Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[zugzwang]

Not only do I "believe the Bible" (sayonara Higher Criticism), I even condemn myself from my own mouth by openly admitting it! What sort of internal state of mind generates such forms of words?

GDon's points above are very interesting, although they have been made before. Someone who rejects any reference to a Bibical text in support of HJ, on the grounds that such texts are unreliable, of uncertain provenance, copied by Christian copyists, with all the shenanigans that that might involve, must presumably also reject any such reference in a refutation of HJ.

In fact, presumably, all ancient documents are out of court, since they may also be unreliable.

You would think that this would reduce such critics to silence, since even the idea that Jesus might exist is tainted, since it derives from such suspect texts. There isn't even a topic to be considered.

Silence is golden, golden ...

 

[dejudge]

I really don't think the two sets of religious origins are identical, and i think the Frum example is frequently abused. Anyway the Gospel references are evidence. I have stated that to deny them to be evidence one would need to invoke a late origin forgery theory, and I note that you resort exactly to this.You also point out that It is not used in that sense in Mk 6 or Matt 13.

The actual existing Gospels you use as evidence are dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

You have to illogically ASSUME they were written pre 70 CE without supporting evidence.

You have to illogically ASSUME that they are historical accounts without supporting evidence.

You have to illogically IGNORE all the contradictory statements in an out the Gospels.

 

[maximara]

I really don't think the two sets of religious origins are identical, and i think the Frum example is frequently abused. Anyway the Gospel references are evidence. I have stated that to deny them to be evidence one would need to invoke a late origin forgery theory, and I note that you resort exactly to this.

The Gospels are NOT evidence for Jesus any more then Montanns' 1567 Discovery and plain Declaration of the Sundry Subtill practices of the Holy Inquisition Of Spain is evidence of what was going on in the Spanish Inquisition; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is evidence of a Jewish conspiracy; the Tanaka Memorial is evidence of what the Japanese military had planned in 1927; or countless other examples.

The Gospels are propaganda with all that involves but the are NOT evidence, they are NOT history, they are NOT eyewitness testimony, or what every other song and dance one can come up with.

ETA we have a notice from Eusebius regarding the writing, now lost, of Papias, datable to before 120 AD. This is wiki.

I have pointed out before Eusebius also claimed "It is also recorded that under Claudius, Philo came to Rome to have conversations with Peter, then preaching to the people there ... It is plain enough that he not only knew but welcomed with whole-hearted approval the apostolic men of his day, who it seems were of Hebrew stock and therefore, in the Jewish manner, still retained most of their ancient customs." (Eusebius, The History of the Church, p50,52)

In Ecclesiastical History Eusebius states that the Therapeutae (who Philo wrote of in his The Contemplative Life) were the first Christian monks.

So your golden boy Eusebius not only has Philo writing about the first Christian monks but also has Philo having a nice talk with Peter in Rome and being well knowledgeable about "the apostolic men of his day" and yet the Philo we know wrote not one word on Jesus. Forgive the pun but how the hell does that work?!?

Never mind Eusebius wrote in the 4th century and as pointed out by historian English historian Edward Gibbon over 200 years ago Eusebius himself wrote "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment."

About 100 years later the cultural historian Jacob Burckhardt described Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity".

 

[The Norseman]

Notice how I said "you missed my point" and went on to explain what that point was, and you said "you missed my point" and left it at that ?

One of us is not communicating very efficiently.

Oh, good lord.

You did me a disservice by assuming in the first place that I was trying to one-up you or play a "gotcha" on you. You know... you "knew the drill". Instead of simply answering my questions, you ignored them and apparently decided to play some games of your own.

Frankly, I got tired of the snide attitudes and continued implied insults that are flying around these threads so my responses were sarcastic and vacuous just as several members in this thread continually post.

I hope that's efficient and direct enough to satisfy all parties.

 

[Craig B]

The actual existing Gospels you use as evidence are dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

Rubbish.

You have to illogically ASSUME they were written pre 70 CE without supporting evidence.

I don't assume they were written before 70 CE.

You have to illogically ASSUME that they are historical accounts without supporting evidence.

I don't assume that. I think they may well contain elements that reflect real events.

You have to illogically IGNORE all the contradictory statements in an out the Gospels.

On the contrary; it's from these discrepancies that much of the information may be obtained.

It's a pity that you have participated so long in this thread and still have no idea what other posters are talking about, so caught up are you in your "bible believers" balderdash.

 

[IanS]

Originally Posted by IanS
I don't know what your complaint is supposed to be above. I am pointing out that when using the gospels as evidence, you are using anonymously written later copies, produced several centuries after whatever was originally written, where even the original was anonymous anyway, and where not even the anonymous original author claimed ever to know any of the evidence himself, but instead described it as legend that had come to him from yet other anonymous people who also did not know any of that evidence themselves, but who believed that there had been still earlier people who had once told of being the disciples of Jesus ... but where none of those disciples or their later anonymous informants were ever available to confirm that they had ever known or said any such thing.

