Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

No, it doesn't. In order to force such an inference as yours, you have to attempt to eliminate the second part of my statement that makes clear that I am not asserting that the historical origins of Christianity can only have been a corporeal Jesus. You did this at first by actually omitting the text. Now that you've been caught, you are insisting the the text is simply irrelevant and that it be ignored.

You are deliberately quote mining my post, and it is a dishonest debate tactic. So have fun with your strawman.

Not true for all the reasons already explained to you in detail. And you know that perfectly well.

But to avoid prolonging this childish nonsense, here is a straightforward question -

- if you truly think (as you have said you do) that everyone does believe that their is a "historical core" in the Jesus stories, then what part of those Jesus stories is it that you believe is a core of historical fact?

 

[Stone]

You are deliberately quote mining my post, and it is a dishonest debate tactic. So have fun with your strawman.

Not true for all the reasons already explained to you in detail.

On the contrary, it is absolutely true. In fact, you have frequently used flagrant misrepresentation of others as your modus operandi throughout these exchanges. If even someone like Belz -- who's on the fence on this whole matter -- also sees you as using flagrant misrepresentation, you can no longer dismiss the general perception of your regular tactics here as frequently dishonest in the extreme.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is dead because of many factors.

1. There is NO actual dated manuscript that have been recovered and dated to any time before the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

2. The stories of Jesus called Gospels have been deduced to be ALL forgeries.

3. The stories of Jesus are NOT even eyewitness accounts.

4. No author of the NT itself claimed to have personally interacted with Jesus.

5. The stories of Jesus are either total fiction or implausible from conception to ascension.

6. In the NT itself, Jesus did NOT start the preaching of Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and Resurrection.

7. In the NT itself, it is claimed Jesus [the non-historical resurrected Jesus] commissioned the disciples to PREACH the Gospel.

8. In the NT itself, it is claimed that Jesus [the non-historical resurrected Jesus] told the disciples to WAIT in Jerusalem to GET POWER from a Ghost from heaven to preach the Gospel.

9. In the NT itself, it is claimed the Holy Ghost gave the DISCIPLES the power to preach Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and resurrection.

10. In the NT itself, SIMON was the FIRST to preach Remission of Sins by the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

The very NT itself shows that after all Jesus [the Son of God] supposedly did and said that he did NOT start the preaching of Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and resurrection.

Jesus, the Son of God, did NOT have the POWER.

The story of Jesus is extremely clear.

It was NOT Jesus, even if he did live, who started the preaching of Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and resurrection--Jesus was ALREADY dead.

The earliest gMark clearly shows that Jesus, even if he lived, had NO intention of starting a New Religion or to abolish the Laws of the Jews.

In gLuke, it is claimed Jesus was CIRCUMCISED on the eighth day according to Jewish Laws and that a Sacrifice was carried out for the first born son.

The story of earliest gMark is simply that the Jews delivered up Jesus to be Killed AFTER he was REJECTED as the Christ and Son of God and that he was either betrayed, abandoned or denied by his own followers.

The earliest story in gMark had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the preaching of Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.,

The supposed early Jesus in gMark [the Son of God] NEVER EVER taught his disciples that without his crucifixion and resurrection there would be NO Remission of Sins.

The supposed earliest Jesus wanted the Populace to REMAIN in Sin and deliberately spoke to them in parables.

The early Jesus in gMark did NOT start a New Religion in his own supposed lifetime.

It was SIMON in Acts who FIRST preached Remission of Sins by the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus.

An historical Jesus is IRRELEVANT to the start of the Jesus cult.

It was SIMON who was the ROCK of the Jesus cult in Acts.

 

[Belz...]

I see the pro J side is still screaming "consensus" while offering up no evidence.

Really ? I've seen at least _some_ evidence, reasoning and informed speculation on the HJ side. The well-thought MJ arguments, thought I've seen some before, have been largely absent from these threads. What have you been reading, exactly ?

