Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

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.

Absolutely.

No matter how much the HJers deny it, there is still involved a lot of supposition and guess-work.

Of course. To me, the only reason for my leaning towards HJ (and again I stress that I am far from convinced) is that the narrative fits better and raises fewer questions. YMMV.

 

[TimCallahan]

Have you considered the Rylands papyrus fragment? It would place John earlier, a couple of decades at least. http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/

In a much earlier post, possibly on a different thread, Maximara pointed out to me an article casting doubt upon the reliability of paleographic dating, by which the Rylands fragment was dated ca. CE 125. Justin Martyr quoted from the Synoptic Gospels and alluded to them. He may also have quoted from John. Of course He quoted from the Pauline epistles also. So these documents were in existence by the middle of the second century.

Ignatius of Antioch, who died in 117, also used lines from some of the Pauline epistles (from the site, bolding added):

Implicit references are quotation from Paul, especially indirect or unattributed, or expressing ideas and phrases that appear in his works. This use or reference implies the material quoted was in existence at the time the external evidence was created. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is impossible for this letter to have been written after their time. On the other hand, lack of witness by ancient sources suggests a later date, an argument from silence. However, use of this line of reasoning is dangerous, because of the incompleteness of the historical record: many ancient texts are lost, damaged, or have been revised.

Once he's back, dejudge might want to take note of the second block of bolding.

 

[TimCallahan]

I mentioned Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in 117. However, since there is some doubt as to the authorship of seven letters attributed to him that are generally considered genuine I went to this website, where I found the following (bolding added):

In the Ignatian letters, we see the situation as it was in a few cities in Asia minor, around 135: struggling church leaders, sometimes with close associates, who needed all the help they could get in order to expand and/or solidify their position.

In the Ignatian letter addressed to the Ephesians the author mentions Paul and his letter to the Ephesians (actually considered a deutero-Pauline letter, bolding added):

Chapter XIII . . . Take heed, then, often to come together to give thanks to God, and show forth His praise. For when ye come frequently together in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and his "fiery darts" urging to sin fall back ineffectual. For your concord and harmonious faith prove his destruction, and the torment of his assistants. Nothing is better than that peace which is according to Christ, by which all war, both of aërial and terrestrial spirits, is brought to an end. "For we wrestle not against blood and flesh, but against principalities and powers, and against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places."

Chapter XIV.- . . . Wherefore none of the devices of the devil shall be hidden from you, if, like Paul, ye perfectly possess that faith and love towards Christ which are the beginning and the end of life. The beginning of life is faith, and the end is love. And these two being inseparably connected together, do perfect the man of God; while all other things which are requisite to a holy life follow after them. No man making a profession of faith ought to sin, nor one possessed of love to hate his brother. For He that said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," said also, "and thy neighbour as thyself." Those that profess themselves to be Christ's are known not only by what they say, but by what they practise. "For the tree is known by its fruit."

In the bolded area from Chapter XIII, we have a quote from the Epistle to the Ephesians, one of the disputed or "deutero" Pauline epistles, generally considered to be later than those epistles considered genuinely Pauline. In the bolded area in Chapter XIV we have a direct reference to Paul.

Assuming the later date to be true, we have a reference to Paul himself as well as a quote from a later epistle written in his name, both dating from ca. 135 - 45 years earlier than dejudge insists anyone ever mentioned Paul or his epistles. At this website, the auther asserts the letters were written ca. 145, which is still 35 years earlier than dejudge asserts they could have been written. It also puts the first direct mention of Paul far earlier than he asserts it was ever made.

 

[The Norseman]

Absolutely.



Of course. To me, the only reason for my leaning towards HJ (and again I stress that I am far from convinced) is that the narrative fits better and raises fewer questions. YMMV.

Whew! I'm glad that I can be in agreement with someone on these Jesus threads!

 

[Brainache]

Whew! I'm glad that I can be in agreement with someone on these Jesus threads!

That's all I'm saying as well.

I just lean a bit further than Belz... because of the reading that I've done.

You should know this by now.

 

[The Norseman]

That's all I'm saying as well.

I just lean a bit further than Belz... because of the reading that I've done.

You should know this by now.

90/10 is, to me, more than a bit further. And yes, I do know that. But when have you expressed agreement with what I've said?

 

[maximara]

In a much earlier post, possibly on a different thread, Maximara pointed out to me an article casting doubt upon the reliability of paleographic dating, by which the Rylands fragment was dated ca. CE 125. Justin Martyr quoted from the Synoptic Gospels and alluded to them. He may also have quoted from John. Of course He quoted from the Pauline epistles also. So these documents were in existence by the middle of the second century.

