Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

Belz...

Much of the "MJ" problem seems to be a homonym conflation. The noun phrase Mythical Jesus may refer to the study of something that indisputably exists as ink on the page: the main character in the New Testament who performs arguably mighty deeds, conquers death, and awaits his Dad's nod to come back to Earth and whoop the Roman Empire's butt.

The same noun phrase, Mythical Jesus, may also refer to the antithesis of the Historical Jesus thesis. The HJ thesis is what Bart Ehrman espouses, that when Paul reports that he saw a ghost (a pneuma being), Paul thought that it was the revenant of an actual flesh-and-blood Jewish man who had recently died, some of whose surviving associates Paul had dealt personally with, and that there actually was just such a man.

What stuns me is that some people can read an author like Frazer, even quote Frazer to the effect that he means one homonym rather than the other, and then say that Frazer is writing about the other homonym anyway.

It's the same thing with atheist. One homonym means not worshipping the locally accepted gods (as in "Clement, the Bishop of Rome, was called an atheist by his contemporaries"). The other means rejecting the existence of whatever divinity is on offer (as in "Richard Dawkins is a well-known atheist author"). Conflating the two homonyms would lead to absurdities like

X The "Five horsemen of atheism" are Richard Dawkins, Samuel Harris, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens, and Clement of Rome.

It would, except that few people dig up obsolete and absurdly inapplicable meanings of nouns to argue about serious current controversies.

I agree that in order for the conversation to be a little more fruitful it would be good to come to some sort of definition of terms.

In my view an HJ hypothesis would entail there being one individual upon whom the Christ story was based.

An MJ hypothesis would be one where the Christ myth was not based on any particular man, and this would include narratives that were a pastiche of several real persons as window dressing.

 

[Brainache]

Well, if you ever decide to grapple with the scholarship, it's there.

Or you can make meaningless quips.

Your choice.

OK. What did you want to discuss specifically?

After reading the 'Paul was a Herodian' thread I didn't get a very good impression of this Eisenman.

I sincerely doubt that you read the whole thread.

I'm sure it is. Those were the days, when one was a newcomer, eh?

Have you read it? It might be informative for you and help to understand the cultural historical context of the Jesus stories.

Sure, and when you feel ready to comment on the actual arguments of Carrier or Doherty or Price or Bauer or...

I'm sure there's someone who'll discuss them with you!

Which arguments would those be, specifically?

Or, maybe you would like to try to address the essay that was posted earlier.

I see a lot of little obnoxious jibes, but not a lot of debating the arguments...

 

[proudfootz]

In the Hoffmann piece, here is what appears to be an argument in support of an 'historic Jesus' :

While it is fairly common for myth-theorists (as well as others) to point to the unreliability of the external notices, the absence of any suggestion among Jewish and pagan polemists that Jesus was the contrivance of a small clutch of believers—while explicable on other grounds—is as noteworthy as the absence of any tendency among the church fathers to defend against such a “slander.”

Looks like the familiar 'argument from silence'.

We also know that the gospels, whatever they are, were not designed to convince people that Jesus existed.

I agree with Hoffmann here. I think the canonical and non-canonical writings were for internal consumption. Therefore there was a great deal of ignorance from those not already on the 'inside' what this was all about.

Indeed even in the 2nd century christians themselves weren't very knowledgeable about christianity since apparently Pliny could torture them and not even discover the name of the alleged founder of their cult.

Obviously, it would be difficult for outsiders to dispute about tenets of a cult when they aren't privy to their secrets.

 

[proudfootz]

duplicate post!

 

[proudfootz]

I sincerely doubt that you read the whole thread.

That's on you.

I was directed there in a vain search for arguments about the Jesus, but it was mostly some idiosyncratic ideas about Paul.

Have you read it? It might be informative for you and help to understand the cultural historical context of the Jesus stories.

I've read from it.

Which arguments would those be, specifically?

Or, maybe you would like to try to address the essay that was posted earlier.

What did you want to discuss specifically?

I see a lot of little obnoxious jibes, but not a lot of debating the arguments...

