Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

If Jesus wasn't a Jew, why did people call him "Rabbi"? Why did he speak and teach in the Jewish temple? Why did Pilate put "King of the Jews" on the cross? Why did the Pharisees try to trick him by asking him questions about the Jewish laws?

Why do you take aboard these things as facts?
That the Pharisees try to trick him by asking him questions about the Jewish laws, for example?
Or that Jesus spoke and taught in the Jewish temple?
Or even that Pilate put "King of the Jews" on the cross?

For those interested check out Category Archive: Bart Ehrman regarding Richard Carrier's comments on Bart Ehrman's book.

The [URL="http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1794]Ehrman on Historicity Recap[/URL] provides a nice one stop collection of links and shows it isn't just Carrier that dumps on the book.

While Carrier is still looking for a book that provides the best case for Jesus historicity he recommends, as flawed as they are, Van Voorst’s Jesus Outside the New Testament and Theissen & Merz’s The Historical Jesus over Ehrman's book.

Thanks for the links.
ETA
I think you're missing a " in the second link.

 

[Belz...]

See, I can play your little word game too. Face it, this argument isn't going anywhere.

It's not a game, but an honest question which you're avoiding like the plague; and it's not going anywhere because of you, not me.

The problem is that you are agreeing with the elements that form HJ, but are unwilling to go ahead and say you agree with the sum total of them. It's like when (sorry) theists admit that microevolution happens, but refuse to admit to the thing that micro- leads to; or when conservatives agree with military spending, NSA spying, medicaid, and tons of social services, and want to increase funding for those, but somehow they hate socialism and big government.

If you like ground beef, bread and ketchup there's a good chance you like hamburgers, but for some reason you say you don't.

 

[IanS]

It's not really a fair question to ask if someone takes an "I don't know" position since that is in itself is as valid position as saying "more/less likely than a purple kangaroo". Some people can just leave it at a "I don't know".

Just to add something on this -

- you cannot logically agree to a question like “Do you agree that it's likely that such a preacher man was at the source of Christianity ?”, unless you think there is indeed reliable evidence to show Jesus existed.

But the whole point here is that Maximara, myself, dejudge, tsig and several others (not to mention the vast majority of respondents in tsig's poll), do not agree that there is reliable evidence of Jesus’s existence!

It’s really a trick question where the trick is in the word “likely”. That word does assume positive evidence in favour of Jesus.

If you change that word from "likely" to “possible”, ie “Do you agree such a preacher was possible …”, then the answer could be “yes”, on the basis that anything is merely possible, and preachers of various sorts were apparently commonplace at the time. Though that still leaves the weasel words “such a preacher man”, because those words also imply that the person has to be one "such" as the figure described in the bible … and as we know, that biblical figure certainly could not have existed.

The question is probably also a Freudian slip by the person who insists on repeatedly asking it. Because it shows he is implicitly assuming that such evidence does exist (even though that evidence clearly does not exist … which is why nobody here has ever been able to produce even the smallest spec of any such evidence).

 

[Belz...]

- you cannot logically agree to a question like “Do you agree that it's likely that such a preacher man was at the source of Christianity ?”, unless you think there is indeed reliable evidence to show Jesus existed.

That's because you keep conflating things, but I see there's no point in trying to educate you further on this point.

 

[bruto]

It is Christians and HJers who take stories in the Bible literally.

Christians and HJers claim their Jesus was baptized by John, caused havoc in the Temple, preached in Galilee and Jerusalem, and was crucified under Pilate in the time of Tiberius.

I argue based on the existing evidence that the Jesus story in the NT is a compilation of forgeries, mythology, fiction and implausible accounts which were fabricated sometime after Suetonius "Life of the Twelve Caesars" and before the War with Simon Barcocheba or sometime around c 115-130 CE.



You need to tell that to HJers. They reject all the mythological accounts of Jesus and accept whatever they believe is plausible.

The birth narrative of Jesus is fictional but HJers simply reject the parts they don't like and accept the rest without supporting evidence.

The baptism account as described is fiction yet HJers simply reject the parts they don't like and accept the rest without supporting evidence .

