Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

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?

We have archaeological findings, artifacts and actual recovered and dated manuscripts which are used to evaluate the "copies of copies".

All we have for Jesus of Nazareth are Myth Fables, forgeries, fiction, implausibility and the "Shroud of Turin"--a most notable fake.

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

The "copies of copies" of the Jesus stories state that Jesus was the Son of God, the Logos, God Creator, born of a Ghost, who was in the company of Satan the Devil and Angels, that he walked on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected, Ate food AFTER the Resurrection and ascended in a cloud.

There are hundreds of "copies of copies" with the SAME stories of Myth Jesus for hundreds of years.

Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of mythology until NEW "copies of copies" can be found.

 

[Craig B]

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 point I made was that there is evidence for Jesus. If that is indeed also your own point, then we are in agreement ... 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.

The latest extant account of the Trojan war is already full of supernatural events. Nobody ever knew a rational account of the war as a non-supernatural occurrence. Therefore the "natural" Trojan War was a nineteenth century invention, unknown to Homer, which was never claimed to exist. Therefore there could not have been a Trojan War.

 

[Craig B]

Dup post

 

[pakeha]

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.

Agreed about the difference between sterile speculation and doing history.
I'll have to respectfully disagree about the pre-Cambrian.
Observe the beauty of these banded iron formations and strombolite fossils
http://www.fossilmall.com/Stromatolite.htm

They tell us so much!

 

[dejudge]

The point I made was that there is evidence for Jesus.

There is NO evidence for YOUR HJ. You will have to INVENT evidence for HJ.

We have evidence of a Myth Jesus in the NT..

Examine SOME of the evidence for Myth Jesus.

1. Mark 6:48 KJV---And he saw them toiling in rowing ; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them

2. Mark 9:2 KJV-- And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3Matthew 1:18 KJV --Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together , she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

4. John 1:1 KJV-- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

5. 1 Corinthians 15:45 KJV---And so it is written , The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

 

[IanS]

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?

In the post you are referring to I did not criticise them just for being "copies of copies". But this claim has come up here countless times where HJ proponents say that all of ancient history would have to be discarded if copies were not good enough in the Jesus case.

However that is a completely bogus argument, like in fact virtually every HJ argument. The reasons have been explained here at least 20 times before. So for the 28th time (or however many times it now is) -

Firstly - the Jesus case is unusual (if not actually unique), because in his case what is essential is evidence of him actually existing as an individual. Whereas in every other case that you might mention from ancient history, e.g. Caesar, or Pythagoras, or Alexander the Great (to name the usual suspects!) what matters is NOT whether the individual did any of the things claimed in their name, or even whether they lived at all, but instead what matters is the evidence establishing the events that are said to have happened in their name, e.g. famous wars, famous philosophical movements etc.

That is - it does not actually matter if Caesar was not a real figure. What matters to history is that there certainly was a Roman ruler at that time who did all the major things attributed to his reign. And the evidence for that is overwhelming. Not just in contemporary writing, but in the remains of numerous foreign battles, numerous physical monuments, written records of governing etc.

Historians do not really care if his name was actually “Caesar” or if he really had illegitimate children with various women., whether a sycophantic courtier told Caesar he was god, or that Caesar said “by Jove, do you know I think I am indeed now a god!” … history has no interest in trivial nonsense like that. What matters is that there is overwhelming independently corroborated evidence of what the emperor of Rome did in that period of Roman rule.

The same is true of ancient philosophers like Pythagoras. Apparently very little is known of Pythagoras himself. But no historians or anyone else really cares about that. What matters to history is the philosophical Pythagorean movement that began with his name and the mathematical discoveries etc. associated with the name … it’s the discoveries and the events that are historically important, not whether it was all due to anyone named Pythagoras, or whether somebody called Bill Smith was really responsible for it all.

However, that is not the case for Jesus. In the case of Jesus it’s the existence of the person himself that is vital. We all know Christianity began around that time, and that Christianity existed as a religion thereafter. Nobody here has ever disputed that. The dispute is about whether Jesus truly existed and whether bible scholars are right to say the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming (in fact, “certain”). So in the this case, unusually in ancient history, what is important is the existence of the figure himself.

That’s the first factor. The next thing is - nobody except a handful of historians care whether Pythagoras or Alexander the Great ever existed. They are totally irrelevant to the daily lives of everyone on earth today. But with Jesus as the very foundation and justification on which worldwide Christianity is built, with it’s very considerable influence on world affairs and direct influence in US and European governments, law making, taxation, education etc., Jesus is of very real & direct day-to-day importance in the lives of virtually every person on this planet.