I'd be happy not to trade jibes whenever you're ready.

 

[dejudge]

I agree with Hoffmann here. I think the canonical and non-canonical writings were for internal consumption. Therefore there was a great deal of ignorance from those not already on the 'inside' what this was all about.

Indeed even in the 2nd century christians themselves weren't very knowledgeable about christianity since apparently Pliny could torture them and not even discover the name of the alleged founder of their cult.

So, where were the so-called Heretics like Basilides, Cerinthus, Marcion, Valentinus, Carpocrates, the Ebionites, the Justinians, Cerdo, Simon Magus, Menander and others?

To whom did Irenaeus write "Against Heresies" and claim Jesus was crucified c 50 CE or when he was an old man?

To whom did Hippolytus write "Refutation of All Heresies"? To the insiders??

It is clear that the term Christian did not always and only mean believers of the Jesus story.

So-called Christian Heretics did NOT magically appear from nowhere.

Christians were NOT ignorant of their beliefs.

There were Christians who did believe in other Gods and another Son of God--Not Jesus.

Theophilus of Antioch was called a Christian and did NOT believe in the story of Jesus at all.

Obviously, it would be difficult for outsiders to dispute about tenets of a cult when they aren't privy to their secrets.

Why would Pliny Christians mention Jesus if their cult worshiped Christ as a God?

Don't HJers argue that the Historical Jesus was NOT the Christ?

Ehrman argues that the real Jesus was a little known Apocalyptic preacher.

Who would worship a little known preacher as a God when he was NOT the Christ?

 

[Craig B]

Indeed even in the 2nd century christians themselves weren't very knowledgeable about christianity since apparently Pliny could torture them and not even discover the name of the alleged founder of their cult.

Where do you get that? There's no evidence that he was trying to discover the name of the alleged founder. He knew that these "Christiani" sang hymns to the Messiah as to "God", or "a god"; and this is indeed a Christian practice. Here's what he wrote.

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

As is evident, and as makes sense in the known historical context, Pliny was trying to determine whether these Christians constituted a political association, of the kind that the Emperor Trajan had recently banned. He seems to have concluded that they were merely a gang of exceedingly superstitious people who had deified the Messiah. He demonstrates no interest in the personalities who founded it, and clearly his interrogation of the unfortunate deaconesses was not designed to elicit the name of the Messiah whom these people worshipped. That was of no importance and no conceivable interest to him.

But the activities he states were uncovered by his investigation: hymns, food, moral undertakings: are all recognisable features of Christian practice even to the present day. So to say Pliny could not find out anything, because the Christians didn't know about Jesus, is not clearly justified by the surviving record.

 

[dejudge]

But the activities he states were uncovered by his investigation: hymns, food, moral undertakings: are all recognisable features of Christian practice even to the present day. So to say Pliny could not find out anything, because the Christians didn't know about Jesus, is not clearly justified by the surviving record.

There is no evidence that Christians worship men or Dead Men as Gods so their Christ could NOT have been a human being.

Christians did NOT even worship the Emperor of Rome as a God so it is just total nonsense that they would worship a little known apocalyptic dead preacher who was regarded as a crucified criminal.

If your HJ did exist and did cause a disturbance at the Holy Temple of God and was crucified for his crime then there would be zero expectation that such an executed criminal would be worshiped as a God.

Christians worshiped GOD--NOT DEAD MEN.

Why would Pliny Christians worship your DEAD criminal called Jesus as a God?

I am sorry!! The HJ argument makes very little sense.
Theophilus of Antioch "To Autolycus"

And, indeed, the names of those whom you say you worship, are the names of dead men.

 

[maximara]

I agree that in order for the conversation to be a little more fruitful it would be good to come to some sort of definition of terms.

In my view an HJ hypothesis would entail there being one individual upon whom the Christ story was based.

An MJ hypothesis would be one where the Christ myth was not based on any particular man, and his would include narratives that were a pastiche of several real persons as window dressing.

Well the Jesus Seminar version of Jesus where IIRC they threw out all of John and only accepted something along the lines of some 20% of the synoptic were through to be actual teachings of Jesus. So even in this HJ realm you have the acknowledgement that the Gospel Jesus (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem) is a composite character with a staggering 80% coming from elsewhere.

