Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

Leaving this vituperation aside: if people who think there was probably a real person behind the gospel Jesus stories are not sceptics or agnostics, what do you imagine them to be? All religious believers?

Nope.

ETA I did not claim HJ is only attractive to non-skeptics.

Where is the need to pose such a loaded rhetorical question?

 

[Belz...]

Nope.

ETA I did not claim HJ is only attractive to non-skeptics.

Where is the need to pose such a loaded rhetorical question?

Who cares if it's attractive or not ? Aren't we talking about evidence and reasoning and best explanations ?

 

[maximara]

Who cares if it's attractive or not ? Aren't we talking about evidence and reasoning and best explanations ?

Right and when you get to it the evidence is at best really poor and the best explanation that we are currently given is some preacher named Jesus stirred up enough trouble to get himself crucified but not enough that anyone but his followers paid any attention for a minimum of 60 years which we are not even sure of, and even then all anybody had were vague John Frumish like tales of his deeds and words for another 40 years.

 

[IanS]

See #6490. But of course your differences may indeed have no importance whatsoever.

What? You are telling me to go back to a post between you and dejudge, and asking me to work out from that what you might be talking about to me?

If you have a dispute with anything I have posted then just ask me about it (don't just say "see #6490" as if I should interpret whatever you might have meant by that).

 

[dejudge]

Right and when you get to it the evidence is at best really poor and the best explanation that we are currently given is some preacher named Jesus stirred up enough trouble to get himself crucified but not enough that anyone but his followera paid any attention for a minimum of 60 years and even then all anybody had were vague John Frumish like tells of his deeds and words for another 40 years.

There is no story that Jesus of the NT was a little known character for 60 years after he was crucified.

It is claimed that Paul preached Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE around the Roman Empire in Major cities and even Rome.

In the NT thousands of people in Galilee followed Jesus hoping to be healed and to get free food.

Where is the source of antiquity which mentions a little known trouble maker called Jesus of Nazareth?

There is no source for such a character.

The HJ argument is un-evidenced and source-less.

 

[Belz...]

Right and when you get to it the evidence is at best really poor

I've agreed with this statement since way before this thread began. Poor doesn't mean non-existent, however, or non-significant.

and the best explanation that we are currently given is some preacher named Jesus stirred up enough trouble to get himself crucified but not enough that anyone but his followers paid any attention for a minimum of 60 years which we are not even sure of, and even then all anybody had were vague John Frumish like tales of his deeds and words for another 40 years.

That, however, I don't agree to. You've yet to agree to one of my proposals: that the MJ ("no man behind the myth") hypothesis has zero evidence for it, contrary to the amittedly-poor HJ evidence. Can you voice a response to this without resorting to straw-MJ lists ?

 

[Belz...]

There is no story that Jesus of the NT was a little known character for 60 years after he was crucified.

It is claimed that Paul preached Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE around the Roman Empire in Major cities and even Rome.

In the NT thousands of people in Galilee followed Jesus hoping to be healed and to get free food.

Where is the source of antiquity which mentions a little known trouble maker called Jesus of Nazareth?

There is no source for such a character.

The HJ argument is un-evidenced and source-less.

You know, Dejudge, you're doing a fine job arguing for HJ.

 

[Craig B]

Nope.

ETA I did not claim HJ is only attractive to non-skeptics.

Where is the need to pose such a loaded rhetorical question?

It arises from your loaded rhetorical statement.

and I express disgust at hostility to agnostics and skeptics.

That is, I must be hostile to agnostics and sceptics. Therefore I must be something other than that. But the only topic of dispute between us is the historicity of Jesus. Therefore people who oppose you on this issue, it would seem, are not agnostics or sceptics. And so I decided to ask you what you think they are instead of being agnostics or sceptics.

 

[IanS]

It arises from your loaded rhetorical statement.

That is, I must be hostile to agnostics and sceptics. Therefore I must be something other than that. But the only topic of dispute between us is the historicity of Jesus. Therefore people who oppose you on this issue, it would seem, are not agnostics or sceptics. And so I decided to ask you what you think they are instead of being agnostics or sceptics.

How sceptical are you about the existence of Jesus? You have been arguing that the evidence is enough to convince you that he existed, haven’t you?

Sceptics are people who express doubt about things claimed by others.

Here “sceptics” probably include those who express considerable doubt about the actual existence of Jesus, those who might think that if there was ever any such person then he would not have born any meaningful relation to the figure described in the bible, or simply those who doubt the evidence claimed to support the belief. Also in the present case it seems, some of us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

 

[Belz...]

