Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

There are lots of other references to James as Jesus' brother.

What a big lie.

It is the complete opposite.

There are lots of references that DENY or do NOT show that James the Apostle was the actual brother of Jesus the Son of God.

1. The fragments of Papias.

2. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus.

3. Eusebius' Church History.

4. Rufinus' Preface to the Recognitions

5. Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians.

6. gMark.

7. gMatthew.

8. gLuke.

9. gJohn

10. Acts of the Apostles.

Centuries later, Chrysostom was trying to prove that Mary was a perpetual Virgin. He also said that Jews eat babies. He is not someone to take seriously on this subject.

Well, well, well!!! What an absurd argument!! Why are you telling me about Chrysostom and Galatians in the 21st century?

You are NOT someone that I can take seriously on the subject 1600 years later.
Virtually all Apologetic writers before and after Chrysostom admitted their Jesus was born of a Virgin and a Ghost.

You don't even know when Galatians was composed but you take it at FACE VALUE.

The earliest Galatians is from the 2nd century or later.

Why on earth do you believe his insane ravings?

You believe the insane ravings in Galatians when you admit Paul is a Liar.

You don't even know the value of contradicting evidence.

You do not understand that the writings attributed to Papias, Jerome, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John and Acts CONTRADICT Galatians 1.19.

I cannot accept Galatians 1.19 at face value when multiple Apologetic sources CONTRADICT Paul who was considered a Liar.

Why do you accept Galatians 1.19 at FACE VALUE when you admit Paul was a LIAR.?

 

[Craig B]

Yes, but except for Josephus, whose received testimony is of dicey authenticity and even if more authentic than tuned up, is not necessarily talking about the right pair of brothers, the rest of the references are from people who've read Galatians. Pro or con the biological brother hypothesis, it's all commentary on Paul.

But the synoptic references to a James in the list of Jesus' siblings are also significant.

Craig B

Many happy returns of the day.

Thank you.

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz

Not as you stated it in in your earlier post, "to get from a failed dead nobody to co-creator of the universe in a matter of months. " That didn't happen.

No? The traditional story we've inherited from christianity is that Paul's conversion was shortly after the alleged death of a Jesus - not decades or centuries later.

Paul's epistles are uniformly low christology.

No, they're not.

"The concept of "Cosmic Christology", first elaborated by Saint Paul, focuses on how the arrival of Jesus as the Son of God forever changed the nature of the cosmos... The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the fourth gospel, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God, as in 2 Corinthians 5:17"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

"Paul did think of Jesus as God. It seems reasonable to conclude that Paul certainly had a high Christology, in which Jesus received worship and devotion, that was without clear precedent in the Judaism of the first century."

http://carm.org/paul-think-jesus-was-god

" How could Paul embrace “higher” views of Christ than those found in later writings such as Matthew, Mark, and Luke? Didn’t Christology develop from a “low” Christology to a “high” Christology (using these terms that I am no longer fond of) over time? And if so, shouldn’t the views of the Synoptic Gospels be “higher” than the views of Paul? But they’re not! They are “lower.” "

http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/

But I'm always glad to see someone on these threads willing to chuck out the 'academic consensus' on its ear - well done!

By their own account, they are one or two decades after their author's conversion. That's a lot of months, and Jesus isn't God's number one yet for another forty years, maybe more.

So your theory is that Paul developed his notions over time.

On the other hand it's possible his views didn't radically change.

I ask again, who is arguing that Jesus was proclaimed a god within months of his death? On what basis? Surely not Paul (in the seven consensus epistles).

It may be the 'academic consensus' that Paul held an elevated view of Jesus is wrong. Bart Ehrman thinks the evidence shows Paul thought Jesus was an Angel (not a mortal):

" Paul understood Christ to be an angel who became a human."

http://ehrmanblog.org/pauls-christology/

There are a variety of proposed historical Jesuses. They range from painfully ordinary to arguably extraordinary on a par with, say, John the Baptist. Whether somebody is God is not a historical question, and that's simply not the HJ problem. Accounting for the production of the Gospels by second and third generation Chrsitianity is a historical problem, "reconciling" them with an original actual Jesus is not necessarily the correct accounting for the Gospels' production.

