Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Can your eyes not read what your fingers have written? If the NT account of Jesus is dismissed on such grounds, the data in Tacitus and Suetonius and Josephus - not only about Jesus but about everything else - have to be dismissed too! More than that: there is a probable early second century fragment of John, as we have seen, and an abundance of later ancient texts. For the authors mentioned above, there is nothing of the kind at all. No extant texts prior to the ninth century. And this is the general state of affairs for ancient works. The earliest extant manuscripts of Petronius are medieval, of Lucretius, Carolingian.

You want to dismiss the archaeological findings, and the artifacts that corroborate Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius just because you have NOTHING for your unknown dead HJ.

You are putting forward the absurd notion that since you have no evidence for your UNKNOWN dead HJ that there is no evidence for any other figure of antiquity and that no other writing is credible even though they are supported by archaeological findings and artifacts.

You can kiss the HJ argument goodbye because even if you dismiss all writings from antiquity there would still be no artifacts or archaeological findings for your UNKNOWN dead HJ.

Can't you grasp it. The HJ argument is essentially dead.

It has been pointed out to you "a million" times that the earliest paleographically dated stories of Jesus are from the 2nd century and later.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

There are No 1st century artifacts, No 1st century archaeological findings, No 1st century manuscripts of your UNKNOWN dead HJ.

Your HJ argument is dismissed.

 

[jhunter1163]

Can't you grasp it. The HJ argument is essentially dead.

Except for the thousands of historians and scholars of antiquity who accept it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Except for the thousands of historians and scholars of antiquity who accept it.

I'm reminded of the "evolution is dead" claims frequently bandied about by creationists.

 

[dejudge]

Plutarch is more rational than you, by far.

You take Plutarch's Romulus as history at FACE VALUE.

May I remind you that Plutarch admitted he was writing a fable that was MOST BELIEVED.

Do not believe the FABLE OF Romulus is history.


Plutarch's Romulus

From whom, and for what reason, the city of Rome, a name so great in glory, and famous in the mouths of all men, was so first called, authors do not agree.

Plutarch's Romulus

But the story which is most believed and has the greatest number of vouchers was first published, in its chief particulars, amongst the Greeks by Diocles of Peparethus, whom Fabius Pictor also follows in most points. Here again there are variations...

Plutarch's Romulus was just one of the Fables of ROMULUS that was believed in antiquity.

We have FOUR VARIATIONS of the Jesus story the was most BELIEVED and there is far more mythology in them than Plutarch's Romulus.

The author of gLuke ADMITTED he was writing about what people MOST BELIEVED about Jesus.

Luke 1:1 KJV

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us...

It is documented.

The story of Jesus the Son of God born of a Ghost was MOST BELIEVED in antiquity.

 

[tsig]

I'm reminded of the "evolution is dead" claims frequently bandied about by creationists.

Right, because the HJ is just as well proven as evolution.

 

[Brainache]

Right, because the HJ is just as well proven as evolution.

No. It's because the MJ arguments are as useless as Creationist ones.

 

[Belz...]

Except for the thousands of historians and scholars of antiquity who accept it.

Well, no, you see. Dejudge knows it's wrong. Therefore it is. And, shut up.

 

[Belz...]

You take Plutarch's Romulus as history at FACE VALUE.

You keep using those words...

 

[Belz...]

Right, because the HJ is just as well proven as evolution.

No, because it's the same argument: a declaration of victory.

You read into that precisely what you wanted to read, didn't you ?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Right, because the HJ is just as well proven as evolution.

Did I say it was?

Declaring that an idea is dead based on fallacious arguments, just because you don't want it to be true, is just as wrong whether the idea is iron clad physical science, or a plausible historical explanation.

 

[maximara]

No. It's because the MJ arguments are as useless as Creationist ones.

No, they aren't.

The biggest difference between Creationist arguments and MJ ones is that Creationist arguments require the ignoring of basic scientific facts to work. MJ arguments by contrast show that many of the arguments for a HJ are insanely weak.

Sure there are extremists on the MJ side but the same is true of the HJ side of things. In fact, the HJ side of things tends to ignore the fact that a historical myth "may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." (Remsburg)

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall pointed out that a HJ could mean that Jesus existed as a human being but that the Gospels are unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur.

John Robertson, one of the classic mythers stated that the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account, but rather, "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

It is when you get into this side of the MJ theory that the HJ supporters start to stumble and you tend to see much flailing in an effort to keep the idea that the Gospel describe actually history alive. This is because once you consider that the Gospels may have no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley then the whole house of cards falls apart. There is nothing to connect the Gospel Jesus to an actual preacher of that name other then the name.

