Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

So you say. And you misrepresent the evidence that does exist by stating that it was all intentionally falsified by forgers as fictitious hoaxes hundreds of years later.

What a big lie!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

There is NO NT writing that is dated to the 1st century.

 

[pakeha]

I hope you don't mean: it's in "the Bible". The Bible is not inspired by God. Therefore it is false. Therefore Acts is false. Therefore every part of it is the same as every other part, i.e. false. So why quote it at all?

Is that what you took away from my post about the Westar Institute's conclusions about Acts?

There's a discipline called "higher criticism". But those who take the view I gently mock in this post are perhaps engaged in "lower criticism".

Anyway, please let me know why I shouldn't consider Acts when looking at the relevant evidence for the events under discussion.

What events?
Do you mean whether or not 1st century Christians used that term for themselves?
How could Acts help us there?

 

[Belz...]

IanS,

It has been quite nice discussing this topic with you. You strike me as a very intelligent and thoughtful person who expresses him/herself well. We do not completely agree, but that is the basis for debate, and I respect your stance.

But this thread has devolved into the typical sniping and petty attacks that always seem to arise in this place. I left this forum, under another name, 2 or 3 years ago because I couldn't stand all the poor argumentation and I see it hasn't changed much around here.

Please continue your higher standard of discourse. I'm afraid I really haven't much tolerance for the style of 'discussion' that has taken over JREF in the past few years. It used to be a more intellectual environment several years ago.

Good luck to you.

If I may, perhaps the problem with the level of discourse here is that serious posters such as yourself go away. Won't you reconsider ?

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

While Westar is indisputably academic in outlook, it is also representative of a wing of Christian scholarship. Its most famous product, "The Jesus Seminar" made contributions to scholarship (like the idea that there may be a "core" of Thomas that is of similar age as the canonical Gospels), but its findings aren't universally accepted, nor should they be in my view.

With respect to Acts, two of the headline findings tell a lot of the story:

2. Acts was written in the early decades of the second century.
10. Acts is a primary historical source for second century Christianity.

There is a clear logical dependency there: two implies ten: if it was written in the Second Century, then it is a primary source for what was current in the Second Century church. The principle generalizes: if it was written a generation or so earlier, then it is a primary source for late First Century Christianity.

When was it written? Well, the dating of Acts depends on the dating of Luke. That's after 70 CE, since the author knows that Jerusalem has been devastated (unlike the author of Mark). But in which generation in or after 70? That remains unresolved. You can assemble a room full of experts who favor the later date (shortly before Marcion). Westar did. So what?

Is everything in Acts gospel? No. But one of the findings is falling down funny,

9 Acts constructs its story to fit ideological goals.

No kidding. That may help explain why anybody bothered to write the thing.

Anyway, the most recent appeal to Acts hereabouts is to place the usage of the word Christian in the First Century. Pliny the Younger uses it ca 112. Can Acts move its debut back a generation or even two? There's a chance. The dating question is not closed, and Westar will not be the crew that closes it (their methodology is dodgy, even by "Biblical Studies" standards). Pliny mentions earlier trials of Christians, and raises the problem of those who have been Christians in the past and have recanted. He doesn't feel the need to tell Trajan "Of course, they were called Jeseeans back then."

Furthermore, given the obviousness of the formation from Christ, and that the core of Paul's teaching is the Christ and that you can be a Christ, or at least have your very own Christ within you, I think the term could easily have come into being during Paul's lifetime.

 

[Brainache]

Apparently we're not supposed what any particular member of the bible study academy publishes in support of this HJ hypothesis.

Unless it's Robin Fox or some other outlier.

Interesting definition of "outlier":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Lane_Fox

Robin James Lane Fox, FRSL (born 5 October 1946[1]) is an English historian of antiquity and a gardening writer.[2]

Lane Fox is an Emeritus Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Reader in Ancient History, University of Oxford. Fellow and Tutor in Ancient History at New College from 1977 to 2012, he serves as Garden Master and as Extraordinary Lecturer in Ancient History for both New and Exeter Colleges. He has also taught Greek and Latin literature and early Islamic history.[3][4]

His major publications, for which he has won literary prizes including the James Tait Black Award,[5] the Duff Cooper Prize,[6] the W.H. Heinemann Award[7] and the Runciman Award,[8] include studies of Alexander the Great and Ancient Macedon, Late Antiquity, Christianity and Paganism,[9] the Bible and history, and the Greek Dark Ages.

The head of the History department at Oxford University is not, by any stretch of the imagination an "outlier".

 

[proudfootz]

Interesting definition of "outlier":


The head of the History department at Oxford University is not, by any stretch of the imagination an "outlier".

