or observation?

You raised no points. You have not really dealt with the fact that Irenaeus was supposed to be a Presbyter of the Church of Lyons and should have been arguing AGAINST Heretics.

When Irenaeus argued c 180 CE that Jesus was crucified c 50 CE the Heretics in the time of Irenaeus knew NOTHING of Acts of the Apostles and the Entire Pauline Corpus.

In Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus Jesus Christ was crucified before c 37-41 CE.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus must have been or most likely was written after "Against Heresies 2.22 was composed.

 

[Brainache]

Your post shows the bankruptcy and lack of logic of the HJ argument.

You know that there are no details for an HJ but still say that Jesus of Nazareth was a man.

Belz has already admitted that everyone agrees the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is TERRIBLE, that it is very weak and he is not convinced there was an HJ.

The HJ argument is baseless--with terrible and very weak evidence.

As Belz... also said: If the HJ wasn't a man, what was he?

Please don't say "myth" again, unless you can show how that is a better explanation.

So far, no one has shown that.

 

[dejudge]

As Belz... also said: If the HJ wasn't a man, what was he?

Please don't say "myth" again, unless you can show how that is a better explanation.

So far, no one has shown that.

I do not have to say anything because you already know who Jesus was in the Bible. You believe the Bible is a source of history.

The Bible documents figures of mythology pretty accurately.

Matthew 1NIV

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1:20 NIV

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

What is the best explanation for the one who was through the Holy Spirit?

 

[Brainache]

I do not have to say anything because you already know who Jesus was in the Bible. You believe the Bible is a source of history.

The Bible documents figures of mythology pretty accurately.

Matthew 1

What is the best explanation for the one who was through the Holy Spirit?

And the Bible portrays figures of History fairly inaccurately.

What's your point?

 

[Craig B]

You raised no points.

That is false. What is this if not a point?

... In addition to reversing the wrongs done by Adam, Irenaeus thinks of Christ as "recapitulating" or "summing up" human life. This means that Christ goes through every stage of human life, and simply by living it, sanctifies it with his divinity. This idea led Irenaeus to some unusual opinions, including that Jesus lived to be an old man, and his public ministry lasted at least ten years. http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...e/irenaeus.htm
Thus, his statement - which you endlessly repeat without any examination - that Irenaeus believed Jesus lived to an advanced age was not founded on any historical knowledge possessed by that writer, but was derived from his ideology, that Jesus was a sort of "counter-Adam" come to repair the Fall. Most of Irenaeus's ideological ideas were cockeyed constructions of that order.

You may disagree with this. Let me have your grounds for disagreement. But you can't really say it's not a point!

 

[dejudge]

And the Bible portrays figures of History fairly inaccurately.

What's your point?

You mean the Bible inaccurately portrays figures of history Like the God of Moses, the Son of God, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost and the angel Gabriel?

 

[Craig B]

You mean the Bible inaccurately portrays figures of history Like the God of Moses, the Son of God, Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost and the angel Gabriel?

No, I'm sure Brainache doesn't have these figures in mind.

 

[abaddon]

And the Bible portrays figures of History fairly inaccurately.

What's your point?

Um, perhaps we should take a step back here.

I cannot fathom why it is that dejudge is getting so um...excited about all of this.

Could there have been an apocalyptic jewish preacher at the time? Yup. That's pretty mundane. There were plenty of them.

Could such a preacher have been executed? Yup. Par for the course for the romans.

Could subsequent crackpots have tacked on their own imaginings to one or more such itinerant preachers? Yup. Still in the realms of the mundane.

After that it all goes wahoonie shaped. Dejudge cast any amount of vituperation on any use of biblical sources, whilst extensively quoting the bible to bolster his own. I just can't feature that.

It oddly seems (and this is my impression only) that dejudge somehow thinks that I, as an atheist, somehow really believe in some mythical god, and must therefore have a massive dump taken upon me.

Dejudge is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong, but it is how he self presents.

 

[dejudge]

Could there have been an apocalyptic jewish preacher at the time? Yup. That's pretty mundane. There were plenty of them.

Could Jesus be a figure of mythology? "Yup". "That's pretty mundane. They were plenty of them"

There were hundreds of figures of myth in Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology.