Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

It is not logical for you and those other writers to call these people Liars:

Reason: you don't constantly risk your life for something you know is a lie. And these people did constantly risk their lives in the brutal Roman Empire and many paid the ultimate price..

Your statement is illogical.

There are people who admit that they have no evidence for what they believe yet still claim what they believe is true and that people who do not believe them will burn in hell.

There are Idiots who will believe their own lies and die as a result of their stupudity.

If Jesus did exist then he was a Lying Idiot when he claimed he would resurrect on the third day.


If Jesus did live and was killed then within 72 hours his disciples would have realized he was a Stupid Lying Idiot.

Jesus would have began to ROT after the third day.

What a Lying Idiot.

The HJ argument is void of logic.

The stupidity of Jesus would not have helped the Jesus and the Pauline writers unless of course they were all Liars.

People of antiquity found out that the Jesus story was a Pack of lies over 1500 years ago.


Julian's Against the Galileans

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.[.b]

 

[Craig B]

People of antiquity found out that the Jesus story was a Pack of lies over 1500 years ago.

Julian's Against the Galileans ...

Glad you mentioned Julian. He was a HJ supporter.

Along with abandoning Jewish teachings, Julian also charges the Galileans with abandoning those of the original apostles (327A). He claims that no apostle claimed that Jesus was God until John

Which is what I've been saying all along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_the_Galilaeans
The earlier gospels proclaim a Jesus who was also human. And I've been saying exactly this, in disagreement with you, and we owe these points to Julian, who was among the first to publish them.

That the Bible has not been very well edited and is full of inconsistencies and contradictions is too obvious to miss and has amused generations of readers, but as far as I can tell Julian was the first to publicise them. He points out the striking difference between John and the other gospels. He derides the inability of Mathew and Mark to even agree on the same flagrantly bogus genealogy for Joseph. And what is the point of tracing him back to King David anyway? If Jesus was the son of God, the credentials of the man who happened to be married to his mother would be irrelevant.

http://historybooksreview.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/against-galileans-by-julian-apostate.html

 

[pakeha]

An interesting treatise on this subject was published by the late Hyam Maccoby in the 80s. I've found a site with a long abstract of the text. Please note that I am linking this for the purpose of access to Maccoby's work, and not for the introduction and occasional comments by one Peter Myers, which are unfortunately also present, and which I entreat you to ignore. http://mailstar.net/maccoby.html ...

Thanks for the link, Craig B.
As I think about it, the story of Jepthah's daughter is so close to the story of Idomeneus's return, which inspired Mozart's opera, that I wonder if the proto-whatsits didn't lift the story from the Greeks, or from whoever the Greeks lifted the story.

"Corriamo, fuggiamo"

pakeha

Both forms are attested. I wouldn't kid you.

Of course both forms are attested but I'm like a kid seethed in its mother's milk.


Anyway, Mum's people always said long pig.

... The lambs didn't die for anybody's sins, the lambs didn't die in anybody's stead. No doubt for John, that's just another of those fussy Jewish things. Jews killed several lambs all at once? Must be atonement. You know, like Yom Kippur, only with food.

It's harder to see how Paul would screw that up. So, maybe not quite sure that it's much the same.

Perhaps not so much of a screw-up as creative adaptation of the material for the audience at hand? Gentiles would presumably understand or intuit the connection Jesus-sacrifice-immortality more readily than fussy Jews. The image of Heracles sacrificing himself comes to mind.

Perhaps we should be considering that Jesus' self-sacrifice was a selling point for Gentiles, rather than as a return to more primitive practices.

.. And these people did constantly risk their lives in the brutal Roman Empire and many paid the ultimate price:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_martyrs#According_to_Acts_of_the_Apostles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1st-century_Christian_martyrs

Whatever you want to call these people, it is not logical to call them liars.

Of course they did, DOC.
Of course they did.

From the list you linked:
"According to Cassius Dio, Clemens was put to death on a charge of atheism , for which, he adds, many others who went over to the Jewish opinions were executed.[3] This may imply that Clemens had become a Christian. For the same reason, his wife was banished to Pandataria.[4][5][6]"

Not Christan martyrs, DOC.
Jewish martyrs.

 

[eight bits]

Craig

Any noun whatsoever can be used in a figure of speech, such as synecdoche, just as any speaker wishes. However, neither Tracey, nor your dictionary, makes the re-enacted passover's sacrifice an atonement for sinfulness. In Exodus, the legendary ur-passover to which Paul may plausibly allude (he is writing to somebody who can read, but who has probably never personally commemorated Passover, nor before conversion socialized with anybody who had), there is no sacrificial component at all to harvesting the meat, only deliverance for those who partake of the meal, while others who do not partake perish.

The price of admission to the ur-passover is participation in the covenant then in force (the Abrahamic circumcision covenant). Deliverance from the massacre is open even to Gentiles in Exodus.

As to "my" Greek, what Greek are you using instead? Your original claim was that Paul's usage was, when compared with John's "Lamb of God" imagery,

Surely this is very much the same

It isn't. It is "Maybe this is an arguably related idea." Since any two ideas whatsoever may be arguably related, we seem to have reached agreement, after much relaxation of the initial claim.

Brainache

Thank you for the kind words.

If all we had was Paul, then the sky's the limit. Two other posters in the thread have proposed Jewish-only killings. Coming at it from the other direction, as long as Jesus was fatally betrayed (or otherwise "handed over") by a Jew or Jews, and his corpse ends up being displayed, then the Romans could have done all of the wetwork in whatever fashion they pleased. For Jesus to be one casualty among many would be fine. One of the other posters suggested swordplay at Jewish hands; swordplay at Roman hands, with Pilate in command, is fine, too.

The caveat, of course, is that silence is just that. Paul cannot be said to have depicted Jesus as having one sort of Passion rather than another.

 

[Craig B]

Craig Any noun whatsoever can be used in a figure of speech, such as synecdoche

I have cited formal definitions of the word. That is beyond synecdoche.

As to "my" Greek, what Greek are you using instead?

I meant that you stated that Paul wrote in Greek. Well, here is the Greek form of the word.

Your original claim was that Paul's usage was, when compared with John's "Lamb of God" imagery [very much the same] It isn't. It is "Maybe this is an arguably related idea." Since any two ideas whatsoever may be arguably related, we seem to have reached agreement, after much relaxation of the initial claim.

It would be if I accepted the terms of your relaxation, which I don't. I still assert that Paul is referring to a slain lamb. You do not, it would seem, unless the relaxation has reached that point.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Anyway, Mum's people always said long pig.

Oddy enough, somebody had told me that that form was prevalent in your part of the world. I enjoy language and its varieties; thank you for the first-hand report.

I also like mythology. There is always a question about whether cross-cultural parallels like Iphigenia-Isaac and Hercules-Jesus are borrowings, diffusions, or independently similar creative response to similar story situations. Obviously, I don't know the answer.

Perhaps we should be considering that Jesus' self-sacrifice was a selling point for Gentiles, rather than as a return to more primitive practices.

Yes. In that vein, the Germanic peoples come to the party rather late, and so it is interesting how they came to be sold. You may be interested in checking out the "Saxon Gospel" (the Heliand). Brainache would like it, too. Jesus is a warrior from Fort Nazareth, with twelve warrior companions, who fights the evil Emperor from Fort Rome... you can pretty much guess the story from there.

One of the great moments is that the Twelve heroes gather and ask Jesus to teach them a magic spell. Jesus replies:

Father of us all, the sons of men
You are in the high heavenly kingdom
Blessed be Your name in every word
May Your mighty kingdom come
May Your will be done over all this world—
just the same on earth as it is up there
in the high heavenly kingdom.
Give us support, each day, good Chieftain,
Your holy help, and pardon, Protector of Heaven,
our many crimes, just as we do to other human beings
Do not let loathsome wights lead us off
to do their will, as we deserve,
but help us against all evil deeds.

Kapla!

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2006/03/the-lords-prayer-in-the-heliand/

Craig

We disagree. Time to move on.

 

[pakeha]

pakehaOddy enough, somebody had told me that that form was prevalent in your part of the world. I enjoy language and its varieties; thank you for the first-hand report.

Wait, what?
First-hand report?
When did I admit to having inhaled, as it were?

I also like mythology. There is always a question about whether cross-cultural parallels like Iphigenia-Isaac and Hercules-Jesus are borrowings, diffusions, or independently similar creative response to similar story situations. Obviously, I don't know the answer.

Indeed, similarities can be tricky.
While a superficial audition could lead one to suppose Tchaikovsky's music to Swan Lake* was influenced by Wagner's Lohengrin, it's far more likely the ballet had its inspiration in Delibes.

How much more difficult to know the sources of apparent parallelisms in stories 2,000+ years old?
Even so, the similarities in the stories of Jepthah's daughter and Idemenus' son are most striking.

Yes. In that vein, the Germanic peoples come to the party rather late, and so it is interesting how they came to be sold. You may be interested in checking out the "Saxon Gospel" (the Heliand). Brainache would like it, too. Jesus is a warrior from Fort Nazareth, with twelve warrior companions, who fights the evil Emperor from Fort Rome... you can pretty much guess the story from there.



http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromotingrumor/2006/03/the-lords-prayer-in-the-heliand/...

Oh, that's white and delightsome, eight bits.


