Did Jesus Exist?

[qadeshet]

This question has come up a lot lately, so here it is.

 

There is scant non Biblical evidence whatsoever for "Jesus of Nazareth". A person with this epitet is only found in Christian documents. I will give the non-Biblical evidence, and we can look at it.

 

Suetonius (69-140AD)

 

 

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

 

So, was Jesus really Chrestus, and was he in Rome at the time of Claudius? Not much help here.

 

Josephus (37-101AD)

 

Of course we must mention the Testimonium.

 

 

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Whitson, 379)

 

I don't care if the Testimonium is partly or completely a forgery. All copies opiginate from the copy opened by the Church Father Eusebius. Eusebius, called by some the father of Pious Fraud, is not the most trustworthy of sources. Origen flatly stated that Josephus was not a Christian.

 

Arthur Drews relates in Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus:

 

"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added)

 

Even if the Testimonium were proved to be authentic, Josephus, born in 37 AD, was born too late to be called as a witness.

 

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)

 

 

“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”

 

So Pliny "roughly interregated" two Christian women to find out what they believed. I don't think he just pushed them around a little. I wish that today's Christians took the same Oath. This 2nd Century mention does little to help with finding "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

Tacitus (56-120AD)

 

The Annals of Tacitus provide us with little help.

 

 

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

 

Again, not much help, even if authentic. Tacitus wrote his Annals ca. 116 AD.

 

How can Bible Scholars declare such certainty regarding the Historical Jesus? Maybe by resorting to various methods, like Criteria and Literary Criticism, while examining the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is almost the precise defination of Circular Reasoning. Anyone who has the inclination to support the contention that "Jesus of Nazareth" existed is welcome to do so.

 

If Jesus existed, maybe he was the Failed Apocalyptic Prophet of Scholar like Prof. Ehrman, or one of the other 1st Century messianic figures mentioned by Josephus. I don't really care, but when I'm told that "jesus of Nazareth" certainly existed, I am not going to agree.

[rjn]

To be fair though: most historical characters from that long gone era are scantily mentioned in the sources. How does Jesus fare when compared to other well-known persons we accept as historical?

[Guest]

Lets examine the historicity of Jesus and leave the bulk of material used by historians off the table.

 

Solid plan qasdeshet. Let's see how it works out.

[bornagainathiest]

A polite request to qadeshet and the TrueScotsman (and perhaps anyone else interested?)

 

Any chance that your recent discussions about Jesus that have been spread over several different threads in the Den can now be focused into just this one?

 

No agenda, no pressure and nothing implied against anyone, btw.

 

It just seems to me that this thread is the perfect place for you guys to pursue what is clearly an important topic to you.

 

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

[Blood]

There are a lot of ways to approach this question. One very useful route that I've found is to ask such questions as:

 

"Are Biblical writers 'historians' in the ancient or modern sense?"

"What exactly was the role and methodology of historians in ancient times?"

"What were the motivations and purposes of the Biblical writers?"

"Was it necessary for Biblical writers to have 'sources' or 'oral history' to write their stories? Or could they simply write something from their imaginations?" 

"Did Daniel, for example, exist? Or did Biblical writers simply take or invent this name (which means "El Judges") and write a parabolic or apocalyptic story around it as a teaching device for their congregations?" 

"Did Greek historiography influence some Bible writers?"

 

These are all complex questions that require answers more involved than I want to get into now. One thing that I've discovered, however, is that modern Bible scholars make it very difficult for you to even get to a point where you are in a position to ask such questions, much less provide answers. This isn't a conspiracy. The root of the problem is that they don't want to ask those questions themselves. 

 

For example, I read so many references in the scholarly literature to The Septuagint that I long assumed that this book was preserved in its original form and existed in some museum. This is the natural assumption one gets from reading Bible scholars. They are constantly referring to what The Septuagint says. There is never the slightest doubt or reservation expressed about some passage in The Septuagint. It's only been relatively recently that I discovered that The Septuagint does not, in fact, exist. What Bible scholars mistakenly refer to as "The Septuagint" are actually mostly Christian Greek Old Testaments from the Fourth Century CE or later, i.e. 600-700 years after The Septuagint translation was first achieved. 

 

The point is that the question, "Did Jesus exist?," is far too narrowly focused. The horizon has to be opened up and the entire spectrum of ancient literature, religion, history, linguistics, and so on has to be brought to bear on the subject. Real people did indeed become exaggerated legends. But the reverse phenomenon also happened -- legends became historicized. Myths became rationalized. We need to consider a wide range of possibilities, not just the extremely narrow range that the scholarly priesthood has pre-determined for us. 

[Brother Jeff]

The short and simple answer to "Did Jesus exist?" is... YES. Almost all serious historians and biblical scholars accept the existence of a historical Jesus. The few who don't are in the lunatic fringe of atheism. I realize that people like Earl Doherty mean well, and I have read one of his books (The Jesus Puzzle), but he is arguing for a position that almost no serious scholars even entertain, much less accept. Robert Price is the only serious biblical scholar I can think of who doesn't accept the existence of a historical Jesus. He is very much in the minority among scholars, and for good reason...