How sceptical are you about the existence of Jesus? You have been arguing that the evidence is enough to convince you that he existed, haven’t you?

Sceptics are people who express doubt about things claimed by others.

Here “sceptics” probably include those who express considerable doubt about the actual existence of Jesus, those who might think that if there was ever any such person then he would not have born any meaningful relation to the figure described in the bible, or simply those who doubt the evidence claimed to support the belief. Also in the present case it seems, some if us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

Doubting doesn't mean you can't reach conclusions.

 

[tsig]

What? You are telling me to go back to a post between you and dejudge, and asking me to work out from that what you might be talking about to me?

If you have a dispute with anything I have posted then just ask me about it (don't just say "see #6490" as if I should interpret whatever you might have meant by that).

It might simplify things if we put numbers to the oft repeated arguments.

1) All Academic Authority agrees with an HJ.

2) Some magical stories don't mean all the stories are false.

3) Denying the HJ means denying all History.

4) Calling the poster uneducated and no true skeptic

5) Ect. ect. ect.


Then we can just post the # and save bandwidth.

To save time this post will be a 4

 

[dejudge]

There is no story that Jesus of the NT was a little known character for 60 years after he was crucified.

It is claimed that Paul preached Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE around the Roman Empire in Major cities and even Rome.

In the NT thousands of people in Galilee followed Jesus hoping to be healed and to get free food.

Where is the source of antiquity which mentions a little known trouble maker called Jesus of Nazareth?

There is no source for such a character.

The HJ argument is un-evidenced and source-less.

You know, Dejudge, you're doing a fine job arguing for HJ.

What a big lie.

You would not be arguing against me if I argued for an HJ.

You actually stated that you NEVER claim to have had evidence for an HJ and then contradicted yourself claiming that the evidence is TERRIBLE.

You have NO evidence for an HJ.

You are doing a Terrible job arguing for YOUR HJ for whom you have NO evidence.

 

[maximara]

It might simplify things if we put numbers to the oft repeated arguments.

1) All Academic Authority agrees with an HJ.

2) Some magical stories don't mean all the stories are false.

3) Denying the HJ means denying all History.

4) Calling the poster uneducated and no true skeptic

5) Ect. ect. ect.


Then we can just post the # and save bandwidth.

To save time this post will be a 4

True but the rebuttals are equally simple:

1) Horace Minor showed 50+ years ago that the model can drive the data to a preset conclusion and the Great Person theory has been a driving force in history until the 1970s.

2) The non magical parts of the Jesus story can be shown to non-historical nonsense.

3) Many of the "big names" in history have far better evidence then Jesus in terms of closeness in time and-or quality.

4) The No True Scotsman fallacy.

5) John Frum cult shows that the idea isn't nonsense and there are many parallels.

 

[maximara]

I've agreed with this statement since way before this thread began. Poor doesn't mean non-existent, however, or non-significant.

maximara: the best explanation that we are currently given is some preacher named Jesus stirred up enough trouble to get himself crucified but not enough that anyone but his followers paid any attention for a minimum of 60 years which we are not even sure of, and even then all anybody had were vague John Frumish like tales of his deeds and words for another 40 years.



That, however, I don't agree to. You've yet to agree to one of my proposals: that the MJ ("no man behind the myth") hypothesis has zero evidence for it, contrary to the amittedly-poor HJ evidence. Can you voice a response to this without resorting to straw-MJ lists ?

As I have repeatedly said John Frum give us a real world baseline to work from and we know that there were would be Messiah's (ie Christs) before, during, and after the time Jesus supposedly lived.

Again the MJ is NOT just the "no man behind the myth" strawman people think it is. The Gospel Jesus could be a composite character ala Robin Hood with many people behind the myth. It would be more accurate to say the MJ is the idea that the stories regarding Jesus cannot be traced back to a single individual c30 CE who preached the message presented in the Gospels and was executed in the manner described within.


The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982 and 1995 defined the MJ as the story of Jesus not being true NOT there is no man beyond the myth.

Jesus Legend and Jesus Myth both of which accept a HJ behind the Gospels are called MJ books by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd mainly because those books say Paul's Jesus was a mythical (in the legendary sense) being from a much earlier time.

Besides the "no man behind the myth" song and dance fails with the one of the most famous known fictional characters in the Western world: Sherlock Holmes. That is because Holmes was based on at least two and perhaps three flesh and blood men: Joseph Bell, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and Jerome Caminada. So even a fictional character may have a person behind them.