Remsberg who felt there was a HJ also felt Paul and the Gospels told you nothing about the man's actual teachings which again brings us right back to the issue of what is a HJ?

 

[dejudge]

Well the Jesus Seminar version of Jesus where IIRC they threw out all of John and only accepted something along the lines of some 20% of the synoptic were through to be actual teachings of Jesus. So even in this HJ realm you have the acknowledgement that the Gospel Jesus (Remsberg's Jesus of Bethlehem) is a composite character with a staggering 80% coming from elsewhere.

Remsberg who felt there was a HJ also felt Paul and the Gospels told you nothing about the man's actual teachings which again brings us right back to the issue of what is a HJ?

Well, well, well!! The Jesus Seminar used copies of copies of copies of manuscripts of unknown authorship from the 2nd century or later to determine what Jesus said when they don't know what he did say if he was a little known crucified criminal who caused a disturbance at the Temple.

Please, please, please, even if Jesus did live and was crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE he did NOT write any of the manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

There is no evidence that We have any words of Jesus--- we have the words of Unknown 2nd century or later authors whose EXISTING stories of Jesus are full of fiction, historical problems and discrepancies.

 

[maximara]

I agree that in order for the conversation to be a little more fruitful it would be good to come to some sort of definition of terms.

In my view an HJ hypothesis would entail there being one individual upon whom the Christ story was based.

An MJ hypothesis would be one where the Christ myth was not based on any particular man, and this would include narratives that were a pastiche of several real persons as window dressing.

Which brings us back to GA Wells current position where Paul's Jesus is a legendary mythical person while the Gospel Jesus is based on an actual preacher named Jesus of 1st century Galilee who was not crucified but this was woven into what could be remembered about the man so as to fit Paul's vision.

George Walsh (professor emeritus, Salisbury State Univ.) in 1998 stated "The theory that Jesus was originally a myth is called the Christ-myth theory, and the theory that he was an historical individual is called the historical Jesus theory."

C.H. Dodd, in his 1938 History and the Gospel under the heading "Christ Myth Theory" Manchester University Press pg 17 similarly stated the Christ Myth Theory was the idea Jesus started as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later.

Well, Wells has Paul's Jesus being originally a myth (Christ-myth by definition) and that the Gospels are up to a point based on a historical individual (historical Jesus theory). By the definition put forth by Dodd and Walsh some 60 years apart Wells current position is clearly Christ Myth and involves more then one person it is by the criteria you set forth a MJ hypothesis...even though he says the Gospel account is based on a flesh and blood Jesus.


You see the MJ and HJ line is not as sharp as you people would like to believe.

The Jesus myth theory over at Rationalwiki goes over the positions that have been called mythist over the years. And some of the things called Christ-myth are a real hoot:

"But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories which regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." (Wood, Herbert George (1934) Christianity and the nature of history, MacMillan (New York, Cambridge, [Eng.] : The University Press pg 40)

 

[DOC]

...There is no evidence that We have any words of Jesus--- we have the words of Unknown 2nd century or later authors whose EXISTING stories of Jesus are full of fiction, historical problems and discrepancies.

You really need to understand the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof" because there is plenty of evidence:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

 

[dejudge]

You really need to understand the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof" because there is plenty of evidence:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

There is NO evidence at all of the Jesus story and cult in the 1st century pre 70 CE.

There are PLENTY 2nd century or later manuscripts which state Jesus was the Son of God born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator who walked on the sea, transfigured, resurrected, ate food after the resurrection and then ascended in a cloud.

Look at the PLENTY PLENTY EVIDENCE for Myth Jesus. You want more PROOF?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...f_all_registered_New_Testament_uncial_codices

 

[maximara]

Well, well, well!! The Jesus Seminar used copies of copies of copies of manuscripts of unknown authorship from the 2nd century or later to determine what Jesus said when they don't know what he did say if he was a little known crucified criminal who caused a disturbance at the Temple.