I've moved into the we can't know camp.

Well at least that's a defensible position.

 

[Belz...]

Not true for all the reasons already explained to you in detail. And you know that perfectly well.

But to avoid prolonging this childish nonsense, here is a straightforward question -

- if you truly think (as you have said you do) that everyone does believe that their is a "historical core" in the Jesus stories, then what part of those Jesus stories is it that you believe is a core of historical fact?

Well at least we know that IanS didn't understand what he claims to understand from Zygote's post.

 

[tsig]

I apologize for saying "moron". It was uncalled-for and out of line. "Moron" relates to you generally as a person, and I should be addressing your particular ignorance -- on this particular matter. You shew total ignorance of Tacitus in your previous, and that was the issue at hand.

With regrets,

Stone

Thank you.

Well maybe not so much.
The problem remains, if we're going to postulate Jewish itinerant rabbis and say that one of them was the seed for the Jesus story how do you know that the Bible Jesus is the same Jesus that Tacitus and Josephus were writing about.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Not true for all the reasons already explained to you in detail. And you know that perfectly well.

But to avoid prolonging this childish nonsense, here is a straightforward question -

- if you truly think (as you have said you do) that everyone does believe that their is a "historical core" in the Jesus stories, then what part of those Jesus stories is it that you believe is a core of historical fact?

Ironically, the answer to your question is contained in the sentence that you have been deliberately ignoring with your quote mining:

"What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty."

Anyone with a reasable level of reading comprehension should be able to deduce from that statement that I do not believe anything to be the core of historical fact. I don't think that anyone can know, from the available evidence, what the exact origin of Christianity was.

 

[Brainache]

You mean, he may not know he doesn't know any unknown people. He may not know that he only knows known people, and that nobody knows any unknown people. Perhaps he doesn't know that, but perhaps he does.

I think I know that. I believe I know that. I'm sure I heard it once or twice somewhere, maybe...

Thank you.

Well maybe not so much.
The problem remains, if we're going to postulate Jewish itinerant rabbis and say that one of them was the seed for the Jesus story how do you know that the Bible Jesus is the same Jesus that Tacitus and Josephus were writing about.

There is the fact that later Christianity claimed that they were martyrs when Nero blamed them for burning Rome. That is the same group that Tacitus is talking about.

And that happened before the Jewish Revolt, not after.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Why have you not corrected Foster Zygote's blatant mis-representation of my position? It is extremely disturbing to me when a poster constantly and consistently distorts my position and then proceeds to argue against his OWN distortion.

Please let me clarify my position.

Jesus is ALL MYTH--ALL FICTION and NO HISTORY.

Jesus is ALL MAGIC and NO HISTORY,

Jesus is ALL WOO--WOO and NO HISTORY.

Foster Zygote ALWAYS forget to mention that Jesus has NO HISTORY just like the God of the Jews, Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel, Adam and Eve.


I consider that Jesus is a MYTH until new evidence is found.

Foster Zygote is countering his own distortion.

It is not a misrepresentation. You are conflating a lack of direct evidence with proof of nonexistence. That is fallacious reasoning.

 

[dejudge]

The time period for start of the Jesus story and cult is extremely easy to deduce. There is abundance of evidence.

It was the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE that caused the story that the Jews killed the Son of God and Christ sometime in the 2nd century.

The ENTIRE NT only makes sense AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

The Pauline claim that Jesus abolished the Laws of the Jews for Remission of Sins since 37-41 CE is blatant nonsense, historical and theological garbage, while the Jewish Temple of GOD was still standing.

It was AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple of GOD that there was a massive crisis for the Jews.

Josephus the Jew, writing c 93 CE in Antiquities of the Jews 10, claimed DANIEL did accurately predict the Fall of the Jewish Temple of GOD c 70 CE.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 10.11.7

And indeed it so came to pass, that our nation suffered these things under Antiochus Epiphanes, according to Daniel's vision, and what he wrote many years before they came to pass.

