Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

No, not siblings. Not in my version of Corinthians. Just "brethren"; not "of The Lord".

Just having gentle fun with those who keep insisting Paul means 'blood kin' when he uses the word 'brother'.

...But since you value Biblical evidence...

You mean like the Galatians 1:19 means 'blood-brother of Jesus' folks?

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas ...

And four hundred and ninety six others? Again, not in my copy.

So your argument is we should chuck out the epistles and keep gMatthew?

Or maybe Paul is using a fictive kinship like the other mystery religions of the time?

 

[dejudge]

The way I see it it there are several options.

1) Gospel narratives did exist in some form when Paul written.....

This is the only option supported by the evidence.

A Pauline writer claimed he PERSECUTED the Faith.

A Pauline writer claimed he DELIVERED the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus according to the Scriptures.

A Pauline writer claimed he was the Last to be seen of the RESURRECTED Jesus.

The Pauline writers must know the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Pauline writers MUST know what the PERSECUTED believed.

The Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke according to Origen and Eusebius.

The story of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus the Son of God was extremely important to the Pauline writers.


1. 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.

2. Philippians 3:10 KJV

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.

3. 1 Corinthians 15:17 KJV

And if Christ be not raised , your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

4. Galatians 1 KJV

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

5. Romans 10:9 KJV

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved .

6. 1 Corinthians 2:2 KJV

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

7. Galatians 2:20 KJV

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

8. 1 Thessalonians KJV

9 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; 10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come .

 

[IanS]

No, not siblings. Not in my version of Corinthians. Just "brethren"; not "of The Lord".

They were not brethren of the lord? Who were they brethren of? All brothers in the same family? Their mother had 500 children?? Whose "brothers" were they?

Or was this a case of Paul saying these 500 people were brothers in belief? Belief in what? Belief in the "lord" Jesus?

If you picked one of those 500, would he then be a "brother of the lord" according to Paul's description?

 

[Craig B]

They were not brethren of the lord? Who were they brethren of? All brothers in the same family? Their mother had 500 children?? Whose "brothers" were they?

Or was this a case of Paul saying these 500 people were brothers in belief? Belief in what? Belief in the "lord" Jesus?

If you picked one of those 500, would he then be a "brother of the lord" according to Paul's description?

I can't believe you mean this nonsense, so I won't waste time commenting on it. The 500 are not described as brothers of The Lord. James is; and the Synoptics notice a James who was a family member, and described as a brother, of Jesus. Please address this, rather than resorting to gibberish as a mode of obfuscating a clear question.

 

[IanS]

I can't believe you mean this nonsense, so I won't waste time commenting on it.

No credible answer then? Completely stumped huh ... OK, try the question again -

They were not brothers of the lord? Who were they brothers of? All brothers in the same family? Their mother had 500 children??

Whose "brothers" were they Craig?

If you picked one of those 500, would he then be a "brother of the lord" according to Paul's description?

 

[Craig B]

No credible answer then? Completely stumped huh ... OK, try the question again -

Try the answer again. Don't pretend you don't understand my point.

The 500 are not described as brothers of The Lord. James is; and the Synoptics notice a James who was a family member, and described as a brother, of Jesus. Please address this, rather than resorting to gibberish as a mode of obfuscating a clear question.

 

[dejudge]

I can't believe you mean this nonsense, so I won't waste time commenting on it. The 500 are not described as brothers of The Lord. James is; and the Synoptics notice a James who was a family member, and described as a brother, of Jesus. ......

There is NO Apostle James who was the brother of Jesus.

The Pauline letters are sources of fiction, forgeries and were not known to have been composed before c 70 CE.

The matter was ALSO addressed over 1500 years ago.

Apologetic writers, those who commented on the very Galatians 1.19, claimed James the Apostle was NOT the brother of Jesus.

1. Chrysostom's Commentary on Galatians

... he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him “the Lord's brother,” although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed.

2. Jerome's De Viris Illustribus

James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife, as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord...

3. Papias' Fragments

Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphæus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle...

Do you have birth certificates for YOUR HJ and James?

If not, you are wasting time.

The Pauline writers were KNOWN Liars for hundreds of years.

Macarius Magnes' Apocritus

We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.

 

[Craig B]

Do you have birth certificates for YOUR HJ and James?

If not, you are wasting time.

I think you've fallen over the edge now, dejudge.

 

[jobberone]

Most Rabbis and Jewish theologians don't argue against the existence of Jesus but of his claim to be the Messiah or if you will Masiah.

You would think non-Messianic Jews would dismiss it merely by denying his existence. That they don't is problematic for anyone claiming Jesus as myth.

BTW, current thought on Gnosticism is it started in the second century.