Yes, the HJ is a 19th century problem.

In my view part of the process where a pre-existing heavenly being, as in Paul, becomes progressively more 'humanized' until by modern times he has become little more than a failed and deluded man who died a miserable death.

Paul was preaching that, and he wasn't a follower of anybody in the movement. So, again, before there can be an explanation, first there has to be something to explain. For what did happen, Paul already explains: he saw a ghost and thought it was the end of the world.

Indeed, if Paul can become a believer without any trace of an historical Jesus, what does the putative existence of such a person add to a theory of christian origins?

If Paul could get his info about Jesus from scripture and visions, there is no need to postulate anything more.

 

[proudfootz]

The cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular show that people who want to believe in something with either latch on some one they heard about (who most of the time known nothing of their cult) or create a supposed founder.

Also remember that nearly from the conception of History by Herodotus (c484 – 425 BCE) myths were considered distorted accounts of real historical events. All Euhemerus (4th century - 3rd century BCE) really brought to the table was the idea that all myths had some basis in historical fact

For example, Euhemerus stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete. Eusebius who wrote a history of the Church in the 4th century CE said that Heracles was a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and had been a king in Argos. "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Hastings, James; John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray (1919) Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10) captures this point perfectly.

This assumption of men becoming mythical gods could have been what Justin Martyr really meant when he wrote "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter." ie Jupiter (Zeus) was once a flesh and blood man around who all these fantastic stories grew around until he became a god and the same is true of Jesus.

Yet today few people talk about the historical Zeus, Heracles, Osiris, Attis, or Adonis. Rather they are simply said to be myths and its called a day even though in the time Jesus supposedly lived they were thought by the historians of the day to have been as much people of flesh and blood as he was.

Sure trying to figure out how Euhemerism could apply to Genesis or the story of Adam of Eve is a bit of a head scratcher but is it really that off the wall to say Heracles could have been an actual person whose exploits were through retelling turned into these fantastical tales?

Yet the idea is not even considered with Heracles being blown off as a totally mythical person while all kinds of efforts to explain all the fantastical non historical stuff around Jesus to show he actually existed. Why is that, hmm?

This brings up an intriguing possibility - once the notion that even religions and gods might have have an origin in human history, perhaps the emerging savior cult that became known as christianity made its mark by euhemerizing its hero.

This might explain why it takes so long for the narratives and their sometimes non-fantastical elements to become part of the literature. Why the sudden need to have 'gospels' in the 2nd century but not in the 1st?

 

[dejudge]

Seriously, it is unlikely the Gospels existed in Paul's time otherwise he would not have written things that conflicted with them and would not have been so vague regarding Jesus. As I said before Paul can't seem to keep straight if he is talking about a normal man who is bringing God's message, a demigod, or god himself taken human form. Not something you would expect regarding an actual man who preached within living memory but it is what you would expect of a vision creation that tapped into some existing belief.

Well, it is unlikely that the Pauline Corpus did exist in the time of the Gospels, Acts, Non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation otherwise they would NOT have written things that conflicted with the Pauline Corpus.

After all was it NOT Paul who supposedly PHYSICALLY preached his Revelations and Revealed Gospel AROUND the Roman Empire, started Gentiles Churches and DOCUMENTED his Revealed Gospel?

It would appear that Not a single author of the NT Canon ever attended a Pauline Church. It would appear that not a single author of the NT Canon remembered that Pauline letters were actually read in the Churches.

The Pauline writers not only knew the story of Jesus they "KNEW" the Apostles Peter and James found in the Gospels and Acts.

