Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

Ian, I think that addresses your comments as well, but since you did not see my comments regarding theologians:


Your marvel at the state of the field is not marvelous to me; it's very old hat for me.
I have dealt with it for about a decade and a half at this point, in one form or another.

I am not marvelling at it. I am pointing out for anyone here to see, why the constant appeal to authority, which is almost the only HJ argument here, is completely fallacious in the case of bible scholars.

 

[jobberone]

jobberone


I would? Why? If the issue is Jesus' Messiahship, and that can be confidently refuted within the premises held by Jesus' proponent, isn't that the end of the conversation? If Jesus doesn't fit the profile, then what difference does it make to his candidacy whether or not he actually lived?

<snip>

The point is not Jesus being the Messiah but the topic of whether he existed. Denying his existence takes care of both problems. Messianic Jews believe Jesus as Messiah. Non-Messianic Jews in general see Jesus as a prophet at best or trouble maker at worse. I'm sure there are Jews who don't believe in Jesus at all but most acknowledge his existence. If he never existed then he can't have been the Masiah. There is no need for followers hence no 'Christianity'.

I'm not Jewish and don't know the oral tradition but I have to come to the conclusion he existed or everyone would have heard about it back then and hence today as well. A bunch of crazy Jews and Gentiles making up crazy stories and causing a lot of trouble around the same time Jesus allegedly lived. That's a bit of a stretch to scratch it all up to myth.

It's difficult to ignore every piece of the puzzle surrounding Jesus on a historical basis. It's one thing to deny the miracles including an alleged resurrection from the dead and another to deny the existence of historical Jesus. One denies the same sort of history we get from any persons who existed 2000 years ago and another denies supernatural incidences that defy human experience.

It is completely normal to view claims of being God on earth and resurrecting oneself from the dead as unbelievable. That shouldn't create an atmosphere of disbelief for everything about Jesus of Nazareth. Of course there is nothing wrong with dismissing it all or accepting it all. It all boils down to belief one way or another.

Keep in mind we accept the existence of a lot of things without our knowing concretely of their existence even if it is the 'testimony' of scientists.

 

[JaysonR]

JaysonR
Thank you. That's all I need to know. I appreciate your candor and directness.

Sure thing.

 

[JaysonR]

I am not marvelling at it. I am pointing out for anyone here to see, why the constant appeal to authority, which is almost the only HJ argument here, is completely fallacious in the case of bible scholars.

I meant the term in regards to being astonished to the point of focus.

You don't need to point it out to me, is all I was conveying.

As to the consensus system...I don't know what to offer to appease that concern.

It has been the system for all of history since even when Napoleon was quoted as saying, "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

That still is the case today for much of our historical record, and functionally I don't see that changing any time soon.

The only step I would argue, really, for changing is in regards to the acceptance of Theologians involved in the field in the manner in which they are involved.

I don't think I would change the consensus system itself; it, for the most part, is as best as we can get it until someone figures out a way to invent a new method of determining history that can be shown to be successful in sample cases (make a prediction using some system and find some physical proof that verifies the prediction made by the new method).

For instance, if Carrier et. al. gets the BT idea off the ground, it will pick up by creating a positive probability for some historicity and then we'll all have to wait for archaeology to find something which backs up that probability.
One success, sadly, won't change much.
They'll need to do it a few times; which is admittedly an insane request in one lifetime.


Consider this for a moment: the average time it takes a new result and field-known information to make it through the entire academic textual field is around 50 years.

Yes; 50 years is how long it takes for new information to propagate in the field of history on average.

Think about that for a moment; let that sink in.

Now, if that really frustrates you as much as it does many folks in the field or myself, then welcome to the frustrating and really confusing world of anthropology and history.

Crazy people only should venture past the door.

 

[IanS]

Ian and Eight Bits,

The separate conversations are arriving at the same tangent.
Eight Bits,

Your question regarding heuristics goes back to the discussion previously where I was talking about the difference between the 1960's and ancient history and relativity.

There are no concrete measures to list for you on this matter for this field; History as a whole.

What takes place are publications (in books through academic publications [which require a peer review before publication], for History and Anthropology - there are no publication paper systems like physical sciences), and there are forums and conventions for discussion (from which, sometimes following such community talks a publication is released which covers the results of those discussions and the conclusions drawn).