So, unusually, in the Jesus case, it’s the persons existence which requires the evidence. And since a great deal hangs upon it, that evidence does need to be pretty solid and well confirmed.

Apart from which (third thing) - even if it were true, which I actually doubt, that historians claimed other very important figures and important events to be true on evidence as weak and dubious as the biblical evidence for Jesus, it still would be no kind of argument in favour of Jesus to say that historians often claimed things to be true on such appallingly bad evidence. That is simply no defence at all.

 

[IanS]

The point I made was that there is evidence for Jesus. If that is indeed also your own point, then we are in agreement ... evidence of Jesus.

If you are claiming the bible contains reliable evidence of Jesus, then you are wrong. All it contains is abundant evidence of peoples first century religious beliefs.

The latest extant account of the Trojan war is already full of supernatural events. Nobody ever knew a rational account of the war as a non-supernatural occurrence. Therefore the "natural" Trojan War was a nineteenth century invention, unknown to Homer, which was never claimed to exist. Therefore there could not have been a Trojan War.

If the only evidence for this Trojan War is claims of the supernatural, then you certainly should not believe it (not that any Trojan War is of the slightest relevance to the lives of people today anyway).

 

[Belz...]

Belz's new word is 'cogent'.

Stay tuned!

That has to be the most dishonest post you have made yet, insinuating that I somehow lifted this word, previously unknown to me, and used it out of context, exactly like Dejudge does every other post.

That post was directed at you, actually (in reference to this), but you'd rather be insulting than making any effort to understand my point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but it's clear now that, like Dejudge and IanS, it all comes down to how you can use rhetoric to "win", not to the evidence.

 

[Brainache]

That has to be the most dishonest post you have made yet, insinuating that I somehow lifted this word, previously unknown to me, and used it out of context, exactly like Dejudge does every other post.

That post was directed at you, actually (in reference to this), but you'd rather be insulting than making any effort to understand my point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but it's clear now that, like Dejudge and IanS, it all comes down to how you can use rhetoric to "win", not to the evidence.

It's almost Pauline in its single mindedness...

1 Corinthians
...

... to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.
...

24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. 25 Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. (...) 26 Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air. 27 No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

Forget the truth, go for the win!

It's what Paul would do...

 

[proudfootz]

That has to be the most dishonest post you have made yet, insinuating that I somehow lifted this word, previously unknown to me, and used it out of context, exactly like Dejudge does every other post.

That post was directed at you, actually (in reference to this), but you'd rather be insulting than making any effort to understand my point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but it's clear now that, like Dejudge and IanS, it all comes down to how you can use rhetoric to "win", not to the evidence.

It's amusing that when confronted with a mirror of your own behavior you suddenly recognize your tactics as dishonest efforts to score points.

You've condemned yourself.

 

[JaysonR]

If the only evidence for this Trojan War is claims of the supernatural, then you certainly should not believe it (not that any Trojan War is of the slightest relevance to the lives of people today anyway).

I don't care about the rest of anything and I'm not arguing for either position here, but this is a terrible perspective to hold and certainly not a position that we want our world historical societies to take.

If our criteria were as strict as this (and negligent ['only what matters to people today matters']), we would hardly have history to speak of regarding numerous accounts.
Most of the ancient Middle East, Egyptian, and Asian texts of early time are accounted for with no distinction between what we call reality and what we call supernatural claims.

They are at once made together without a consideration of not claiming them as one.
In many cultures, not claiming them together would be insulting and belittling of the events or individuals.

 

[proudfootz]

If you are claiming the bible contains reliable evidence of Jesus, then you are wrong. All it contains is abundant evidence of peoples first 2nd century religious beliefs.

Fixed that for you!

If the only evidence for this Trojan War is claims of the supernatural, then you certainly should not believe it (not that any Trojan War is of the slightest relevance to the lives of people today anyway).

The Trojan War is a good example - are we to suppose Achilles and Hector and Helen and Athena and Ares are all 'historical persons' now? That Paris really awarded an historical Aphrodite an historical apple?

Who knew historians were teaching this stuff at university!

 

[Stone]

That has to be the most dishonest post you have made yet, insinuating that I somehow lifted this word, previously unknown to me, and used it out of context, exactly like Dejudge does every other post.

That post was directed at you, actually (in reference to this), but you'd rather be insulting than making any effort to understand my point. I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but it's clear now that, like Dejudge and IanS, it all comes down to how you can use rhetoric to "win", not to the evidence.

◊◊◊◊*** B-I-N-G-O !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stone

 

[proudfootz]

In the post you are referring to I did not criticise them just for being "copies of copies". But this claim has come up here countless times where HJ proponents say that all of ancient history would have to be discarded if copies were not good enough in the Jesus case.

