Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

Maurice Casey has a complicated argument about it being caused by the translation from the Aramaic; I will have to find a nice quiet time, in order to try to understand what he is saying.

There are a series of confrontations with the Pharisees, with high stakes, since they threaten death to anyone infringing their super-orthodox rules.

I think from the mythic point of view, you could see this as comparable to the series of tests which the hero traditionally has to go through in order to get to the goal; on the other hand, you could see these arguments as realistic and authentic. It's an interesting question as to why the minutiae of Jewish law are being raised here, concerning eating food, hand washing, doing things on the sabbath, fasting, and so on. ...

When you do find time to consider this, I'd be glad to read your take on that.
Already your and Craig B's little dialogue have given me a lot to think about.

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

Hold hard Stone.
I didn't say partisan wingnuts were my sources and I find it disturbing you'd characterise any source of mine as such.
Have you known me to to base an argument on the say-so of partisan wingnuts?
Why assume I'm doing so now?

 

[IanS]

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.

Ahh, but the existence of Moses is not the basis of Christianity, is it. If Moses did not exist it would not be very damaging at all to the religion of Christianity, would it? Or to any other religion?

Perhaps I phrased it badly - what I mean is that the teaching of the Christian church, ie it's message of "truth" as found in the bible (I think that is the basis of the religion we call Christianity?), requires Jesus to be a "real" person, a figure in human form, who was actually walking about on earth doing at least some of things described in the bible.

If Jesus was in fact never present on the earth, was only ever mythical, and therefore never did any of the things described in the bible, then that removes the basis on which modern day Christian belief depends.

Jesus has to be “real” (meaning he appeared on earth in human form, and did some of what it says in the bible). Otherwise all the biblical claims of the Christian church are untrue.

 

[Brainache]

Ahh, but the existence of Moses is not the basis of Christianity, is it. If Moses did not exist it would not be very damaging at all to the religion of Christianity, would it? Or to any other religion?

Perhaps I phrased it badly - what I mean is that the teaching of the Christian church, ie it's message of "truth" as found in the bible (I think that is the basis of the religion we call Christianity?), requires Jesus to be a "real" person, a figure in human form, who was actually walking about on earth doing at least some of things described in the bible.

If Jesus was in fact never present on the earth, was only ever mythical, and therefore never did any of the things described in the bible, then that removes the basis on which modern day Christian belief depends.

Jesus has to be “real” (meaning he appeared on earth in human form, and did some of what it says in the bible). Otherwise all the biblical claims of the Christian church are untrue.

Tell that to the Jews who think Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

Are you seriously saying that you don't know how significant Moses is to the Jewish Religion?

There is considerable doubt about whether he existed, or if he did, whether he was anything like as described. That hasn't stopped anyone believing in him if they want.

Hell, there are people out there right now looking for Noah's *********** Ark FFS!

You think telling Christians : "Maybe Jesus didn't exist the way you think he did", is going to cause the collapse of Christianity?

That is insane.

 

[dejudge]

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.

Your statement is either deliberately mis-leading or made from lack of knowledge of ancient history.

There is virtually no certainty of the existence of an historical Jesus and that is precisely why multiple characters are invented without any evidence.

There is probably no ancient figure of history of whom there are thousands of stories yet WITHOUT any evidence at all from the time period of the stories.

If by the end of 1st century there were more biographies of Jesus than even all the Emperors of Rome then it becomes quite strange that no artifacts--no archaelogical findiings--no mention outside apologetics have been unearthed for that supposed extremely well know character.

The certainty of Jesus of Nazareth is really next to zero because we have no non-apologetic evidence for a character who was even worshiped as a God and called God Creator.

 

[Brainache]

...
There is probably no ancient figure of history of whom there are thousands of stories yet WITHOUT any evidence at all from the time period of the stories.

...

Except for nearly all of them.

 

[dejudge]

You think telling Christians : "Maybe Jesus didn't exist the way you think he did", is going to cause the collapse of Christianity?

That is insane.

Christianity is collapsing all over the world. More and more people do not accept the Jesus of the NT.

It is insane to think Christianity would collapse in one day.

Once people all over the world understand there was NO CHRIST then they would NOT become CHRIST--IANS and Christianity would eventually collapse.

That is exactly what is happening as we speak--Christianity is collapsing.

 

[Brainache]

Christianity is collapsing all over the world. More and more people do not accept the Jesus of the NT.

It is insane to think Christianity would collapse in one day.

Once people all over the world understand there was NO CHRIST then they would NOT become CHRIST--IANS and Christianity would eventually collapse.

That is exactly what is happening as we speak--Christianity is collapsing.

"Believing in Christ" has nothing at all to do with the existence or not of an HJ.

The HJ makes as much difference to some people as the fact that Noah's Ark never existed.

Christianity is in decline and has been for centuries. MJ arguments are doing nothing to hasten its demise.

 

[TimCallahan]

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.

No, it was just a correction for the sake of clarity. Thank you for finding that quote from G. A. Wells. I am as much bemused as he is by a lot of things in Ehrman's book. I find it particularly bizarre that Ehrman thinks that there was some sort of betrayal of Jesus by Judas, one that resulted in some way with Judas' death.

