Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

I have never offered such as you are referring to.
I have commented on the evidences provided by both sides.
Dejudge's evidence, however, has more issues to me than other folks' presentations.

I was talking about people here in general who think Jesus was probably real (eg with figures like 60:40 being stated). I did not mean that “you” yourself take that position (that’s why I began above by saying “if you believe that Jesus was real….“). I don’t know if you do believe he was real or not … but “if you believe that, then ….. etc. as per my previous post above).

What I am pointing out is that dejudge and others here have tried to explain that if “you” (ie anyone in general) take the view that Jesus was probably real, then they can only be getting that belief from what was written in the bible … because as far we know, all other writing about Jesus was almost certainly taken from earlier Christian beliefs of the time as first written about in any way that we know of, in the bible.

There are multitudes of accounts where we only have one source (the Bible is not a singular source, however) to work from (most of Egypt, or Hittites for example), and we work from those sources as best as we can - full well understanding that what they are providing are entirely bias and often exaggerated.

This does not prevent us from inferring some basic history or (more reliably) anthropology from these texts.

It is not odd to carefully consider the texts which discuss Jesus; biblical and otherwise.

But those historical “accounts” which you refer to, are not purely from books of religious preaching like the bible, are they? Which other stories of ancient history are known only from a written source like the bible where anonymous authors told impossible stories of the supernatural from yet more anonymous sources, not one of which ever claimed to have met the person (eg Jesus), and where many of the stories are now known to have been copied from an OT of yet more unsubstantiated superstitious beliefs written many centuries before? Which other figures in all of history are known only from religious writing like that, and where those figures are nevertheless almost universally agreed by historians to be real figures?

I might, however, think the entire matter is overly fixated upon, but I don't think it is errant.

I don’t know what that sentence means. But the reason Jesus is important is that the entire basis of modern day Christianity, with all of it’s worldwide belief and influence, depends upon it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You claimed that I take the Bible at face value...

No. He didn't say that you take the Bible at face value. He said that thinking the legends may have had their genesis in the life of a real person is not taking the Bible at face value.

 

[IanS]

Yes it is evidence. It is not conclusive evidence but it is evidence. Why do people believe things? Because the things suit the prejudices or dispositions of the believers? Yes. Because the thing believed in is rewarding to, or promises a reward to, the believer? Because the thing believed in is true? All of these are possible motives for belief. Therefore the occurrence of belief is evidence of the presence of one or another of these things.

May I stress again that evidence is not proof, and it may be strong or weak. But it IS still evidence.

No, it's not lol. It may be evidence of other things (eg evidence of what people believed). But it is certainly NOT evidence that their beliefs were true.


Look, lets try an example - suppose I write something saying that I saw a pterodactyl on the number 9 bus. Is that evidence that a pterodactyl really was on the bus?

Answer - NO it definitely is not. It may be evidence that I believed I had seen such a thing. But that is only evidence of my beliefs. It is certainly NOT evidence that my belief was ever true.

If I write a bible saying Jesus existed and he did X, Y and Z in Galilee. Is that evidence that Jesus existed? No it is certainly not! It's only evidence that I write to make the claim. It is definitely NOT evidence that my claim is true ... it is not in itself ANY evidence that Jesus existed or that he did anything in Galilee.

The biblical writing is at best, like a witness statement in court. Just because the witness makes a statement claiming various things, that does not mean their statement truly is evidence of the truth of what they say. Just because the witness says he saw person X shoot person Y, that does not mean his statement is true … it’s not evidence that X really did shoot Y. At best it’s evidence that the witness believes he saw X shoot Y … but it’s not in itself evidence that any shooting ever took place.

In the case of the biblical writing, what makes it highly unreliable as evidence of what it claims, is it’s anonymous nature, it’s overtly superstitious religious nature, it’s claims of the impossible, the fact that many of the claims can be traced back to OT prophecy, the fact that none of the claims can be independently verified, the fact no eye-witnesses ever write to confirm anything, the fact there is no physical evidence of any sort, the fact that no contemporary historians ever wrote to even mention Jesus let alone confirm anything said in the bible, etc. etc.

So there is overwhelming reason to judge that biblical writing as highly unreliable. And no actual evidence to support anything it says about Jesus. Not to mention that 1800 years later, much of what it says has now been shown to be definitely untrue & impossible.

