Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Loss Leader]

31 posts have been moved to AAH in an attempt to remove the bickering, name-calling and off-topic conversations about what goes on at Rational Skeptic. Please stay on topic and remain civil. Thank you.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[TimCallahan]

dejudge: I've asked you this before, but I don't believe you've given me a solid answer:
How do you see Christianity - and by this I mean the form of Christianity that succeeded - developing? I mean by this a general timeline as to when see the canonical gospels having been written - we'll skip the Pauline epistles for now, since I already know you views on that - and your take on who began the religion and how.

I would also like you to tell me how, in your opinion, this particular form of Christianity got its connection to Judaism. By this I mean the gospel narratives identifying the Christ (a title) with the person of Jesus, a fictional or mostly fictional (take your pick) Jewish rabbi. I had thought earlier that you saw Christianity as being originated by Hellenized Jews. However, you said I had misunderstood you in that regard.

Now, what I would like you to do in response to this post is to resist the urge to tell me my question is stupid, resist the urge to tell me you've already answered it, resist the urge to tell me I'm misquoting you - in other words, to resist any urge to be abrasive and abusive, but to instead by dispassionate, and simply give me an answer. If it pleases you to think I'm obtuse, that's your business. However, if you directly respond to the questions I've posed in this post, I certainly will not be able to ask them of you another time without appearing to be a fool to everyone posting on this thread.

I'm still waiting for a response to this post.

 

[dejudge]

I'm still waiting for a response to this post.

Again, I answer your question. Why do you refuse to admit it?

I present the supporting evidence. The story that Jesus the Son of God was Killed by the Jews was invented after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.


Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho XVI

...For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.'................ Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation. For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.” And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, Isaiah 55:4 must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf? Was it on account of the idolatry of the people? Was it for the blood of the prophets? Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel? By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

 

[Belz...]

Please, what made you snap out of it? -- No, I'm sincerely interested. This is not intended as a gotcha question at all

Well I realised only later that this was the cause of my stance. As to what made me change my mind, I can't say, either. Exposure to this website tends to cause a drift in my opinions.

I can't really give you a better answer. Maybe if I think harder about I can come up with something, but I don't think there's a defining moment. But even the MJ side has a lot of credit in it, because many of them have some good arguments and it gives me perspective. When someone who is on your side basically says that he's far less convinced than you, it gives pause.

 

[Belz...]

If you have a witness who is so untrustworthy as that, where they continuously present entirely dishonest claims about their central figure, then after a few such lies the witness loses all credibility as an honest source.

Indeed. And yet even in their lies there might be ways to discern some truth, and sometimes, as with history, you want to know how the lie started out.

 

[dejudge]

Indeed. And yet even in their lies there might be ways to discern some truth, and sometimes, as with history, you want to know how the lie started out.

That is precisely the problem with the HJ argument. Having discredited the Bible there is now no coroborative source for HJ of Nazareth.

All HJers have is a known pack of lies.

Why are HJers holding a bag of lies for the Church?

 

[TimCallahan]

Again, I answer your question. Why do you refuse to admit it?

I present the supporting evidence. The story that Jesus the Son of God was Killed by the Jews was invented after the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE. . . . (snip) . . .

We seem to be talking past one another. I already understood that the invention of the Jews killing Jesus dates from the gospels, all of which were written after the destruction of the Temple. I've known this rather obvious fact for some time. You didn't introduce me to it. That's not the question I was asking you.

Let me clarify. When I mentioned Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan on his prosecution of the Christians in Bithynia as evidence that the Christian religion in some form was in existence by ca. CE 110, you stated that there was no support for those Christians being the same as the Christians who eventually formed what we know of as the Christian religion. You have further asserted that the Pauline epistles were written at about or after CE 180. What I'm asking you is what you see as some sort of timeline for the origin and development of the Christian religion - the one that was eventually successful.

I also asked you about what you saw as the source of that Christian religion and how, if the Christ of those Pliny was prosecuting in Bithynia had nothing to do with a fictional rabbi / messianic figure called Jesus, the religion got its Jewish association. I thought you had seen it as origination among Hellenized Jews of the Diaspora. However, you told me you were arguing no such thing. So, I'm unclear as to what your take is on the religion's source. If it began entirely outside of Judaism, why did this religion go out of its way to create Jewish associations? i ask this, particularly, since the Jews were not particularly well-liked in the Roman Empire by the middle of the second century, having staged two revolts, the one from CE 66 to 70 and later, in the 130s, the Bar Kochba revolt.