That's correct. In fact it's the same issue that we face with all NT literature, which is why I wondered how you think any counter-arguments based on the same material can be valid.

Now, I personally don't see a problem with using such sources as data that can be analysed and evaluated. But from my perspective, it seems you don't think we can analyse and evaluate those sources for historicity, but you do seem to think we can analyse and evaluate those sources for counter-arguments to historicity. Am I correct in that?

No, you are not correct. That’s not what I or any other sceptics are doing. I am not trying to use that NT bible to “evaluate" any “historical” arguments against it’s validity. It’s the bible scholars and HJ posters here who are claiming that the bible can be used as a source of historical facts about Jesus to show that he was real living person.

I am saying the opposite. I am saying the biblical writing cannot be used as a reliable source of anyone ever knowing a living Jesus. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source of evidence about a messiah that none of it’s writers ever knew, and what it does claim about that unknown messiah is not remotely credible either.

If you want to ditch the bible as evidence of Jesus and produce something else, then that's absolutely fine by me.

Originally Posted by IanS
Again I am not sure what you are asking for. But first of all - it's sufficient to point out why that particular example of just 3 words added at the end on one sentence in just one of Paul's letters, and apparently never again repeated, and not claimed to be true in the supposed epistle of the same "James" himself, is not remotely reliable.

But if you are asking for direct evidence in Paul's writing of why that may not mean a family member as "brother" - according to Ellegard (I expect we can check), Paul uses the terms "brother", "brothers", "brethren", "sister", "sisters" etc. far more often to mean brothers and sisters in belief rather than to mean family members. And as mentioned above, in the so-called epistle of James (whoever "James" was, and whoever wrote that), the author does not make any such claim that this "James" was the actual brother of Jesus.

But didn't you make the point just above that we are using "written later copies, produced several centuries after whatever was originally written", etc, and you had a problem with that? How can you produce any analysis based on letters by Paul, and consider it reliable? Given the criteria you stated above, why are you using the so-called epistle of James, when you don't know who "James" was? In what way is the epistle of James reliable, such that you can use it for analysis? That is the crux of the point that I was making earlier.

No, you are trying to make the same fallacious argument again. You are trying to say that I am relying on Paul’s words to make a factual historical argument. I am not doing that. I am saying that Paul’s letters, or rather their anonymous copies, are not reliable as historical documents in what they say about their Jesus beliefs.

I have no idea if anything in Paul’s letters ever really happened. I don’t even know if Paul was a real person or if he wrote anything. So I am not relying on interpreting anything from those letters as “fact”. I am just pointing out why you cannot take what is said in those letters as a reliable account in respect of what it says about a Jesus figure that it’s author never knew. If you want to chuck out Paul entirely from all consideration by either of us, then that’s absolutely fine by me, because I have no reliance upon it at all.

 

[Belz...]

You did me a disservice by assuming in the first place that I was trying to one-up you or play a "gotcha" on you. You know... you "knew the drill". Instead of simply answering my questions, you ignored them and apparently decided to play some games of your own.

I don't play games. You really don't know what "certain" means ?

 

[Craig B]

The Gospels are NOT evidence for Jesus any more then Montanns' 1567 Discovery and plain Declaration of the Sundry Subtill practices of the Holy Inquisition Of Spain is evidence of what was going on in the Spanish Inquisition; The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is evidence of a Jewish conspiracy; the Tanaka Memorial is evidence of what the Japanese military had planned in 1927; or countless other examples.

If you think the Gospels are simply a lie written all at once for purposes of deception, as were the writings you mention, then there is nothing more to be said. All the evidence suggests they are vastly more complex than, say, the Protocols. It simply isn't arguable in my opinion, that they are the same sorts of works. We have no common ground here at all.

 

[dejudge]

This exegesis is quite absurd. It is gibberish. I have never seen the like. I think you're on your own here. Anyway, let us agree to disagree.

Your exegesis is quite illogical .

Also, you have no pre 70 CE evidence for your HJ argument.

Origen claimed it was EXPECTED for people to invent falsehood because they did not believe Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Origen's Against Celsus 1

It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.

Apologetic writers who mentioned the birth of Jesus admitted he was the offspring of a Ghost.

Matthew 1.18

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Ignatius Ephesians

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.

The exegesis of gMatthew is self explanatory--Jesus is a Ghost Man!!

 

[dejudge]

The actual existing Gospels you use as evidence are dated no earlier than the 2nd century or later.

Rubbish.

Rubbish.

You have to illogically ASSUME they were written pre 70 CE without supporting evidence.