The only way historicity of anything is accomplished, lacking some clear archaeological find, is through a consensus of publications and talks - flawed or not as that may be.

This is not me appealing to some authority; that something is classed as historically evident has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually the case.

A good example of this is the Battle of Kadesh.
For the longest time we had a single record of this battle and it was from the Egyptian side.
The Egyptian account reported massive scores of forces and a solid victory for Egypt.

This event and the results of it were classed as historically evident for generations.
Then we found the library of Hattusa and in that library we found a conflicting account of that battle.

So who do we believe; Hittite records or Egyptian records?
What was done was a critical examination and reasoning (quite a bit rests on reasoning and arguments).

Egypt has exaggerated their military conquests before, so it was possible that they did in this case.
Hittite records, when compared to other records of written records from the region, seemed less exaggerated (deviated little from other sources) in other cases.
The Hittite records tend to account for their losses in what appears to be a more realistic (meaning, there's no bragging motive) sense.
Hittite records essentially claim a form of draw or stand-off as the result of the Battle of Kadesh, rather than either side outright winning.
Hittite records hold a more humble account of military numbers than the Egyptian records.

So, the arguments were made that the general idea of taking the more humble as the more likely should probably be followed, and considering the above information, that we would audit the Historically Evident record of the Battle of Kadesh to reflect a more Hittite record-friendly version of the battle than the previous account of Egyptian-only record.

So the Battle of Kadesh changed its historicity entirely through this process.
And could it still be in error? Did we get this right? Are we absolutely certain that the Hittites didn't make up their version to save face in their absolute defeat against Egypt?

We don't have a way of knowing those answers.
We can only say that the historicity stands at the conclusion and rests in this case for now as historically evident until some argument or evidence comes forward at a later time which compels the historical community to agree in general on a different conclusion.


So Jesus is listed as historically evident.
Does that mean he actually existed?
No.
It does mean that the general field has declared this figure as historically evident using what information (which is the same information that has been scattered all around this thread) is available, and spending considerable amounts of time in discussions and publications on the subject.

Does this particular field have a problem?
Do theologians own the field?

Yes, there are problems in the field.
No, theologians do not own the field.

Did Jesus actually exist?
No clue.

What's my opinion on the matter?
I think it would be remarkable if someone existed in the 1st c CE, or around there, from whom an accurate account of their actions and life was produced and preserved in such grand detail.

Look at it this way: who else in this region and era has any record of their life so well accounted for? No one.So does it seem reasonable for Jesus to have this detailed account of an actual life that also just happens to be packed with cultural idioms in locations, names, and actions?
Did this figure just happen to go places, interact with people, and do certain actions that just perfectly line up with idiomatic culture and symbolism?

To me, no; that doesn't seem reasonable.

Does that mean no one like this, in some form, existed and from which a grossly misrepresented set of stories arose?
No.

Does it mean that such did happen?
No.

Does it mean that the stories are not from some compression of a bunch of similar figures in this period which ended up attributed to a single individual?
No.

Does it mean that such did happen?
No.

Does any of this mean Jesus actually did exist?
No.

Does it mean that he actually did not exist?
No.


Where are we at the end of this then?
Jesus is historically evident.
That figure's actual state of existence will need to be each persons judgement call as they see it.

There is no way to prove either direction (currently).
We can either reject or accept the position of existence, but we cannot prove it either way.

We can argue it endlessly in both directions, however.

From what you describe above, this is a field of study which is an utter waste of public funds, and which has no worthwhile evidence to say about anything that you’ve mentioned.

However on the specific point of Jesus, where you say -

"who else in this region and era has any record of their life so well accounted for? No one".

That cannot be right at all. Because there is actually no “record of his life”.

What you are calling a record of his life, is actually nothing more than a “record” of what later religious writers said about the supernatural messiah beliefs of other earlier people, none of whom ever wrote to confirm even to have ever claimed to have known Jesus or known any “record of his life”.

There is no “record of Jesus’ life”. There is only a record of much later anonymously written religious supernatural beliefs. That’s why you need to talk about genuine “evidence”, and not use phrases like “record of his life” … if you had some actual evidence of Jesus as a living person, then that would be some kind of “record of his life”. But the problem is, there is precisely zero credible evidence of him ever being alive on earth at all.