For all we know Paul latched on the name of some preacher he heard about while going after believers in a messiah that would come and literate them from Roman rule.

Paul's conversion is said to have occurred between 33–36 CE but based on the what can be gleamed from Josephus John the Baptist was beheaded in 36 CE and Jesus by the Gospels was still preaching...so Paul could have seen his crucified Jesus before the Gospel one got himself crucified. In fact this would be a variant of MJer John Robertson's 1900 idea that "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles."

In fact, this is where George Walsh's "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." idea slams headlong into a brick wall. Say Paul converted in 31 CE and inspired a person to take up the name Jesus and preach ending with the guy being crucified by 36 CE and it is that person the Gospels are based on. Here you have BOTH MJ and HJ in one little package...exactly is the case with Wells' Jesus Myth and later books (only his HJ doesn't get himself crucified)...which are called Christ Myth books.

 

[proudfootz]

Who cares if it's attractive or not ? Aren't we talking about evidence and reasoning and best explanations ?

I was just responding to the weird strawman being presented that I'm somehow accusing people of being religious believers.



If we were talking about evidence etc then we wouldn't be talking about me.

Would we?

 

[proudfootz]

How sceptical are you about the existence of Jesus? You have been arguing that the evidence is enough to convince you that he existed, haven’t you?

Sceptics are people who express doubt about things claimed by others.

Here “sceptics” probably include those who express considerable doubt about the actual existence of Jesus, those who might think that if there was ever any such person then he would not have born any meaningful relation to the figure described in the bible, or simply those who doubt the evidence claimed to support the belief. Also in the present case it seems, some of us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

I'm just puzzled as to why it's so important for anyone to try and depict you as MJ when it seems you have patiently explained that you are agnostic.

 

[proudfootz]

You've yet to agree to one of my proposals: that the MJ ("no man behind the myth") hypothesis has zero evidence for it, contrary to the amittedly-poor HJ evidence.

Why would anyone agree with a false statement such as this?

Isn't it patently obvious that christian literature is full of mythology? Prophetic dreams, magic, corpses rising from the grave, people walking on water, etc etc etc?

What sort of evidence would one expect to find for a non-existent thing?

Only things that exist are capable of leaving evidence.

 

[Craig B]

How sceptical are you about the existence of Jesus? You have been arguing that the evidence is enough to convince you that he existed, haven’t you?

Sceptics are people who express doubt about things claimed by others.

Here “sceptics” probably include those who express considerable doubt about the actual existence of Jesus, those who might think that if there was ever any such person then he would not have born any meaningful relation to the figure described in the bible, or simply those who doubt the evidence claimed to support the belief. Also in the present case it seems, some of us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

So you believe that those who conclude that the historicity of Jesus is probable, are in a willing state of submission to "bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers"; and that these are charlatans and liars.

I see.

 

[dejudge]

So you believe that those who conclude that the historicity of Jesus is probable, are in a willing state of submission to "bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers"; and that these are charlatans and liars.

I see.

What do you call a person who believes Jesus was 100% God and 100% man but teaches Jesus was only a man?

There is a name for people who teach what they do not believe and cannot present any evidence for what they teach.

Dr. Dale Martin, a Christian Scholar, a Professor at Yale, admits he believes the Real Jesus is 100% God and 100% man--God Incarnate--but teaches WITHOUT any actual evidence from antiquity that Jesus was a man.

Dr. Dale Martin discredits the Bible but simultaneously believes it WITHOUT corroboration.

This is unacceptable at any level.

 

[IanS]

How sceptical are you about the existence of Jesus? You have been arguing that the evidence is enough to convince you that he existed, haven’t you?

Sceptics are people who express doubt about things claimed by others.

Here “sceptics” probably include those who express considerable doubt about the actual existence of Jesus, those who might think that if there was ever any such person then he would not have born any meaningful relation to the figure described in the bible, or simply those who doubt the evidence claimed to support the belief. Also in the present case it seems, some of us doubting that bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers are as neutral and objective as they would have us believe on the issue of Jesus.

I’m not sure you are really sceptical, i.e. seriously doubting, of those things are you?

So you believe that those who conclude that the historicity of Jesus is probable, are in a willing state of submission to "bible scholars, theologians and Christian writers"; and that these are charlatans and liars.

I see.

Where in the above does it say any of those things at all?

You are making it up!

Where does it talk about people as “charlatans and liars”? Or anyone being in a “willing state of submission”?

Far too many of your posts just seem to be quite blatant misrepresentation of what other people have said.