Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[zugzwang]

Well it's my understanding that most people in history have less evidence in favour of their existence than even Jesus. I'm sure many people far better versed than me on this topic can confirm or deny this.

I think it was GDon who said that there is too much evidence for Jesus, which made me laugh like a drain. But you get the idea - nobody worries about some pipsqueak mentioned cursorily in ancient writings, but because Jesus is a big deal, somehow the method is seen as inadequate, and has to change, become more scientific - or something.

So in a sense, people are no longer arguing about history as such, or historical method, but about something else, I suppose, maybe the sheer indignity of religion? It's a bit like John Cleese thrashing his car - we can thrash Jesus round the chops, by saying he doesn't exist! That'll larn him.

 

[Belz...]

You must have been reading Christian apologetic sites. This was a favorite argument of DOC's.

Do you ever have any actual point to make, or is this game all you care about ? Could you put a modicrum of effort into participating in this discussion, even if you happen to disagree with me ? Treating other people like idiots won't result in anything positive, so why do it ?

How about this: Do you agree that most figures of history -- not the big nasty emperors or conquerors; I'm talking about advisors and architects and obscure teachers and philosophers and so on -- are very poorly attested, and yet are accepted in the historical record and that, on this, Jesus is not exceptional ?

Furthermore, do you agree that we, as humans -- not you personally -- want as complete a historical record as possible ?

Finally, do you therefore agree that applying the standard of evidence required by IanS and Maximara to all of history rather than just Jesus would result in the elimination of much of it and, therefore, would not correspond to our goals with respects to that field of study ?

Let's see if you can actually discuss this topic rather than reduce everything to snark.

 

[Belz...]

You must have been reading Christian apologetic sites. This was a favorite argument of DOC's.

And one more thing. Given that you know how anti-religion I am, and how anti-supernatural I am, this accusation could scarsely be seen as anything but flame-baiting.

Seriously, stop that.

 

[tsig]

Do you ever have any actual point to make, or is this game all you care about ? Could you put a modicrum of effort into participating in this discussion, even if you happen to disagree with me ? Treating other people like idiots won't result in anything positive, so why do it ?

How about this: Do you agree that most figures of history -- not the big nasty emperors or conquerors; I'm talking about advisors and architects and obscure teachers and philosophers and so on -- are very poorly attested, and yet are accepted in the historical record and that, on this, Jesus is not exceptional ?

Furthermore, do you agree that we, as humans -- not you personally -- want as complete a historical record as possible ?

Finally, do you therefore agree that applying the standard of evidence required by IanS and Maximara to all of history rather than just Jesus would result in the elimination of much of it and, therefore, would not correspond to our goals with respects to that field of study ?
Let's see if you can actually discuss this topic rather than reduce everything to snark.

The hilited is an

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

 

[IanS]

It is an obvious fallacy to say that all of ancient history would have to be ditched if we doubted all the figures who were known only from the sort of evidence claimed for Jesus.

Non-religious figures such as Pythagoras, Alexander, Julius Caesar etc, are historically important for the legacy of actions and ideas which persisted in their name. All of which remains undiminished whether the person actually existed or not.

Religious figures such as Jesus are in an entirely different position, because they have to be real, otherwise the basis of the religion, eg Christianity, disappears and is no longer valid if the religious figurehead is only mythical.

That’s why it does not matter if Pythagoras etc. really existed. That changes nothing about history if he did not exist.

But if Jesus did not exist, then the belief movement of Christianity is shown to be baseless and invalid.

That does not mean that Christians never existed and that people never wrote gospels and letters of religious belief in Jesus. That all remains as part of history. But what disappears is the figurehead of the messiah as an actual person who makes the belief system valid.

 

[jhunter1163]

But if Jesus did not exist, then the belief movement of Christianity is shown to be baseless and invalid.

Ah, there it is. There's your motive.

I submit that you underestimate the ability of believers to rationalize away inconvenient facts. Even if ironclad proof of Jesus's non-existence could be produced (and nothing in any of these threads approaches that level), the believers would simply handwave it away.

The HJ/MJ debate is interesting as an exercise, and I have learned a good deal about the early Christian writers in the course of this discussion, but ultimately the fragmentary nature of ancient historical records makes it exceedingly unlikely that we will ever know with certainty whether the HJ actually existed. In my opinion, the existence of the HJ is as nearly certain as anything can be ancient-historywise, but the MJ case is not, and on current evidence cannot be, excluded.

 

[Belz...]

The hilited is an

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Very well. I therefore conclude that you are unwilling to answer the question, follow the logic where it leads, or engage in serious debate.

