Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Then argue with Paul, not with anyone here. In fact Paul probably didn't say what the KJV's inattention to punctuation makes him appear to say. Here is NIV which indicates that he saw no other apostles (at all); he saw only James the Lord's brother. Here's a commentary from "Bible Hub" trying to make sense of Paul's words. As I state (in implicit agreement with NIV), I think its a punctuation issue. Anyway, here goes.

Do you know where he is getting the bit about James dying in 68 or 69? Is that about his death being the cause of the war? Is he assuming that the war started the day after James died?

 

[maximara]

As far as “good evidence” is concerned, the biblical writing is vastly worse than merely failing the tests you describe above.

The "tests" are basic historical methodology. There is not much worst then failing these three basics:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.

2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.

3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.

The gospel writing for example is not only inadmissible on account of being entirely hearsay from writers who did not themselves know any such details. But it is also from anonymous writers describing stories from yet more anonymous people of the past. And never once naming a single traceable person who ever gave the author any credible story/details at all.

The flaw in this line of reasoning comes up with the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories; as with Jesus their stories were "entirely hearsay from writers who did not themselves know any such details" and by "anonymous writers describing stories from yet more anonymous people of the past".

Yet we have reason to think that King Arthur and Robin Hood legends are based on people who once lived. Why? Because Comparative evidence in the stories can be show to fit known facts of the time the events supposedly took place in ("Robin Hood" or some variant of such being used for outlaw as far back as 1228 and there are several viable candidates for Arthur based on the stories) But no one says that the particular versions of King Arthur and Robin Hood in the stories really existed...but that is what we keep getting with Jesus.

As I pointed out to the HJ crowd here many pages back - that sort of gospel testimony would be immediately ruled out as credible evidence in any democratic legal case, on the basis that neither the writer nor his unnamed and unknown sources could be produced to confirm first-hand a single thing that the writer said. That is most definitely NOT credible evidence of what the anonymous authors say about their earlier anonymous sources in a chain of even more anonymous witnesses; - none of whom can be traced or verified in any way at all.

It is time line this I really wish Josh McDowell had not brought the whole legalistic argument to the table; No historian, historical anthropologist, or general anthropologist looks at history in a legalistic manner. Rather they look at history in a social scientific manner.

Two Scandinavian textbooks, written by historians regarding source criticism outline the real criteria actually used:

1) Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

2) A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

3) The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened

4) A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

5) If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

6) The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

7) If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased

You can look at New Testament source criticism (or rather what passes for it) and realize it is basically its little head into the nearest wall until things make sense.

The letters of Paul are barely in a better position, if at all.

Most people agree that these letters consist of Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

Everything else is either pseudepigraphical (Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) or were written by Paul's followers after his death (Colossians and 2nd Thessalonians).

And in the part that is thought to be Paul he give you no real details to even attempt any kind comparative evidence test. It is all vague general stuff that might as well come from a palm reader doing a cold reading.

In none of his letters does Paul ever claim to have met any living human called Jesus. On the contrary, Paul constantly stresses that his knowledge of Jesus is as a spirit form, about whom Paul has all his “knowledge”, ie in fact his religious beliefs, as he repeatedly tells us, through “scripture”, what he says “is written”, and by what he calls “revelation”.

There is a point people often ignored regarding Paul: 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (53 to 57 CE). Why is this important? Well look at what Paul is saying (KJV):

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

There are several ways to read Paul's comment about another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel many of which can be seen via the John Frum cult:

1) The proto-Jesus movement was largely directionless until Paul gave his own spin on it; John Frum supposedly dated all the way back to the 1910s but didn't get focused until 1940 with the first of the "John Frums"

2) Paul is trying to push the Jesus cult in a particular direction ala the Prince Philip movement faction and warning against members of the old direction.

3) various people inspired by Paul or others have taken up the name "Jesus" and preached their own versions of the Word; John Frum saw three of these in a seven year period (1940-1947)

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, what does the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek have to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Do you know where he is getting the bit about James dying in 68 or 69? Is that about his death being the cause of the war? Is he assuming that the war started the day after James died?

He may be referring to multiple attestations for the date of James' death.

 

[pakeha]

I saw what you did there!

 

[The Norseman]

Why do you believe the Bible?

Why do you take this rubbish at face value?

Why can't you see that these later traditions that were added to the story tell us very little, if anything, about the HJ?

Are you really unable to understand this very simple and basic point?

If you think that the Bible is rubbish, then what information did you read that gave you the 90 percent probability that Jesus actually existed?

