Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[David Mo]

Well the above post contains little if any useful information at all on the actual subject.

We have discussed before, many dozens of times, why it is completely bogus to claim that rejecting an appalling standard of claimed "evidence" in the case of Jesus does not mean, or even imply in any way at all, that all of ancient history would collapse.

Nobody disputes that the biblical writing, both NT and OT, provides masses of clear “historical” evidence for peoples religious beliefs and ideas of that time. But what it does not contain is any reliable evidence that their supernatural messiah/god was ever a real figure.

"That time"? If you put the dating of Pauline epistles between the First and the Fourth Centuries, of what time we are speaking of? The Christianity was very different in these dates.

 

[Craig B]

That is - it may well be the case that Mathew, Mark, Luke, John etc. never really wrote anything at all, and that no later writers every really knew what sort of gospel anyone of those names ever preached.

The names are later attributions. So of course that is the case. But it is not the issue at all.

All we know is that some completely different anonymous people created the gospel under these names … they are not just copies; the whole thing was first written & created by someone other than Mark, Mathew, Luke, John!

That's right. We know that. Now, address the question which has been asked. If the third century text producers were copyists, what were they copying (inevitable mistakes and possible interpolations aside: all texts from Homer onwards are subject to these)? Or were they the creators of the works?

And the same may easily apply to all of Paul’s letters. That is - Paul may never have written anything at all. What we have, even as the supposed genuine Pauline letters, may quite easily have been composed and written by someone else entirely. And that is actually likely because, wherever we can check, afaik it has always turned out that the named author was not actually the person who wrote the thing!

That's a repetition of your previous point. And it is not the case that Paul has always turned out not to be the author of any of the epistles attributed to him. To be sure, he penned none of the extant manuscripts, but neither did Homer or Plato or Josephus.

ETA I note that

The Homeric papyri are, with the exception of a few ancient quotations, the oldest surviving witnesses to the text of Homer. These papyrus documents are all fragmentary, and range in date from as early as the third century BCE to the seventh century CE. The vast majority of the fragments were discovered in Egypt, and now reside in collections located all over the world.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317073358AAixCAP
Does that mean that Homer wrote in Egypt?

 

[pakeha]

... And it is not the case that Paul has always turned out not to be the author of any of the epistles attributed to him. To be sure, he penned none of the extant manuscripts, but neither did Homer or Plato or Josephus.

How many of the epistles are attributed to Paul these days in mainstream scholarship- 4 or 7? Scholarship changes and moves on and it's not always easy to know what's current.
In any case, what I find interesting about Paul's literature is that it's more or less unknown until we hear about Marcion, around 140. I find Paul's writing to to be great stuff- moving, passionate and convincing. It seems odd he wasn't mentioned til the mid 2nd century, IIRC.
Then there's Acts, of course.

ETA I note that https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317073358AAixCAP
Does that mean that Homer wrote in Egypt?

One of the comments mentions the Ambrosian Library's fantastic restoration. That's a place I'd like to visit.

 

[eight bits]

David Mo

No, David. The correct answer is that there is no grammatical error in my example sentence.

Example: Joshua is a shepherd. He has two sons, Peter and James. Peter is a hunter, chief of a hunting crew comprising Andrew, Judas and Thomas. Joshua's other son, James, is a roofer. James has two children, Joshua and James. They are farmers.

Joshua, the shepherd, threw a party celebrating the successful hunting season. At the party, I saw Peter, the other hunters and James, the shepherd's son.

Grammar governs that which the writer chooses to express, and only that, in particular not what facts are omitted from a sentence. The phrase "the shepherd's son" in my sentence is in apporisiton with James and not with Peter, and that much of the complete true history of the world is correctly expressed according to your own recital of the "rule." Nor would any grammatical issue arise in Greek, either.

The fact remains that Peter is also the shepherd's son in the example. I chose not to express that fact, as is any author's prerogative, and no grammatical issue arises. Peter is already unambiguously identified anyway.