 

[Stone]

eight bits

I think you mean #2889?

I was only making the point that saying that because history isn't scientific, and doesn't use terms such as 'evidence' in the way in which the law does, that therefore it is rubbish, is an opinion, which might tend to demolish history as an academic discipline; but on the other hand, that such an opinion tends to be found mainly amongst internet amateurs, and so I think Stone is being a bit gloomy about the 'history is bunk' school, if there is one, indeed.

History was treated like that by the authorities in places like the Soviet Union and elsewhere, and it may be treated like that again. It will be to atheism's everlasting shame if the next place where history suffers that fate is some country where an inevitable downsizing of all religions only results in some book-burning brand of atheism replacing the old set of lies with another.

Stone

 

[zugzwang]

Stone

Certainly, history can be an ideological stomping ground. I'm not sure what nationality you are, but in the UK at the moment, there is a fierce battle over WWI, with the Education Minister insisting that he wants no left-wing propaganda by historians and others, over the pointlessness of that war. Instead, he wants right-wing propaganda, that it was glorious and patriotic.

This may be one reason that history will not be suppressed, as it is too important ideologically; on the other hand, it may well be subject to some kind of censorship. The Visigoths may yet sack Rome again.

 

[Stone]

No, I don't just know that. Try using the search function on the monster thread at RatSkep and you'll quickly find my sources.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! There are also plenty of posters at that same thread who also stress that Tacitus is always scrupulous at distinguishing between hearsay and direct accounts. If something is hearsay, he always frames it as such. He does not do that with his description of Jesus the human rabbi. Your terming as "sources"(!) those partisan posters who go on to deny what is a very plain habit on Tacitus's part is laughable. You are taking dubious speculation from highly partisan wingnuts in that thread and treating it as fact -- even when other posters have offered detailed descriptions of Tacitus's chronicling methods! Have you been brainwashed? Show me where these blatant partisans cite one single datum point from Tacitus's own time that shows a Tacitus in any way dependent on secondary sources only for Tiberius's reign!

Stone

 

[IanS]

Ah, there it is. There's your motive.

I submit that you underestimate the ability of believers to rationalize away inconvenient facts. Even if ironclad proof of Jesus's non-existence could be produced (and nothing in any of these threads approaches that level), the believers would simply handwave it away. .

It’s not something new that you have just personally discovered lol! It’s something I have said many times in these HJ threads.

Of course devout current-day Christians would try to hand-wave it away. I am sure that’s true. But it’s also true that it would hardly be something the current-day Christian church would welcome. And over the course of time it could only be very damaging to the church if it did ever have to admit that it’s entire founding basis was probably untrue. You can hardly keep preaching the truth of the bible if you are at the same time admitting that what it says is probably mythical.

And I notice that you decided to pick up on that quite mistaken and misinterpreted point, whilst entirely avoiding the point that I actually did make to show why the existence of non-religious figures, such as Pythagoras and Caesar who were famous for their physical actions and the philosophies that were left in their name, would not change their historical legacy at all whether they were real figures or not. Whereas for religious figures such as Jesus, their existence itself is the factor crucial to the validity of belief systems such as Christianity.

The HJ/MJ debate is interesting as an exercise, and I have learned a good deal about the early Christian writers in the course of this discussion, but ultimately the fragmentary nature of ancient historical records makes it exceedingly unlikely that we will ever know with certainty whether the HJ actually existed. In my opinion, the existence of the HJ is as nearly certain as anything can be ancient-historywise, but the MJ case is not, and on current evidence cannot be, excluded.

We are not talking about any “certainty” though. We are asking what actual evidence exists outside of the bible.

When you say your opinion is “the existence of the HJ is as nearly certain as anything can be ancient-history-wise”, you must be dreaming! It’s most definitely far more “certain” that Roman emperors existed between (say) 100BC to 100AD and that they left a very clear historical legacy of their armies invading all sorts of lands and of their architects and builders erecting all sorts of contemporary buildings, and their courtiers and advisors enacting all sorts of laws and customs etc. There are undeniable museums all over the world stacked from floor to ceiling with the evidence of that! And yet you think that is on a par with the biblical evidence of Jesus? Ditto the indisputable legacy of philosophical and mathematical ideas left by even the most tenuous of ancient figures such as Pythagoras c.500BC. Or of it comes to that, even the direct DNA evidence of Tutankhamen as the descendent of Akhenaten as far back even as circa.1300BC! You think that’s on a par with the miraculous bible lol .

 

[TimCallahan]

How 'bout this?

