Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

dejudge, none of this has the slightest relevance to anything I wrote. Not the slightest. So I am unable to make any useful comments.

What you say has nothing to do with what I posted. In fact, you actually wrote nothing but three irrelevant sentences.

The HJ argument is dead and is now being cremated.

HJers have been admitting that their Jesus was not the Christ but somehow have managed to still argue in a most contradictory manner that Jesus called the Christ is their obscure dead preacher.

Now, there are two fundamental ways to be called Christ by Jews.

1. A Jew is called the Christ [ the Anointed] if he is King of the Jews.

2. A Jew is called the Christ [the Anointed] if he is High Priest.

HJers do not admit that their Jesus was the King of the Jews or an High Priest.

HJers admit their Jesus was a little known preacher man.

A King of the Jews or an High Priest would be well known by Jews.

One cannot be Christ [Anointed King of the Jews or High Priest] after death.

In Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 there is a character named Jesus called the Christ [the Anointed].

In Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 Jesus called Christ [the Anointed] was Jesus the Son of Damneus who became the High Priest.


From the Chronicon Paschale we know that High Priests were called Christs.

http://www.attalus.org/translate/paschal.html

Chronicon Paschale

Until Jannaeus, who was also called Alexander, there were annointed leaders; but with him the succession of high priests who led the nation came to an end. They were called Christs by the prophets.

Even the Church writers denied that Jesus had a human brother called James.

[Chrysostom Commentary on Galatians

....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..

 

[Craig B]

dejudge, you're just having a laugh now, pasting the same repetitive drivelling nonsense again and again. That's it.

 

[maximara]

a : an outward sign : indication

Taking an example from physical science, look at black holes. Black holes didn't suddenly reveal themselves to us with proof of their existence. They were proposed as being something plausible based on signs from available evidence that they could exist. Many astrophysicists spent years examining the possibility that black holes existed without ever claiming to know that they did.

Ah but they only theorized about black holes after Einstein had been around a while. In 1844 back when Newton was the way to look at the universe strange behavior was noted in Sirius meaning it had a companion star. From the way Sirius moved scientists knew this companion star was about the mass of our own sun but they couldn't see it. Then around 1863 somebody actually saw the companion star...and that is when the denial began.

As Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in 1927 the message from Sirius' companion star was '"I am composed of material 3,000 time denser then anything you have come across; a ton of my material would be a little nugget you could put into a matchbox." What reply can one make to such a message? The reply which most of us made in 1914 was--"Shut up. Don't talk nonsense."'

Of course Newton's theories were already in trouble requiring Aether to explain how magnetism and light worked...but nobody could find evidence of this Aether. Then Einstein came along in 1915 and gave another way to look at the universe and the singularity of the black hole came about.

But as with Newton not all was well with Einstein-when the very equations that allowed scientists to theorize about black holes were applied to the inside of one they "blew up" producing either infinite values or nonsensical things like the square root of a negative number.

John Frum is the Sirius companion star of the MJ theory for HJ proponents. It shows that a major religious movement can form without a clear identifiable leader and any that may have existed can be quickly eliminated from the oral tradition for a more favorable version. And still the HJ go "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense." with the MJ theory.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge, you're just having a laugh now, pasting the same repetitive drivelling nonsense again and again. That's it.

You just posted the same sentences which are completely unproductive. It is clear you have nothing to contribute.

This thread is about the question of the Historical Jesus--not dejudge.


In order to claim that an historical Jesus is plausible there should have been evidence already existing which everyone could see.

Where is the evidence from antiquity for HJers little known itinerant preacher?

What did he do to be worshiped as God by those who crucified him when the Jews did NOT worship men as Gods and the Romans did NOT worship crucified Jews as Divine.

In fact, thousands of the Jews were crucified by the Romans in the 1st century just for being a Jew.

A little known Jewish itinerant preacher who did nothing as described in the NT does not explain the origin of the story, the Pauline Corpus and Jesus cult.

The Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE explains how the story that the Jews Killed or caused the death of the Son of God originated.

It was after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE that a story circulated that the destruction of the Temple signified that the Messiah had already come and that his second coming was imminent.

Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

Of these and such like words written by the prophets, O Trypho," said I, "some have reference to the first advent of Christ, in which He is preached as inglorious, obscure, and of mortal appearance: but others had reference to His second advent, when He shall appear in glory and above the clouds; and your nation shall see and know Him whom they have pierced, as Hosea, one of the twelve prophets, and Daniel, foretold.

The story of Jesus the Christ and Son of God was unknown and fabricated sometime after c 70 CE.

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.”