 

[dejudge]

Then argue with Paul, not with anyone here. In fact Paul probably didn't say what the KJV's inattention to punctuation makes him appear to say.

You know what Paul probably said? Which Paul said what and when? There may have been at least SEVEN different Paul's.

But to expose you and Brainache's lack of knowledge please refer to Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians.

Chrysostom would state that James in Galatians was an Apostle and would also state James was NOT an actual brother of Jesus.

Over 1600 hundreds years ago it was ALREADY established that James in Galatians was NOT James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

Chrysostom EXPLAINS what Galatians 1.19 means to Christians in the 4th century.

1. James had the title of Apostle.

2. James was NOT the brother of the Lord by birth.


Chrysostom's Homiliy on Galatians 1 Ver. 19.

“But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother.”

See what great friends he was with Peter especially; on his account he left his home, and with him he tarried. This I frequently repeat, and desire you to remember, that no one, when he hears what this Apostle seems to have spoken against Peter, may conceive a suspicion of him. He premises this, that when he says, “I resisted Peter,” no one may suppose that these words imply enmity and contention; for he honored and loved his person more than all and took this journey for his sake only, not for any of the others. “But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James.” “I saw him merely, I did not learn from him,” he means.


But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not “James” merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does.

But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him “the Lord's brother,” although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 does NOT attest to James the Lord's brother and it is completely erroneous and mis-leading that James the Lord's brother is far more attested than Jesus outside the Bible.

1. James the Lord's brother is hardly mentioned outside the Bible.

2. Outside the Bible, James the Lord's brother was ALIVE C 67-68 CE.

3. Outside the Bible, James the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus by birth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, what does the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek have to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus?

 

[dejudge]

I have shown that the HJ argument is completely without a shred of supporting evidence.
Apologetic writers themselves have DESTROYED their straw argument that James in Galatians 1.19 was the actual brother of Jesus.

See Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? page 146.

Bart Ehrman declared that James "is Jesus's actual brother.

Bart Ehrman failed to acknowledge that no such thing is found OUTSIDE the Bible.

Bart Ehrman as a Bible Scholar MUST have been familiar with:

1. Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians---James NOT the actual brother of Jesus.

2. Papias' Fragments--the mother and father of James are not the parents of Jesus.

3. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus--the mother and father of James are not the parents of Jesus

4. The Recognitions---James was ALIVE c 67-68 CE.

5. The Gospels and Acts--there is NO Apostle called James the Lord's brother.

These sources completely contradict Ehrman and he must have known that James in Galatians was NOT considered the actual brother of Jesus by Apologetics.

The HJ argument is hopelessly dead. It is indeed a failure of facts and logic.

 

[IanS]

The "tests" are basic historical methodology. There is not much worst then failing these three basics:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.

2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.

3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.



The flaw in this line of reasoning comes up with the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories; as with Jesus their stories were "entirely hearsay from writers who did not themselves know any such details" and by "anonymous writers describing stories from yet more anonymous people of the past". Yet we have reason to think that King Arthur and Robin Hood legends are based on people who once lived. Why? Because Comparative evidence in the stories can be show to fit known facts of the time the events supposedly took place in ("Robin Hood" or some variant of such being used for outlaw as far back as 1228 and there are several viable candidates for Arthur based on the stories) But no one says that the particular versions of King Arthur and Robin Hood in the stories really existed...but that is what we keep getting with Jesus.

It is time line this I really wish Josh McDowell had not brought the whole legalistic argument to the table; No historian, historical anthropologist, or general anthropologist looks at history in a legalistic manner. Rather they look at history in a social scientific manner.

Two Scandinavian textbooks, written by historians regarding source criticism outline the real criteria actually used:

1) Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

2) A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

3) The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened

4) A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

5) If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

6) The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

7) If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased

You can look at New Testament source criticism (or rather what passes for it) and realize it is basically its little head into the nearest wall until things make sense.



Most people agree that these letters consist of Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

Everything else is either pseudepigraphical (Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus) or were written by Paul's followers after his death (Colossians and 2nd Thessalonians).

And in the part that is thought to be Paul he give you no real details to even attempt any kind comparative evidence test. It is all vague general stuff that might as well come from a palm reader doing a cold reading.



There is a point people often ignored regarding Paul: 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (53 to 57 CE). Why is this important? Well look at what Paul is saying (KJV):

"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him."