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (125-c225) - fragment of John that could sit upon a credit card and contains no complete sentences, and only one complete word: kai (“and”). "What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century." (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.)

 

[Brainache]

90/10 is, to me, more than a bit further. And yes, I do know that. But when have you expressed agreement with what I've said?

When you haven't been repeating the debunked nonsense that flows from the MJ camp.

 

[TimCallahan]

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (125-c225) - fragment of John that could sit upon a credit card and contains no complete sentences, and only one complete word: kai (“and”). "What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century." (Nongbr, Brent (2005) "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel." Harvard Theological Review 98:24-52.)

That's odd. I had thought it had writing on both sides clearly from Jesus' interview with Pilate. That leaves us with, IIRC, the Bodmer Papyri, ca. CE 200, as the earliest clear manuscript evidence of the Gospel of John. As I recall, Irenaeus insisted, though for essentially numerological reasons, that there had to be four canonical gospels and that there were other allusions to John by his contemporaries writing ca. 180.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge: My point in laying out my take on the origins of Christianity was to show, by example, what I was asking of you.

What I have said is that you have not provided any supporting evidence for what you believe.

Please look at what you wrote and you will see that it is void of sources unlike my posts. I must must have sources or else you are just speculating.

I have very little time for imagination.

... 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.

I need sources, sources, sources!!!


1. Name a source of antiquity that state Jesus of Nazareth was a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender since the time of Pilate.

2. Name a source of antiquity which corroborates the hallucinations of Paul from a resurrected Jesus in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

3. Name your source of antiquity to show that there were Hellenized Jews who worshiped a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender as a God pre 70 CE.

I've laid out what I think took place. I will be happy to defend it.

Of course you can defend it with your imagination but not with any sources of antiquity.

It is already know that the HJ argument is indefensible---there is no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth a self ordained rabbi and messianic pretender.

It is precisely because of no actual evidence why some speculate Jesus was a Zealot, some he was an Apocalyptic and some he was a Cynic and now you imagine that he was a self ordained rabbi and messianic pretender.

Which history book of antiquity mentions Jesus of Nazareth the rabbi and messianic pretender?

There are lots of persons called Jesus in Josephus and none was a self ordained rabbi and messianic pretender.

 

[dejudge]

......In the Ignatian letter addressed to the Ephesians the author mentions Paul and his letter to the Ephesians (actually considered a deutero-Pauline letter, bolding added]....

Before you went any further, you should have seen the glaring problem. Once you admit that the Ephesian letter was really a fake then you cannot claim Ignatius mentioned Paul.

You really have no idea who Ignatius mentioned if the Ephesians letter was a forgery. Perhaps it was Justin or Aristides who wrote the Ephesians letter.

Now, I must alert you that the Ignatius letters are massive forgeries or at least extremely questionable.

If Ignatius was arrested, was bound and under guard for preaching Christ and sent to Rome to be executed then who provided the Paper, Ink and Pen while he was imprisoned for him to openly propagate the Gospel of Jesus, the very same crime for which he would be executed?

 

[dejudge]

For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is impossible for this letter to have been written after their time.

That is like saying it is impossible for the Donation of Constantine to have been written hundreds of years after Constantine was dead.

You seem to have forgotten that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or at the age of Fifty years.

Would it not be impossible for Paul to preach Christ Crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 50 CE?


Now, even if Justin mentioned 2 Thessalonians, which he did not, it would not really prove that Pauline writings were already composed since 2 Thessalonians is NOT a Pauline writing. It is a Forgery or falsely attributed to Paul.

Maybe it was Justin, Ignatius, or Irenaus--Not Paul-- who is the REAL author of 2 Thessalonians.

 

[Craig B]

I need sources, sources, sources!!!

So do we, so do we, so do we!!!

 

[Craig B]

You seem to have forgotten that Irenaeus claimed Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or at the age of Fifty years.
Would it not be impossible for Paul to preach Christ Crucified since the time of Aretas c 37-41 CE if Jesus was crucified c 50 CE?

Yes, that means Irenaeus is wrong, IF he was really claiming that. We have discussed this again and again. Irenaeus derived his ideas from his Jesus as "antidote to Adam" ideology, not from any special historical knowledge.

Maybe it was Justin, Ignatius, or Irenaus--Not Paul-- who is the REAL author of 2 Thessalonians.

I need sources, sources, sources!!!

 

[Belz...]