Paul claimed he met James the Apostle and stayed with Peter for 15 days in Jerusalem.
Galatians 1.18-19

The Apostles James and Peter were most likely FICTION characters in the NT. There is no actual pre 70 CE evidence for the existence of the Apostles James and Peter.

The Apostles Peter and James are found ONLY in the Gospels and Apologetic writings.
The Gospels were most likely composed AFTER c 70 CE.

Paul knew gLuke according to Apologetic writers.

See Origen's "Commentary on Matthew 1" and Eusebius "Church History" 6.25

 

[proudfootz]

Uh, parts of this are standard Historical methodology for

1) Core principles for determining reliability (Olden-Jørgensen and Thurén Källkritik. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell)

2) Eyewitness evidence (R. J. Shafer, A Guide to Historical Method, The Dorsey Press: Illinois (1974). ISBN 0-534-10825-3.)

3) Indirect witnesses and Oral tradition (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method, Fordham University Press: New York (1946). ISBN 0-8371-7132-6)

4) Argument to the best explanation aka Occam's Razor (C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, Cambridge University Press: New York (1984). ISBN 0-521-31830-0.)

Don't bother - 'bible studies' doesn't seem to be bound by the criteria that applies to normal history.

Always remember: Jesus is special!

 

[dejudge]

..Indeed, if Paul can become a believer without any trace of an historical Jesus, what does the putative existence of such a person add to a theory of christian origins?

Again, where is the actual evidence that any Pauline letter was composed before c 70 CE?

We cannot be repeating the same un-evidenced assumptions day after day.

The Pauline Corpus is no different to any of the writings in the Canon. They are compilations of forgeries or falsely attributed writings like the Gospels, the non-Pauline Epistles and Revelation.

The Pauline writers were merely claiming to be WITNESSES of the Resurrected Jesus which could not even be true if Jesus did exist.

The Pauline writers ADMITTED the story of the resurrected Jesus was ALREADY known and BELIEVED by those they PERSECUTED.

The Pauline writers ADMITTED the STORY that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and raised from the dead was ALREADY written.

The BLASPHEMY that a man was sacrificed for the sins of mankind and resurrected on the third day is NOT found anywhere in Hebrew Scripture ONLY in the NT Scriptures and Apologetics.


1 Corinthians 15:3 KJV

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received , how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

And that he was buried , and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.

It does not logically follow that the Persecutor of those who believed the story of the resurrected Jesus was simultaneously the originator.

Apologetic writers have admitted Paul knew gLuke and that he wrote his letters to Churches AFTER the Apocalypse of John.

This appears to be confirmed because the ONLY passage from the Gospels in the Pauline Corpus is from gLuke, a 2nd century writer, Justin Martyr, mentioned the Apocalypse of John and never the Pauline letters, several Pauline letters have now been deduced to be forgeries or falsely attributed and the earliest dated manuscripts are 2nd century or later.


The assumption that Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE is completely un-evidenced.

 

[tsig]

Don't bother - 'bible studies' doesn't seem to be bound by the criteria that applies to normal history.

Always remember: Jesus is special!

A lot of people who have left Christianity can't seem to get Jesus out of their hearts.

Denying Jesus is like dissin' your mother, burning the flag and spitting in an apple pie all rolled into one.

With Ehrman I suspect the heart and the wallet both weigh in.

 

[proudfootz]

A lot of people who have left Christianity can't seem to get Jesus out of their hearts.

Denying Jesus is like dissin' your mother, burning the flag and spitting in an apple pie all rolled into one.

With Ehrman I suspect the heart and the wallet both weigh in.

It's not unusual for the alleged 'motives' of scholars who critique HJ claims to be attacked - one of which is that MJ is a way to 'make lots of money'.

But it is the HJ scholars who monopolize all the high-paying jobs and whose books are best sellers year in and year out.