There are several ways to read Paul's comment about another Jesus, another spirit, and another gospel many of which can be seen via the John Frum cult:

1) The proto-Jesus movement was largely directionless until Paul gave his own spin on it; John Frum supposedly dated all the way back to the 1910s but didn't get focused until 1940 with the first of the "John Frums"

2) Paul is trying to push the Jesus cult in a particular direction ala the Prince Philip movement faction and warning against members of the old direction.

3) various people inspired by Paul or others have taken up the name "Jesus" and preached their own versions of the Word; John Frum saw three of these in a seven year period (1940-1947)

I don't think there is any real disagreement between us on what you have above or what I wrote before. But just to clarify a few things -

Re the first highlighted passage - if the legends of Robin Hood and King Arthur are, as you say, written entirely anonymously by people who themselves make clear that they never knew Robin Hood or King Arthur, and where King Arthur and Robin Hood were described in every other sentence as performing impossible miracles, and with no evidence given at all of those figures ever being associated with any known physical event or occurrence at all, then I’m pretty sure no genuine historians would ever try to claim that was evidence sufficient to conclude those figures ever existed.

But I think you said that in fact there is evidence to connect figures very much like the descriptions of King Arthur and Robin hood with known physical events of the time? However, that is not the case with Jesus, is it! Afaik, no figure like Jesus was ever known to be associated with any physical events of the time.

On the second point about why the gospel evidence could never be admitted in any proper court of law - what you are describing in 1 to 7 above is a set of guidelines used by historians. But we are not bound by those considerations at all. What we are discussing here is a matter of asserted fact, ie the fact that Jesus either did live or else he did not. And specifically we are discussing what really constitutes valid evidence of that HJ claim … NOT what bible scholars who describe themselves as “historians” may accept as “evidence” which they find convincing.

The question is - how can writing so hopelessly unreliable as the gospels were, ever be considered as viable evidence to show Jesus probably existed?

And the answer to that is that it is much MUCH too flawed ever to meet any reasonable test of viability, credibility or reliability, such as the tests that have been properly and carefully worked out for the consideration of what genuinely IS acceptable as real evidence of anything in legal cases …

... that may be different from what bible scholars will accept as evidence sufficient for Bart Ehrman and those of whom he says “every properly trained scholar on the planet” who agrees with Ehrman when he says the evidence (such as Paul meeting James!!) proves Jesus certainly existed … but that only goes to show that what the courts have carefully and painstakingly determined to be genuine and very real criteria for what truly should be regarded as genuine reliable evidence of whatever is being claimed, is (apparently) wholly different from and of a vastly higher standard (albeit still the minimum acceptable standard which must apply to any consideration short of the very much higher and more demanding standards in mathematically based sciences) than standards of evidence such as those you list and where those listed standards would result in “evidence” so manifestly unreliable and unfit ever to be considered before any jury, that those sort of historical standards are rendered completely and entirely unacceptable as being truly reliable evidence of what is claimed about Jesus.


IOW - to put all that far more briefly - the gospels and Paul’s letters could never be submitted as reliable evidence in any democratic court, for multiple fatal reasons. And whether bible scholars like that or not, and whether they insist on other standards or not, that IS the proper test in cases such as this where we allow that it may be unreasonable to require the even more rigorous standards of core-science … even though we are trying here, as we are in science, to determine the truth or otherwise of a factual claim …ie, the claim that there is indeed credible and reliable evidence in the gospels to show Jesus was a human a 1st century human preacher and the figure described in the bible.

Summary - the biblical writing most does definitely not pass any objective test (that really means “honest” & “credible” test) of qualifying as reliable evidence to show Jesus was a real person …

… at an absolute minimum it requires something independent of the biblical writing (for all the countless reasons already set out here at least 100 times, literally!).

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, what does the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek have to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus?

 

[Belz...]

Dejudge, what does the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek have to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus?

Echos in a room usually occur when the furniture and decorations are missing. I think this means Dejudge has no answer.

 

[dejudge]

Most people agree that these letters consist of Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon.

This is exactly what we should not do---Agree with people who have no evidence and don't care that they do not have any.

Most people agree God exist but ALL have NO evidence. It is the very very same thing with the Pauline Corpus.

There is NO corroboration at all that Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon were really written by Saul/Paul.

Those Epistles may have been written by the same person but there is no evidence that the person lived in the 1st century.

In Acts, there is no corroboration whatsoever that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches and Pastorals up to c 62 CE when Festus was procurator of Judea.

 

[Belz...]

I have shown that the HJ argument is completely without a shred of supporting evidence.