 

[JaysonR]

Ian,

I wouldn't go so far as to claim the field is useless, as without the field, we haven't any history at all and it does produce more positive results than it produces negative damages.

Are there things I would like, and many others as well, to see change?
Absolutely; for starters, it would be fantastic if we could stop having politics of nations get in the way of historical accuracy (I'm looking directly at you Egypt, Israel, America, and Germany!).

Case in point, screw Jesus, can we please release the archaeological holdings belonging to the Native American culture that were bagged up and tossed into the various basements as "hoaxes" during the deplorable age of Manifest Destiny, and finally get their history taught correctly in Junior High, High School and College courses on American History?
No?
*sigh* OK, we'll keep trying and continue to not be allowed to archaeologically dig on a wealth of sites because they are on Federally protected lands.

What about the Middle East?
Hey guys, can we finally dig on Temple Mount and settle some long-standing questions?
No? Political issues get in the way, you say? Too holy?
*sigh* fine.

How about you Egypt?
Can we finally dig below the Sphinx to examine that massive cavern that appears to be below it?
No? Too risky you say? Even though several outlines have been presented as to how to approach the dig safely?
*sigh*
OK, fine.

As to that comment about Jesus; I wasn't stating that the texts are an account of that figure's life.
I was stating that if we are to question whether or not they are such an account, the first problem we run into that is rather simple is that no other individual has an account with such grand detail from that period; so that should be our first tip that these texts don't account for an actual life of anyone.

 

[dejudge]

I have seen Apologists go though gyrations that would put Reed Richards to shame in trying to explain away Against Heresies 2.22 but Demonstration (74) is immune to this kind of tap dancing as it expressly states "Herod the king of the Jews" and "Claudius Caesar" and even with fudging the best one can get is 41-44 CE well after Paul's conversion (no later then 37 CE).

Actually "Demonstration" is a chronological disaster. There is no evidence that Pilate was a governor of Judea under Claudius.

In Against Heresies 2.22, it is said Jesus was an OLD MAN when he was crucified at least 20 years AFTER he was supposedly baptized by John.

It is claimed Jesus was baptized by John when he was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

 

[dejudge]

I'm not Jewish and don't know the oral tradition but I have to come to the conclusion he existed or everyone would have heard about it back then and hence today as well. A bunch of crazy Jews and Gentiles making up crazy stories and causing a lot of trouble around the same time Jesus allegedly lived. That's a bit of a stretch to scratch it all up to myth.

You have shown that you are not really familiar with the evidence from antiquity and is merely speculating.

Surely, it is not a stretch that people invented Satan the Devil, the Holy Ghost and the Angel Gabriel.

Tell us who heard that the Father of Jesus was a Holy Ghost?

In antiquity, people claimed Jesus existed but as GOD CREATOR.

Haven't you heard that Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Holy Ghost?

I read that Jesus was a figure of mythology.

I read that he used to WALK on water, Transfigure and Resurrect.

What did you read?

 

[IanS]

Ian,

I wouldn't go so far as to claim the field is useless, as without the field, we haven't any history at all and it does produce more positive results than it produces negative damages.

I don't really think the field is useless either. The bit that I think is actually worse than useless is the area of biblical/religious studies.

But that's because I can't believe that other areas of ancient history, studies by historians and archaeologists etc., are as obviously flawed and lacking neutrality as bible studies appears to be.

There is a constant mix-up going on here between actual historians and bible scholars. I don’t mean you are mixing them up particularly or deliberately, but bible studies people and HJ proponents effetely are quite deliberately mixing them together.

As to that comment about Jesus; I wasn't stating that the texts are an account of that figure's life.
I was stating that if we are to question whether or not they are such an account, the first problem we run into that is rather simple is that no other individual has an account with such grand detail from that period; so that should be our first tip that these texts don't account for an actual life of anyone.

I think the first tip that these biblical accounts are not reliable is not the extent of the detail, but nature of the detail … because 1800 years after the stuff was written we found out that the supernatural nature of that detail is impossible. That’s what’s most obviously wrong with it … it’s untrue!