In the very same manner Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them.

All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel...

You will notice that Josephus did not claim that Daniel predicted the ADVENT of the Christ.

It was sometime in the very late 2nd century that Christians would claim Daniel accurately predicted the advent of Jesus Christ.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

Accordingly the times must be inquired into of the predicted and future nativity of the Christ, and of His passion, and of the extermination of the city of Jerusalem, that is, its devastation.

For Daniel says, that “both the holy city and the holy place are exterminated together with the coming Leader, and that the pinnacle is destroyed unto ruin.”

Tertullian would show EXACTLY what was done to fabricate a story of the advent of Jesus Christ using Daniel for his COMPUTATION.

Tertullian would simply BACKDATE the story of the Jesus from the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE using supposed predictions of Daniel.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

....]by the times of Daniel's prediction we have proved that the Christ has come already who was the theme of announcement.

Essentially, the Fall of the Temple of GOD c 70 CE was the FIRST and ONLY SIGN that the Christ had already come.

Before the Fall of the Temple of GOD, NO-ONE knew or claimed that the Christ had already come.

ALL the stories in the ENTIRE NT that the Christ had already come MUST be written AFTER c 70 CE or AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple of GOD.

No stories that the Christ had already come before c 70 CE have ever been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and NO NT manuscripts about Jesus Christ have been found and dated to any time before c 70 CE.

Tertullian's Answer to the Jews

For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated; and we recognise that so it has befallen.

The Fall of the Jewish Temple of GOD was the FIRST and ONLY SIGN for the supposed advent of Jesus Christ--there was NO history , no story of Jesus the Christ until after c 70 CE.

 

[Belz...]

There is abundance of evidence.

I'm going to keep this for posterity.

 

[pakeha]

Excuse me: At --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9740768&postcount=2881

-- you make the large assertion that --

"Tacitus can be seen as a transmitter of second or fifth hand information, since there were no records from the 30s available to a writer in the second century"

-- and you have no evidence to back up that ridiculously categorical assertion about available data from the '30s in the early second century. All you have cited, when challenged, is fringe speculation on this at RatSkep with no ancient source to back it all up, either in connection with Tacitus in particular or with early second-century chroniclers in general.

As it stands, this is a categorical assertion of yours with nothing other than pure speculation by amateurs at RatSkep behind it. There is no ancient cite shewing just what Tacitus and other second-century chroniclers had at hand from the '30s of the first century, c.e. It is past time that you either concede that your ludicrous assertion is based on fringe speculation only, or that you withdraw the assertion altogether.

There is extant evidence relating to Tacitus's chronicling methods, BTW. Tacitus himself specifies that he bends over backwards always to make a distinction between hearsay and personal accounts -- and he does not reference hearsay in his account of the fate of the despised founder of Christianity during the Tiberius years.

Stone

Fringe speculation, no. By no means, Stone.
I've been sifting and reading and assessing what sources of information Tacitus might have used, to be as complete as we amateurs can be.

It's probably a boringly basic read, but at the end of the day
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
provides the best overview of what we know about Tacitus' sources and mainstream academics' take on that.

Did Tacitus really think Jesus was named Chrestus/Christos? After all, Pilate's report would never have referred to Jesus as Christos, would it?

So, no.
No, I won't withdraw my assertion, Stone. I think it's valid.
Remember, I'm not claiming forgery or interpolation.

In any case, what sources do you think Tacitus used in this reference to Christos? I'd be interested in your opinion.

 

[Brainache]

Fringe speculation, no. By no means, Stone.
I've been sifting and reading and assessing what sources of information Tacitus might have used, to be as complete as we amateurs can be.

It's probably a boringly basic read, but at the end of the day
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html
provides the best overview of what we know about Tacitus' sources and mainstream academics' take on that.

Did Tacitus really think Jesus was named Chrestus/Christos? After all, Pilate's report would never have referred to Jesus as Christos, would it?

