Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

But to me it's not the evidence in the text that's particularily interesting, though there are things that gives hints as to the early beliefs of Christianity and how it evolved, but how the idea of an HJ fits the narrative, the evolution of the story, the rise of Christianity, etc. MJ might work, too, but it doesn't fit the narrative at all: we have to assume a long bit of history that we just don't have. Do you understand what I mean ?

Again there is no one MJ theory and there are HJ theories that also "assume a long bit of history that we just don't have" (the Jesus lived c100 BC ones)

A man who ran though the Temple trashing the place screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" who is cut down by a Roman Soldier during the rule of Pontius Pilatus would NOT be a HJ by the standard MJer John Robertson set forth in 1900 ("What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.")

That Jesus didn't teach as reported in the Gospels, wasn't put to death in the circumstances there recorded, and since he was simply a crazy man trashing the Temple and screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" before a Roman guard ran him through with a sword he wasn't the personal founder of Christianity. That Jesus fits every criteria for the MJ theory John Robertson had and therefore is an example of a MJ Jesus!

This is what the old school Christ Mythers like Drews and Robertson were really arguing; finding a Jesus who died in Jerusalem during the rule of Pontius Pilatus wouldn't be enough as the example above proves and there is not enough evidence to exclude such a "historical" Jesus.

 

[dejudge]

Which source of antiquity mentioned Jesus of Nazareth who was NOT a Ghost or that he walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in a cloud?

Mark.

Why do you accuse people of lying?

In Mark 6, the disciples believed Jesus was a Spirit when they saw him WALKING on the sea.

Only in Ghost stories people walk on the sea.

gMark is the earliest version of the Ghost story called Jesus.

You must have forgotten that Jesus Transfigured and resurrected in gMark 9 and 16.

Please, go figure.

If Jesus was not a Ghost he was Three in One--a Ghost, a God and a Man.

Jesus in gMark was pure unadulterated Myth--far more mythological than Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and Adam and Eve.

Jesus was THREE Myths in One.

 

[Craig B]

... Jesus in gMark was pure unadulterated Myth--far more mythological than Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and Adam and Eve.

You mean the Angel Gabriel went around preaching and his mother and brothers thought he was crazy? Satan the Devil went to get baptised by John, who was preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins?

 

[dejudge]

You mean the Angel Gabriel went around preaching and his mother and brothers thought he was crazy? Satan the Devil went to get baptised by John, who was preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins?

What mythological nonsense!!!

The HJ argument is a known dead end FAILED argument for hundreds of years so you are just wasting time.

The history of the Questing for HJ has been exposed.

There was NEVER any historical Jesus.

Jesus was either literary fiction or an eschatological concept--See Albert Shweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus.

The Questers are just on a futile search. They were warned by a QUESTER --Jesus of Nazareth never had any existence.

 

[Brainache]

The HJ argument is a known dead end FAILED argument for hundreds of years so you are just wasting time.

The history of the Questing for HJ has been exposed.

There was NEVER any historical Jesus.

Jesus was either literary fiction or an eschatological concept--See Albert Shweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus.

The Questers are just on a futile search. They were warned by a QUESTER --Jesus of Nazareth never had any existence.

Dear dejudge,

You are wrong.

Brainache.

 

[dejudge]

Again there is no one MJ theory and there are HJ theories that also "assume a long bit of history that we just don't have" (the Jesus lived c100 BC ones)

A man who ran though the Temple trashing the place screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" who is cut down by a Roman Soldier during the rule of Pontius Pilatus would NOT be a HJ by the standard MJer John Robertson set forth in 1900 ("What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.")

That Jesus didn't teach as reported in the Gospels, wasn't put to death in the circumstances there recorded, and since he was simply a crazy man trashing the Temple and screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" before a Roman guard ran him through with a sword he wasn't the personal founder of Christianity. That Jesus fits every criteria for the MJ theory John Robertson had and therefore is an example of a MJ Jesus!

This is what the old school Christ Mythers like Drews and Robertson were really arguing; finding a Jesus who died in Jerusalem during the rule of Pontius Pilatus wouldn't be enough as the example above proves and there is not enough evidence to exclude such a "historical" Jesus.

Multiple versions of fables about a Myth character do not improve the historicity of the character.

Multiple versions of Adam and Eve and the Creation story do not alter the fact that Adam and Eve and the Creation story in Genesis are products of Jewish Mythology.

Multiple versions of the myth fables of Romulus does not make Romulus a figure of history.

 

[Craig B]

What mythological nonsense!!!

The HJ argument is a known dead end FAILED argument for hundreds of years so you are just wasting time.

The history of the Questing for HJ has been exposed.

There was NEVER any historical Jesus.

Jesus was either literary fiction or an eschatological concept--See Albert Shweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus.

The Questers are just on a futile search. They were warned by a QUESTER --Jesus of Nazareth never had any existence.

Is this the best you can do? Not very impressive reasoning.

 

[dejudge]

What mythological nonsense!!!