However that is a completely bogus argument, like in fact virtually every HJ argument. The reasons have been explained here at least 20 times before. So for the 28th time (or however many times it now is) -

Firstly - the Jesus case is unusual (if not actually unique), because in his case what is essential is evidence of him actually existing as an individual. Whereas in every other case that you might mention from ancient history, e.g. Caesar, or Pythagoras, or Alexander the Great (to name the usual suspects!) what matters is NOT whether the individual did any of the things claimed in their name, or even whether they lived at all, but instead what matters is the evidence establishing the events that are said to have happened in their name, e.g. famous wars, famous philosophical movements etc.

That is - it does not actually matter if Caesar was not a real figure. What matters to history is that there certainly was a Roman ruler at that time who did all the major things attributed to his reign. And the evidence for that is overwhelming. Not just in contemporary writing, but in the remains of numerous foreign battles, numerous physical monuments, written records of governing etc.

Historians do not really care if his name was actually “Caesar” or if he really had illegitimate children with various women., whether a sycophantic courtier told Caesar he was god, or that Caesar said “by Jove, do you know I think I am indeed now a god!” … history has no interest in trivial nonsense like that. What matters is that there is overwhelming independently corroborated evidence of what the emperor of Rome did in that period of Roman rule.

The same is true of ancient philosophers like Pythagoras. Apparently very little is known of Pythagoras himself. But no historians or anyone else really cares about that. What matters to history is the philosophical Pythagorean movement that began with his name and the mathematical discoveries etc. associated with the name … it’s the discoveries and the events that are historically important, not whether it was all due to anyone named Pythagoras, or whether somebody called Bill Smith was really responsible for it all.

However, that is not the case for Jesus. In the case of Jesus it’s the existence of the person himself that is vital. We all know Christianity began around that time, and that Christianity existed as a religion thereafter. Nobody here has ever disputed that. The dispute is about whether Jesus truly existed and whether bible scholars are right to say the evidence for the existence of Jesus is overwhelming (in fact, “certain”). So in the this case, unusually in ancient history, what is important is the existence of the figure himself.

That’s the first factor. The next thing is - nobody except a handful of historians care whether Pythagoras or Alexander the Great ever existed. They are totally irrelevant to the daily lives of everyone on earth today. But with Jesus as the very foundation and justification on which worldwide Christianity is built, with it’s very considerable influence on world affairs and direct influence in US and European governments, law making, taxation, education etc., Jesus is of very real & direct day-to-day importance in the lives of virtually every person on this planet.

So, unusually, in the Jesus case, it’s the persons existence which requires the evidence. And since a great deal hangs upon it, that evidence does need to be pretty solid and well confirmed.

Apart from which (third thing) - even if it were true, which I actually doubt, that historians claimed other very important figures and important events to be true on evidence as weak and dubious as the biblical evidence for Jesus, it still would be no kind of argument in favour of Jesus to say that historians often claimed things to be true on such appallingly bad evidence. That is simply no defence at all.

The notion of trying to bind the alleged existence of an historical Jesus to other figures of history, while perhaps a persuasive rhetorical device that might sound convincing to the unwary, is a rather dubious move -as you point out.

Whatever evidence there may be for an historical Jesus is independent of evidence for Alexander, or Hannibal, or Boudicca, or Homer. Each has to stand or fall on its own merits.

Is it plausible there might have been an historical Jesus? Certainly. Is it plausible that christianity could arise without such a person? Also true.

But it also seems to me that an historical Jesus is about the least important person in christianity, as we have ample evidence such a person had about zero influence on what words were put in his mouth and what deeds were ascribed to him.

 

[JaysonR]

The Trojan War is a good example - are we to suppose Achilles and Hector and Helen and Athena and Ares are all 'historical persons' now? That Paris really awarded an historical Aphrodite an historical apple?

Who knew historians were teaching this stuff at university!

The specifics are definitely in question.
The gross outline is generally accepted as plausible; that a war took place and that such a war or battle was between Troy and Greece, and as well, that Troy existed.

We will probably never know the actual details of these kinds of events, or the likes of figures like Buddha or Jesus (or several Japanese ancient heroes, Egyptian Kings, Babylonian rulers, etc...).

There are truly very large gaps of information, and the idea of writing for prosperity and in secular fashion was not remotely close to a developed concept during such ages.

This doesn't prove Jesus, or any other similar figure.
I only state that such conditions are hardly alien and unusual in the ancient record.

 

[proudfootz]

The specifics are definitely in question.
The gross outline is generally accepted as plausible; that a war took place and that such a war or battle was between Troy and Greece, and as well, that Troy existed.

