Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

The Ghost story of Jesus is still in gMark the last time I looked.


Mark 6:48-49 KJV

And he saw them toiling in rowing ; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out..

There are more ghost stories of Jesus in gMark.

Check out the transfiguration and the resurrection. See Mark 9.2 and 16.6

Jesus was either a real Ghost or a fake man in gMark.

Unfortunately for your argument, nobody is stupid enough to fall for it.

What are you going to do?

Your best argument is hopelessly idiotic, you don't understand how History is studied and not one single person in the whole world agrees with you.

It might be time to re-assess your position...

You believe the Jesus in gMark was really real although the author wrote Ghost stories.

We have ADDITIONAL biographical details of Jesus in gMatthew--Jesus was born of a Holy Zombie.

The same Holy Zombie story is in gLuke.

The Pauline writers admitted their Jesus was a resurrected Zombie.

You still believe Jesus was really real.

I don't agree with you and I don't care if I am the only person.

gMark's Jesus was a Zombie or a Fake man.

 

[Brainache]

You believe the Jesus in gMark was really real although the author wrote Ghost stories.

We have ADDITIONAL biographical details of Jesus in gMatthew--Jesus was born of a Holy Zombie.

The same Holy Zombie story is in gLuke.

The Pauline writers admitted their Jesus was a resurrected Zombie.

You still believe Jesus was really real.

I don't agree with you and I don't care if I am the only person.

gMark's Jesus was a Zombie or a Fake man.

And because I'm not an idiot, I don't find this argument convincing.

Where does that leave you?

Only idiots could possibly be convinced by your arguments, so I don't see how you are going to overturn the Academic Consensus.

Looks like you are wasting your time.

Oh well.

 

[dejudge]

You believe the Jesus in gMark was really real although the author wrote Ghost stories.

We have ADDITIONAL biographical details of Jesus in gMatthew--Jesus was born of a Holy Zombie.

The same Holy Zombie story is in gLuke.

The Pauline writers admitted their Jesus was a resurrected Zombie.

You still believe Jesus was really real.

I don't agree with you and I don't care if I am the only person.

gMark's Jesus was a Zombie or a Fake man.

And because I'm not an idiot, I don't find this argument convincing.

Where does that leave you?

Only idiots could possibly be convinced by your arguments, so I don't see how you are going to overturn the Academic Consensus.

Looks like you are wasting your time.

Oh well.

Well, it was the illiterate who believed Jesus was really real in antiquity.

I am not an idiot. I don't accept gMark or the NT as historical sources with those stupid ridiculous Ghost stories.

You still believe Jesus was actually crucified although it is stated he was walking on the sea like a Zombie.

Why?

By the way, one cannot overturn the Academic Consensus---there is no such thing.

You made it up or is promoting Chinese Whispers.

In which century did Scholars concede there was a Human Jesus with a human father?

In which century did Scholars show the actual dated pre 70 CE evidence for an HJ?

We know the History of the on-going QUEST for an HJ.

It is well established that no-one has solved the HJ question after multiple failures and multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

You have no idea when Paul really lived,

Actually, I do have an idea about that. You, too, have an idea, and a different one than mine. Aren't discussion boards wonderful? Keep up the good work.

The earliest version of Jesus story in the Canon, gMark, shows no awareness of the Pauline revelations of the resurrected Jesus.

Really? I think Mark could have been written as a conjectural proof-of-concept backstory for the seven letters which purport to convey the Pauline revelation of the resurrected Jesus. Mark pimps the credentials of Peter, James and John a lot more than Paul did; possibly reflecting a different business model after both Paul and the James Gang had died.

It is good to see, however, that you finally realize that "walking on water" is a ghost story in Mark, what the disciples thought they saw, and not a man standing bodily on water.

 

[maximara]

I think that's quite simply nonsense. I have said why, and have no more to say.

What is nonsense? That the Gospels are clearly propaganda? Or that based on the FACT they are at odds with known history in terms of social political reality that they are clearly more on the level of the Protocols of Zion then Prelude to War?

You haven't said anything that doesn't go back to the Bible for its "evidence" or can't be written off as tampering or urban myth. That is the equivalent of the using Protocols of Zion as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and using questionable documents as supporting proof.

 

[dejudge]

I think Mark could have been written as a conjectural proof-of-concept backstory for the seven letters which purport to convey the Pauline revelation of the resurrected Jesus. Mark pimps the credentials of Peter, James and John a lot more than Paul did; possibly reflecting a different business model after both Paul and the James Gang had died.