Bart D Ehrman is a North Carolina Religious Studies employee working as a Professor-distinguished/titled. Ehrman makes an annual salary of $158,662, which is 146% greater than the average of all Religious Studies employees ($64,500.00) and 299% greater than the average of all North Carolina employees ($39,741.00).

http://north-carolina-employees.findthebest.com/l/153782/Bart-D-Ehrman

It's difficult to find any ad hominem indulged in by HJers that isn't an obvious example of psychological projection.

It'd be wise for these HJers to refrain from all the stone-throwing as their glass houses are as fragile as any.

 

[Stone]

It's not unusual for the alleged 'motives' of scholars who critique HJ claims to be attacked - one of which is that MJ is a way to 'make lots of money'.

But it is the HJ scholars who monopolize all the high-paying jobs and whose books are best sellers year in and year out.



It's difficult to find any ad hominem indulged in by HJers that isn't an obvious example of psychological projection.

It'd be wise for these HJers to refrain from all the stone-throwing as their glass houses are as fragile as any.

So I guess that's supposed to somehow excuse the scurrilous ad hom filth that you and Tsig are parading here against professional HJ scholars like Ehrman?

Stone

 

[proudfootz]

So I guess that's supposed to somehow excuse the scurrilous ad hom filth that you and Tsig are parading here against professional HJ scholars like Ehrman?

Stone

Just read any of you own posts if you are interested in 'scurrilous ad hom filth'.

I'm just pointing out how moronic and hypocritical it is to suggest critical scholars are motivated by 'making lots of money' when HJers make lots of money too.

Sincerely

proudfootz

 

[tsig]

So I guess that's supposed to somehow excuse the scurrilous ad hom filth that you and Tsig are parading here against professional HJ scholars like Ehrman?

Stone

I say, old chap, that's a bit strong.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair

 

[proudfootz]

I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Ehrman makes more money from his 'Jesus is real' books than he lets on, in addition to his fat salary.

Talk about your 'scurrilous ad hom filth'!

 

[proudfootz]

It makes Stone very angry when the hypocrisy of leading HJers is pointed out.

We're supposed to subscribe to The Double Standard and let our betters do as they please...

 

[Stone]

Just read any of you own posts if you are interested in 'scurrilous ad hom filth'.

I'm just pointing out how moronic and hypocritical it is to suggest critical scholars are motivated by 'making lots of money' when HJers make lots of money too.

Sincerely

proudfootz

-- which is why, I suppose, you are pointedly giving Tsig a pass on what he just spewed. Why the pass? Just to rile up the board? Brainache in this very thread has already described the Dejudge brand of scurrilous filth as clearly ad hom. How is Tsig's filth here any different? Since Brainache has already called it like it is with Dejudge, it's not as if either such filth or the provoking excusing of such filth were being indulged here in ignorance of the eye-poking effect it will produce. So please don't pretend ignorance of that effect. That's even more provoking.

Thank you,

Stone

 

[tsig]

-- which is why, I suppose, you are pointedly giving Tsig a pass on what he just spewed. Why the pass? Just to rile up the board? Brainache in this very thread has already described the Dejudge brand of scurrilous filth as clearly ad hom. How is Tsig's filth here any different? Since Brainache has already called it like it is with Dejudge, it's not as if either such filth or the provoking excusing of such filth were being indulged here in ignorance of the eye-poking effect it will produce. So please don't pretend ignorance of that effect. That's even more provoking.

Thank you,

Stone

It certainly looks like someone is trying to provoke.

ETA: I'm rather nonplussed at the fervency of this attack, seems out of all proportion to what has been posted.

 

[Stone]

-- which is why, I suppose, you are pointedly giving Tsig a pass on what he just spewed. Why the pass? Just to rile up the board? Brainache in this very thread has already described the Dejudge brand of scurrilous filth as clearly ad hom. How is Tsig's filth here any different? Since Brainache has already called it like it is with Dejudge, it's not as if either such filth or the provoking excusing of such filth were being indulged here in ignorance of the eye-poking effect it will produce. So please don't pretend ignorance of that effect. That's even more provoking.