The crucifixion episode is fictional but again HJers simply reject the parts they don't like and accept the rest without supporting evidence.

Why don't HJers reject the fictional birth narrative, baptism and the crucifixion episodes?



You are doing the very same as HJers. You reject what you don't like and accept the rest without supporting evidence.

You openly admitted stories of Jesus are cockeyed and inconsistent but will not reject them .

You are either a Christian or an HJer.

I reject all the stories of Jesus because they are cockeyed, inconsistent, not eyewitness accounts and without external corroboration.

No, I am neither a Christian nor an HJer. Though I consider it possible that there was an HJ somewhere under the legend, I consider it possible that there was not and that the accounts are fabricated, using the stories of more than one person either out of confusion or dishonesty. Given the end result, the utterly mythical Jesus, I'm not sure whether the question is of any real importance.

What I am disputing is that, despite your statement, highlighted here, you are, in fact, cherrypicking the gospels and using the statements you like as evidence that Jesus could not have been a Jew. You are doing exactly what you accuse HJ'ers of doing. If as you say, the birth story of Jesus is fictional, then it is fictional. You can point out flaws and ambiguities in the fiction, but you are stepping out of the fictional realm if you declare, ex cathedra, that one declaration in the fiction is more true than another. If the mythical Jesus is said by the myth to have been a Jew, then that's what he was, despite the bothersome inconsistencies. If the real Jesus did not exist, then of course he was not a Jew, or a pirate captain or a starling. You say nothing.

 

[Craig B]

... The question is probably also a Freudian slip by the person who insists on repeatedly asking it. Because it shows he is implicitly assuming that such evidence does exist (even though that evidence clearly does not exist … which is why nobody here has ever been able to produce even the smallest spec of any such evidence).

So you keep saying. And so I keep denying. Evidence has been produced, and the reason why it should be taken seriously has been stated, and if you want to disaggregate, fine. But the evidence has been produced. Discuss it or be still. But don't keep saying none has been produced.

You claim to support dejudge. What evidence has he produced for his Late Forgery theory?

 

[zugzwang]

So you keep saying. And so I keep denying. Evidence has been produced, and the reason why it should be taken seriously has been stated, and if you want to disaggregate, fine. But the evidence has been produced. Discuss it or be still. But don't keep saying none has been produced.

You claim to support dejudge. What evidence has he produced for his Late Forgery theory?

The trouble I find with both IanS and dejudge is that their approach closes discussion down, rather than opening up. If someone just keeps saying, no, that is not evidence, fair enough, but then there is nothing more to say. The same with dejudge's 'it's all a forgery'.

It seems to be the opposite of historical method, a kind of historical nihilism.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Why do you take aboard these things as facts?
That the Pharisees try to trick him by asking him questions about the Jewish laws, for example?
Or that Jesus spoke and taught in the Jewish temple?
Or even that Pilate put "King of the Jews" on the cross?

Obviously, if Jesus never existed, he wasn't a Jew. I do think it's legitimate to say that the character Jesus from the bible is a Jew, and Christians have basically always believed him to be a Jew.

 

[tsig]

Why do you take aboard these things as facts?
That the Pharisees try to trick him by asking him questions about the Jewish laws, for example?
Or that Jesus spoke and taught in the Jewish temple?
Or even that Pilate put "King of the Jews" on the cross?




Thanks for the links.
ETA
I think you're missing a " in the second link.

Thanks, I was just going to point out that these questions only make sense if we assume parts of the bible is true.

This assumption, that there is some kernel of truth in the bible stories is at the root of most HJ arguments.

I'd like to note that the "many crucified prophets" scenario that the HJers use to validate the crucifixion fits well with the MJ because it could be argued that Jesus was a composite of those dangling prophets.

 

[jhunter1163]

Thanks, I was just going to point out that these questions only make sense if we assume parts of the bible is true.

This assumption, that there is some kernel of truth in the bible stories is at the root of most HJ arguments.

I'd like to note that the "many crucified prophets" scenario that the HJers use to validate the crucifixion fits well with the MJ because it could be argued that Jesus was a composite of those dangling prophets.