 

[dejudge]

...Where your comments cause me to remark is where they lack in either making sense logically, or in not aligning with known anthropological contexts, or not aligning with known paleographic material.

I have found your statement void of logic, unreasonable and a failure of facts. You take the NT at face value for your analysis in an anthropological context yet become upset when I argue that the statements in the NT described Jesus as the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

You seem to have forgotten that any analysis of the NT and culture of the time period must take into account the massive amount of mythological characters that were accepted to be figures of history.

Jesus of Nazareth in the NT is really no different to the God of the Jews, Romulus, Perseus or Adam in Genesis.

The Jesus character is really a compilation of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.

From the writings attributed to Apologetic and non-apologetic writers we get a very good idea that there was a culture within the ancient Roman Empire where belief in Myth characters as figures of history was widespread.

The belief in the myth Jesus character as the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator perfectly matches the culture in antiquity.

Let us examine the culture of the Greeks with regard to belief in Myth Gods in Aristides' Apology.

Aristides' Apology

First of all, the Greeks bring forward as a god Kronos, that is to say Chiun (Saturn). And his worshippers sacrifice their children to him, and they burn some of them alive in his honour.

And they say that he took to him among his wives Rhea, and begat many children by her. By her too he begat Dios, who is called Zeus. And at length he (Kronos) went mad, and through fear of an oracle that had been made known to him, he began to devour his sons.

And from him Zeus was stolen away without his knowledge; and at length Zeus bound him, and mutilated the signs of his manhood, and flung them into the sea. And hence, as they say in fable, there was engendered Aphrodite, who is called Astarte.

And he (Zeus) cast out Kronos fettered into darkness. Great then is the error and ignominy which the Greeks have brought forward about the first of their gods, in that they have said all this about him, O King. It is impossible that a god should be bound or mutilated; and if it be otherwise, he is indeed miserable.

 

[Foster Zygote]

By the way, dejudge, I'm still waiting to know what double standard I employed.

 

[Belz...]

No, it's not lol. It may be evidence of other things (eg evidence of what people believed). But it is certainly NOT evidence that their beliefs were true.

Your ridiculous stance on what is evidence for what makes debate with you impossible on any topic.

 

[TimCallahan]

Okay, for the posts this page, p. 61, so far (not including this one), 18 out of 24 posts - that's 75% - have been those posted by dejudge and people arguing against him. While I have him on ignore, I'm seeing a lot of his posts quoted. It's the same old crap, over and over again. This is a waste of time.

 

[Craig B]

Okay, for the posts this page, p. 61, so far (not including this one), 18 out of 24 posts - that's 75% - have been those posted by dejudge and people arguing against him. While I have him on ignore, I'm seeing a lot of his posts quoted. It's the same old crap, over and over again. This is a waste of time.

Of course you're right, but I've taken it upon myself to counter his more remarkable ideas, and I've learned a tremendous amount about second century Christian writers. The time has not been wasted. (I stress I haven't learned about them from dejudge.)

 

[jhunter1163]

Of course you're right, but I've taken it upon myself to counter his more remarkable ideas, and I've learned a tremendous amount about second century Christian writers. The time has not been wasted. (I stress I haven't learned about them from dejudge.)

I'll second this. It's been educational for me, as well, and it could be for dejudge, if he would take off his anti-historical blinders and read.

 

[dejudge]

By the way, dejudge, I'm still waiting to know what double standard I employed.

Right now you are arguing that Jesus existed with no known history when it is known that Myth characters are those with no historical evidence.

You seem to have one standard for Jesus and another for Benny Hinn.

Jesus requires no history but Benn Hinn does.

But, examine Putarch's Romulus. Jesus matches the myth called Romulus.

Romulus of Rome has no known history, had a human mother and brother, and when he died the day turned into night then later he resurrected and ascended.

Jesus of Nazareth has no known history, had a human mother and brother, and when he died day turned into night then later he resurrected and ascended.

I cannot accept Jesus of Nazareth as a figure of history because he perfectly matches mythology and has no history.

 

[dejudge]

Of course you're right, but I've taken it upon myself to counter his more remarkable ideas, and I've learned a tremendous amount about second century Christian writers. The time has not been wasted. (I stress I haven't learned about them from dejudge.)