And so the times of the coming Christ, the Leader, must be inquired into, which we shall trace in Daniel; and, after computing them, shall prove Him to be come, even on the ground of the times prescribed, and of competent signs and operations of His. Which matters we prove, again, on the ground of the consequences which were ever announced as to follow His advent; in order that we may believe all to have been as well fulfilled as foreseen.

 

[Craig B]

Ah but they only theorized about black holes after Einstein had been around a while.

No. the concept was discussed at least twice in the eighteenth century.

Michell has become known for his letter to Cavendish, published in 1784, on the effect of gravity on light. ... Michell is now credited with being the first to study the case of a heavenly object massive enough to prevent light from escaping (the concept of escape velocity was well known at the time). ...
The mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace soon after suggested the same idea of high-gravity objects trapping light in his book Exposition du Systeme du Monde in 1796. This sort of high-gravity object under Newtonian theory is commonly referred to as a dark star, and can be thought of as being the predecessor of the modern idea of a black hole under general relativity.

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

John Frum is the Sirius companion star of the MJ theory for HJ proponents. It shows that a major religious movement can form without a clear identifiable leader and any that may have existed can be quickly eliminated from the oral tradition for a more favorable version. And still the HJ go "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense." with the MJ theory.

Frum proves that such things can indeed happen. But the cases of Jesus and John Frum are sufficiently different that the probable non existence of one proves nothing about the non existence of the other.

 

[IanS]

The crucifixion. Is it adequate evidence? Perhaps. That's discussable.

What crucifixion of Jesus? Which crucifixion of Jesus is this that you are talking about in that quote above?

You are talking above as if you just assume that it did in fact exist. And then saying is the fact of that crucifixion adequate evidence?

Look at your sentence ... you are making an implicit assumption "before the fact". Your sentence assumes that there definitely is such evidence, and then proceeds to ask if it that evidence is perhaps sufficient!

But you actually have no such evidence of Jesus being crucified! You are just implicitly assuming it in the wording of your sentences.

What is the evidence that his crucifixion ever really happened?

You have absolutely zero reliable evidence of any such thing.

Crucifixion is a very probable occurrence for a religious preacher in these days, so the strength of evidence required to establish it in this case is not enormously high. Resurrection is not, so the standard of evidence required to establish that is both in theory and in practice beyond attainment.

Because you think crucifixions were quite common at that time, that is not any kind of evidence that any such thing ever happened to any messiah named Jesus, is it!


Despite someone here saying earlier that I was lying (or being “dishonest”), it’s perfectly obvious that when you and others here write sentences like the above, you are implicitly assuming that Jesus was real to begin with, and then trying to retro-fit other entirely separate ideas (such as saying crucifixions were real events) on to your prior assumption of Jesus. I.e., in the above you are saying that because crucifixions were common at the time, and because a holy book says that Jesus was crucified, that is in itself somehow evidence that Jesus really was crucified! Well it’s not … that is absolutely zero evidence that any biblical author was right when he wrote that Jesus existed and was crucified!

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

Proof is usually linked to maths and logic, and it seems odd to relate it to evidence. I would say evidence is something that is adduced to support an argument, to give it validity or truth.

I don't agree with IanS's view of it as necessarily like legal evidence or scientific evidence. Fair enough, if he wants to take it like that, but it can be taken in a less restrictive way.

In American English, the word proof is used "both ways," as evidence and as formal demonstration by truth-preserving steps. So, it is up to the speaker to be clear which meaning is intended, and up to the listener to police that there is no slippage as discussion proceeds.

There are domain-independent norms of evidence, but being domain-indpendent, they focus on providing heuristic guidance to discovering the facts of the matter separately from achieving desirable states of the world. Actual professional users of evidence typically pursue both objectives simultaneously, confident belief and good outcomes, for example:

> The historian wishes to shape his or her error characteristic, to achieve more completeness at the cost of less accuracy and and more mistaken classifications overall than necessary.

> The lawyer wishes there to be a burden on the moving party (usually), and so handicaps that party's development of its case (along with some "offsetting" constraints on the other party to achieve "just the right amount" of constraint as comports with "fairness" - which, of course is neither accuarcy nor completeness, but is a good outcome).

> The physician wishes to plan a course of treatment that manages the uncertainties of the biological situation according to the "best interests of the patient," another notion of good outcome, and at least in the United States, to avoid excessive involvement with lawyers, who have their own ideas about evidentiary reasoning (see above).

The main problem with some other posters' appeal to the law is not that any actual legal standard is applied, but the tacit assumption that writing can only be evidence if it is testimony. If there is one thing most people can agree on, it is that there is no actual testimony of a natural Jesus in the synoptic Gospels or Paul. So, of course, it is a contradiction to treat non-testimony as testimony, and as is the usual thing, anything whatsoever can be proven from contradictory premises.