The HJ argument is a known dead end FAILED argument for hundreds of years so you are just wasting time.

The history of the Questing for HJ has been exposed.

There was NEVER any historical Jesus.

Jesus was either literary fiction or an eschatological concept--See Albert Shweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus.

The Questers are just on a futile search. They were warned by a QUESTER --Jesus of Nazareth never had any existence.

Is this the best you can do? Not very impressive reasoning.

Your 4 word phrase is really worthless as evidence for your HJ. You have nothing.

When will you ever get evidence?

 

[David Mo]

Not really. As related by Kusche the various Bermuda Triangle writers took what came before them adding to and deleting from...sounds like the canonal Gospel account doesn't it?

Yes. In that sense yes.

We may suppose a normal and ordinary event in the origin of the legend. We may suppose a sinking near Bermuda and a preacher killed by Romans. Nothing abnormal in this. The legend grows after and supernatural and extraordinary facts were added.

Our current question is if we can infer the existence of this normal event in the origin of the legend. I don't know if this is possible in the case of Bermuda Triangle. I think I have an indication in the case of existence of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Yes. In that sense yes.

We may suppose a normal and ordinary event in the origin of the legend. We may suppose a sinking near Bermuda and a preacher killed by Romans. Nothing abnormal in this. The legend grows after and supernatural and extraordinary facts were added.

Our current question is if we can infer the existence of this normal event in the origin of the legend. I don't know if this is possible in the case of Bermuda Triangle. I think I have an indication in the case of existence of Jesus.

It is possible in the BT case, as described in wiki.

The earliest allegation of unusual disappearances in the Bermuda area appeared in a September 17, 1950 article published in The Miami Herald (Associated Press) by Edward Van Winkle Jones. Two years later, Fate magazine published "Sea Mystery at Our Back Door", a short article by George X. Sand covering the loss of several planes and ships, including the loss of Flight 19, a group of five U.S. Navy TBM Avenger bombers on a training mission.

There is an analogy with Jesus. The Bermuda Triangle woo is nonsense promoted by charlatans and lunatics. Does that mean the loss of Flight 19 is a false tale? No, it's historical, but may be explained by natural means.

 

[pakeha]

Dunno about that, dejudge.
Isn't the OT full of howling prophets, ill-treated and mocked by their fellow Jews and who predict the death and destruction of those who didn't pay them heed?
Wouldn't non-Jews attribute the twice-over destruction of Jerusalem to rebelling against Rome rather than anything else?
One is reminded of Carthage, after all.

Dunno about that, pakeha.

Let us read what Non-Jews wrote.

They actually BLAMED the Jews for the destruction because they Killed the Son of God.

This is a partial list of Non-Jews who claim the Temple fell because the Jews killed Jesus, the Son of God.

1. Justin of Palestine

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

2. Tertullian of Rome

...let the Jews recognise their own fate—a fate which they were constantly foretold as destined to incur after the advent of the Christ, on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him.

3. Hippolytus of Rome

7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?......it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.

4. Origen

Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, dejudge. I can see your point about the non-Jews building up a case for the Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death.


Tertullian and Justin Martyr are middle to late second century, Hippolytus and Origin, 3rd century.
How do you reckon they influenced the gospel writers, since their works are written after the gospels?

While I agree there's not a lot of reasons to think the gospels were written before the destruction of Jerusalem chroncicled by Josephus, it does seem to me likely that diatribe about the 'corrupt generation, etc.' is modeled on OT prophets, to be expected from a wandering apocalyptic preacher in that place and time.

 

[maximara]

Again there is no one MJ theory and there are HJ theories that also "assume a long bit of history that we just don't have" (the Jesus lived c100 BC ones)

A man who ran though the Temple trashing the place screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" who is cut down by a Roman Soldier during the rule of Pontius Pilatus would NOT be a HJ by the standard MJer John Robertson set forth in 1900 ("What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.")

That Jesus didn't teach as reported in the Gospels, wasn't put to death in the circumstances there recorded, and since he was simply a crazy man trashing the Temple and screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" before a Roman guard ran him through with a sword he wasn't the personal founder of Christianity. That Jesus fits every criteria for the MJ theory John Robertson had and therefore is an example of a MJ Jesus!

This is what the old school Christ Mythers like Drews and Robertson were really arguing; finding a Jesus who died in Jerusalem during the rule of Pontius Pilatus wouldn't be enough as the example above proves and there is not enough evidence to exclude such a "historical" Jesus.

Multiple versions of fables about a Myth character do not improve the historicity of the character.

Multiple versions of Adam and Eve and the Creation story do not alter the fact that Adam and Eve and the Creation story in Genesis are products of Jewish Mythology.

Multiple versions of the myth fables of Romulus does not make Romulus a figure of history.

You missed the entire point I was making which is the myth theory is a lot more then Jesus didn't exist as a human being. We know from Josephus that there were many would be Messiahs from c4 BCE to 70 CE and that the name Jesus was very common...perhaps to the point of being as common as the name Smith is in English.