Here is my take on the origins of Christianity: Jesus, a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender - a very minor one - generated a small cult. Alternatively, this Jesus might be a composite o two or more people, or may have been entirely invented by this cult. Paul, at first persecuting the cult, had some sort of conversion experience, hallucinated his revelatory Christ Jesus and essentially created a new religion, albeit one with roots in Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief, as demonstrated by the Revelation of John of Patmos. This new religion took hold mainly among Hellenized Jews and others in the Aegean region and western Asia Minor.

The gospels were generated - as we both agree - after the destruction of the Temple in CE 70. As I have said many times before, they are almost entirely, if not completely, fiction The Synoptic Gospels and Acts seem to have been in existence by the middle of the second century. John may date from as late as 180.

What I see as a Pauline creation melded Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief with aspects of dying and rising gods, such Osiris and Dionysus, replete with a virgin birth, etc. I believe this synthesis was achieved by the end of the first century or at least by ca. 125.

Now, what I'm asking of you, which I don't believe you have yet given, is a timeline and theory of origin, similar to what I just gave above. I assume you have formulated some such idea. I'm interested in hearing what it is. Remember, what I'm asking about is your take on the one form of Christian belief that finally succeeded, not all of all the various Christian cults, such as the Gnostic variations.

 

[Belz...]

That is precisely the problem with the HJ argument. Having discredited the Bible there is now no coroborative source for HJ of Nazareth.

All HJers have is a known pack of lies.

That is hyperbole. What we have is a collection of related stories packed with supernatural (and therefore impossible) occurances. It does not follow, from this fact alone, that the story is true, nor does it follow that it is false. If you think this is wrong then you will have to explain your reasoning.

Why are HJers holding a bag of lies for the Church?

This is a question designed to shame your opponents, and has no place in a serious debate. No one here is supporting the RCC.

 

[dejudge]

Here is my take on the origins of Christianity: Jesus, a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender - a very minor one - generated a small cult. Alternatively, this Jesus might be a composite o two or more people, or may have been entirely invented by this cult. Paul, at first persecuting the cult, had some sort of conversion experience, hallucinated his revelatory Christ Jesus and essentially created a new religion, albeit one with roots in Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief, as demonstrated by the Revelation of John of Patmos. This new religion took hold mainly among Hellenized Jews and others in the Aegean region and western Asia Minor.

Your supporting evidence from antiquity is completely missing. You have merely told me what you imagine.


First, what time period have you imagined for your story?
What sources mentioned a self ordained rabbi named Jesus? What sources can corroborate your story about Paul's hallucination? What sources show that Hellenized Jews were part of a new religion?

Name some of the Hellenized Jews of the new religion and identify their writings.

You have nothing but speculation or imagination.

You must have noticed that my arguments are always supported by sources of antiquity but you have none. Why is that??

 

[Craig B]

Why are HJers holding a bag of lies for the Church?

That's nasty, dejudge. False and nasty. You know nobody is sustaining lies, let alone for the Church. Now I enjoy our chats and I don't want to see the mods casting you forth into outer darkness, and there is no need for this objectionable vituperation. Let's just stick to the evidence instead, shall we?

 

[jhunter1163]

You'll have to wait a bit for dejudge to answer; he's been suspended.

 

[Craig B]

You'll have to wait a bit for dejudge to answer; he's been suspended.

That's a pity. I'll miss him.

 

[Craig B]

... John may date from as late as 180.

Have you considered the Rylands papyrus fragment? It would place John earlier, a couple of decades at least.

The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.

http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/

 

[pakeha]

...Here is my take on the origins of Christianity: Jesus, a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender - a very minor one - generated a small cult. Alternatively, this Jesus might be a composite o two or more people, or may have been entirely invented by this cult. Paul, at first persecuting the cult, had some sort of conversion experience, hallucinated his revelatory Christ Jesus and essentially created a new religion, albeit one with roots in Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief, as demonstrated by the Revelation of John of Patmos. This new religion took hold mainly among Hellenized Jews and others in the Aegean region and western Asia Minor.

The gospels were generated - as we both agree - after the destruction of the Temple in CE 70. As I have said many times before, they are almost entirely, if not completely, fiction The Synoptic Gospels and Acts seem to have been in existence by the middle of the second century. John may date from as late as 180.

What I see as a Pauline creation melded Jewish messianism and apocalyptic belief with aspects of dying and rising gods, such Osiris and Dionysus, replete with a virgin birth, etc. I believe this synthesis was achieved by the end of the first century or at least by ca. 125.