Who could you have possibly learned them from? Tim Callahan, Foster Zygote?

I have mentioned many 2nd century writers and passages from Aristides, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian, and Irenaeus.

You admit that I have remarkable ideas but refuse to admit that you have a learned a tremendous amount from my posting of passages from 2nd century writings.

How amusing!!!

 

[Craig B]

... You admit that I have remarkable ideas but refuse to admit that you have a learned a tremendous amount from my posting of passages from 2nd century writings.

Exactly so.

 

[Belz...]

Who could you have possibly learned them from?

Because he's not close-minded and he's willing to reexamine his ideas and conclusions, unlike you.

 

[dejudge]

There are multitudes of accounts where we only have one source (the Bible is not a singular source, however) to work from (most of Egypt, or Hittites for example), and we work from those sources as best as we can - full well understanding that what they are providing are entirely bias and often exaggerated.

This does not prevent us from inferring some basic history or (more reliably) anthropology from these texts...

Now, you admit that you take parts of the Bible at face value yet attempted to ridicule me when I do not even infer any history to the story of Jesus.

I regard the story of Jesus as total mythology--no history at face value--which matches the culture of mythological beliefs in the Roman Empire in antiquity.

This is Justin Martyr since the mid 2nd century explaining that the story of Jesus matches the CULTURE of mythology in the Roman Empire.

No part of the Jesus story should be taken as history at face value without corroboration.


Justin's First Apology

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter:

Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all;

Aesculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven;

and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb;

and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils;

and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus.

For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars?

The Jesus story was accepted in antiquity because it was completely compatible with the CULTURE of Myth in the Roman Empire in the 2nd century.

There are many more writers of antiquity in the 2nd century that will confirm the CULTURE of mythology in the Roman Empire--not only Aristides and Justin.

It was the very same Greeks and Romans who developed a CULTURE OF MYTHOLOGY who later accepted the Myth character Jesus as the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

There is no history at face value for Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, in the Bible.

 

[JaysonR]

I have found your statement void of logic, unreasonable and a failure of facts. You take the NT at face value for your analysis in an anthropological context yet become upset when I argue that the statements in the NT described Jesus as the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator.

You seem to have forgotten that any analysis of the NT and culture of the time period must take into account the massive amount of mythological characters that were accepted to be figures of history.

Jesus of Nazareth in the NT is really no different to the God of the Jews, Romulus, Perseus or Adam in Genesis.

The Jesus character is really a compilation of Jewish, Roman and Greek mythology.

From the writings attributed to Apologetic and non-apologetic writers we get a very good idea that there was a culture within the ancient Roman Empire where belief in Myth characters as figures of history was widespread.

The belief in the myth Jesus character as the Son of God born of a Ghost and God Creator perfectly matches the culture in antiquity.

Let us examine the culture of the Greeks with regard to belief in Myth Gods in Aristides' Apology.

Aristides' Apology

Was your point in this post an attempt to bring anthropological evidence to support your position by seeing if peoples in a given culture did believe in mythological concepts?

If so, that's not close to what I had meant by your proposition lacking anthropological consideration at all.

You still haven't identified which culture wrote these texts, why, and where.
You still think that a post 70 c CE date is remarkable for texts to appear about something in 1st c CE Judea regardless of the considerations of what occurred there, and has been explained to you.

Equally, I have never disagreed with a position of literary function and Hellenistic influence into the mythical creation of the Jesus narrative.
I further, however, do not see such as inherently indicating that none of the figures within the text existed in some mundane fashion at all purely based on that consideration alone.

 

[JaysonR]

Now, you admit that you take parts of the Bible at face value yet attempted to ridicule me when I do not even infer any history to the story of Jesus.

No. To take something on face value is to simply accept the assertion of it, as it is, simply because it was stated.
If I took the Bible at face value, then I would be a literalist Christian who believes Jesus is my divine savior and that the apocalypse is near.

I am no such individual because I am not taking any of the various Jesus texts (not just the Bible) at face value.

That term is not applicable to the concept of being forced to only use texts which discuss Jesus as our means of discerning whether Jesus did or did not exist. That is not a face value reading; that is a statement of the recognition of the state of evidence regarding a subject.

You yourself are forced to only use such texts; that you are forced to use them does not inherently indicate that you take the texts on face value.