Tell me more. Your story telling is very imaginative.

Which book are you using for your stories? What page? What chapter?

You seem to have a secret library.

It is good to see, however, that you finally realize that "walking on water" is a ghost story in Mark, what the disciples thought they saw, and not a man standing bodily on water.

Your stories are so creative but baseless--no supporting evidence. No manuscript pre 70 CE for your spectacular inventions.

All the disciples in the boat simultaneously thought they saw a Ghost?

1. Jesus IDENTIFIED himself as the sea water walker in gMark.
2. Jesus bodily ENTERED the boat according to gMark.

Mark 6

For they all saw him, and were troubled . And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer : it is I; be not afraid . 51 And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased : and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered

 

[Craig B]

What is nonsense? That the Gospels are clearly propaganda? Or that based on the FACT they are at odds with known history in terms of social political reality that they are clearly more on the level of the Protocols of Zion then Prelude to War?

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Both of these things are nonsense.

 

[Brainache]

Tell me more. Your story telling is very imaginative.

Which book are you using for your stories? What page? What chapter?

You seem to have a secret library.



Your stories are so creative but baseless--no supporting evidence. No manuscript pre 70 CE for your spectacular inventions.

All the disciples in the boat simultaneously thought they saw a Ghost?

1. Jesus IDENTIFIED himself as the sea water walker in gMark.
2. Jesus bodily ENTERED the boat according to gMark.

Mark 6

Hilarious.

Seems like you think "History" is a list of facts in a book. If we don't have some Ancient Book with a list of "Facts about Jesus" in it, we don't have any "History".

Is that what you want dejudge? A pronouncement from Ancient Authority?

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Which book are you using for your stories? What page? What chapter?

We were discussing Mark. I made an obervation about the work as a whole. You mentioned specifically some material in what is now conventionally designated chapter six. I also commented on that.

Try to keep up.

All the disciples in the boat simultaneously thought they saw a Ghost?

It is amazing how often your arguments coincide exactly with apologists'. William Lane Craig disputes collective hallucination as an explanation of some later sightings of Jesus, by some of the same people as are presumably in Mark's boat. Anyway, at verses 49-50:

But when they saw him walking on the sea, they thought it was a ghost and cried out. They had all seen him and were terrified. But at once he spoke with them, “Take courage, it is I, do not be afraid!”

So yes, all the disciples in the boat saw the ghost, according to Mark. The text doesn't say which disciples are in the boat, nor how many of them were there, nor the extent to which their individual observations about the ghost agreed with one another.

It is true that Mark shifts back and forth throughout the pericope between an "objective" point of view and the disciples' point of view. Thus, he avoids authorial commitment to what "really happened," and ensures that many possible views are represented. The story stops dead after Jesus "went up to them (preposition).the ship"

The preposition which you translate as "into" (the ship) is eis, which can mean any of the three in, to or into. The author makes no commitment that Jesus ever entered the boat. In fact, the phrase may parse simply as "he went up to them (who were) in the boat." Here's the Greek trot:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/6.htm

 

[IanS]

Then how on earth can you believe that an examination of Paul's letters can be used to build "obvious and valid" counter-arguments??? That's the question I keep asking. It doesn't appear consistent to me.


I don't need to chuck out Paul's letters. As I've said repeatedly, I believe that analysis of their contents and other early literature can be used as data to build reasonable conclusions, with certain provisos noting their providence. That's why I also believe counter-arguments built on the same sources need to be addresssed -- we are coming from the same place. If I can use those sources for historicity, then it is valid that mythicists can use those sources against historicity.

But I don't understand how you believe that Paul's letters can be chucked out entirely when it comes for arguments for historicity, but can be used when it comes for arguments against historicity. Isn't that the implication of your belief that "obvious and valid" arguments can be built from Paul's letters? It's inconsistent.

I am not building counter arguments from Paul’s letters. You are trying to play around with the word "using", as in saying that I am "using" Paul's letters to make an argument for a mythical Jesus. I am NOT doing that.

The only reason that I make any reference to Paul letters is to check what HJ people here have said about Paul’s letters where they (not me) are using Paul’s letters to make claims that the letters show that Jesus existed.

All I have done with those letters to look and see if they reliably say what you, Craig and other HJ believes say about their contents.

What you are trying to do with this silly line of argument is to claim that when you use Paul’s letters (or the gospels, or whatever) to claim evidence of Jesus, you want to stop me or anyone else checking what you have said by looking to see if your sources do actually say what you have claimed. You want to use Paul’s' letters and the gospels to claim a HJ, and then to rule out anyone checking your sources (those letters and gospels) to see if you are correct.