So, no.
No, I won't withdraw my assertion, Stone. I think it's valid.
Remember, I'm not claiming forgery or interpolation.

In any case, what sources do you think Tacitus used in this reference to Christos? I'd be interested in your opinion.

I'm not Stone, and I haven't read the link, but off the top of my head I'd say that as a Senator and Chronicler of Roman History, Tacitus took great interest in the affairs and history of Rome.

He would be the type of person who sought as much information about those things as he could get. I imagine him as the bore at parties, holding forth in the corner about his ideas on History. He could have had hundreds of sources throughout his lifetime, ranging from eyewitnesses to Senate Records to Josephus himself.

I don't think we need to assume he got all his info fifth or sixth-hand.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm not Stone, and I haven't read the link, but off the top of my head I'd say that as a Senator and Chronicler of Roman History, Tacitus took great interest in the affairs and history of Rome.

He would be the type of person who sought as much information about those things as he could get. I imagine him as the bore at parties, holding forth in the corner about his ideas on History. He could have had hundreds of sources throughout his lifetime, ranging from eyewitnesses to Senate Records to Josephus himself.

I don't think we need to assume he got all his info fifth or sixth-hand.

That seems reasonable to me. I don't think we should think of him, and other historians of the time, the same way we think of modern academic historians. They were more like "people in the know", who wrote down events as they say them, or heard about them.

 

[pakeha]

...He would be the type of person who sought as much information about those things as he could get. I imagine him as the bore at parties, holding forth in the corner about his ideas on History. He could have had hundreds of sources throughout his lifetime, ranging from eyewitnesses to Senate Records to Josephus himself.

I don't think we need to assume he got all his info fifth or sixth-hand.

We don't need to assume that, of course.
But it doesn't make sense to assume an official report would have referred to Jesus as Christos/Chrestos.
I like your summing up of Tacitus. Would he post here?

That seems reasonable to me. I don't think we should think of him, and other historians of the time, the same way we think of modern academic historians. They were more like "people in the know", who wrote down events as they say them, or heard about them.

That's very reasonable, Foster Zygote. I'll go along with that.

 

[Brainache]

We don't need to assume that, of course.
But it doesn't make sense to assume an official report would have referred to Jesus as Christos/Chrestos.
I like your summing up of Tacitus. Would he post here?
...

I'll bet you 8 dimes he would...

 

[IanS]

Ironically, the answer to your question is contained in the sentence that you have been deliberately ignoring with your quote mining:

"What that historical core was is open to debate, but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty."

Anyone with a reasable level of reading comprehension should be able to deduce from that statement that I do not believe anything to be the core of historical fact. I don't think that anyone can know, from the available evidence, what the exact origin of Christianity was.

Here's your entire quote again -

1. Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core. Christianity had to start somehow for us to be discussing today, so anyone who claimed that there is no historical core to Christianity would have to be an idiot. 2. What that historical core was is open to debate, ….


…. .3. but not a single person in this thread arguing against your position has made any statement that they believe in an historical Jesus with epistemological certainty. You are flailing at strawmen because you can't actually invalidate the plausibility of an historical Jesus. I know because I've asked you to do just that a number of times.
.

I have numbered the relevant sections for ease of reference. Dealing with those in order -


1. The first sentence-1, unarguably says and I quote it yet again -

- “ Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core.”


Before we look at anything else from your quote, that sentence-1 is definitely NOT true, is it!

“Everyone” most certainly does NOT “ believe that the Jesus stories have a historical core”. On the contrary, there are certainly many well known sceptic authors who have written books making clear that they do not believe that there is any “historical core” of fact in the biblical stories of Jesus (and biblical stories are the only known primary stories of Jesus). Also, it is by no means clear that “everyone” on this forum/website, or in the three currently active threads, believes that there is a “historical core” of actual fact in the Jesus stories.