You have shown **** all.

The HJ argument is hopelessly dead. It is indeed a failure of facts and logic.

So when are you publishing your conclusions and revolutionising history ?

 

[Brainache]

This is exactly what we should not do---Agree with people who have no evidence and don't care that they do not have any.

Exactly why nobody agrees with you. Well spotted.

Most people agree God exist but ALL have NO evidence. It is the very very same thing with the Pauline Corpus.

Not around here it isn't.

There is NO corroboration at all that Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon were really written by Saul/Paul.

Those Epistles may have been written by the same person but there is no evidence that the person lived in the 1st century.

In Acts, there is no corroboration whatsoever that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches and Pastorals up to c 62 CE when Festus was procurator of Judea.

You have been presented with the evidence. Your continued denials only emphasize the irrationality of your position.

 

[dejudge]

You have been presented with the evidence. Your continued denials only emphasize the irrationality of your position.

I have utterly destroyed your claim that "James is much better attested outside the bible than Jesus is, and that mention in Josephus is not the only place he is called "Brother Of The Lord"

Anyone who is familiar with writings outside the Bible will quickly and easily dismiss your claim as one who has virtually little or no knowledge of the hundreds of Apologetic writings which ATTEST Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

It was also easily shown that James called the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus outside the Bible.

Your so-called evidence has evaporated.

You cannot ever use James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 as evidence for Jesus because you have been shown in MULTIPLE sources that James in Josephus is not James in the Bible and Apologetics.

Do you think that you will be able to get some real evidence from antiquity for your unknown dead HJ in 24 hours?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, what does the fact that the Jesus stories were written in Koine Greek have to do with whether or not there was an historical Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

I have utterly destroyed your claim that "James is much better attested outside the bible than Jesus is, and that mention in Josephus is not the only place he is called "Brother Of The Lord"

Anyone who is familiar with writings outside the Bible will quickly and easily dismiss your claim as one who has virtually little or no knowledge of the hundreds of Apologetic writings which ATTEST Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Ghost and God Creator.

It was also easily shown that James called the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus outside the Bible.

Your so-called evidence has evaporated.

You cannot ever use James in Josephus AJ 20.9.1 as evidence for Jesus because you have been shown in MULTIPLE sources that James in Josephus is not James in the Bible and Apologetics.

Do you think that you will be able to get some real evidence from antiquity for your unknown dead HJ in 24 hours?

Stop lying.

James is much better attested outside the Bible than Jesus.

Why do you ignore what Eusebius, Pappias, Hegesippus, and Origen say about James The Lord's Brother?

You are just looking stupider and stupider the more you deny these facts.

Help Me Somebody:

 

[dejudge]

Stop lying.

James is much better attested outside the Bible than Jesus.

Why do you ignore what Eusebius, Pappias, Hegesippus, and Origen say about James The Lord's Brother?

You are just looking stupider and stupider the more you deny these facts.

Actually you are exposing that you have not even read writings attributed to Eusebius, Papias, Hegesippus and Origen.

Do you know how stupid you look when you repeat that James is much better attested that Jesus outside the Bible?

Jesus of the NT may probably the most mentioned character outside the Bible in the history of mankind in writings of antiquity.

Just only two books of Origens' Against Celsus mention Jesus over 300 times and James no more than 15 times.

Your evidence for your unknown dead HJ has evaporated.

You have not read the Fragments of Papias--the Fragments of Papias state that the parents of James was not the parents of Jesus
James was NOT the brother of Jesus in the Papias Fragments.

You ignore Jerome's De Viris Illustribus---James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

You ignore Chrysostom--James was NOT the brother of James.

You have not read Eusebius' Church History--Eusebius confirmed that James was NOT the brother of Jesus.

You don't realize that Hegesippus Agreed with CLEMENT

You don't even realize that CLEMENT wrote to James the Lord's brother c 67-68 CE in the Recognitions.

You don't realize that Origen's claims about James in Josephus have not ever been found in any extant copy.

Please read writings attributed to Eusebius, Papias, Hegesippus and Origen because it is obvious you do not know what they wrote about James.

Outside the Bible, James the Lord's brother was NOT the brother of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

You know what Paul probably said? Which Paul said what and when? There may have been at least SEVEN different Paul's.

But to expose you and Brainache's lack of knowledge please refer to Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians.

Why? Maybe Chrysostom was forged as well? Anyway, we were discussing whether anyone here has said James the Brother of The Lord was an apostle. Chrysostom can cast no light in that question.