 

[IanS]

Except for the thousands of historians and scholars of antiquity who accept it.

If you agree with these "thousands of historians and scholars of antiquity who accept it" and accept their evidence as persuasive, then perhaps you can tell us what this persuasive evidence is (since you find it so persuasive)?

What is this evidence that you think they present?

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is inherently contradictory.

HJers are attempting to show that an HJ could not have been invented from whole cloth.

HJers have done what they argue could not have been done.

Either all or almost all versions of HJ were made up from whole cloth.

If Jesus was a Zealot then all other versions of HJ were made up from whole cloth and vice versa.

It is evident the HJers had no evidence for THEIR unknown dead HJ from the start.

If Jesus was a hardly known itinerant preacher then how did Paul a Pharisee and Hebrew of Hebrews manage to fool virtually the whole Roman Empire into thinking the DEAD itinerant preacher was the Savior of all mankind and God Creator?

Every time HJers introduce a NEW version of their HJ then the Pauline Corpus becomes extremely problematic and irreconcilable.

If Jesus was a Rable Rouser then what are we to make of the Pauline Corpus?

Jesus was executed as a Rable Rouser??--Paul persecuted the followers of the Rable Rouser??

Why would Paul persecute the followers of the Rable Rouser if Paul was a Pharisee?

How would Paul get Revelations from a DEAD Rable Rouser?

Why would Paul claim the DEAD Rable Rouser was God Creator and that without his resurrection there would be no remission of sins?

It is clear that the Pauline writings do not make sense if Jesus was a real Rable Rouser.

If the Romans executed the Rable Rouser why would Paul go to Rome and tell them the Rable Rouser was raised from the and if they BELEIVE the Romans will be saved?

What were the teachings of the Rable Rouser?

When did the DEAD Rable Rouser talk to Paul?

 

[Brainache]

No, they aren't.

The biggest difference between Creationist arguments and MJ ones is that Creationist arguments require the ignoring of basic scientific facts to work. MJ arguments by contrast show that many of the arguments for a HJ are insanely weak.

Sure there are extremists on the MJ side but the same is true of the HJ side of things. In fact, the HJ side of things tends to ignore the fact that a historical myth "may be distorted and numberless legends attached until but a small residuum of truth remains and the narrative is essentially false." (Remsburg)

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall pointed out that a HJ could mean that Jesus existed as a human being but that the Gospels are unverifiable legends such as those surrounding King Arthur.

John Robertson, one of the classic mythers stated that the myth theory was not concerned with denying the possibility of a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account, but rather, "What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded."

It is when you get into this side of the MJ theory that the HJ supporters start to stumble and you tend to see much flailing in an effort to keep the idea that the Gospel describe actually history alive. This is because once you consider that the Gospels may have no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley then the whole house of cards falls apart. There is nothing to connect the Gospel Jesus to an actual preacher of that name other then the name.

Well yes. No one on the HJ side as far as I know is arguing for the historical accuracy of the Gospel stories.

In fact, by your definition the HJ crowd here are all in fact arguing for the "Mythical Jesus". But that is only because you are using a definition from 1913 when that was a radical idea.

Things change in a hundred years.

If you agree with these "thousands of historians and scholars of antiquity who accept it" and accept their evidence as persuasive, then perhaps you can tell us what this persuasive evidence is (since you find it so persuasive)?

What is this evidence that you think they present?

All of that evidence which you refuse to look at.

 

[GDon]

On "credible evidence": here is a Creationist website that claims: "Hey atheists! Give credible evidence for evolution and win $250,000!!"
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1183469/pg1

No-one has won the prize yet by showing any "credible evidence" for evolution... as defined by the Creationists, of course.

Another Creationist website:
http://www.matthewmcgee.org/creation.html

In absence of credible evidence of evolution in the fossil record, many evolutionists are now attempting to explain the lack of evidence with a modified theory. They call this theory "punctuated equilibrium" or the "punctuational model"... many evolutionists now say that the reason that no evidence of evolution can be found is that the evolution happened so fast that it left no visible record. So this theory is not based upon evidence, but rather, the lack of evidence. It has no scientific foundation.​

All rubbish, of course.