I was depending on what I could find out about him on an internet search.

But if someone is familiar with what Fox deems the best evidence for an historic Jesus they are welcome to share it with the group.

Thanks!

 

[Brainache]

I was depending on what I could find out about him on an internet search.

But if someone is familiar with what Fox deems the best evidence for an historic Jesus they are welcome to share it with the group.

Thanks!

You couldn't find Wikipedia?

I have to say that doesn't shine a very flattering light on your research capabilities...

You know that "higher criticism" that CraigB mentioned? He does a lot of that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of ancient text in order to understand "the world behind the text".[1]

The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text's primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. This may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events which the text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a document, record or source for reconstructing the ancient past which may also serve as a chief interest to the historical critic. In regard to Semitic biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be able to interpret "The Literature of Israel" as well as "The History of Israel".[2]

This kind of Historical research is complex and subtle and not really very easy to reproduce in a Forum post. It is a complicated subject. You would be better informed by reading a book about it.

Now you can accuse me of being lazy because I don't feel like writing a book for you.

 

[proudfootz]

You couldn't find Wikipedia?

I have to say that doesn't shine a very flattering light on your research capabilities...

You know that "higher criticism" that CraigB mentioned? He does a lot of that:

This kind of Historical research is complex and subtle and not really very easy to reproduce in a Forum post. It is a complicated subject. You would be better informed by reading a book about it.

Now you can accuse me of being lazy because I don't feel like writing a book for you.

While I'm flattered you'd like to make this thread all about me and your off the cuff assessment of my research abilities, I'm much more interested in the topic of the thread.

I know you don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks, but some folks are since he has written a book which I have read about the alleged 'consensus' view of an historical Jesus.

If anyone knows what Fox's views are and wants to discuss them they are welcome to do so.

 

[Brainache]

While I'm flattered you'd like to make this thread all about me and your off the cuff assessment of my research abilities, I'm much more interested in the topic of the thread.

I know you don't care what Bart Ehrman thinks, but some folks are since he has written a book which I have read about the alleged 'consensus' view of an historical Jesus.

If anyone knows what Fox's views are and wants to discuss them they are welcome to do so.

I haven't read it, but this book of his has some favourable reviews:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37835.The_Unauthorized_Version

He isn't a believer, but he does conclude that there was most likely a HJ.

Again a Forum post wouldn't do it justice.

...
He begins by noting that (page 7): "'The Unauthorized Version' is a historian's view of the Bible. It is a book about evidence and historical truth, not about faith. It is unauthorized because it addresses questions which the Bible itself obscures. . . ."

Two approaches. The first, the document is internally inconsistent. He notes the two very different stories of Creation, the inconsistencies and contradictions across the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and in many other books of the Bible. He argues that there were "editors" who rearranged and edited prior versions of Scripture to better fit their perspective. He notes the various hypothesized editors, such as J and E. He speaks of how D ("Deuteronomist") revised previous documents to fit a specific vision. One may well not be convinced of different "editors" at work, but it does help to explain some of the internal inconsistencies.

Noting the inconsistencies and examining them all in Historical context is a job for professionals. That's why I keep encouraging people who are interested in this topic to read books, rather than rely on internet "experts".

Don't take it personally.

 

[dejudge]

...Furthermore, given the obviousness of the formation from Christ, and that the core of Paul's teaching is the Christ and that you can be a Christ, or at least have your very own Christ within you, I think the term could easily have come into being during Paul's lifetime.

The Greek word for 'Christ' [χριστου],meaning Anointed, predates the Pauline writings for hundreds of years and is found in the Septuagint.

Kings and High Priest of the Jews were called 'Christ' [χριστου] Anointed.

The Greek word for 'Christ' [χριστου] Anointed is found over 15 times in 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Psalms, Isaiah and Lamentations.

The Greek for Christ [χριστου] does NOT require stories of Paul or Jesus.

King David was CHRIST [χριστου] in the Septuagint

In Josephus 'Wars of the Jews' there was NO χριστος, Jewish Messianic ruler, No King or High Priest called Jesus of Nazareth up to at least c 70 CE.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

That's very interesting. However, I believe the recent controversy hereabouts concenred the earliest use of Χριστιανός and its Latin cognate(s) to refer to followers of Jesus. Since Χριστιανός was coined from χριστ-, χριστ- would need to have been in use first. χριστ- may well have preceded Χριστιανός by a very long time, as your research confirms.