By the way I appreciate all your posts on this (I mean that, in case anyone thought otherwise).

 

[IanS]

Sure thing.

You do realise what eight-bits meant when he "thanked" you for that particular sentence?

 

[JaysonR]

But that's because I can't believe that other areas of ancient history, studies by historians and archaeologists etc., are as obviously flawed and lacking neutrality as bible studies appears to be.

A) you'd be surprised at some things, I'm sure - but it's not as impacted, correct.
B) Ergo my rant about theologians.

There is a constant mix-up going on here between actual historians and bible scholars. I don’t mean you are mixing them up particularly or deliberately, but bible studies people and HJ proponents effetely are quite deliberately mixing them together.

"B) Ergo my rant about theologians."

By the way I appreciate all your posts on this (I mean that, in case anyone thought otherwise).

Happy to help where I can.

 

[JaysonR]

You do realise what eight-bits meant when he "thanked" you for that particular sentence?

I assumed he meant that he had what he needed.
Mostly, "sure thing", was to the "I appreciate your candor and directness" comment, but either way...all good.

 

[maximara]

Actually "Demonstration" is a chronological disaster. There is no evidence that Pilate was a governor of Judea under Claudius.
In Against Heresies 2.22, it is said Jesus was an OLD MAN when he was crucified at least 20 years AFTER he was supposedly baptized by John.

It is claimed Jesus was baptized by John when he was about 30 years old in the 15th year of Tiberius.

There is no evidence (and plenty against it) that Quirinius was governor of Syria during the time of Herod the Great...and yet apologists try to claim this to make Matthew and Luke agree.

There is no evidence (and plenty against it) that Herod the Great lived to 1 BCE...and yet some apologists try to claim this to make Matthew and Luke agree.

There is no evidence of Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents...and yet apologists try to say it really happened.

There is no evidence of a universal tax census described in Luke 2:1-4 for 6 CE and certainly not where it involved people having to move to their place of ancestry...and yet apologists try to say it really happened.

There is no evidence (and plenty against it) that the Sanhedrin trial described in the Gospels happened...and yet apologists try to say it really happened.

There is no evidence that Jesus actually lived c100 BCE...and yet that is what "Epiphanius, the Talmud, and the Toledoth Jeschu (dependent on second-century Jewish-Christian gospel)" all tell us.

The point here is the apologists have been banging on the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' drum from the get go but when applied to things that suggest that the Gospel Jesus at best is on par with Robin Hood or King Arthur pull out the "there is no evidence" card...the very point they are arguing against!

 

[eight bits]

jobberone

Denying his existence takes care of both problems.

It would, except the people whose tactical choices you are discussing have little reason to care about one of the problems (did Jesus live?) unless the answer to the other problem is yes (was Jesus the Messiah?). Resolving the first problem is what impossible looks like, while resolving the second, the one that the people involved actually care about, is trivial.

Jesus didn't do the Messianic tasks. His chief Jewish proponent, Paul, doesn't dispute that, but says that he will, any day now. Sure he will, now that he's been killed, and is finally ready to go to work, just as soon as... well, "soon" may not be the right word.

From a debating tactical point of view, Paul's letters weren't addressed to Jewish dissenters, and by the time Jesus propaganda was publicly available, after 70 CE, it was (and is) practically impossible to establish that any particular hypothetical dead person didn't visit Jerusalem for a few days at some unspecified time thirty or forty years earlier.

The effort-benefit ratio, then, prohibitively favors taking the open slam-dunk for two and skipping the three-pointer in traffic, particularly when you only need one point to win.


JaysonR

I assumed he meant that he had what he needed.

Yes, that's what I meant. I am unsure why the other poster would have any remark about that. And thank you again; I thought our exchange was very productive.

 

[maximara]

Ian,

I wouldn't go so far as to claim the field is useless, as without the field, we haven't any history at all and it does produce more positive results than it produces negative damages.

Are there things I would like, and many others as well, to see change?
Absolutely; for starters, it would be fantastic if we could stop having politics of nations get in the way of historical accuracy (I'm looking directly at you Egypt, Israel, America, and Germany!).

Politics have always gotten in the way of historical accuracy. The ancient Egyptians were memory holing the entire reign of Pharaohs that they felt were an embarrassment. England has done this with the king between John and Henry III: Louis I (and last).