There are many theologians in the world many of whom are not Christian. Of course just because the majority of theologians dismiss Jesus as myth is not proof of his existence but it should make one pause.

It is difficult to declare that Mohammed was real and therefore Islam and still make the proclamation Jesus never existed. Islam does not deny the existence of Jesus but denies his divinity. Again this is not proof Jesus existed but one can't make the argument Mohammed is real and Jesus is not without raising eyebrows.

One can only use historical methodology to affirm or deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth just as one would any person born thousands of years ago. There is no other evidence.

 

[Brainache]

I think you've fallen over the edge now, dejudge.

OH NOES!

Jesus was from Kenya!

 

[dejudge]

Do you have birth certificates for YOUR HJ and James?

If not, you are wasting time.

The Pauline writers were KNOWN Liars for hundreds of years.

Macarius Magnes' Apocritus

We conclude then that he is a liar and manifestly brought up in an atmosphere of lying.

I think you've fallen over the edge now, dejudge.

Paul was a known liar for hundreds of years.

Eusebius' Against Hierocles

And this point is also worth noticing, that whereas the tales of Jesus have been vamped up by Peter and Paul and a few others of the kind,--men who were liars and devoid of education and wizards

 

[IanS]

Try the answer again. Don't pretend you don't understand my point.

Who's brothers were they Craig?

You are totally stumped?

 

[Craig B]

Who's brothers were they Craig?

If you show me their birth certificates I'll tell you.

 

[dejudge]

1. Peter and Paul were known liars for hundreds of years based on Macarius Magnes and Hierocles.

2. There are no NT manuscripts or stories of Jesus and Paul which have been found and dated to pre 70 CE.

3. Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Holy Ghost and was God Creator.

4. Paul, the Liar, claimed he and Over 500 persons was seen of the Resurrected Jesus.

5. Paul, the Liar, Testified that he is a WITNESS that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The NT is just a Pack of LIES about Jesus and Paul.

Who told people that the Pauline letters were composed before c 70 CE and before the Gospels?

It wasn't the Pauline writers.

It wasn't the author of Acts.

It wasn't the author of 2 Peter.

It wasn't the author of 1st Clement.

It wasn't the author of the Ignatian Epistles.

Is Somebody lying?

By the way, HJ is nameless, faceless and without a human father.

 

[wendy moir]

I suspect that when it came time to create an orthodoxy out of the disparate strands of savior cults there may well have been strands that conflated 'the good' with 'the anointed' based on the similarity of the words. The creators of some of the literature seemed also to have some difficulties with understanding the Septuagint and didn't realize it contained significant mistranslations.

You are using Historians to make quotes regarding Philosophical literature, yet were the ancient Philosophers historians?

Meaning of Philosopher
person engaged or learned in philosophy, especially as an academic discipline.

synonyms:

thinker, theorist, theorizer, theoretician, philosophizer, metaphysicist, metaphysician, epistemologist, dialectician, logician
Middle English: from a variant of Old French philosophe, via Latin from Greek philosophos ‘lover of wisdom’, from philein ‘to love’ + sophos ‘wise’.

Do Historians understand these values applied to the actual literature itself?

The summary of the Bible relates to Mother abomination. The Mother, who had to have been a holy body herself relates to a review of her holy child being born, the murder of her holy child, that then led the story line into the Mother's own abomination.

Why don't you read the literature as it is implied?

If Christ by Philosophical reviews related to Carpenter and Carpenter a hidden philosophical term for tectonics, then the correct review is established.

We call Mother our Nature don't we?

For a Historian to review the life of Christ, it has to be given a numerical feature, yet the use and application of 0AD did not apply previously until the review of religion was undertaken and applied.

The Anno Domini era was introduced in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470–c. 544), who used it to identify the years on his Easter table. He introduced the new era to avoid using the Diocletian era, based on the accession of Emperor Diocletian, as he did not wish to continue the memory of a persecutor of Christians. In the preface to his Easter table, Dionysius stated that the "present year" was "the consulship of Probus Junior [Flavius Anicius Probus Iunior]" which was also 525 years "since the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ".[1] How he arrived at that number is unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(year)

 

[Stone]

No credible answer then? Completely stumped huh ... OK, try the question again -

Try the answer again. Don't pretend you don't understand my point.

The 500 are not described as brothers of The Lord. James is; and the Synoptics notice a James who was a family member, and described as a brother, of Jesus. Please address this, rather than resorting to gibberish as a mode of obfuscating a clear question.

I'm betting he will never address it, Craig -- or pretend not to understand your point.

Stone

 

[IanS]

If you show me their birth certificates I'll tell you.

OK so it's plain for everyone to see that yet again you have absolutely no answer and cannot ever admit your constant mistakes in this subject.