Now, I will grant that the evidence for evolution is much stronger than the evidence for a historical Jesus. But the Creationist -- Mythicist analogy is not based on the strength of the evidence, it is how one side -- the fringe one -- defines "credible evidence" and then claims the other side -- the mainstream academic one -- is too biased to recognise that they aren't using "credible evidence".

The only mythicist who seems to me to be going about things the right way is Richard Carrier. He has written two books (the second coming out in Feb 2014) outlining his methodology for examining questions of historicity (first book) and how that applies to the question of the historical Jesus (second book). I think it will represent a real step forward in the MJ-HJ debate. It will be interesting times.

In the meantime, I look on many mythicists (though not all) as little better as Creationists in how they define "credible evidence" and their views on the mainstream position as being hopelessly biased.

 

[dejudge]

Well yes. No one on the HJ side as far as I know is arguing for the historical accuracy of the Gospel stories.

You have exposed the fundamental problem with the HJ argument.

HJers discredit the Gospels yet use then WITHOUT any corroboration from non-apologetic writings.

Essentially HJers have Faith in the NT-Perhaps even more faith than Christians.

Typically Christians accept the NT as credible but HJers, having exposed the discrepancies and historical problems, believe certain parts are most likely history at FACE VALUE without external evidence

Things change in a hundred years.

Things are still the same. The Quest for the Historical Jesus is still on-going. NO evidence for HJ has been found.

Plus, the HJ argument is dead--suffocated by lack of evidence.

All of that evidence which you refuse to look at.

How do you expect us to see the evidence when you cannot find any yourself,

If you had evidence for your unknown dead HJ you would have posted it repeatedly.

 

[Brainache]

...
If you had evidence for your unknown dead HJ you would have posted it repeatedly.

I have. Have you forgotten that you lost that debate about the DSS?

I gave sources, you didn't. I won.

Get over it.

 

[Craig B]

You can kiss the HJ argument goodbye [/b]because even if you dismiss all writings from antiquity there would still be no artifacts or archaeological findings for your UNKNOWN dead HJ.

As I have shown, it is you who have to dismiss all writings from antiquity because in the main our earliest texts are mediaeval. I don't need to dismiss all the things written about by ancient authors that are not corroborated by archaeological evidence. You do.

It has been pointed out to you "a million" times that the earliest paleographically dated stories of Jesus are from the 2nd century and later.

And just as often it has been pointed out to you that the earliest extant manuscripts of most classical writers are much later than the earliest available gospel manuscripts.

Your HJ argument is dismissed.

"Dismissed" is the right word. "Refuted", no.

 

[pakeha]

...


You do seem fixated on Ehrman's claim of certainty. Why keep bringing this up here? Have others on this board expressed that degree of certainty? Why should I care what Ehrman thinks on the level of certainty?...

Well, Ehrman's work IS the OP of this thread, so perhaps it isn't completely irrelevant.

No. It's because the MJ arguments are as useless as Creationist ones.

Dunno about that one, Brainache. I think Jesus Skeptic objections are being lumped in with MJ arguments pretty regularly here and on other threads.

For example, I find myself questioning whether Jesus was crucified. As I learn more about the arrest and the trial of Jesus, crucifixion seems less likely than stoning as a punishment.

Does that make me comparable to someone who thinks Noah's Fludde actually occurred?

...once you consider that the Gospels may have no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley then the whole house of cards falls apart. There is nothing to connect the Gospel Jesus to an actual preacher of that name other then the name.

To tell the truth, I'd be willing to bet a case of virtual Dom that the majority of the posters here would agree with your conclusion.

 

[jhunter1163]

It is when you get into this side of the MJ theory that the HJ supporters start to stumble and you tend to see much flailing in an effort to keep the idea that the Gospel describe actually history alive. This is because once you consider that the Gospels may have no more historical validity then the stories of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn, Jesse James and the Widow, or the many Penny Dreedful-Dime Novels starring people like Buffalo Bill, "Wild Bill" Hickok, and Annie Oakley then the whole house of cards falls apart. There is nothing to connect the Gospel Jesus to an actual preacher of that name other then the name.

(weasel-word bolded)

What basis do you have for assuming that the Gospels are completely historically invalid? That supernatural deeds were attributed to this itinerant first-century preacher? Mythic and near-mythic deeds have been attributed to all of the people I have highlighted; and yet no one questions that they did, in fact, exist.

Of course Jesus didn't walk on water, feed 5,000 people with five loaves and two fish, raise a dead man to life, turn water into wine, or rise to heaven in clouds of smoke and flame. There is much in the NT that needs to be stripped away. But there is also information to be gleaned.