90/10 is, to me, more than a bit further. And yes, I do know that. But when have you expressed agreement with what I've said?

When you haven't been repeating the debunked nonsense that flows from the MJ camp.

Now, now, guys, it's the holiday season. Play nice.

 

[Belz...]

I need sources, sources, sources!!!

I need the blood of young virgins, myself. To each his own fountain of youth, I guess.

 

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid-2nd century, as well as Justin Martyr and Ignatius of Antioch; it is impossible for this letter to have been written after their time.

That is like saying it is impossible for the Donation of Constantine to have been written hundreds of years after Constantine was dead.

No dejudge. It's like saying, to give an entirely imaginary example:

"The Donation of Elagabalus (or whatever) is supposed to have been written in 220 AD. John Hardouin states that Severus Archontius forged it in 1321 AD, but it is mentioned in St Sigismond the Headbanger's Refutation of All Reason composed in 754 AD, so it can't be later than that."

 

[The Norseman]

When you haven't been repeating the debunked nonsense that flows from the MJ camp.

Yikes. Well, I do appreciate your straightforward answers even if I disagree with what you write.

 

[TimCallahan]

What I have said is that you have not provided any supporting evidence for what you believe.

Please look at what you wrote and you will see that it is void of sources unlike my posts. I must must have sources or else you are just speculating.

I have very little time for imagination.



I need sources, sources, sources!!!


1. Name a source of antiquity that state Jesus of Nazareth was a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender since the time of Pilate.

2. Name a source of antiquity which corroborates the hallucinations of Paul from a resurrected Jesus in the 1st century and before c 70 CE.

3. Name your source of antiquity to show that there were Hellenized Jews who worshiped a self-ordained rabbi and messianic pretender as a God pre 70 CE.






Of course you can defend it with your imagination but not with any sources of antiquity.

It is already know that the HJ argument is indefensible---there is no historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth a self ordained rabbi and messianic pretender.

It is precisely because of no actual evidence why some speculate Jesus was a Zealot, some he was an Apocalyptic and some he was a Cynic and now you imagine that he was a self ordained rabbi and messianic pretender.

Which history book of antiquity mentions Jesus of Nazareth the rabbi and messianic pretender?

There are lots of persons called Jesus in Josephus and none was a self ordained rabbi and messianic pretender.

I have repeatedly asked you to lay out what you consider to be an accurate timeline for the development of that particular strand of Christianity that eventually became the Christian religion. Yu have repeated failed to do so.

I have repeatedly asked you to give your view of how this religion developed. Do you see it as having been invented by Gentiles? If so how did it get its Jewish connections, i.e., how did the Christ of the nascent Christian religion come to be identified with a Jewish figure, either real or mythical, named Jesus? You have repeatedly failed to answer these questions.

I laid out my views as a matter of honest full-disclosure. I will be happy to respond to your questions regarding why I believe what I believe. However, as I have previously stated, I will not do this until you have answered the questions I have asked you. Instead, you have merely continued to attack my argument. Repeated failure to disclose your beliefs, while instead trying to keep other on the defensive is, in essence, dishonest. Until you answer my questions regarding what you believe, I refuse to answer your questions about why I believe what I believe.

 

[TimCallahan]

Before you went any further, you should have seen the glaring problem. Once you admit that the Ephesian letter was really a fake then you cannot claim Ignatius mentioned Paul.
You really have no idea who Ignatius mentioned if the Ephesians letter was a forgery. Perhaps it was Justin or Aristides who wrote the Ephesians letter.

This simply does not follow. That whoever wrote in Ignatius' name quotes Ephesians 6 means that Ephesians had been written by the time that author quoted it. That whoever wrote it specifically mentions Paul as having visited and counseled the church in Ephesus means that he had heard of someone named Paul who had done that.

I also mentioned and cited by links two sources, one of whom who asserted the Ignatian letters were written ca. 135, the other that they were written ca. 145. If we take the latter view, that still puts the earliest mention of Paul and one of the epistles written in his name at ca. 145 - far earlier than what you had asserted.

Now, I must alert you that the Ignatius letters are massive forgeries or at least extremely questionable.

If Ignatius was arrested, was bound and under guard for preaching Christ and sent to Rome to be executed then who provided the Paper, Ink and Pen while he was imprisoned for him to openly propagate the Gospel of Jesus, the very same crime for which he would be executed?

Yes, I know the letters were likely written in his name, as I noted above and in my post referring to the Ignatian letter to the Epheisans. You need to be a bit less selective in reading my posts and actually read the whole thing.