Terry Jones entire Medieval Lives series is about how wrong our view of the Middle ages is and how politics is generally at the heart of it.

Case in point, screw Jesus, can we please release the archaeological holdings belonging to the Native American culture that were bagged up and tossed into the various basements as "hoaxes" during the deplorable age of Manifest Destiny, and finally get their history taught correctly in Junior High, High School and College courses on American History?
No?
*sigh* OK, we'll keep trying and continue to not be allowed to archaeologically dig on a wealth of sites because they are on Federally protected lands.

I have personally done archaeologically digs on Federally protected lands: BLM land in fact. Yes the paperwork is a royal pain and about as smart as a bag of hammers at times but it is doable. It is when that Federally protected land is part of another agency like the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture that things can get mind numbingly stupid.

Case in point was work I did in the 1990s in California. Our job was to mark archaeological sites so the loggers wouldn't mess them up. Unfortunately the way it was done bordered on the moronic. I lost count of the times the loggers would come in and work an area with their heavy machinery (which would cause buried lithics to come to the surface) and then we would come in when they were elsewhere and find lithic...meaning the loggers couldn't finish working in a site they had just worked in.

It was so stupid we had derogatory terms for this insanity. Because our bosses names were Tom and Berry any time we had to do this idiocy it was 'time for the Tom and Berry show' and we worked for the Forest Circus.

 

[IanS]

It's difficult to ignore every piece of the puzzle surrounding Jesus on a historical basis. It's one thing to deny the miracles including an alleged resurrection from the dead and another to deny the existence of historical Jesus. One denies the same sort of history we get from any persons who existed 2000 years ago and another denies supernatural incidences that defy human experience.

It is completely normal to view claims of being God on earth and resurrecting oneself from the dead as unbelievable. That shouldn't create an atmosphere of disbelief for everything about Jesus of Nazareth. Of course there is nothing wrong with dismissing it all or accepting it all. It all boils down to belief one way or another.

You must be talking about a different Jesus and a different bible if you think we have lots of evidence of his life outside of the miraculous or divinely prophetic sayings etc.

In the gospels Jesus is presented as constantly miraculous and/or divinely prophetic everywhere he goes and in everything he does.

Do you think there is some other evidence of anyone ever making credible claim to have met or known a living Jesus, such that themselves told us about ordinary details of his human life?

Keep in mind we accept the existence of a lot of things without our knowing concretely of their existence even if it is the 'testimony' of scientists.

What do you mean by saying “knowing concretely”? You are asking for the sort of literal “certainty” that real scientists almost never claim even for things like evolution, quantum mechanics, relativity, or any other “theory” in science?

In science we accept the theories because they are supported by vast mountains of indisputable reproducible testable evidence. Are you suggesting the “evidence” for Jesus is comparable to that for scientific theories? We have no such evidence of anyone ever knowing Jesus.

 

[IanS]

I assumed he meant that he had what he needed.
Mostly, "sure thing", was to the "I appreciate your candor and directness" comment, but either way...all good.

Well, this is what eight-bits wrote as his reply lol ...

Jayson
that something is classed as historically evident has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually the case.
eight-bits
Thank you. That's all I need to know. I appreciate your candor and directness.

 

[IanS]

JaysonR


Yes, that's what I meant. I am unsure why the other poster would have any remark about that. And thank you again; I thought our exchange was very productive.

Quite right. I should not guess what you meant by that sort of reply. I was just amused by what the reply actually said . I.e. here -

JaysonR

This is not me appealing to some authority; that something is classed as historically evident has nothing to do with whether or not it is actually the case.

Thank you. That's all I need to know. I appreciate your candor and directness.

I was just amused that what your words actually say is that you thank Jayson for making candidly clear that what is said to be “historically evident” has nothing to do with whether it’s actually true lol

 

[JaysonR]

I'm failing to grasp the joke that must be in there somewhere.
Those two qualities are not oppositional measures.

It's the same as saying that something is logically valid, yet not sound.

 

[JaysonR]

JaysonR


Yes, that's what I meant. I am unsure why the other poster would have any remark about that. And thank you again; I thought our exchange was very productive.

Cool, ditto.