 

[Craig B]

What crucifixion of Jesus? Which crucifixion of Jesus is this that you are talking about in that quote above?

You are talking above as if you just assume that it did in fact exist. And then saying is the fact of that crucifixion adequate evidence?

Look at your sentence ... you are making an implicit assumption "before the fact". Your sentence assumes that there definitely is such evidence, and then proceeds to ask if it that evidence is perhaps sufficient!

At last! A correct statement. Yes there definitely is such evidence - the NT - and I do indeed ask if that evidence is sufficient. Good. We've established that.

But you actually have no such evidence of Jesus being crucified! You are just implicitly assuming it in the wording of your sentences.

What is the evidence that his crucifixion ever really happened?

You have absolutely zero reliable evidence of any such thing.

Here we go again. We have evidence. Is it reliable? We need to discuss that. That means we need to discuss the probability of the thing attested, the execution of Jesus. But it is evidence.

Because you think crucifixions were quite common at that time, that is not any kind of evidence that any such thing ever happened to any messiah named Jesus, is it!

It is a factor in assessing the plausibility of statements to the effect that Jesus was crucified.

Despite someone here saying earlier that I was lying (or being “dishonest”), it’s perfectly obvious that when you and others here write sentences like the above, you are implicitly assuming that Jesus was real to begin with, and then trying to retro-fit other entirely separate ideas (such as saying crucifixions were real events) on to your prior assumption of Jesus. I.e., in the above you are saying that because crucifixions were common at the time, and because a holy book says that Jesus was crucified, that is in itself somehow evidence that Jesus really was crucified! Well it’s not … that is absolutely zero evidence that any biblical author was right when he wrote that Jesus existed and was crucified!

It's not evidence, because it's not evidence that the author was right? When holy books report that something happened which we know to have been a common occurrence, that's not evidence because there's zero - nay absolutely zero - super evidence that the original evidence is right. Therefore there's no evidence. Let me think about that.

But wait! If I produce the super evidence verifying the ordinary evidence, you will require super duper evidence verifying the super evidence and if I can't produce that, you'll say again that there is no evidence. So it goes. But we could discuss in rational terms the robustness of the evidence we do have, such as it is.

 

[Belz...]

dejudge, none of this has the slightest relevance to anything I wrote.

What you say has nothing to do with what I posted.

You know, there's a point at which you have an epiphany, and realise that someone's been pulling your leg since the beginning; and this is it !

Good show.

 

[Belz...]

What crucifixion of Jesus? Which crucifixion of Jesus is this that you are talking about in that quote above?

You are talking above as if you just assume that it did in fact exist. And then saying is the fact of that crucifixion adequate evidence?

Look at your sentence ... you are making an implicit assumption "before the fact". Your sentence assumes that there definitely is such evidence, and then proceeds to ask if it that evidence is perhaps sufficient!

But you actually have no such evidence of Jesus being crucified! You are just implicitly assuming it in the wording of your sentences.

What is the evidence that his crucifixion ever really happened?

You have absolutely zero reliable evidence of any such thing.

Sheesh, man. Calm down. You're so dead-set against Jesus being a real guy that your posts are becoming incoherent. Slow down. Maybe reading the thread back from the beginning will give you some perspective.

 

[dejudge]

At last! A correct statement. Yes there definitely is such evidence - the NT - and I do indeed ask if that evidence is sufficient. Good. We've established that. Here we go again. We have evidence. Is it reliable? We need to discuss that. That means we need to discuss the probability of the thing attested, the execution of Jesus. But it is evidence. It is a factor in assessing the plausibility of statements to the effect that Jesus was crucified.It's not evidence, because it's not evidence that the author was right? When holy books report that something happened which we know to have been a common occurrence, that's not evidence because there's zero - nay absolutely zero - super evidence that the original evidence is right. Therefore there's no evidence. Let me think about that.

It is not common at all for characters who walked on the sea, and transfigured to be crucified.

It is not common at all for Romans to have deified a crucified criminal.

It is not common at all for Jews to worship a crucified man as a God.

The claim that Jesus was crucified is not evidence that Jesus did exist and was crucified in the same way you argue that the claim that Jesus walked on the sea, transfigured, and resurrected is not evidence of mythology.

You seem to conveniently reject events that show Jesus as a figure of mythology but accept fictional accounts as history without corroboration.


You are attempting to use known forgeries and accounts which are being questioned as its own corroboration.

In effect, you are asserting that whatever you believe about Jesus is plausible and is also most likely historical simply because you believe so.