We conclude, as we must, that in Galatians 1: 19 Paul describes James as a "Brother of the Lord" and Paul is silent there on whether or not Peter-Cephas is also a Brother of the Lord. We have no other source, so we do not know whether or not James and Peter-Cephas share the description, in Paul's opinion.

You dodged a direct question, and then falsely denied that you did so. I have no interest in corresponding with you further at this time.

 

[GDon]

Not really.
GDon, you know how the argument about how historical integrity is endangered by questioning the HJ plays out.
Why go through it again?

I've probably missed it. I only check into this thread infrequently. If the "criterion of reliability" of other early sources using copies of copies been discussed in a post, I'd appreciate it if you can point me to it.

The point is that nearly ALL early written sources are copies of copies. Even early Greek and Roman historians probably had to use copies of copies when reporting on histories before their times. And THEIR writings were probably copied as well. I'd like to see how a "criterion of reliability" is used in those cases. Do we say "we should be agnostic" about the reported history in those cases?

 

[Craig B]

How many of the epistles are attributed to Paul these days in mainstream scholarship- 4 or 7? Scholarship changes and moves on and it's not always easy to know what's current.
In any case, what I find interesting about Paul's literature is that it's more or less unknown until we hear about Marcion, around 140. I find Paul's writing to to be great stuff- moving, passionate and convincing. It seems odd he wasn't mentioned til the mid 2nd century, IIRC.

We have almost nothing until then. It is to be explained I am sure, by the fact that Christanity became a significantly numerous sect only at that time. A generation earlier, Pliny had evidently never heard of Christians, or at least knew absolutely nothing about them until he encountered them while dealing with something entirely different in Bythinia.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

How many of the epistles are attributed to Paul these days in mainstream scholarship- 4 or 7? Scholarship changes and moves on and it's not always easy to know what's current.

There are seven for which there is widespread agreement, among them four (1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans) for which high confidence is especially prevalent. Our colleague Stone sometimes likes to stay within those four when he can.

Philemon is short and on a narrow topic, so fakery would be hard to detect, but it looks OK. 1 Thessalonians is in the odd position that it contrasts with 2 Thessalonians - either one would be a good candidate for authentic status, but it is shaky that the same author wrote both. Consensus favors 1 as closer to the mark, and so 2 is out. And then there's Philippians, no interesting special story that I know of.

In any case, what I find interesting about Paul's literature is that it's more or less unknown until we hear about Marcion, around 140. I find Paul's writing to to be great stuff- moving, passionate and convincing. It seems odd he wasn't mentioned til the mid 2nd century, IIRC.

I think Paul was an embarrassment after he died. Jesus was supposed to be coming right away. Jesus didn't. The Gospels coincide with theory B of the return: somebody who knew flesh-Jesus will see the return. The last Gospel has an apparent addendum, chapter 21, explaining that that, too, was a mistake.

As near as I can make out, John lays the foundation for the "mystical body of Christ" theory, that the church is Jesus returned, here and now. He'll still be making a personal appearance someday, to judge the living and the dead (a clear sop to Paul), but meanwhile there's the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who becomes "just as much God" as the missing-in-action Jesus. Woohoo.

Not much of a role for Paul in that theory, except to sign off that Jesus doesn't care about foreskins, pork, shellfish, or any of that Jewish stuff. And it is the era you're talking about where somebody seems to have thought enough of Paul to fake a few letters in his name.

 

[Belz...]

Your statement is a well known fallacy.

Your statement is an established fallacy.

Your statement is a failure of logic.

Or, you don't know what you are talking about.

You have NO point or it is irrelevant.

Cogent points, eh ?

 

[pakeha]

I've probably missed it. I only check into this thread infrequently. If the "criterion of reliability" of other early sources using copies of copies been discussed in a post, I'd appreciate it if you can point me to it.

No worries, GDon. What I had in mind were other threads in other forums where I have the impression you post.
Sorry to be unclear.