You end up taking them at nearly face value, however, because you tend to require that the descriptions of Jesus be taken in full of what the Western Orthodox Canon Bible describes him as in English, and will not accept anyone trimming off or altering those descriptions.

I regard the story of Jesus as total mythology--no history at face value--which matches the culture of mythological beliefs in the Roman Empire in antiquity.

I am very well aware of your position.

No part of the Jesus story should be taken as history at face value without corroboration.

No part of the various texts scattered about are taken as history at face value.

The corroboration which you would accept, doesn't directly exist; and this has been hashed out in the past, but that's not something which stops historians from doing their work.
There are lots of accounts that only arrive from a single form of textual references.

What we lack are something of other cultures talking about Jesus, or - at least - talking about this figure in a way that is openly clear without possibility of error.

The Jesus story was accepted in antiquity because it was completely compatible with the CULTURE in the Roman Empire in the 2nd century.

Which version?
Not all versions of that story were as you are describing; some were, while others, or other parts, were not quite so digestible.

There is no history at face value for Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, in the Bible.

I don't know what this is supposed to be of value for, but I don't know anyone in here who has suggested that there is such.

 

[JaysonR]

I was talking about people here in general who think Jesus was probably real (eg with figures like 60:40 being stated). I did not mean that “you” yourself take that position (that’s why I began above by saying “if you believe that Jesus was real….“). I don’t know if you do believe he was real or not … but “if you believe that, then ….. etc. as per my previous post above).

What I am pointing out is that dejudge and others here have tried to explain that if “you” (ie anyone in general) take the view that Jesus was probably real, then they can only be getting that belief from what was written in the bible … because as far we know, all other writing about Jesus was almost certainly taken from earlier Christian beliefs of the time as first written about in any way that we know of, in the bible.

OK, that is not all that damning of a point.
The only way that you can get that Hantili I was King of the Hittites in the 15th c BCE and was the assassin of his brother, who was King before him, Mursili I is from fragmentary records of the Hittite library.

I don't see how that is a bad thing in any fashion.
The only way that anyone arrives at any position regarding Jesus is from reading these texts (and hopefully the rest of them as well, rather than just the Western Orthodox Canon).

But those historical “accounts” which you refer to, are not purely from books of religious preaching like the bible, are they?

Yes, most of them were.
Almost every Hittite and Egyptian King was a divine figure of whom around a cult existed and legends were birthed; especially the Kings of Egypt, whom were ascended to become gods.

Hittites were praised in Davidic fashion, praised with attributes bestowed upon them by a given god or gods, and prophesied to conduct an array of actions.

Figures like Jesus weren't worshiped during the 1st c CE; they (or their ideals) were followed.
The conversion into worshipping and iconography came later.

Similar to this, most Hittite Kings were of the former form.
IF their culture had survived in passing to another; it is very possible that one of their Kings could have been converted into a figure of worship akin to Jesus in some fashion; however, we will not be able to know, as their culture imploded without communicability.

I don’t know what that sentence means. But the reason Jesus is important is that the entire basis of modern day Christianity, with all of it’s worldwide belief and influence, depends upon it.

Yeah, I'm not religious; to me, Jesus means jack all of anything.

The culture surrounding this figure, and from where this figure came out of...now those are of value and interesting.

The rapid rise of the Hebrew peoples is entirely fascinating and hard to believe in its own right.
Jesus? Maybe so, maybe not. I don't know, no one truly does, and it really doesn't matter to the historical record whether he did or didn't.

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but the dispersion theory has far more impact upon the historical record than the historicity of Jesus.

Jesus matters to the emotions of possibly ~30% of this planet's population.
But to the historical record...not so much.

So books sell with his name on it from both camps, because people will read about this figure simply due to popularity and nothing else.

If we flip back and forth between never existing and existing, however, Jesus impacts the historical record practically none at all.

Flip back and forth between the dispersion theory being right or wrong, however, and massive historical record earthquakes happen.

 

[annnnoid]

Yo ....JasonR. Are you, like, hiding something? I'm surprised that no one else has pointed this out....but you bear a remarkable resemblance to Jesus! I mean...just the other day I saw a picture of him on a wall...and you're a dead ringer.

Definition of a fanatic: One who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Is there hope? Frontal attacks have obviously proved futile. The inexorable momentum of certainty may yet prevail.