If you don't want me to check what you claim from sources such as Paul letters, then don't make claims from Paul’s letters.

 

[David Mo]

David Mo

One difference between quote and direct reference is that the specific passage does not recite the consequences of the Jewish maltreatment on the prophets themselves. However, it is the last chapter of the book in whose Chapter 24, Zechariah is stoned to death.

I have no problem with the origin of Paul's comparison between persecution to prophets (specifically Jeremiah) in the past and the death of Jesus. The tragic end of Jeremiah seems to be a well known story in Hebrew world. It can come from Chronicles or the popular beliefs. But if Paul had invented the persecution and death of Jesus by the Jews as image of Jeremiah, Jesus would have been stoned, and never crucified. Because crucifixion was a specific Roman penalty in his time.

I do not see the relevance of electric chairs to our discussion. Paul writes only of a stake. If I read that a Russian died of electrocution at Putin's order, I err if I reason that Putin doesn't use electric chairs, so therefore Putin cannot have played a causal role in the Russian's death. Duh.

You are very bad informed, for the chair is not a form of execution allowed by Russian law. Instead, any Jew of the time knew that the High Priest could not organize a crucifixion.

What you self-servingly translate as rulers or even princes is archonton.Who are archonton? Anybody who displays leadership, including Jews. Look it up. Both Luke and John refer to the Pharisees as having archonton. Pharisees are Jews, David. The word doesn't distinguish among kinds of leaders or dominant members nor of what group.

There is no contradiction between the two passages, except one you gin up using heavy handed translational spin.

"Archon (Gr. ἄρχων, pl. ἄρχοντες) is a Greek word that means "ruler" or "lord," frequently used as the title of a specific public office. It is the masculine present participle of the verb stem ἀρχ-, meaning "to rule," derived from the same root as monarch."
(From Wikipedia)

My Dictionnary of Ancient Greek (Florencio Sebastián, Editorial Ramón Sopena., 1964) gives a similar tranlation.

In Palestine at the first century the rulers were the Romans, and the crucifixion was a Roman punishment. "Arkhons of this world" was directly against them, and not the Jews. But Paul never names the Roman as main responsibles of the Jesus' death. He conceals this fact because is highly embarrassing for him.
But what matters now is that there is a contradiction between affirm that "the Jews" killed Jesus and that Jesus was crucified. This contradiction was not so visible in the second century between the Christians far of the original context.

 

[Craig B]

If you don't want me to check what you claim from sources such as Paul letters, then don't make claims from Paul’s letters.

You're checking claims that people make from "the Bible"? My, my! I thought, from your #5472, that

<snip> it is simply not arguable that the bible is in any way a reliable historical account of what it's unknown authors believed as legendary religious stories about a messiah none of them had ever known. And it is also just about as far from being credible as it's possible to get in what it does actually say about it's believed but unknown messiah <snip> the blindingly obvious fact of how hopelessly unreliable and non-credible its devotional religious eulogies are <snip> That’s the problem with the otherwise totally incredible and certainly untrue religious writing of 1st century messiah beliefs.

So why bother checking Paul out, biblical messianist that he is?

 

[IanS]

You're checking claims that people make from "the Bible"? My, my! I thought, from your #5472, that So why bother checking Paul out, biblical messianist that he is?

Sure. If you make claims from the bible (as you constantly do), then I check to see if it reliably says what you say it does. And invariably it does not reliably say what you claim about a living Jesus.

If you make Jesus claims, whether from the bible or any other source, you must expect people to check what you say. Are you trying to ban people from checking your Jesus claims?

 

[Craig B]

Sure. If you make claims from the bible (as you constantly do), then I check to see if it reliably says what you say it does. And invariably it does not reliably say what you claim about a living Jesus.

You refuse to read it. Unless you've been telling untruths about that, which I hope not!

If you make Jesus claims, whether from the bible or any other source, you must expect people to check what you say. Are you trying to ban people from checking your Jesus claims?

Ban people!?! On the contrary, as anyone can see, you've been refusing, with expressions of outraged indignation at the very idea, to look at any part of the Christian scriptures for any purpose whatsoever.

 

[IanS]

You refuse to read it. Unless you've been telling untruths about that, which I hope not! Ban people!?! On the contrary, as anyone can see, you've been refusing, with expressions of outraged indignation at the very idea, to look at any part of the Christian scriptures for any purpose whatsoever.