The point is that nearly ALL early written sources are copies of copies. Even early Greek and Roman historians probably had to use copies of copies when reporting on histories before their times. And THEIR writings were probably copied as well. I'd like to see how a "criterion of reliability" is used in those cases. Do we say "we should be agnostic" about the reported history in those cases?

Of course you're right when you say nearly all "early written sources are copies of copies". Except for a large body of works written in clay or carved in stone or cast in bronze.

Of course we should be agnostic about written history-our own experiences with modern social media teaches us that, don't you think?

There's an entire methodology for determining the reliability of any given text, a methodology which is pains-taking and able to change its conclusions according to the corroborative elements we have available.

Remember when no one questioned the historicity of the Massacre of the Innocents?


One thing that marks these particular copies of copies is that there's from a time in history when novels and novellas and Acts were becoming increasingly popular.
Why is this significant? Because a genre of writing was out there which wasn't history as we'd understand it or straight-up fiction as exemplified by the Greek novels, but rather a genre that entertained and instructed and proselyted- hagiography.

I think the question isn't only the number of copies that lie between the modern reader and the original author, but also just what was it the author was writing- history or hagiography?

Instructive or entertaining as hagiography may be, I don't think academic institutions are under threat if we question the intention or the genre of a given text in the NT.

 

[tsig]

No worries, GDon. What I had in mind were other threads in other forums where I have the impression you post.
Sorry to be unclear.





Of course you're right when you say nearly all "early written sources are copies of copies". Except for a large body of works written in clay or carved in stone or cast in bronze.

Of course we should be agnostic about written history-our own experiences with modern social media teaches us that, don't you think?

There's an entire methodology for determining the reliability of any given text, a methodology which is pains-taking and able to change its conclusions according to the corroborative elements we have available.

Remember when no one questioned the historicity of the Massacre of the Innocents?


One thing that marks these particular copies of copies is that there's from a time in history when novels and novellas and Acts were becoming increasingly popular.
Why is this significant? Because a genre of writing was out there which wasn't history as we'd understand it or straight-up fiction as exemplified by the Greek novels, but rather a genre that entertained and instructed and proselyted- hagiography.

I think the question isn't only the number of copies that lie between the modern reader and the original author, but also just what was it the author was writing- history or hagiography?

Instructive or entertaining as hagiography may be, I don't think academic institutions are under threat if we question the intention or the genre of a given text in the NT.

Whenever you question the HJ a little sprig of ivy dies.

 

[pakeha]

We have almost nothing until then. It is to be explained I am sure, by the fact that Christanity became a significantly numerous sect only at that time. A generation earlier, Pliny had evidently never heard of Christians, or at least knew absolutely nothing about them until he encountered them while dealing with something entirely different in Bythinia.

A good point, Craig B. The more I learn about Pliny the more astonishing that letter is.
In any case, that leaves us with Clement's epistle, Ignatius' and Polycarp's as references to Paul's writings.

pakehaThere are seven for which there is widespread agreement, among them four (1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Romans) for which high confidence is especially prevalent.

Our earliest source is Marcion, or rather, Tertullian's account of Marcion, correct me if I'm wrong, and he apparently included 10 letters. This gives me the idea that forgeries formed part of Christian intellectual thought straight out of the gate.
I wonder why?

...As near as I can make out, John lays the foundation for the "mystical body of Christ" theory, that the church is Jesus returned, here and now. He'll still be making a personal appearance someday, to judge the living and the dead (a clear sop to Paul), but meanwhile there's the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who becomes "just as much God" as the missing-in-action Jesus. Woohoo.

Not much of a role for Paul in that theory, except to sign off that Jesus doesn't care about foreskins, pork, shellfish, or any of that Jewish stuff. And it is the era you're talking about where somebody seems to have thought enough of Paul to fake a few letters in his name.