The honorable approach. Alaska may now be known for someone other than Sarah Palin. Good luck.

 

[maximara]

Thank you for this enlightening post. However, I find it hard to give much credence to a book most modern scholars reject (I took the liberty of hiliting that section, the first hilite in your quote). Thus, I tend toward seeing Chresitans in Tacitus as an example of what Tertullian was complaining about in Ad Nationes.

That said, it's undeniable that the Christian religion as it was developing in it early centuries was wildly syncretistic. It most likely took the image of the Madonna and child from that of Isis and Horus, the pieta from Isis with the body of Osiris, numerous literary tropes from Euripides The Bacchae, the winter solstice (at that time Dec. 25) as the birthdate of Jesus from the worship of Sol Invictus, etc. Co-opting the competition proved an excellent strategy.

As you note, depictions of Jesus originally were not of a guy with a curly beard. Rather, he was portrayed as beardless youth. Serapis as the source of his image, therefore, makes a great deal of sense. Thank you for that bit of information. What is particularly noteworthy is that Serapis, IIRC, was himself a somewhat manufactured god, created in the Hellenistic period.

The rabbit hole on Serapis (Osiris-Apis) goes even deeper if Desmond Stewart is to be believed: "Chrestus (or in its Greek original, chrêstos ) means gentle, kindly, good; it is, curiously, the equivalent of the common pharaonic title of Osiris, Un-nefer."

Arthur Drews' version of the Hadrian to Servianus letter is slightly (but critically) different making me wonder if there are variants about:

"Those who worship Serapis are the Chrestians, and those who call themselves priests of Chrestus are devoted to Serapis. There is not a high- priest of the Jews, a Samaritan, or a priest of Chrestus who is not a mathematician, soothsayer, or quack. Even the patriarch, when he goes to Egypt, is compelled by some to worship Serapis, by others to worship Chrestus. They are a turbulent, inflated, lawless body of men. They have only one God, who is worshipped by the Chrestians, the Jews, and all the peoples of Egypt."

Louis H. Feldman's 1996 Studies in Hellenistic Judaism by BRILL pg 381 states that Serapis was identified with not only Osiris but Aesculapius, Jupiter, and Pluto ie a Healing deity, the Ruler of the Gods, and two King of the Underworlds (one of whom overcame death) all got mixed into one neat little package with this guy.

In fact, Aesculapius in Greek myth was struck down by Zeus via thunderbolt for...raising someone from the dead!

Throw in the fact that Chrestos had been used as an adjective and even a title going back to the 5th century BCE and appearing on tombs before, during, and after the supposed time of "Christ" and the headaches begin.

 

[dejudge]

I will present another 2nd century writer c 180 CE who wrote about the CULTURE of the Greeks at that time.

Theophilus of Antioch wrote 3 books To Autholycus and revealed that there were numerous mythological gods called Jupiter in Greek and other cultures. There were at least NINE mythological Gods called Jupiter.

Theophilus' To Autolycus

But if you cite the Greeks and the other nations, they worship stones and wood, and other kinds of material substances,--the images, as we have just been saying, of dead men. For Phidias is found in Pisa making for the Eleians the Olympian Jupiter, and at Athens the Minerva of the Acropolis.

And I will inquire of you, my friend, how many Jupiters exist. For there is, firstly, Jupiter surnamed Olympian, then Jupiter Latiaris, and Jupiter Cassius, and Jupiter Tonans, and Jupiter Propator, and Jupiter Pannychius, and Jupiter Poliuchus, and Jupiter Capitolinus; and that Jupiter, the son of Saturn, who is king of the Cretans, has a tomb in Crete, but the rest, possibly, were not thought worthy of tombs.

And if you speak of the mother of those who are called gods, far be it from me to utter with my lips her deeds, or the deeds of those by whom she is worshipped (for it is unlawful for us so much as to name such things), and what vast taxes and revenues she and her sons furnish to the king. For these are not gods, but idols, as we have already said, the works of men's hands and unclean demons. And such may all those become who make them and put their trust in them!

The claim that Gods had Mothers was already found in the CULTURE of Greek and Romans which is compatible with the Jesus story.

A mythological Jesus perfectly matches the Culture of mythology in the Roman Empire in the 2nd century.