It is unclear that Palestinian Jewish Christians (however many or few of them there were before 70 CE) were ever called Χριστιανός, and so it is not especially surprising that Josephus wouldn't have had occasion to use the word when writing about Palestinian Jewish affairs.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge

That's very interesting. However, I believe the recent controversy hereabouts concenred the earliest use of Χριστιανός and its Latin cognate(s) to refer to followers of Jesus. Since Χριστιανός was coined from χριστ-, χριστ- would need to have been in use first. χριστ- may well have preceded Χριστιανός by a very long time, as your research confirms.

It is unclear that Palestinian Jewish Christians (however many or few of them there were before 70 CE) were ever called Χριστιανός, and so it is not especially surprising that Josephus wouldn't have had occasion to use the word when writing about Palestinian Jewish affairs.

You don't have any actual evidence for what you write so please stop wasting my time.

I am dealing with actual evidence not an argument from silence.

What Palestinian Jewish Christians are you talking about? Where is your ACTUAL pre 70 CE source?

Your Palestinian Jewish Christians may be a figment of your imagination like your imaginary Jesus.

 

[proudfootz]

I haven't read it, but this book of his has some favourable reviews:

He isn't a believer, but he does conclude that there was most likely a HJ.

Again a Forum post wouldn't do it justice.

Indeed, it might take several posts to do the job.

Likewise, it would take more than a forum post or two to do the myriad and subtle arguments of the various MJ scholars justice.

Noting the inconsistencies and examining them all in Historical context is a job for professionals. That's why I keep encouraging people who are interested in this topic to read books, rather than rely on internet "experts".

I've got nothing against reading books. But, alas, this is an internet forum and we'll have to make the best of it.

Don't take it personally.

So long as people don't lose their heads and start making it personal they'll have no problem with me.

 

[pakeha]

...Anyway, the most recent appeal to Acts hereabouts is to place the usage of the word Christian in the First Century. Pliny the Younger uses it ca 112. Can Acts move its debut back a generation or even two? There's a chance. The dating question is not closed, and Westar will not be the crew that closes it (their methodology is dodgy, even by "Biblical Studies" standards). Pliny mentions earlier trials of Christians, and raises the problem of those who have been Christians in the past and have recanted. He doesn't feel the need to tell Trajan "Of course, they were called Jeseeans back then."

Furthermore, given the obviousness of the formation from Christ, and that the core of Paul's teaching is the Christ and that you can be a Christ, or at least have your very own Christ within you, I think the term could easily have come into being during Paul's lifetime.

Thanks for the caveat on the Westar Institute.
It'll be interesting to see how a 2nd century dating for Acts comes to be accepted or rejected as time goes by.

The Greek word for 'Christ' [χριστου],meaning Anointed, predates the Pauline writings for hundreds of years and is found in the Septuagint.

Kings and High Priest of the Jews were called 'Christ' [χριστου] Anointed.

The Greek word for 'Christ' [χριστου] Anointed is found over 15 times in 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, Psalms, Isaiah and Lamentations.

The Greek for Christ [χριστου] does NOT require stories of Paul or Jesus.

King David was CHRIST [χριστου] in the Septuagint

In Josephus 'Wars of the Jews' there was NO χριστος, Jewish Messianic ruler, No King or High Priest called Jesus of Nazareth up to at least c 70 CE.

dejudge

That's very interesting. However, I believe the recent controversy hereabouts concenred the earliest use of Χριστιανός and its Latin cognate(s) to refer to followers of Jesus. Since Χριστιανός was coined from χριστ-, χριστ- would need to have been in use first. χριστ- may well have preceded Χριστιανός by a very long time, as your research confirms.

It is unclear that Palestinian Jewish Christians (however many or few of them there were before 70 CE) were ever called Χριστιανός, and so it is not especially surprising that Josephus wouldn't have had occasion to use the word when writing about Palestinian Jewish affairs.

Actually, eight bits, I understand the question to be if there's evidence Christians, that is to say, followers of Jesus Christ, existed at all in the first century.

Pliny and his friend and colleague Tacitus (both writing in the second decade of the second century, correct me if I'm wrong) seem to say yes, but it's up in the air as to whether the people they called Christians were followers of Jesus Christ. Or if they were called Christians back in the day. After all, writers have been known to use anachronistic terms for the benefit of their contemporaries' comprehension.

Now that I think of it, is there any evidence Jesus was anointed, in the sense dejudge has documented for us?

 

[maximara]

Indeed, more precision is called for.
It's definitely not helpful for anyone to make sweeping claims that 'all MJers are ____________' or 'all HJers are ______________'.

It is preferable to name specific persons as each argument is likely to be different in detail - one can hardly argue against generalities along the lines of 'the consensus believes ____________'.