Now, what I'm asking of you, which I don't believe you have yet given, is a timeline and theory of origin, similar to what I just gave above. I assume you have formulated some such idea. I'm interested in hearing what it is. Remember, what I'm asking about is your take on the one form of Christian belief that finally succeeded, not all of all the various Christian cults, such as the Gnostic variations.

That's as good a summing up of the origins of Christianity as I've seen lately.

If you have a witness who is so untrustworthy as that, where they continuously present entirely dishonest claims about their central figure, then after a few such lies the witness loses all credibility as an honest source.

Indeed. And yet even in their lies there might be ways to discern some truth, and sometimes, as with history, you want to know how the lie started out..

Yes.
That's why I read and ask questions on these threads, too.
How did the lie start out?

 

[jhunter1163]

That's a pity. I'll miss him.

It's just a 24-hour suspension; he'll be gracing us with his presence soon enough.

 

[H'ethetheth]

How do you neutralise my confirmation ? I'm simply providing an anecdotal data point to show that it's possible that some posters here have the same viewpoint that I used to have.

Yes, and I provided an anecdotal data point that some posters don't, making the score 1:1, so to speak.
It wasn't meant entirely seriously, except for the part where this question has nothing to do with arguments.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, and I provided an anecdotal data point that some posters don't, making the score 1:1, so to speak.
It wasn't meant entirely seriously, except for the part where this question has nothing to do with arguments.

I see. Well of course, when providing an anecdote, as a skeptic, it's implied that the reverse also exists.

 

[JaysonR]

Your supporting evidence from antiquity is completely missing. You have merely told me what you imagine.


First, what time period have you imagined for your story?
What sources mentioned a self ordained rabbi named Jesus? What sources can corroborate your story about Paul's hallucination? What sources show that Hellenized Jews were part of a new religion?

Name some of the Hellenized Jews of the new religion and identify their writings.

You have nothing but speculation or imagination.

You must have noticed that my arguments are always supported by sources of antiquity but you have none. Why is that??

He only shared that so he could provide you an example of what type of answer he was asking you to give to him.

He's asking for your version of the story he just gave.
He's not asking you to accept what he just wrote.

What is your accounting of the origins of Christianity as causally linked events?

 

[TimCallahan]

Your supporting evidence from antiquity is completely missing. You have merely told me what you imagine.


First, what time period have you imagined for your story?
What sources mentioned a self ordained rabbi named Jesus? What sources can corroborate your story about Paul's hallucination? What sources show that Hellenized Jews were part of a new religion?

Name some of the Hellenized Jews of the new religion and identify their writings.

You have nothing but speculation or imagination.

You must have noticed that my arguments are always supported by sources of antiquity but you have none. Why is that??

dejudge: My point in laying out my take on the origins of Christianity was to show, by example, what I was asking of you. I've laid out what I think took place. I will be happy to defend it. However, I first want to hear from you - once you're back from suspension - what your take is. So far, all you have said is that you believe all the Pauline epistles to be forgeries and that all of them originated after CE 180. You have not done the following:

1) Given a general timeline for the origin and initial spread of that form of Christianity that eventually developed into the Christian religion.

2) Indicated its source, i.e.: Did it originate among some group of Jews, whether Hellenized or not, whether in Judea or as part of the Diaspora; or did it begin as something that was not Jewish.

3)Explained why, if the latter is the case, the Christian religion acquired a Jewish connection, i.e. identifying the Christ with a fictional messianic pretender named Jesus.

Surely, you must have some thoughts on these questions. I would like to hear what your take is. I would like you to lay out for the rest of us your views on Christian origins and a timeline, just as I've laid out mine, for the sake of honesty and full disclosure.

 

[The Norseman]

That is hyperbole. What we have is a collection of related stories packed with supernatural (and therefore impossible) occurances. It does not follow, from this fact alone, that the story is true, nor does it follow that it is false. If you think this is wrong then you will have to explain your reasoning.

You are correct in that, with this fact alone, the story is [true | not true]. However, as I pointed out to you in another thread, it does lend itself to questioning everything the person said as an untruth.

I don't see it as a huge leap that a person believes to the utter root of his being that Jesus did these miracles that also Jesus himself is made up.

No matter how much the HJers deny it, there is still involved a lot of supposition and guess-work. I think personally that your 60/40 split is pretty much the maximum certainty one could reach as to an HJ. I think it's farcical to come to the conclusion as Bart Ehrman's supposed "Jesus certainly existed" mode.