It's a lazy Saturday and I simply can't cope with John.
I'm still getting my mind around 2nd century Christianity, having thrown in the towel on 1st century Christianity, which increasingly seems to be a will-o'-the-wisp.
Wiki seems to be in the business of wispifying the 1st century experience of the early church when they have in sober black and white "While the Christian church was centered in Jerusalem in the 1st century, it became decentralized in the 2nd century"
Wait, what?
Did the Desolation of Jerusalem become downgraded to a rumour when I was AFTK?


The 2nd century seems to be a century dedicated to the spontaneous generation of religious texts (including apocrypha, antilegomena and Deuterocanonical books) and heresies, whatever that means in the context of those above mentioned texts.

More coffee.

 

[IanS]

That's right. All you need to show now is that the proposed historical Jesus is claimed to be supernatural or a god, and you'll have made your case.

You are now making my point for me.

The proposed HJ was never said by anyone to exist, until about 1800, where thanks the then emerging new subject of science, educated people began to realise that the biblical stories of Jesus, believed quite literally for the past 1800 years, simply could not be true. The stories were invented.

But the response of the church and what was then iirc the associated academic field of university biblical and religious studies, decided they could ignore almost everything that was said about Jesus in the bible, simply cross all that out, and claim instead to have invented a new non-miraculous Jesus that was never a figure that anyone ever wrote about or believed in at the actual time.

But I am not the one claiming that this newly invented figure called a HJ existed. You and the bible scholars, theologians and the Church are the ones claiming this figure existed. So the “burden of proof” rests squarely upon you and the bible scholars to show reliable evidence for why anyone should believe in the HJ figure and to give some credible justification for simply erasing all the original biblical descriptions of Jesus that people in the 21st century can no longer be persuaded to believe.

 

[IanS]

IanS, compare this:



with this:


Isn't it the case that nearly all the ancient writings that we possess are "copies of copies"? But that this doesn't stop any evaluation of those copies from going ahead?

Using your "copies of copies" criteria, what early writings can we use to try to evaluate what has happened in history?

I have explained the very obvious answer to exactly that question many times before here. Did you miss the answer all those times? How many times do we have to spell this out, going over the same points literally hundreds of times in these HJ threads?

 

[Craig B]

You are now making my point for me.

So the “burden of proof” rests squarely upon you and the bible scholars to show reliable evidence for why anyone should believe in the HJ figure and to give some credible justification for simply erasing all the original biblical descriptions of Jesus that people in the 21st century can no longer be persuaded to believe.

You are now making my point for me, which is: All you need to show now is that the proposed historical Jesus is claimed to be supernatural or a god, and you'll have made your case.

But on the contrary, you are saying that the HJ is defined by "erasing all the original biblical descriptions of Jesus that people in the 21st century can no longer be persuaded to believe." So the HJ is not stated to be supernatural or a god. QED.

 

[proudfootz]

Well the above post contains little if any useful information at all on the actual subject.

We have discussed before, many dozens of times, why it is completely bogus to claim that rejecting an appalling standard of claimed "evidence" in the case of Jesus does not mean, or even imply in any way at all, that all of ancient history would collapse.

Nobody disputes that the biblical writing, both NT and OT, provides masses of clear “historical” evidence for peoples religious beliefs and ideas of that time. But what it does not contain is any reliable evidence that their supernatural messiah/god was ever a real figure.

The alleged danger to the study of history that is prophesied should Jesus be relegated to the myth bin along with many of the other heroes of the bible - Adam, Methuselah, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samson, David, Zacchaeus, Judas, etc is just fear talking.

The appeal to consequences is where some folks go when they realize they've run out of arguments.

We get the same thing about how there can be no morality if we don't believe in a god.

 

[proudfootz]

I'm still getting my mind around 2nd century Christianity, having thrown in the towel on 1st century Christianity, which increasingly seems to be a will-o'-the-wisp.

Wiki seems to be in the business of wispifying the 1st century experience of the early church when they have in sober black and white "While the Christian church was centered in Jerusalem in the 1st century, it became decentralized in the 2nd century" Wait, what?

Did the Desolation of Jerusalem become downgraded to a rumour when I was AFTK?