*A resounding flop at its debut, oddly enough.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is illogical.

What's not logical about it ? People don't usually sacrifice their lives for a lie, do they ?

Other than that, I of course disagree completely with DOC.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

First-hand report?

Lol (really). I meant the use of one form of the phrase rather than the other, not whether it's in your diet .

Even so, the similarities in the stories of Jepthah's daughter and Idemenus' son are most striking.

The Nixie of the Mill Pond, Grimm 181, as well. Apart from the object lesson, the storytelling effect is straightforward: the audience just knows that this isn't going to end well as soon as the character speaks, even if the audience hasn't heard the story before. You have them on the edge of their seats with one sentence. No wonder, then, that it's a widely used motif.

 

[dejudge]

Julian's Against the Galileans

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

[.b]

Glad you mentioned Julian. He was a HJ supporter. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Your statement is void of logic.

You must have forgotten that Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.

You must have forgotten that Julian BELIEVED the GODS of Romans were figures of history.

In the time of Julian, Christian writers Believed the Historical Jesus was the Son of God Born of a Ghost and BELIEVED the God of the Jews and the Holy Ghost were figures of history.


Julian presented NO pre 70 CE evidence that Jesus, the disciples and Paul existed and stated that "the fabrication of the Galiliaeans is a fiction of men".


Julian also challenged his audience to present evidence of Jesus and Paul in writings about the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

It is highly illogical to use the writings of Julian who admitted the story of Jesus is a Pack of lies [a monstrous fable] as evidence for your HJ.

YOUR HJ argument is VOID of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

Julian exposed that the DECEPTION of the Jesus story---"it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth".

The Jesus story is NOT history.

Why have you been induced to believe the Monstrous tale contains the TRUTH of your HJ?

 

[Craig B]

... In the time of Julian, Christian writers Believed the Historical Jesus was the Son of God Born of a Ghost and BELIEVED the God of the Jews and the Holy Ghost were figures of history.

Julian was not a "Christian writer"; he was a pagan philosopher and Emperor. After his death the Christians destroyed his books, and it has been necessary to reconstruct them from citations by hostile Christian commentators.

Why have you been induced to believe the Monstrous tale contains the TRUTH of your HJ?

You know perfectly well I haven't. Jesus was in all probability a human being, about whom monstrous tales were told.

 

[pakeha]

Thanks for the reference to the Nixie; I spent a pleasant time reading about the sources for this type of story. A shame we don't have Marduk about to find out the undoubted Sumerian origin of the tale.
I did find this, however

The Isaac story is recognised as coming from the E source of the Pentateuch. The deity is referred to as Elohim (translated as God in most modern versions) in verses 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. However, in verses 11, 14, 15 and 16a the deity is referred to as Yahweh (The Lord in translation). This seems to be a hint that verses 11-16a may represent an interpolation into the original story. Coincidently (or not), these are the verses where at he last minute God stops Abraham from carrying out the sacrifice.

Also note that while the angel's message "that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son... Because you have obeyed me..." could of course be interpreted to mean that Abraham was willing to obey and not withhold his son, taking the message on its own without the interpolation, it is at least as reasonable, if not more so, to interpret it as meaning that Abraham actually did obey the order to sacrifice his son.

Then in verse 19, it is only Abraham, and not Abraham and Isaac, who comes down from the mountain and rejoins his servents. More tellingly still, Isaac never again appears as a character in the E part of the Pentateuch.

Admittedly, a couple of these are arguments from silence, but taken together they seem to make a reasonably strong case that in the original version of the story Abraham actually did sacrifice his son to God, in return being made the father of a vast nation, and that once human sacrifice became unacceptable the story was edited to make it more palatable to "modern" ears, while retaining the central message of God rewarding obedience. This technique is known as "bowderlization", editors removing unpleasant scenes from a past narrative to fit a newer version.

Concerning the matter of why children were sacrificed, Stager and Wolff comment: Inscriptions from the Tophet (of Carthage] demonstrate that the commonest reason for child sacrifice was the fulfillment of a vow. The Phoenician/Punic word for vow (ndr) frequently appears on inscribed stelae. Taking vows was an old and hallowed Near Eastern custom.

http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/priests.html

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is void of logic.

You must have forgotten

You must have forgotten

Ghost

It is highly illogical

[a monstrous fable]

YOUR HJ argument is VOID of logic

the monstrous tale is truth"

Stock phrases are your trade. And that's just one post.

 

[pakeha]

More on child/human sacrifice amongst the Israelites:

6 Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old?

7 Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
Micah 6:6-7

Not only child sacrifice, but a sacrifice to redeem oneself.