 

[dejudge]

No, it was just a correction for the sake of clarity. Thank you for finding that quote from G. A. Wells. I am as much bemused as he is by a lot of things in Ehrman's book. I find it particularly bizarre that Ehrman thinks that there was some sort of betrayal of Jesus by Judas, one that resulted in some way with Judas' death.

It appears to me that we now have "HJ Heretics". Ehrman's Orthodox Apocalyptic HJ was betrayed but HJ of the Neo-Heretics was not.

HJ the Zealot, HJ the messianic pretender, HJ the Cynic, HJ the prophet, HJ the Rabbi are Heretical if Erhman's Apolcalyptic was the true HJ.

 

[Brainache]

It appears to me that we now have "HJ Heretics". Ehrman's Orthodox Apocalyptic HJ was betrayed but HJ of the Neo-Heretics was not.

HJ the Zealot, HJ the messianic pretender, HJ the Cynic, HJ the prophet, HJ the Rabbi are Heretical if Erhman's Apolcalyptic was the true HJ.

What are you raving about?

 

[Stone]

Hold hard Stone.
I didn't say partisan wingnuts were my sources and I find it disturbing you'd characterise any source of mine as such.
Have you known me to to base an argument on the say-so of partisan wingnuts?
Why assume I'm doing so now?

Because you didn't provide a specific ancient cite for your large assertion that Tacitus only had second-hand sources at best for the Tiberius years. How do you know that? To address that, you only referenced the monster thread at RatSkep in general. I'm quite familiar with the RatSkep thread, thank you. I am also familiar with some of the overly convenient assertions by some there that Tacitus never had better than second-hand sources for the Tiberius years. But I'd be extremely surprised if anyone searching that thread can actually dredge up a specific ancient cite that can demonstrate that Tacitus had no better than second-hand sources for the Tiberius years.

Can you point to one such cite?

Stone

 

[maximara]

Historical Jesus means historical truth.

Historians should obviously look for truths.

No historians look for FACTS not truth ie things that have been or can be shown to be true. For example is is a fact that the Testimonium Flavianum is an interpolation--the question is how much of it is.

If someone found a copy of Josephus that contained some variant of the Testimonium Flavianum or a reference to the passage that could be dated to the 2nd century then it would be a fact that the passage could not have been entirely forged in the 4th.

But right now the fact is that no Churchman before the 4th century so much as mentions the Testimonium Flavianum just as it is a fact that the much cited Rylands Library Papyrus P52 presented as dating to c125 even though it has been shown "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)

Every time the Gospel account gives us a potential fact we either canNOT verify it (Herod slaughtering children) or it is at odds with other facts (the census in Luke, the way the two trials are depicted, Pontius Pilate's behavior regarding the Jewish mob, the handling of Jesus body after his supposed death, and so on)

 

[dejudge]

Because you didn't provide a specific ancient cite for your large assertion that Tacitus only had second-hand sources at best for the Tiberius years. How do you know that? To address that, you only referenced the monster thread at RatSkep in general. I'm quite familiar with the RatSkep thread, thank you. I am also familiar with some of the overly convenient assertions by some there that Tacitus never had better than second-hand sources for the Tiberius years. But I'd be extremely surprised if anyone searching that thread can actually dredge up a specific ancient cite that can demonstrate that Tacitus had no better than second-hand sources for the Tiberius years.

Can you point to one such cite?

Stone

Your HJ was a little known Itinerant preacher so he was NOT Christus in Tacitus Annals.

You cannot switch in "mid air".

Your HJ was virtually unknown from the rural backwaters of Galilee.

Nobody wrote about your unknown backwater HJ.

May I remind you that Jesus in gMark and the Synoptics was NOT known as Christus.


Matthew 16:20 KJV

Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

May I remind you that Jesus in the Synoptics did not start a new religion--Jesus wanted the populace to remain in SIN. Jesus NEVER started a New religion in the Gospels.

Christus in Annals was Not Jesus of Nazareth in the NT.



Mark 4:12 KJV

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them.

 

[maximara]

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.

As I have pointed out and was expanded by IanS in post 2923 the highlighted part is NOT true.

Tsig properly identified the highlighted part as the dreaded argumentum ad consequentiam argument or as Carl Sagan called it the 'Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision)' (Demon Haunted World).

In fact, if you put most of the HJ arguments against Carl Sagan's little Baloney Detection Kit you would have enough to supply Oscar Mayer for the next 2000 years

Special pleading ("often to rescue a proposition in rhetorical trouble") is especially popular in salvaging the mess of Matthew vs Luke regarding the birth, why no Churchman before the 4th century even notices the TF, and many other situations.

 

[Belz...]

As I have pointed out and was expanded by IanS in post 2923 the highlighted part is NOT true.

Ian simply claimed that "most" of those characters are known from better evidence than Jesus. Most, really ?

Tsig properly identified the highlighted part as the dreaded argumentum ad consequentiam argument or as Carl Sagan called it the 'Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision)' (Demon Haunted World).