Even Drews and Robertson stated you could not exclude the possibility a would-be messiah called Jesus only there would be no way other then name to connect that man to the Gospel account.

So I have, using Robertson's 1900 criteria, given the HJers here a MJ Jesus who claims he is King of the Jews, who died in the right place (Jerusalem), and who died at the right time (during the rule of Pontius Pilatus)...and fails every other criteria of a HJ as he has no followers, preached nothing, is not crucified, and certainly didn't found Christianity.

There is no way to prove that is not the "true" historical Jesus any more than one can prove the nonexistence of the minimalist Jesus who preached a doctrine of sedition and was crucified as a result.

It is like the situation with Robin Hood and King Arthur; you can suggest any one of plausible historical candidates for them but at the end of the they are no more the "true" Robin Hood and King Arthur then my example of a man who decided his best way at doing the 1st equivalent of suicide by cop was to trash the Temple while screaming he was Jesus King of the Jews.

 

[pakeha]

Why do you accuse people of lying?

In Mark 6, the disciples believed Jesus was a Spirit when they saw him WALKING on the sea.

Only in Ghost stories people walk on the sea.

gMark is the earliest version of the Ghost story called Jesus.

You must have forgotten that Jesus Transfigured and resurrected in gMark 9 and 16.

Please, go figure.

If Jesus was not a Ghost he was Three in One--a Ghost, a God and a Man.

Jesus in gMark was pure unadulterated Myth--far more mythological than Satan the Devil, the Angel Gabriel and Adam and Eve.

Jesus was THREE Myths in One.

Hi, dejudge.
Was it walking on the sea or walking on a lake?
According to wiki, Lake Tiberias^WP is just that, a lake. I've seen footage of Cris Angell walking on water, so I associate the event with magicians or swamis rather than ghosts.
Still, I can see Jesus the artiste has less of a ring about it than Jesus the ghost.

...There is no way to prove that is not the "true" historical Jesus any more than one can prove the nonexistence of the minimalist Jesus who preached a doctrine of sedition and was crucified as a result.

It is like the situation with Robin Hood and King Arthur; you can suggest any one of plausible historical candidates for them but at the end of the they are no more the "true" Robin Hood and King Arthur then my example of a man who decided his best way at doing the 1st equivalent of suicide by cop was to trash the Temple while screaming he was Jesus King of the Jews.

I'll go along with your reasoning, maximara.
It IS hard to understand why this point of view signals the downfall of Academe and civilisation as we know it, though.

 

[Belz...]

Why do you accuse people of lying?

What the **** does that have to do with my reply ?

In Mark 6, the disciples believed Jesus was a Spirit when they saw him WALKING on the sea.

Well, responses like this might be why I accuse you of lying. That these people thought they saw a ghost doesn't mean Jesus was a ghost. YOU want him to have been a ghost because it's easier to dismiss, then.

Only in Ghost stories people walk on the sea.

Nonsense. People imagine things about real people all the time.

You must have forgotten

No. YOU have an agenda.

 

[Belz...]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, dejudge.

Dejudge doesn't do thoughtful. He accuses and insults and little else.

It's not surprising that he ignored my request to explain his claim that my post was a "total contradiction". He knows he can't show it, and that saying that was just a rhetorical device.

He has absolutely nothing to offer this debate.

 

[tsig]

Dejudge doesn't do thoughtful. He accuses and insults and little else.

It's not surprising that he ignored my request to explain his claim that my post was a "total contradiction". He knows he can't show it, and that saying that was just a rhetorical device.

He has absolutely nothing to offer this debate.

Yet you keep accepting his offer, why is that?

 

[maximara]

I'll go along with your reasoning, maximara.
It IS hard to understand why this point of view signals the downfall of Academe and civilisation as we know it, though.

It is a bit of a non sequitur, isn't it? Humanism is no better or worse then religion; one can find examples of where both have done good and both have been responsible for some of the worst horrors the industrial world has seen.

 

[Craig B]

It is a bit of a non sequitur, isn't it? Humanism is no better or worse then religion; one can find examples of where both have done good and both have been responsible for some of the worst horrors the industrial world has seen.

I think the counter argument (which I don't insist is necessarily valid) is this: religions have become less harmful in proportion as they have become de facto rationalised or even secularised, so that an unacknowledged humanism is responsible for their declining obnoxiousness.

But I very much agree that non-religious ideologies are on occasion capable of the most outrageous crimes.

 

[pakeha]

I think the counter argument (which I don't insist is necessarily valid) is this: religions have become less harmful in proportion as they have become de facto rationalised or even secularised, so that an unacknowledged humanism is responsible for their declining obnoxiousness.

But I very much agree that non-religious ideologies are on occasion capable of the most outrageous crimes.

Outrageous, indeed, Craig B.
But doesn't it seem to you same argument applies for the religious as well as the non-religious ideologies? That "an unacknowledged humanism is responsible for their declining obnoxiousness?"

 

[Belz...]

Yet you keep accepting his offer, why is that?

"Someone is wrong on the internet" syndrome.