2. OK, so now lets look (again!) at your second sentence-2 to see if that coverts your first sentence from it’s error (statement-1 is not true as it stands), and somehow converts sentence-1 from false to true; here is statement-2 -

- “ 2. What that historical core was is open to debate, …”


Statement-2 is referring directly to what was said in sentence-1, and it says that although “everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core”, those people (ie “everyone”) may disagree amongst them over what that historical core actually is … that means, and literally says, that whilst it remains true that “Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core.”, people may have different opinions on which parts of those Jesus stories are actually historical as a “core” of fact.

But that does not change anything about sentence-1 at all! Because, whilst it is certainly true that, as sentence-2 says, different people, IF they believe in Jesus, often do have different views on which parts of the Jesus story are truthful as a “historical core”, it is NOT true that everyone else (inc. those don’t believe in Jesus) “believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core” of truth in the Jesus stories … and also therefore by definition, those who do not believe there is any such historical core, also cannot disagree about what that non-existent (for the those non-believers) historical core is! … people who do not believe there is any such historical core, cannot by definition disagree about which parts are a historical core, because they believe that none of it is any historical core!.

So to summarise that (4th time, I think!) -

Sentence-1 on it’s own is simply untrue.

Sentence-2 can only be true for people who DO actually believe there is a historical core.

Sentence-2 is UNTRUE (by definition) for all those people for whom sentence-1 does not apply and who do NOT “believe that the Jesus stories have an historical core.”


So the basic sentence, sentence-1, is simply untrue. And it is not made into truth by sentence-2. People who do not believe there is a historical core to the stories of Jesus, do not & cannot disagree about what parts of the Jesus story are a “historical core”!


That’s why your statement was wrong, and that’s’ why your later protests about it are wrong. And that’s also why your repeated claims of lying and quote mining, are entirely misplaced.

 

[Belz...]

Here's your entire quote again -

I have numbered the relevant sections for ease of reference. Dealing with those in order -

1. The first sentence-1, unarguably says and I quote it yet again -

- “ Everyone believes that the Jesus stories have an historical core.”

Before we look at anything else from your quote, that sentence-1 is definitely NOT true, is it!

“Everyone” most certainly does NOT “ believe that the Jesus stories have a historical core”. On the contrary, there are certainly many well known sceptic authors who have written books making clear that they do not believe that there is any “historical core” of fact in the biblical stories of Jesus (and biblical stories are the only known primary stories of Jesus).

Christianity had to start somewhere. That's what Zygote meant. For ****'s sake, get it through your head.

So to summarise that (4th time, I think!) -

You simply are incapable of understanding simple English, then. It's just sad.

 

[IanS]

BTW. Tacitus himself specifies that he bends over backwards always to make a distinction between hearsay and personal accounts -- and he does not reference hearsay in his account of the fate of the despised founder of Christianity during the Tiberius years.

Stone

If Jesus died around 30AD, and if Tacitus was born in 56AD, then Tacitus could not have been a personal witness to anything Jesus ever said or did, could he.

That means that if Tacitus says anything about what happened to Jesus, we can only reasonably conclude that it's hearsay.

Also, if Tacitus does not name the person who told him those Jesus stories, then it's also anonymous hearsay.

 

[dejudge]

Tacitus wrote NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth.

Read every apologetic writings from the 2nd century and it will be seen that NO apologetic writer knew of Tacitus Annals with Christus.

Even Eusebius when writing "Church History" used the forgeries in Josephus and there is no mention whatsoever of Tacitus Annals with Christus.

Tertullian mentioned Tacitus' writings but did not claim that he wrote about Jesus.

In the Apology, Tertulian accused Tacitus of being a Liar so had a perfect opportunity to show that Tacitus mentioned Jesus even though he did not believe in him.

Tacitus Annals with Christus would have been a very significant piece of evidence for Christians in the same way they used the forgeries of Josephus.

Christian writers NEVER used Tacitus Annals with Christus to corroborate Josephus for hundreds of years.