The 2nd century seems to be a century dedicated to the spontaneous generation of religious texts (including apocrypha, antilegomena and Deuterocanonical books) and heresies, whatever that means in the context of those above mentioned texts.

The 1st century seems to be a bit of a black hole where there is little to no information. It's kind of like the pre-Cambrian.

It's easy enough to speculate what might have happened or what one might like to have happened - but that's not really doing history.

 

[proudfootz]

Cogent points, eh ?

Belz's new word is 'cogent'.

Stay tuned!

 

[IanS]

The names are later attributions. So of course that is the case. But it is not the issue at all.

Only the names are later additions? But the actual same text was either written or spoken by someone earlier in the first place? Just the same words that were latter written down in the “copy”? OK, so how do you know this later “copy” is like the supposed “original”? What was actually written or said in the original version? Who was it that wrote that original version?, and how reliable and trustworthy were they? What date was that? How did they know about Jesus? How did they know anything about any figure named in the gospel? Where was this original story composed (written or spoken)?, in Judea? … in Egypt?… or Greece? Or Rome?, or perhaps Turkey or Syria?

What do you know about the details of the “original” such that you can say the copies are faithful accurate reproductions?

That's right. We know that. Now, address the question which has been asked. If the third century text producers were copyists, what were they copying (inevitable mistakes and possible interpolations aside: all texts from Homer onwards are subject to these)? Or were they the creators of the works?

Well afaik, those gospel do not say they were copies. They just say they ARE the gospels of Mark, Mathew, Luke and John. It’s modern day religious scholars that have eventually admitted they must be much later copies. So if you say they are “copies” then it’s your job to show what they were copying.

That's a repetition of your previous point. And it is not the case that Paul has always turned out not to be the author of any of the epistles attributed to him. To be sure, he penned none of the extant manuscripts, but neither did Homer or Plato or Josephus.

A repetition? I just told you that when I said “the same may easily apply to all of Paul’s letters”. If Paul did not write any of the extant letters, then which letters did Paul actually write? Do you know? What did Paul actually ever write about Jesus, do you know? How do you know what Paul ever said?

ETA I note that https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070317073358AAixCAP
Does that mean that Homer wrote in Egypt?

That seems to be an abrupt switch to a completely different topic altogether. But if you are trying to go back to an old completely different argument about where the Jesus story was written, and saying that just because “all”(?) the known NT biblical writing seems to have been found in Egypt and not where we should presumably have expected to find it in Judea, that does not suggest the story may actually have been written in Egypt rather than Judea, then one thing I might point out to you is that not only did the DSS scrolls survive in vast quantity in that precise region near to Jerusalem, but that most of those DSS scrolls were written on parchment from a date as much as 300 years or more before any of the extant biblical mss, so I don’t know what was stopping the Christian writers in Judea doing what the DSS community did and writing on parchment rather than papyrus.

 

[Craig B]

Belz's new word is 'cogent'.

Stay tuned!

I gave a variant of it to dejudge in #6990.

It has a total bearing on discussion of what Paul actually thought, dejudge. Hey, you're supposed to be a cogent poster. Well cogitate (there's a word for you) about this.

So Belz can find his own word.

 

[IanS]

You are now making my point for me, which is: All you need to show now is that the proposed historical Jesus is claimed to be supernatural or a god, and you'll have made your case.

But on the contrary, you are saying that the HJ is defined by "erasing all the original biblical descriptions of Jesus that people in the 21st century can no longer be persuaded to believe." So the HJ is not stated to be supernatural or a god. QED.

The point I made was that we have no reliable evidence for Jesus. If that is indeed also your own point, then we are in agreement ... no reliable evidence of Jesus.

The recently invented HJ is not supposed to be supernatural by created 18th-19th century definition. But historically that HJ was never known or claimed to exist. Nobody in the first century ever described anyone knowing any such HJ. The only Jesus ever claimed to be known by anyone in the 1st century was the supernatural Jesus. That is the only Jesus ever said to have been known to anyone.