Paul is very clearly talking about 500 brothers and sisters in belief.

What you have there is an absolutely undeniable example of Paul using the word "brothers" to mean brothers in their shared religious belief of Christ the Lord.

It was inescapable, but as so often with your posts, you still could not admit it even to yourself, even though it was obvious to everyone here that you could have no other genuine reply.

Your position throughout these threads has been one of constant self-delusion and denial of evidence which is undeniably stated directly in the very words of Paul’s letters ... the same letters and the same words that you are trying to claim as evidence of a living Jesus who Paul very plainly and quite certainly never did claim to know and never did claim that anyone else ever knew Jesus either, inc. “brother” James (whoever that “James” was).

 

[dejudge]

Most Rabbis and Jewish theologians don't argue against the existence of Jesus but of his claim to be the Messiah or if you will Masiah.

What an absurd argument!!!

Most Rabbis and Jewish theologians do not argue against the existence of God the father of Jesus in the NT.

You would think non-Messianic Jews would dismiss it merely by denying his existence. That they don't is problematic for anyone claiming Jesus as myth.

What an absurd argument!!!

Belief of existence is not evidence.

There may be billions of people who honestly believe Jesus existed WITHOUT any supporting evidence.

There are many theologians in the world many of whom are not Christian. Of course just because the majority of theologians dismiss Jesus as myth is not proof of his existence but it should make one pause.

You have confirmed that the HJ argument is a failure of logic once it is understood that Belief of existence is NOT evidence of existence.

One can only use historical methodology to affirm or deny the existence of Jesus of Nazareth just as one would any person born thousands of years ago. There is no other evidence.

You have confirmed the HJ argument is a failure of facts.

You have conveniently forgotten that there is NO actual dated evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE for the assumed nameless and faceless HJ.

Every single source with the Jesus story is dated in the 2nd century or later and described Jesus as the Son of God born of a Ghost or God Creator the Logos or that he Walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected.

 

[David Mo]

Surprising that all those sceptical authors from Bruno Bauer to Albert Schweitzer to G.A.Wells and right up to Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty today, all failed to notice the real family of Jesus.

I do not know what reasons Bruno Bauer, Albert Schweitzer and George A. Wells had, but I think they maintained different points of view enough to not lump them all in the same boat. Maybe you like to tell us any of these reasons and we can discuss them here.

However, take care with your argument because it can turn against you. I can ask why Carrier and Doherty are unable to persuade the majority of historians and the answer will be similar or worse for mythicist side.

As for Carrier and Doherty, yes I know their arguments and they seem flimsy. We have discussed here the interpretation of "James, the brother of the Lord" and I think I showed that it is not grammatically consistent.

Galatians 1:18-20
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except ]James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now in what I am writing to you, I assure you before God that I am not lying.)​

(…)

Ellegard (also Doherty) claims that “brother” means here what at present is said “brother in Christ”, the belonging to the community of disciples. An analysis (…) clearly undermines this interpretation.

First premise. "Peter, the other players and James, the Gipsy" denotes that James has a defining feature that identifies him among the others: he is a Gipsy.
Second premise. "Peter, the other apostles and James, the Lord's brother", denotes that James has a defining feature that identifies him among the others: he is the brother or the Lord.
Third premise: "Brother” has two possible meanings: "brother in Christ" or "brother in blood".
Fourth premise: All the other people quoted here are "brothers in Christ".
Conclusion: "Brother of the Lord" identifies James only as brother in blood of Jesus.

It is clear, is it not?

In any case, you had written:

In the epistles of various early Christians (as distinct from the gospels), it is apparently true that nobody ever witnessed Jesus except as a spiritual belief, said to be in accordance with divine revelation and OT scriptural prophecy.

As a body of objective credible “evidence”, that is frankly worthless.

This is strictly false. Some Pauline epistles, usually admitted as genuine, speak about the Jesus' family. Either true or not that the family of Jesus existed, what is clear is that some early texts of Christianity spoke of people who had known Jesus as a human. May be you wanted to say another thing and you were not too precise.


Albert Schweitzer:

“Jesus as a concrete historical personality remains a stranger to our time, but His spirit, which lies hidden in His words, is known in simplicity, and its influence is direct. Every saying contains in its own way the whole Jesus”. (Albert Schweitzer: The Quest of Historical Jesus, London, Adam and Charles Black, 1911; p. 399)

A strange "sceptic".

 

[David Mo]

The Pauline Epistles were NOT composed before c 70 CE--they are ANTI-MARCIONITE writings composed NO earlier than than the 2nd century or later.

Have you any evidence of this dramatic conclusion? Because it is logically inconsistent with your premises.