We will probably never know the actual details of these kinds of events, or the likes of figures like Buddha or Jesus (or several Japanese ancient heroes, Egyptian Kings, Babylonian rulers, etc...).

There are truly very large gaps of information, and the idea of writing for prosperity and in secular fashion was not remotely close to a developed concept during such ages.

This doesn't prove Jesus, or any other similar figure.

I only state that such conditions are hardly alien and unusual in the ancient record.

I quite agree - and likewise these conditions do not 'disprove' the existence of such persons.

It seems the existence or non-existence of some figures is a more emotionally charged topic because of their importance to people's world view today.

Few people get excited about whether or not Homer was an historical person, and if someone proposes he was an allegorical character of literature no one will make wild accusations about 'anti-intellectualism' or wring their hands about universities being burnt etc.

 

[JaysonR]

True, but we should definitely keep in mind that the entire history of the Hebrew peoples during the 1st c CE is greatly unknown outside of secondary writing largely in part to their entire culture being radically wiped out - including their treasury.

Ironically, the DSS stands as about the only tangible evidence of the period outside of what we can piece together from physical structures we slowly piece together over a very difficult obstacle of current sociopolitical turmoil for archaeological work in the region.

If it weren't for Josephus, for example, we would know very, very little (actually, nothing) in regards to individuals such as Ananus ben Ananus, or other such High Priests.

If the Romans had it their way, we wouldn't be discussing the historicity of Jesus, but the historicity of the Hebrews in 1st c CE all together.

 

[IanS]

I don't care about the rest of anything and I'm not arguing for either position here, but this is a terrible perspective to hold and certainly not a position that we want our world historical societies to take.

If our criteria were as strict as this (and negligent ['only what matters to people today matters']), we would hardly have history to speak of regarding numerous accounts.
Most of the ancient Middle East, Egyptian, and Asian texts of early time are accounted for with no distinction between what we call reality and what we call supernatural claims.

They are at once made together without a consideration of not claiming them as one.
In many cultures, not claiming them together would be insulting and belittling of the events or individuals.

Of course it's not a terrible perspective either to say that nobody should believe things on supernatural claims alone, or to say that any Trojan wars are things that are now irrelevant to the lives of almost everyone alive today.

The point is that whatever the status of any Trojan wars, supernatural or not, if you asked people on street whether they thought the evidence was good enough to believe it, they would tell you they have no interest in it either way. It's simply not important to the daily lives of hardly anyone alive today. People don’t care if the evidence for that is good or bad. They are just not interested. And it makes zero difference to them.

But if you try asking the same question about Jesus, especially throughout much of the USA, asking if they think Jesus was real, then you'd find a vastly different response.

And please don't say that most people on the street are also not interested in (say) the discovery of the Higgs Field, because that is a current-day discovery where scientists involved do expect there to be important future repercussions of discoveries like that. But the Trojan wars and Jesus are things of the ancient past, which should have zero practical importance to anyone’s daily life today .... except of course that the Jesus case is completely different (probably unique), because belief in his existence does continue to have a very significant impact on the lives of almost everyone today.

 

[Craig B]

... If the only evidence for this Trojan War is claims of the supernatural, then you certainly should not believe it (not that any Trojan War is of the slightest relevance to the lives of people today anyway).

As stated before, your criterion is your hostility to religion. This has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed as a person or not. "Relevance" to people's lives is neither here nor there in this discussion. There simply isn't anything more to be said about this. Your view is nonsense.

 

[Brainache]

Of course it's not a terrible perspective either to say that nobody should believe things on supernatural claims alone, or to say that any Trojan wars are things that are now irrelevant to the lives of almost everyone alive today.

The point is that whatever the status of any Trojan wars, supernatural or not, if you asked people on street whether they thought the evidence was good enough to believe it, they would tell you they have no interest in it either way. It's simply not important to the daily lives of hardly anyone alive today. People don’t care if the evidence for that is good or bad. They are just not interested. And it makes zero difference to them.

But if you try asking the same question about Jesus, especially throughout much of the USA, asking if they think Jesus was real, then you'd find a vastly different response.

And please don't say that most people on the street are also not interested in (say) the discovery of the Higgs Field, because that is a current-day discovery where scientists involved do expect there to be important future repercussions of discoveries like that. But the Trojan wars and Jesus are things of the ancient past, which should have zero practical importance to anyone’s daily life today .... except of course that the Jesus case is completely different (probably unique), because belief in his existence does continue to have a very significant impact on the lives of almost everyone today.

Looks like the Spirit of Sylvia moves within me...