Thank you,

Stone

In fact, Brainache in this post --

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9943780&postcount=3473

-- has already described Proudfootz's style as often ad hom, and I can't say I'm surprised.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

-- which is why, I suppose, you are pointedly giving Tsig a pass on what he just spewed. Why the pass? Just to rile up the board? Brainache in this very thread has already described the Dejudge brand of scurrilous filth as clearly ad hom. How is Tsig's filth here any different? Since Brainache has already called it like it is with Dejudge, it's not as if either such filth or the provoking excusing of such filth were being indulged here in ignorance of the eye-poking effect it will produce. So please don't pretend ignorance of that effect. That's even more provoking.

Thank you,

Stone

You have ALREADY exposed Brainache's post as filth, vacuous nonsense--ad hom attacks.

You forgot that you wrote this.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9936867&postcount=6031


[

Actually, Dejudge's writings as Dejuror have convinced virtually all the posters on the huge RatSkep thread.

They view him as one of _the_ pace-setters today. He's taken as seriously as, if not more seriously than, most of the other posters there. That's how far the perspective there has now tilted toward mythicism galloping away.

That's a fact.

 

[Stone]

But the synoptic references to a James in the list of Jesus' siblings are also significant. Thank you.

Happy Birthday, Craig B. Your participation in these threads is greatly appreciated and your posts are always worth reading.

Cheers!

Stone

 

[eight bits]

Craig B

But the synoptic references to a James in the list of Jesus' siblings are also significant.

But Jesus' synoptic "family" supposedly thought he was mentally ill. There's no scene where anybody in the family changes their mind and asserts a leadership role in the movement. That would be Luke's job, presumably, to tell that story in Acts. Not a hint. John 7 isn't any keener on the brothers than the synoptics.

Unless Jesus' teachings and deeds were irrelevant to the success of the James Gang, how could the leader of the pack be somebody who wasn't taught and didn't see anything interesting when his "brother" was alive?

proudfootz

The traditional story we've inherited from christianity is that Paul's conversion was shortly after the alleged death of a Jesus - not decades or centuries later.

That's also the impression I get from Paul himself. Regardless, Paul's stuff seems the earliest among the documents that climax an estimated several decades to one century after the alleged death in the Fourth Gospel's claiming a supporting role for Christ in the creation.

But I'm always glad to see someone on these threads willing to chuck out the 'academic consensus' on its ear - well done!

Thank you, but I am unsure there is an academic consensus here: wikipedia + CARM + Bart writing for the popular market doesn't add up to a consensus of academics.

So your theory is that Paul developed his notions over time.

No, my estimate is that two generations of different Christian authors developed their notions after Paul died and before the canon closed. Paul seems fairly even keel (but we have to take his word for that).

Bart Ehrman thinks the evidence shows Paul thought Jesus was an Angel...

Yes, that's also the Jehovah's Witnesses' view. It's not a new idea. BTW, since angels are not God, and are created beings, that is a "middle christology," assuming that angels are higher for Paul than Jews (who also, in some versions of Judaism, have a pre-existence of sorts). If not, then Bart and I would agree on a low christology for Paul, and differ only on the details. (Bart doesn't like "high" and "low" as terms, and I understand why. Paul's actual angelology would be entirely speculative... except that by definition, angels are created beings, not God, so not much high christology there).

... (not a mortal):

... and a mortal. Jesus did die, according to Paul, and Jesus now has the same body that all other (human) righteous mortals will have soon. Paul's Jesus is living as a human being, now.

... what does the putative existence of such a person add to a theory of christian origins?

It's hard to imagine making progress on the HJ question and not to make progress on all the other questions about the earliest church, and vice versa. It's all of a piece, I think.

If Paul could get his info about Jesus from scripture and visions, there is no need to postulate anything more.

But there's no indication of that, as has been discussed in these threads ad nauseam.