The HJ argument is nothing more than an article of pure faith--belief without corroboration.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Dejudge, please explain why the following hypothetical scenario is not logically possible:

A radical religious figure with a small following goes to Jerusalem with the delusion that he is going to usher in the return of the rule of the house of David and the expulsion of the Roman occupiers. Alas, he is promptly apprehended and painfully executed in the manner of any seditionist. His followers are, understandably, quite shocked by this unexpected turn of events. Yet, like so many other deluded believers, they (or some of them, at least) just can't bring themselves to entertain the thought that they were just plain wrong, so they start rationalizing the execution of their leader. The narrative develops that the leader's death was all part of the plan from the very start and they'd simply missed the clues that he'd given them. And furthermore, they claim, he came back to life and was called up to be with God. He will soon return to finish his commission and fulfill the prophecies, and it is up to his disciples to spread the word to as many righteous Jews as they can. With each successive retelling of the Jesus story, he becomes more and more mythologized. From there the narrative gradually expands and morphs into many forms, eventually evolving into what we think of today as orthodox Christianity.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Ah but they only theorized about black holes after Einstein had been around a while.

"If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1, a body falling from an infinite height towards it would have acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own proper gravity." - John Michell, letter to Henry Cavendish, written 1783

At any rate, you're over-examining the analogy, the point of which is that dejudge's apparent belief that only statements of certainty have any place in the historical method is erroneous.

John Frum is the Sirius companion star of the MJ theory for HJ proponents. It shows that a major religious movement can form without a clear identifiable leader and any that may have existed can be quickly eliminated from the oral tradition for a more favorable version.

No one here has claimed that Jesus could not have been mythical. What has been disputed are the arguments put forth against the plausibility of an historical Jesus.

And still the HJ go "Shut up. Don't talk nonsense." with the MJ theory.

Have I told anyone to "shut up"? I have called "nonsense" on a number of arguments offered, but they are demonstrably fallacious. I'm perfectly willing to engage in a polite debate with you, so please don't start out by poisoning the well with insinuations that I will not politely hear you out.

 

[dejudge]

Dejudge, please explain why the following hypothetical scenario is not logically possible:

A radical religious figure with a small following goes to Jerusalem with the delusion that he is going to usher in the return of the rule of the house of David and the expulsion of the Roman occupiers. Alas, he is promptly apprehended and painfully executed in the manner of any seditionist. His followers are, understandably, quite shocked by this unexpected turn of events. Yet, like so many other deluded believers, they (or some of them, at least) just can't bring themselves to entertain the thought that they were just plain wrong, so they start rationalizing the execution of their leader. The narrative develops that the leader's death was all part of the plan from the very start and they'd simply missed the clues that he'd given them. And furthermore, they claim, he came back to life and was called up to be with God. He will soon return to finish his commission and fulfill the prophecies, and it is up to his disciples to spread the word to as many righteous Jews as they can. With each successive retelling of the Jesus story, he becomes more and more mythologized. From there the narrative gradually expands and morphs into many forms, eventually evolving into what we think of today as orthodox Christianity.

You made up that story.

Please, I no longer accept modern un-evidenced imagined myth fables.

Those days are done.

I am dealing with writings of antiquity.

Examine what Aristides wrote and forget your modern invention.

Aristides told us exactly what Christians believed.

I accept what Aristides wrote and reject your modern un-evidence fable about the start of the Jesus story and cult.

Aristides' Apology

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time ago was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.

This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished.

But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness.

And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they have become famous.

We now know exactly how the Jesus story and cult started.

No need to invent more myth fables.

A story was circulated sometime in the 2nd century that the Jews killed the Son of God and those who believe the story called themselves Christians.

It is all over. Jesus was GOD who came down from heaven.

We have the evidence.

 

[Craig B]

Please, I no longer accept modern un-evidenced imagined myth fables.

Those days are done.

Glad to hear it. I'm surprised you accepted them in the past.

 

[zugzwang]

dejudge wrote:


We now know exactly how the Jesus story and cult started.

No need to invent more myth fables.

A story was circulated sometime in the 2nd century that the Jews killed the Son of God and those who believe the story called themselves Christians.

It is all over. Jesus was GOD who came down from heaven.

We have the evidence.

At last, somebody has come up with reliable and reproducible evidence, which could be repeated in a court of law. Praise Cthulhu!

Now I shall sit back in comfort, and await further details of this evidence.

 

[dejudge]

Glad to hear it. I'm surprised you accepted them in the past.

Your statement is a known fallacy.

I consider the accounts of Jesus, the disciples and Paul in the Entire NT as a compilation of forgeries, fiction, implausibility and was fabricated sometime in the 2nd century or later.