I really wasn't arguing the validity of the HJ with those questions; I was addressing dejudge's contention that the NT Jesus was not a Jew. That point has been addressed by several other posters, so I will not belabor it further.

 

[maximara]

So you keep saying. And so I keep denying. Evidence has been produced, and the reason why it should be taken seriously has been stated, and if you want to disaggregate, fine. But the evidence has been produced. Discuss it or be still. But don't keep saying none has been produced.

Evidence has been produced that is on par with that for the Bermuda Triangle or Ancient Astronaut.

1) Paul who wants to write about the Jesus in his head and doesn't give any historical framework regarding his Jesus in the seven letters that are supposedly his.

2) The Gospels written some time before 130 CE, maybe, as we only have single line quotes from Church Fathers until 180 when we get a mammoth quote dump and on every point we can check them against known history they fail spectacularly. And these are four of the some 30+ Gospels known to have existed.

3) Acts like the Gospels has many historical issues.

4) Tampered, unsourced, or obviously desperate to make a connection third party references.

This is our evidence? It is a joke.

 

[dejudge]

No, I am neither a Christian nor an HJer. Though I consider it possible that there was an HJ somewhere under the legend, I consider it possible that there was not and that the accounts are fabricated, using the stories of more than one person either out of confusion or dishonesty. Given the end result, the utterly mythical Jesus, I'm not sure whether the question is of any real importance.

Your position is rather confused.

What I am disputing is that, despite your statement, highlighted here, you are, in fact, cherrypicking the gospels and using the statements you like as evidence that Jesus could not have been a Jew. You are doing exactly what you accuse HJ'ers of doing. If as you say, the birth story of Jesus is fictional, then it is fictional. You can point out flaws and ambiguities in the fiction, but you are stepping out of the fictional realm if you declare, ex cathedra, that one declaration in the fiction is more true than another. If the mythical Jesus is said by the myth to have been a Jew, then that's what he was, despite the bothersome inconsistencies. If the real Jesus did not exist, then of course he was not a Jew, or a pirate captain or a starling. You say nothing.

Your post is rather confusing. You say nothing of substance

I showed you what the manuscripts and Codices say.

Does not Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1 state Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin?

Neither a Ghost and a real Virgin can reproduce.

The Synoptic Jesus was not a Jew.

Does not John 1 state Jesus was the Logos and God Creator?

The Logos, God Creator is not a Jew.

The NT contains mythological fables of Jesus, the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost and God Creator when he was in Galilee and Jerusalem.

In the myth fables the Jews thought Jesus was a human being and caused him to be crucified for blasphemy but Jesus, the Son of God resurrected on the third day.

The Jesus story is extremely easy to understand if you would just read them.

In the myth fables of the NT, Jesus was God and the Jews thought he was a man--a very simple story.

Mark 14

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 And Jesus said, "I am ; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

63 Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, "What further need do we have of witnesses ? 64 "You have heard the blasphemy ; how does it seem to you?" And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death.

 

[IanS]

So you keep saying. And so I keep denying. Evidence has been produced, and the reason why it should be taken seriously has been stated, and if you want to disaggregate, fine. But the evidence has been produced. Discuss it or be still. But don't keep saying none has been produced.

You claim to support dejudge. What evidence has he produced for his Late Forgery theory?

You have never produced any credible evidence of Jesus. None at all.

At most, all that's been produced is exactly what we all agreed at the start, and that is biblical writing which is only evidence of peoples ancient religious beliefs.

But there is no reliable or credible evidence of a human Jesus in the bible. For a start, none of the biblical writers ever knew anyone named Jesus.

 

[IanS]

If someone just keeps saying, no, that is not evidence, fair enough, but then there is nothing more to say.

Indeed. That actually is the position! There really is no more to say until and unless someone actually finds some reliable evidence either way (almost impossible to find evidence of a Jesus who did not exist, of course).

However, as I have said here numerous times, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence to show why the biblical writing was fictional.

 

[Belz...]

You have never produced any credible evidence of Jesus. None at all.

Why did you just go and do exactly what he told you that you shouldn't be doing ?

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is directly as a result of not understanding the very story of Jesus itself in the NT.