But it is NOT an argument from consequences. It's pointing out, quite simply, that this sort of standard of evidence would not correspond to our common objectives, assuming you agree that those are indeed our objectives as a whole.

 

[pakeha]

Tell that to the Jews who think Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible. ...
There is considerable doubt about whether he existed, or if he did, whether he was anything like as described. That hasn't stopped anyone believing in him if they want.

Hell, there are people out there right now looking for Noah's *********** Ark FFS!

You think telling Christians : "Maybe Jesus didn't exist the way you think he did", is going to cause the collapse of Christianity?

That is insane.

I agree, it would be insane.
I think most of us are here to try to figure out how the whole thing started up.

And about that grotesque search for Noah's ark, it's even claimed mortal victims in our times.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotla...-man-searches-for-noah-s-ark-hunter-1-2501609
"In September 2010, the 47-year-old vanished on Mount Ararat, the 16,854ft peak near the Turkey-Iran border where, according to Genesis, the ark came to rest. In a message to his family he said bad weather was approaching. It was the last they heard from him."

 

[tsig]

Ian simply claimed that "most" of those characters are known from better evidence than Jesus. Most, really ?



But it is NOT an argument from consequences. It's pointing out, quite simply, that this sort of standard of evidence would not correspond to our common objectives, assuming you agree that those are indeed our objectives as a whole.

Saying it would not meet our common objectives is just another way of stating the appeal to consequences.

Any time you say that we must believe X or Y would happen you are appealing to consequences.

 

[IanS]

I agree, it would be insane.

This appears to be yet another strawman argument (not originating from you, I know) - nobody here has said that Christian believers today would instantly stop believing simply because any of us told them Jesus did not exist. That is not what has been said.

What I have said about it (and much earlier, one or two others briefly said something very similar) is that the existence of Jesus is vital to Christian religion as the basis of it’s beliefs. If Jesus was known not to exist, or more realistically if it ever became very widely believed that Jesus was probably only a mythical figure, then that would clearly make it impossible for the modern-day church to continue preaching the "truth" of the bible.

Or to put it another way - that would be a situation which the Christian church would be very uncomfortable with indeed, to put it mildly.

Of course, that may be unrealistic because the church would probably never accept any such evidence against it’s beliefs in Jesus, not matter how strong the arguments and evidence ever became.

However, on the premise that society ever did reach that situation where almost everyone, including even the church hierarchy itself, came to accept that the Jesus stories and the bible were probably only mythical superstition after all, then imho it’s quite obvious that would be a huge blow to the credibility of the church making it impossible for it to continue preaching the “truth” of a messiah and a bible that they all agreed was fiction.

In a recent post in another thread one of the posters here (I think it was CraigB, but he can correct me if it was someone else), said something to the effect of it being absurd to think that Christians would care about whether Jesus did what is claimed in the bible, because he said that Christians already know the miracles can’t be true and yet they still believe in Jesus just the same.

But on the contrary, many Christians, and probably almost all really devout and evangelical fundamentalist Christians, actually do believe that the miracles really happened. For example, even the last archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams), in an YouTube interview with Richard Dawkins, said that he does believe that Jesus literally raised Lazarus back from the dead! And he also believes in the virgin birth! Even though that is now known to be a simple mistake of translation in the Septuagint Greek copying of the original Hebrew!

I think it’s undeniable that if we ever get to a point where there is large majority recognition that evidence and argument had shown that Jesus was very probably only a fictional figure, who therefore could never have done anything claimed in the bible (miraculous or otherwise), that would be extremely damaging to a current day Christian church trying to preach the entire opposite and insisting that people believe in a Jesus and a bible that they all recognised as probably untrue. To suggest otherwise seems to me quite delusional.

 

[Craig B]

... In a recent post in another thread one of the posters here (I think it was CraigB, but he can correct me if it was someone else), said something to the effect of it being absurd to think that Christians would care about whether Jesus did what is claimed in the bible, because he said that Christians already know the miracles can’t be true and yet they still believe in Jesus just the same.

I said they already had at their fingertips the information sufficient to refute these miracles, IF they chose to attend to it. In fact most don't seem to, so whether they continue to believe in the miracles or not, they don't abandon their religion, at all events. The archbishop's credulity isn't inconsistent with my view of this.

But on the contrary, many Christians, and probably almost all really devout and evangelical fundamentalist Christians, actually do believe that the miracles really happened.

That is certainly true. But most of them also have access to information that shows these miracles to be, to a high degree of probability, complete delusions. They don't look at, or don't believe, this information.

 

[dejudge]

"Believing in Christ" has nothing at all to do with the existence or not of an HJ.

Your statement is highly illogical. Christians believe THEIR HJ was the Christ.

...Christianity is in decline and has been for centuries. MJ arguments are doing nothing to hasten its demise.

Your statement is highly illogical and baseless.

The argument that Jesus was a figure of mythology and had no real existence which is fully supported by the evidence will ultimately hasten the demise of Christianity as it is doing right now.

Once people understand that Jesus of Nazareth is not documented at all in the history of mankind outside of Apologetics then potential converts will not become Christians.