I argue that the Pauline Corpus [all of it] was not known until after c 180 CE.


You accept parts of the NT at face value and argue that Jesus was baptized by John even though you saw it is written that at the baptism there was a Holy Ghost bird and a Voice from heaven.

Why do you accept the baptism of Jesus when the baptism story is riddled with fiction and implausibility?

Why do you claim that there are authentic Pauline Epistles without a shred of evidence?

 

[dejudge]

dejudge wrote:

We now know exactly how the Jesus story and cult started.

No need to invent more myth fables.

A story was circulated sometime in the 2nd century that the Jews killed the Son of God and those who believe the story called themselves Christians.

It is all over. Jesus was GOD who came down from heaven.

We have the evidence.

At last, somebody has come up with reliable and reproducible evidence, which could be repeated in a court of law. Praise Cthulhu!

Now I shall sit back in comfort, and await further details of this evidence.

Of course, you never saw what Foster Zygote presented to courts. Praise be to your Unknown Cthulhu!

I won't sit back and watch baseless un-evidence inventions by HJers derived from imagination be regarded as history.

I will now present writings attributed to Justin to the courts. Justin will corroborate Aristides and show what happened to the Jews because they killed Jesus the son of God.

I call Justin Martyr as a 2nd century witness if it pleases the court.


Justin's Dialogue with Trypho

For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem.'

For you are not recognised among the rest of men by any other mark than your fleshly circumcision. For none of you, I suppose, will venture to say that God neither did nor does foresee the events, which are future, nor fore-ordained his deserts for each one.

Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him...

 

[maximara]

Frum proves that such things can indeed happen. But the cases of Jesus and John Frum are sufficiently different that the probable non existence of one proves nothing about the non existence of the other.

John Frum gives a rough framework for a better MJ then the grab anything that looks like it might have led to the Jesus story that you tend to see from the armchair brigade:

1) a general proto cult with a imagined leader forms but is largely ignored because it doesn't attract attention. (1947 letter saying John Frum had origins in the 1910s)

2) An incident causes the cult to hit critical mass inspiring people to step into the role of the supposed founder finally attracting the attention of the local officials (the three "John Frums" of 1940-7; the many would be messiahs in Josephus staring c 4 BCE)

3) As with all movements there are schisms and breakaways (John Frum vs Prince Philip cults)

4) In the case of Christianity Paul's letters bring focus to one particular branch setting down various ideas about its 'founder'.

5) Inspired by Paul's teaching several "Jesuses" appear resulting in Paul's warning.

6) After Paul's death and the destruction of the Temple a Pro-Roman story is created for Jesus by his group...perhaps using elements from other would be messiahs, perhaps out of whole cloth we don't know.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You made up that story.

No, actually I didn't. It has been proposed as a likely explanation for the origin of Christianity by a great many New Testament scholars. I've asked you repeatedly to tell us why it is not a plausible scenario. Your continued evasion is transparently obvious and says much more than you would like it to.

Please, I no longer accept modern un-evidenced imagined myth fables.

Those days are done.

Are you saying that you used to regard the idea that Jesus was a delusional religious crank who got himself brutally executed as a plausible scenario, or are you saying that you used to be a Christian?

I am dealing with writings of antiquity.

Examine what Aristides wrote and forget your modern invention.

Aristides told us exactly what Christians believed.

Yes, Aristides told us what Christians believed, because he was one. He also tells us what (some) Christians believed around 90 to 110 years after Jesus was said to have been executed. What does what Christians believed about Jesus have to do with the reality of Jesus?

I accept what Aristides wrote and reject your modern un-evidence fable about the start of the Jesus story and cult.

Interesting. So you choose to believe the religious mythology of an early Christian writer over modern academic opinion that Jesus was likely a real person who was appropriated and mythologized by a growing religious cult that he never could have anticipated?

We now know exactly how the Jesus story and cult started.

No. We know how Aristides, and many other early Christians, thought that Christianity had started. They believed the myths that were invented after Jesus' death. Who's using the Bible as evidence, now?

No need to invent more myth fables.

What scholars are doing is demythologizing Jesus. Saying that Jesus was probably a delusional religious crank who got himself killed is not myth-making.

A story was circulated sometime in the 2nd century that the Jews killed the Son of God and those who believe the story called themselves Christians.

Then who were the Christians whom Nero was persecuting during the mid 1st Century?

It is all over. Jesus was GOD who came down from heaven.

We have the evidence.

I'm confused. Did you suddenly have a born-again experience?

Again, how is it that so many university professors can be so stupid as to ignore your clear genius regarding the historicity of Jesus?