The story in the NT is that the Jews thought Jesus was a human being.

The story in the NT is that the Jews thought Jesus was a Jewish man.

The story in the NT is that The Jews thought Jesus was a blasphemer when he claimed he was the Son of the Blessed.

The story in the NT is that the Jews thought they were asking Pilate to crucify a Jew who was a blasphemer.

In the NT, the Jews thought wrong.

They crucified the Son of God.

Jesus resurrected just as he predicted.

In the NT, Jesus was not a Jewish man--He was GOD Incarnate.


Mark 16.6

...Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified : he is risen ; he is not here...

There is no HJ in the Bible.

God came down from heaven and lived in Galilee and Jerusalem.

The Jews crucified the Son of God.

No HJ was ever here--that is the story in the NT.

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........... But he himself was pierced by the Jews..

 

[IanS]

So you keep saying. And so I keep denying. Evidence has been produced, and the reason why it should be taken seriously has been stated, and if you want to disaggregate, fine. But the evidence has been produced. Discuss it or be still. But don't keep saying none has been produced.

You claim to support dejudge. What evidence has he produced for his Late Forgery theory?

Craig - the problem you have is that you think the bible is evidence of Jesus. But that cannot be true. Because the people who wrote the bible never knew Jesus at all.

That means, the best those biblical writers could possibly do, would be to state whatever evidence they believed to have come from people who did know Jesus. But none of the biblical authors ever do that.

All that the bible authors ever did was report the stories that earlier people were said to have told about Jesus. But there is never any evidence of how any of those writers knew the stories to be true. There is no evidence there, only stories of Jesus .... just un-confirmed un-evidenced stories about Jesus told by unknown people from an earlier time.

To make those bible stories into "evidence", the stories would at the very least need to be confirmed by an eye-witness who's reliability & accuracy could be confirmed. Otherwise, a mere story is never itself evidence of what the story says. It is not evidence that I have been to the moon just because I write a story saying I travelled in a rocket to the moon ... that is at best only evidence of me claiming something without any supporting evidence.

 

[dejudge]

The stories of Jesus in the NT even at face value cannot be true.

HJers themselves reject almost all the accounts of Jesus.

The authors of the Jesus stories had no intention of writing historical truth.

The authors wrote what people BELIEVED or what they wanted people to BELIEVE.

The story is not true that Jesus was the Son of God, born of a Holy Ghost, was the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, commissioned the disciples after he was dead, and then ascended in a cloud.


But that is exactly what was BELIEVED by Apologetics.

The NT is not an historical account of Jesus but the documented history of what people of antiquity BELIEVED.

Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Lactantius, Arnobius, Eusebius, Jerome, Severus, Rufinus, Augustine, Ephraem, Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Optatus and others all believed the non-historical stories of Jesus found in the NT.

The NT is not the historical truth but the history of the BELIEF in Mythology of the Jesus cult.

I don't know why HJers are looking for evidence for Jesus when they admit that almost all the accounts are magical or most likely did not happen as described.

Where did they expect to find evidence for their HJ?

 

[dejudge]

The trouble I find with both IanS and dejudge is that their approach closes discussion down, rather than opening up. If someone just keeps saying, no, that is not evidence, fair enough, but then there is nothing more to say. The same with dejudge's 'it's all a forgery'.

It seems to be the opposite of historical method, a kind of historical nihilism.

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar, who argues for an HJ of Nazareth wrote that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Bart Ehrman also claimed that at least 18 books of the NT are most likely forgeries or falsely attributed.

Why are you conveniently accusing me of closing down the discussion about HJ when the very Scholars themselves admit that the Jesus stories are not only forgeries but they are not eyewitness accounts.

Please, read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?" and "Forged" and you will understand that forgeries must be taken into consideration in the discussion.

Once it is understood that the Gospels were not historical accounts as is evident and were written later than admitted it will become clear that an HJ was not needed at all for the start of the Jesus cult.

 

[Belz...]

Bart Ehrman, a Scholar, who argues for an HJ of Nazareth wrote that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Yeah, those names were attributed pretty much arbitrarily. Doesn't everybody know this ?