Completely untrue. As you well know, and as has been explained to you numerous times before. You are just repeating all your same untruths again for the 20th time.

The truth is that we have had literally thousands of posts here debating the details of that biblical writing.

But none of it is from reliable sources, and it is not remotely credible in what it claims.

That's why there is no point in us spending another X-thousand posts discussing it all over again for the 500th time. It's simply not a reliable source of credible claims about a Jesus messiah that none of it's authors ever knew.

 

[maximara]

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough for you. Both of these things are nonsense.

How can you claim the Gospels are not "Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"?

"Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism" printed by Peeters Publishers ("an academic publisher, specializing in Humanities, especially Religious Studies, Oriental Studies and Linguistics") in 2003 acknowledges "it is evident that "gospels" are stories, the main purpose of which is not to give historical information but to proclaim the faith."

The claim the Gospels are not propaganda is nonsense as they are clearly designed to portray Jesus and those around him in a certain light and as documented by other source we know part of that portrayal at best is biased or misleading if not outright false.

 

[Craig B]

How can you claim the Gospels are not "Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view"?

"Persuasion and Dissuasion in Early Christianity, Ancient Judaism, and Hellenism" printed by Peeters Publishers ("an academic publisher, specializing in Humanities, especially Religious Studies, Oriental Studies and Linguistics") in 2003 acknowledges "it is evident that "gospels" are stories, the main purpose of which is not to give historical information but to proclaim the faith."

The claim the Gospels are not propaganda is nonsense as they are clearly designed to portray Jesus and those around him in a certain light and as documented by other source we know part of that portrayal at best is biased or misleading if not outright false.

Hey, what's happened to your Elders of Zion angle?

 

[eight bits]

David Mo

But if Paul had invented the persecution and death of Jesus by the Jews as image of Jeremiah, Jesus would have been stoned, and never crucified.

The issue was whether there is sufficient information in the scriptures for Paul possibly to have inferred that Jesus was, or must have been, gibbeted. There is. Gibbeting does not require Romans to have been involved, and conversely Romans having been involved does not exclude Jewish complicity in his death. The issue of Jewish accountability for Jesus' death has nothing to do with how Paul formed an opinion about the means of Jesus' death nor what that opinion was.

From Paul, we have that Jesus' corpse ended up on grounded wood, so that Jesus could have died there, from any earlier or concurrent insults whatsoever. Mark, written after Paul died, is the first we read of any Roman involvement, an unrealistic chain of events where Romans place a hideously and possibly fatally beaten Jesus on a piece of wood, where he expires, his corpse gibbeted for a time until a Jew intervenes with Pilate. None of that is in Paul.

By the time of John, the Roman trial, which was laconic in Mark, is now a carnival of verbose theatricality, Jesus' titulus is personally authored and defended against Jewish literary critics by the goverrnor himself, and the gibbeted corpse is lanced by the Romans for good measure. If the story of Roman involvement got that much better between Mark and John, we can hardly exclude that it had already gotten better between Paul and Mark.

You are very bad informed, for the chair is not a form of execution allowed by Russian law.

I didn't realize that we were discussing a lawful Russian killing, and in any case, what I said about this hypothetical Russian misadventure was that I missed its relevance to what Paul thought about Jewish accountability for, or Roman involvement in, Jesus' death. I still miss that.

Perhaps it's best for us to skip your learned pontifications on contemporary Russian law, what with me being so ignorant about it anyway, and the obscurity of what it has to do with the topic.

As to your plastic exigesis of archonton, I directed you to near-contemporary texts where you can see for yourself how the word was used. If you'd rather read Wikipedia than consult direct textual evidence, that's fine, but don't waste my time with such crap.

Luke 14: 1; Paul's peer as a prose stylist:

http://biblehub.com/text/luke/14-1.htm

"...the archonton of the Pharisees..." Read 'em and weep, David.

 

[maximara]

Hey, what's happened to your Elders of Zion angle?

What happened to YOUR claim the Gospels are not propaganda?

 

[Craig B]

What happened to YOUR claim the Gospels are not propaganda?

I asked first. Where do I say they don't contain propaganda? You are stating they are propaganda, and as such linking them with the Protocols. You know perfectly well what you are doing. It's tosh; don't play semantic games with me.

By the way, this illustrates the reason for a question I asked long ago. If the gospels are forgeries, what are they forgeries of? The Protocols are, of course, forgeries of the record of an imaginary assembly of Jewish sages.