Please, please, please, even if Jesus did live and was crucified under Pilate c 27-37 CE he did NOT write any of the manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later.

There is no evidence that We have any words of Jesus--- we have the words of Unknown 2nd century or later authors whose EXISTING stories of Jesus are full of fiction, historical problems and discrepancies.

I agree on that but given how common the name "Jesus" was and how many would be messiahs were about one cannot rational say that there wasn't some obscure would be messiah named Jesus in 1st century Galilee that Paul for what ever reason latched on to when he had his vision and then somebody either purposely or via vision creates the core of a life story for this Jesus sometime between 70 and 130 CE.

In the What counts as a historical Jesus? thread, I talked about how you could have a Jesus who was born c 12 BCE in the small town of Cana, who preached a few words of wisdom to small crowds of no more than 10 people at a time, and died due to being run over by a chariot at the age of 50 making the Gospel Jesus mythical and nonhistorical
In this thread I postulated a man going for the 1st century version of suicide by cop by running into the Temple and trashing the place while yelling 'I am Jesus King of the Jews' before being run through with a sword by a guard. Again not historical as there is no sermons, no followers, etc, etc.

As I said before the 'let's minimize Jesus to the point all the problems of no one noticing him goes away' idea creates the situation of Jesus effectively not existing. It reminds me of a joke I heard a long time ago:

Believer: I found Jesus
Skeptic: I didn't know he was lost.
Believer: He must be as there are all these quests to find him.
Skeptic: ...

Right now the current HJ comes off as 'pick a Jesus any Jesus'...much the situation we see with Robin Hood and King Arthur. Sure you could postulate all kinds insignificant during his lifetime Jesuses but at the end of the day they are no more "historical" then the many candidates for Robin Hood and King Arthur are.

 

[dejudge]

I agree on that but given how common the name "Jesus" was and how many would be messiahs were about one cannot rational say that there wasn't some obscure would be messiah named Jesus in 1st century Galilee that Paul for what ever reason latched on to when he had his vision and then somebody either purposely or via vision creates the core of a life story for this Jesus sometime between 70 and 130 CE.

Are you arguing that one can rationally assume there was as Jesus of Nazareth who was baptized by John and crucified after he caused a disturbance at the Jewish Temple without the supporting evidence?

May I remind you that it is irrational to make assumptions about the past without the supporting evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone latched on to any real human character called Jesus of Nazareth.

Which Christian would have latched on to a dead man and worship him as a God?

Christians and Jews do not worship men, dead or alive, as Gods.

The HJ argument does not make sense and shows a lack of understanding of Jewish cult in the time of Pilate.

The Jews have no history of worshipping dead crucified criminals as Gods.

The Jewish Temple was still standing in the time of Pilate and Jews SACRIFIED animals to their God for Remission of Sins..

If HJ did exist and caused a disturbance at the Holy Temple of Jews and was crucified as a criminal then such a character is the least likely to have been worshiped as a God by Jews in the time of Pilate.

And Paul, a supposed Pharisee, hated by Romans, would have been regarded as a Suicidal Crazy Idiot if he did exist and preached that the crucified criminal was the Son of God since the time of King Aretas.

I'm sorry. The HJ argument does not make much sense.

 

[IanS]

You really need to understand the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof" because there is plenty of evidence:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

What do you think the gospels are evidence of?

Keep in mind that when scholars talk about "the gospels", they do not have even any relatively complete and fully readable examples until the 4th century and mostly much later than that, i.e. mostly 6th century onwards.

For example it is hugely misleading to talk about any 2nd century copies of the gospels, because the only thing we have from the second century is P52, which is a fragment thought to be from g-John and said to date from c.125AD. But it is tiny, and only has a few words on either side, and no quotes of any "teaching from Jesus".

It is also only dated by palaeographic means. I.e. by educated guesswork based on the shaping of the letters. But several later scholars have shown that similar shaped lettering was also used into the 3rd century - it was not confined to early 2nd century. E.g. see dating by Nongbri in this Wiki link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52.