I don't assume they were written before 70 CE.

Rubbish.

You assume the Pauline Gospel was composed before c 70 CE.

You have to illogically ASSUME that they are historical accounts without supporting evidence.

I don't assume that. I think they may well contain elements that reflect real events.

Rubbish. You don't seem to know the meaning of "assume".

You have no contemporary evidence pre 70 CE for what you think of your HJ the obscure criminal.

You have to illogically IGNORE all the contradictory statements in an out the Gospels.

On the contrary; it's from these discrepancies that much of the information may be obtained.

Rubbish.

Discrepancies expose manipulation and destroy credibility and veracity.

It's a pity that you have participated so long in this thread and still have no idea what other posters are talking about, so caught up are you in your "bible believers" balderdash.

Rubbish.

I have exposed the Discrepancies in the HJ argument, and that it is void of logic and facts.

Virtually every thing you say about your HJ is without logic, without facts and without any existing pre 70 CE evidence.

Unless new evidence surfaces, the HJ argument will continue to be void of logic and facts.

 

[Craig B]

Origen claimed it was EXPECTED for people to invent falsehood because they did not believe Jesus was born of a Ghost.

So Origen's a credible authority, and people who don't believe in Jesus being a ghost believe falsehood.

Apologetic writers who mentioned the birth of Jesus admitted he was the offspring of a Ghost.

Not "claimed". "Admitted". Strange language. It would be falsehood to disagree with them?

The exegesis of gMatthew is self explanatory--Jesus is a Ghost Man!!

As well as being, per Matthew 1

... Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

A human Messiah.

 

[tsig]

I don't play games. You really don't know what "certain" means ?

It means just what you want it to mean, no more and no less.

Saying "I don't play games" then getting all coy about the meaning of "certain" looks like you are playing the semantic game.

 

[dejudge]

So Origen's a credible authority, and people who don't believe in Jesus being a ghost believe falsehood.

Origen is a CONTRADICTORY source against a human Jesus with a human father.

Origen was supposed to be a WITNESS of what the Jesus cult argued in the 3rd century.

1. Origen argued that the Historical Jesus was the Son of A Ghost.

2. Ignatius argued the Historical Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

3. Justin Martyr argued that the Historical Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

4. Irenaeus argued the Historical Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

5. Tertullian argued that the Historical Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

6. Hippolytus argued that the Historical Jesus was the Logos, God Creator.

7. Eusebius argued that the Historical Jesus was God Incarnate.

8. Jerome argued that the Historical Jesus was the Son of a Ghost.

9. The Pauline writers agued that the Historical Jesus was a Ghost.

10. The author of gMatthew stated Jesus was born of a Ghost.

11. The author of gLuke stated Jesus was the product of a Ghost.

12. The author of gJohn stated Jesus was the Logos, God Creator.

There are hundreds of Ghost stories of Jesus.

Jesus is just a Ghost story until new evidence surfaces.

 

[Belz...]

Rubbish.

Watch out ! Dejudge just picked up a new term.

 

[Belz...]

Saying "I don't play games" then getting all coy about the meaning of "certain" looks like you are playing the semantic game.

Coy ? I have no idea how to answer the question other than to point Norseman to a dictionary, which is why I assumed he was being facetious.

 

[Craig B]

Watch out ! Dejudge just picked up a new term.

Exegesis was the last one. Rubbish is better.

 

[Belz...]

I wonder when we'll get to "baloney".

 

[Craig B]

I wonder when we'll get to "baloney".

We've been there. Will we ever get out?

 

[The Norseman]

I don't play games. You really don't know what "certain" means ?

I know what it means. I asked you specifically what you meant by "certainty" because when I wished to point out to you that more than one poster uses words that indicate that Jesus existed as a certainty, I didn't want you to then claim that's not what you meant by certainty.

I was anticipating a potential problem, you see, and trying to head it off; you were simply mistaken in that dejudge isn't the only poster on JREF who has and continues to express certainty that Jesus existed.

That was my entire point which would have been concluded quite rapidly had you just answered the questions instead of saying that you knew the drill and then avoid answering them.

I now regret ever bothering in the first place and not for the reasons you probably would surmise.



ETA: I also wish to say that I have nothing against you, Belz.... You and I agree on most everything and I generally like your style. In this, though we seem to clash.

 

[dejudge]

I was anticipating a potential problem, you see, and trying to head it off; you were simply mistaken in that dejudge isn't the only poster on JREF who has and continues to express certainty that Jesus existed.

You are mistaken. I do not argue that Jesus existed and has not expressed any certainty for an HJ.

My position is clear.

I have NO REASONABLE DOUBT that Jesus of Nazareth is a Ghost story--a myth fable-- fabricated in the 2nd century or later as found in the written statements of antiquity.