G.A. Wells as “mythicist”

"Ehrman is well aware that I have come to modify my originally mythicist position, and he states correctly that I now think that there really was a man Jesus but that we can know very little about him (19, 241). In fact I agree with his view that 'Jesus really existed' but 'was not the person most Christians today believe in' (143). That he nevertheless continues to label me a mythicst is confusing."


link:
ww.radikalkritik.de/Wells_Ehrman.htm

You missed a "w" Here is the corrected link.

 

[maximara]

It is an obvious fallacy to say that all of ancient history would have to be ditched if we doubted all the figures who were known only from the sort of evidence claimed for Jesus.

Non-religious figures such as Pythagoras, Alexander, Julius Caesar etc, are historically important for the legacy of actions and ideas which persisted in their name. All of which remains undiminished whether the person actually existed or not.

Religious figures such as Jesus are in an entirely different position, because they have to be real, otherwise the basis of the religion, eg Christianity, disappears and is no longer valid if the religious figurehead is only mythical.

I disagree with this point. The existence of Moses as an actual historical person is debated as is true with Buddha despite them being religious figure. Why? Because unlike Jesus they themselves are not the message.

That’s why it does not matter if Pythagoras etc. really existed. That changes nothing about history if he did not exist.

But if Jesus did not exist, then the belief movement of Christianity is shown to be baseless and invalid.

Actually, if somebody found Jesus' physcial remains such as his bones (proving the man actually existed) the belief structure of much of Christianity as we know it would fall to pieces:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:14) "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17)

Jesus is unique among religious figures in that he is not only the messenger but the message as well.

 

[Brainache]

I disagree with this point. The existence of Moses as an actual historical person is debated as is true with Buddha despite them being religious figure. Why? Because unlike Jesus they themselves are not the message.




Actually, if somebody found Jesus' physcial remains such as his bones (proving the man actually existed) the belief structure of much of Christianity as we know it would fall to pieces:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:14) "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17)

Jesus is unique among religious figures in that he is not only the messenger but the message as well.

IanS has already stated that he holds his position for ideological reasons.

He is not interested in evidence - When it is posted, he will not read it. When it is explained, he will not understand it. When it is convenient, he accepts it.

I don't believe any evidence will convince him.

 

[Elagabalus]

Et tu, Tim?

Is this a JREF noobie hazing ritual? Don't allow a noob to post active links until their 15th post so all and sundry can make fun of the noob for not being adroit enough to post an active link?

What's next? I have to clean the JREF Men's Room floor with a single used tooth brush?! I can't wait ...!

But thanks for the correction.

 

[tsig]

The hilited is an

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

Very well. I therefore conclude that you are unwilling to answer the question, follow the logic where it leads, or engage in serious debate.

If you can't answer the content of my post I understand.

 

[Brainache]

Et tu, Tim?

Is this a JREF noobie hazing ritual? Don't allow a noob to post active links until their 15th post so all and sundry can make fun of the noob for not being adroit enough to post an active link?

What's next? I have to clean the JREF Men's Room floor with a single used tooth brush?! I can't wait ...!

But thanks for the correction.

Just pray there are no goats involved...

 

[Belz...]

I disagree with this point. The existence of Moses as an actual historical person is debated as is true with Buddha despite them being religious figure. Why? Because unlike Jesus they themselves are not the message.

Could you clarify ? I'm not sure I understand the difference that this makes.

 

[Brainache]

If you can't answer the content of my post I understand.

More flame-bait? Classy!

You should be aware that there is an inherent uncertainty in all of Ancient History. When people are "for" the HJ it is a statement of opinion based on plausibility. It isn't a statement of certain knowledge, it never has been and never can be.

Belz... isn't appealing to consequences, he is pointing out that History isn't about certainty. History is an ongoing debate about plausible explanations for past events, not a list of dates and facts.

 

[Brainache]

I disagree with this point. The existence of Moses as an actual historical person is debated as is true with Buddha despite them being religious figure. Why? Because unlike Jesus they themselves are not the message.




Actually, if somebody found Jesus' physcial remains such as his bones (proving the man actually existed) the belief structure of much of Christianity as we know it would fall to pieces:

"And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain." (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:14) "And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins." (KJV 1 Corinthians 15:17)

Jesus is unique among religious figures in that he is not only the messenger but the message as well.

I think that is only true for "Pauline" Christianity. The Ebionites appear to have had a different opinion about the resurrection. James and his crowd were still awaiting the return of the Messiah, Paul was preaching that the Messiah's "works" were already done, James didn't like that, AFAICT.