None of that can possibly be evidence of any of the copyist authors ever knowing what Jesus said or taught prior to c.30AD, because all of that extant readable gospel copying is centuries too late.

And as anonymously written copying, which does not even ever name any traceable source of it’s information (i.e. no mention of any named person who claimed to know Jesus and who gave that testimony to any original gospel writers), as “evidence”, at best that late anonymous gospel copyist writing can only be evidence of peoples un-evidenced uncorroborated religious beliefs in a messiah that none of it’s late authors could possibly have ever known.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Ok, one more time. You've already seen it before. I know you remember.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9813331#post9813331

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9770869&postcount=3362

Not evidence of any sort, just links to more links to more links

 

[Brainache]

Not evidence of any sort, just links to more links to more links

Here ya go:

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/

 

[Brainache]

That's on you.

I was directed there in a vain search for arguments about the Jesus, but it was mostly some idiosyncratic ideas about Paul.

So, just the first couple of pages then. OK.

I've read from it.

Well then, you know it all. Apparently.

What did you want to discuss specifically?

I see a lot of little obnoxious jibes, but not a lot of debating the arguments...

I'd be happy not to trade jibes whenever you're ready.

I don't particularly want to discuss any of it, but you are the one who thinks it is persuasive. Give me a specific example of this persuasive Mythicist Scholarship, because I haven't seen anything that persuades me.

Or not, that is your choice.

 

[maximara]

You really need to understand the difference between the words "evidence" and "proof" because there is plenty of evidence:

http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

DOC, we have been over this before (From Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ):


This argument tries to make textual reliability synonymous with historical reliability which can easily disproven once one considers that from 1436 on the printing press allowed the production of perfect copies of fantastical and now known to be totally fictitious material. More over as "Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament" by ''Islamic Awareness'' shows the argument is deceptive in many ways:

* The often quoted over 5000 Greek manuscripts actually covers a period of time from the 2nd century to the 16th ie 14 centuries!

* The over 5000 Greek manuscripts also cover all 27 books of the New Testament.

* Most of the really early manuscripts are actually fragments no larger then a modern credit card and in many cases not even forming complete words.

* "Comparing the above-named seven major critical editions, from Tischendorf to Nestle-Aland, we can observe an agreement in wording of only 62.9% of the verses of the New Testament."

* "The percentage agreement of the verses when all the four Gospels are considered is 54.5%."

So the Gospels, the key point of the Jesus story, has verses that have about the chance of a coin toss of matching or being different over the course 14 centuries!

Our oldest complete Bibles are the ''Codex Siniaticus'' (330–360 CE) and ''Codex Vaticanus'' (c325–350 CE) so anything regarding ''historical'' reliability must involve Greek manuscripts '''before''' those dates. This ''at best'' gets us a pathetic 48 Greek manuscripts all of which have date ranges that allow them to be after Irenaeus c180 CE work Against Heresies which extensively quotes from what would in the 4th century become the four canonal Gospels.

It should be pointed out that ''Christians'' were the ones were doing the copying and in many orders copying the New Testament in general and the Life of Jesus (Gospels) and history of the Church (Acts) in particular was regarded as an act of veneration even worship and so tended to be the most copied works. One extreme example of this view is the ''Codex Gigas'' (nicknames Devil's Bible) completed 1229 which is the world's largest medieval manuscript. As documented in National Geographic: Devil's Bible the work looks to that of one man over 20 years and addition to the entire Latin Bible the work contains many historical documents.

To be fair these Christian copyists did preserve the records of a Empire that fate seemed set on giving a historical lobotomy to. The Great Library of Alexandria was burned by Julius Caesar in 48 BCE and an Aurelian attack in the 270s CE before the Christians and Arabs burned it in 391 and 642 respectively. However, as James Burke related in the "A Matter of Fact" episode of ''The Day the Universe Changed'' Christian copyists had a load of problems finding what they did bother to copy.

(...)

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (125-c225) - fragment of John that could sit upon a credit card and contains no complete sentences, and only one complete word: kai (“and”). "What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century.

----

DOC stop wasting our time with drivel that is on par with that for the Bermuda Triangle (ie distorted inaccurate "facts").