Thanks!

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall said the same thing: "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." (Marshall, Ian Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004, p. 27-29.)

The biggest problem with the whole MJ vs HJ debate is it is presented in such black and white terms.

As I said before a man who ran though the Temple trashing the place screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" who is cut down by a guard 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.") or by Marshall's second standard (Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events).

Or what about "Jesuses" inspired by Paul's teachings? It would be one way to explain his 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning about being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted". Who or what were the other Jesuses Paul wrote of?

 

[maximara]

Thanks for the caveat on the Westar Institute.
It'll be interesting to see how a 2nd century dating for Acts comes to be accepted or rejected as time goes by.

Actually, eight bits, I understand the question to be if there's evidence Christians, that is to say, followers of Jesus Christ, existed at all in the first century.

Pliny and his friend and colleague Tacitus (both writing in the second decade of the second century, correct me if I'm wrong) seem to say yes, but it's up in the air as to whether the people they called Christians were followers of Jesus Christ. Or if they were called Christians back in the day. After all, writers have been known to use anachronistic terms for the benefit of their contemporaries' comprehension.

Actually Pliny the Younger wrote his latter in the 2nd century and give no indication of when the group first appeared.

 

[pakeha]

Actually Pliny the Younger wrote his latter in the 2nd century and give no indication of when the group first appeared.

Yes.
Yet again I've expressed my self badly.
Pliny refers to Christians in the second century.
His friend and colleague, Tacitus, writing in the second century, refers to a cult in Rome at the time of the Great Fire.
Sorry to be so unclear.

 

[dejudge]

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall said the same thing: "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." (Marshall, Ian Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004, p. 27-29.)

The biggest problem with the whole MJ vs HJ debate is it is presented in such black and white terms.

How could there be confusion in such a simple inquiry?

It is a piece of cake to inquiry whether or not there was an historical Pilate, a character found in gMark.

We would simply look for details about Pilate in Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources and also utilize archaeological findings or artifacts if available.

There are indeed CONTEMPORARY sources of antiquity which mention Pilate as Governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius.

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT mentioned at all by any contemporary Non-Apologetic source of antiquity and there are no archaeological findings or artifacts.

Jesus of Nazareth cannot be confirmed to be a figure of history.

What is so confusing??

We have evidence for Pilate in contemporary non-Apologetic sources and NONE for Jesus of Nazareth.

This is an extremely simple matter.

Pilate was Governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius when Caiaphas was High Priest until New evidence surfaces

Jesus was the Son of God Born of a Ghost--it is documented.

Jesus is a MYTH UNTIL new evidence surfaces.

This is so simple.

Let us now look for the historical Paul.

Paul is a fiction character until new evidence surfaces.

Paul is unknown outside the Bible and Apologetics.

 

[Brainache]

How could there be confusion in such a simple inquiry?

It is a piece of cake to inquiry whether or not there was an historical Pilate, a character found in gMark.

We would simply look for details about Pilate in Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources and also utilize archaeological findings or artifacts if available.

There are indeed CONTEMPORARY sources of antiquity which mention Pilate as Governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius.

Jesus of Nazareth is NOT mentioned at all by any contemporary Non-Apologetic source of antiquity and there are no archaeological findings or artifacts.

Jesus of Nazareth cannot be confirmed to be a figure of history.

What is so confusing??

We have evidence for Pilate in contemporary non-Apologetic sources and NONE for Jesus of Nazareth.

This is an extremely simple matter.

Pilate was Governor of Judea in the time of Tiberius when Caiaphas was High Priest until New evidence surfaces

Jesus was the Son of God Born of a Ghost--it is documented.

Jesus is a MYTH UNTIL new evidence surfaces.

This is so simple.

Let us now look for the historical Paul.

Paul is a fiction character until new evidence surfaces.

Paul is unknown outside the Bible and Apologetics.

Did any of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers exist?

That should be just as simple. Were they all invented by Hoax forging fakers?

 

[dejudge]

Did any of the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers exist?

That should be just as simple. Were they all invented by Hoax forging fakers?

The Historical Jesus is a Hoax.

Please, get enrolled at YALE--Dr. Dale Martin may want to tutor you about his personal belief that Jesus was born of a Ghost who resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Please, go to the 38th minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkjzQO5aaSc

Dr. Dale Martin a Christian Scholar, an historian at Yale, personally believes Jesus was 100% God and 100% man and PRAYS to Jesus and REPEATS the Apostles' Creed


Dr. Dale Martin at Yale personally believes Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.


Apostles' Creed


1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.