 

[dejudge]

Julian was not a "Christian writer"; he was a pagan philosopher and Emperor. After his death the Christians destroyed his books, and it has been necessary to reconstruct them from citations by hostile Christian commentators. You know perfectly well I haven't.

Again, your statement is void of Logic. Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.

Julian BELIEVED the Gods of the Romans existed.

Julian did not present any evidence that Jesus, the disciples and Paul existed and claimed the fabrication of the Galileans was FICTION.

Jesus was in all probability a human being, about whom monstrous tales were told.

Again, your statement is void of Logic. You are using an admitted Pack of Lies [the Jesus story] as history for your HJ and do so WITHOUT any actual recovered pre 70 evidence.

Julian admitted the Jesus story was composed for those who loved Childish and Foolish fables.


The Jesus character was most likely a fiction character-a Myth as described by Christian writers themselves.

Christian writers consistently argued their Jesus had NO human father and was the Son of God born of a Ghost.

The probability that there was an HJ in the time of Pilate is next to ZERO.
Julian's Against the Galileans

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness...

The Jesus story is a Pack of Lies composed by EVIL men.

 

[Craig B]

... The Jesus story is a Pack of Lies composed by EVIL men.

That's a new angle! Let's see what you come up with on that topic.

 

[Belz...]

Oh ! A new stock phrase.

 

[maximara]

I've never heard of this book.

That doesn't surprise me. You likely haven't heard of Iosif Aronovich Kryvelev's 1987 Christ--myth or reality? (part of the the Religious studies in the USSR series) either.

What does it say about the Ancient History that they teach in Russia?

Moving the goal posts I see. Besides we have seen this old battle horse trotted out more often then not to know what kind of nonsense this leads to--the old 'if we deny a HJ then we deny most of ancient history' BS.

Are they teaching that Jesus probably existed, but wasn't much like he was described in the gospels?

During most of the Soviet Union era it was more or less Drews with his arguments appearing in both school and university textbooks (Nikiforov, Vladimir. "Russian Christianity" in Leslie Houlden (ed.) Jesus in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 749.) There were even public meetings between Party officials and the clergy with "Did Christ live?" as the topic of choice (Peris, Daniel. Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless. Cornell University Press, 1998, p. 178.)

So the question goes back to where on Remsburg-Marshall's Christ Myth range do you put Drews?

"In wide circles the doubt grows as to the historical character of the picture of Christ given in the Gospels. (...) If in spite of this any one thinks that besides the latter a Jesus also cannot be dispensed with; but we know nothing of Jesus. Even in the representations of historical theology, he is scarcely more than the shadow of a shadow. Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this 'unique' and 'mighty' personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness." (Drews, Arthur (1910) The Christ Myth)

Drews if you actually read him didn't definitively say Jesus didn't exist but rather there wasn't anything in the Gospel that lead back to a man of the level of importance the Gospels were describing.

Besides you still have Robertson's definition "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility [that the Gospel account may have a flesh and blood behind them]. 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"

Right now the best we seem to be getting is this minimal Jesus who during his lifetime was effectively a nobody with only a handful of followers who if not for Paul's conversion would have wound up in the dust bin of history.

That Jesus IMHO is no less plausible then the idea that one day during the reign of Pontius Pilatus some crazy man runs into the sacrifice area of the Temple wrecking havoc while screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before a guard runs him through.

The problem with any Jesus like that he is even more of a blank slate then the jesus of the Gospels.

 

[dejudge]

The probability that there was an HJ in the time of Pilate is next to ZERO.

Julian's Against the Galileans

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness...

The Jesus story is a Pack of Lies composed by EVIL men.

That's a new angle! Let's see what you come up with on that topic.

The HJ argument is void of logic, facts and pre 70 CE evidence.

What new angle are you talking about?

The Crazy stupid Jesus story was known to be a Pack of Lies propagated by Illiterates since the 2nd century.

Origen's "Against Celsus" 3

After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class, and asserts that “the following are the rules laid down by them.

Let no one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let them come with confidence.
By which words, acknowledging that such individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the stupid, with women and children.”

Origen's Against Celsus 5

But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the following: “Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really an angel.

But is he the first and only one who came (to men), or were there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one, they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves.

The Jesus story is a well established Pack of Lies propagated by the Unlearned of antiquity.

 

[Craig B]

What new angle are you talking about?

The Crazy stupid Jesus story was known to be a Pack of Lies propagated by Illiterates since the 2nd century ... The Jesus story is a well established Pack of Lies propagated by the Unlearned of antiquity.

You have already told us (very many times) that the propagators of the Jesus story were unlearned illiterate crazy people. But there is an additional significant epithet in the words you posted recently, cited below. I think this is a new angle.

The Jesus story is a Pack of Lies composed by EVIL men.