[Blood]

The vast majority of "Bible scholars" believe Jesus rose from the dead, so I guess that settles the issue. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fringe lunatic and Holocaust denier. 

[Brother Jeff]

The vast majority of "Bible scholars" believe Jesus rose from the dead, so I guess that settles the issue. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fringe lunatic and Holocaust denier. 

 

That's not true. I know of plenty of Bible scholars who are atheist or agnostic, so obviously they don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Let's not paint with such a broad brush, okay? It may be harsh to call Earl Doherty and authors like him "fringe lunatics", but they are arguing for a position that almost no serious scholars even entertain much less accept. If the "Mythicists" had a serious case for the nonexistence of Jesus that was worth considering, that wouldn't be the case...

[Blood]

Deny all you want, it absolutely is true. You're on a very slippery slope when you start extolling arguments from authority and/or consensus from so-called "Bible scholars." Skepticism and critical thinking is strongly discouraged in the Jesus Academy. Many of these so-called scholars have to sign contracts in which they are forced to affirm that the Bible is "The Word of God" and any deviation from this belief will result in their termination. This is NOT a minority of Bible scholars. It is a very large proportion of them. 

[Brother Jeff]

So you're saying that people like Bart Ehrman and other serious Bible scholars like him are in the minority? I don't think so...

[♦ ficino ♦]

I earned a Ph.D. in Classics (Greek and Latin) from Columbia. I publish on ancient textual criticism, manuscripts, and occasionally, philosophy in refereed journals and am finishing a book for Oxford Univ. Press.

 

Why do I say this?

 

Because I have some academic training. I am not an expert in early Christian studies or Judaic studies of the intertestamental period. But I know some things. I even took a year-long course on Josephus under Morton Smith (bwa ha ha!).

 

I used to hang out on earlywritings and participate in discussions about the historical Jesus. Blood would often chime in over there. Do you still post there, Blood?

 

I have an article on the literary reception of Socrates in the 4th century B.C. coming out this summer in a European journal. The problem of the historical Socrates is bad enough. But at least, tho' the dude did not leave writings that we know are his (a side problem in itself, but never mind), there are hostile witnesses, i.e. comic poets, from during his lifetime or shortly thereafter. So we have a negative picture of the man, against which to balance the laudatory picture we get from Plato and Xenophon and Aeschines of Sphettus and others.

 

With Jesus ... not even that. No contemporary witnesses at all. To say nothing of contemporary hostile witnesses. The ONLY sources we have to start with are the letters attributed to Paul and various gospels.  None of these, as far as we can tell, makes a strong claim to be a production of an eyewitness.

 

So the investigator into the historical Jesus is already standing behind the 8 ball.

 

Then, we have to deal with the nature of the 1st century sources (assuming the genuine Paulines and the synoptics are 1st century - which is an assumption that gets dicey in the case of Luke, at the least). They are written so that the reader may believe the Jesus is the Christ. They are propaganda in a literal sense of the term.

 

Nothing in the gospels stands untainted by propagandistic motives of the writers. EVERYTHING is overlaid with an apologetic agenda.

 

We have, then, no neutral basis for trying to detach nuggets of historical truth from the overlay of propaganda under which everything is presented.

 

The above problem renders the Criteria of Authenticity so beloved of the form critics very sketchy.  I can supply some references to discussions of this problem.

 

The non-biblical sources are all later. In the case of Tacitus, we cannot get behind the Annales to the source. If the source was Pliny, Pliny will have most likely gotten his information from Christians of the early 2nd century. THEY are not eyewitnesses; their testimony is not of historical value.

 

Justin Martyr is a problem. He refers cryptically to the memoirs of the apostles. But most of his writings are like Paul's - riffs on the so-called OT without Jesus' biography. Very strange.

 

And on and on.

 

Against all this - we have a cult that I think we can document from at least the early second century, and there has to have been an origin. Shall we think its origin was "mythicizing" midrashic exegesis, onto which was later added a fictitious biography?

 

Such a scenario boggles the mind. So biblical scholars don't "go there." Ancient historians don't see career advancement lying in in-depth work on this problem, so they don't delve into it.

 

I am left in a position of exhaustion. If someone can provide a strong, well-evidenced case, I'm all ears. Until then, after a better part of a lifetime spent dabbling my toes in these problems (but with considerable methodological resources), I can say no more than that he may well have been a real itinerant preacher of enthusiastic bent.

 

OK, someone with solid evidence that hasn't been debunked, hit me/us with your best shot.

 

cheers, f

 

 

[Brother Jeff]

Ficino, Dr. Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" is a great place to start. Dr. Ehrman lays out a very strong case for the historical existence of Jesus in that book. I was quite impressed. Earl Doherty has written a response to it that he claims lays the question to rest on the Mythicist side of things, but I have not taken the time to read it yet. It's not that I'm not interested, really, but more that my focus lately has been on other things, and I just don't think that Doherty, though he means well, has much authority. He isn't a biblical scholar, and very few scholars take his work seriously. 

[pratt]

i would assume we are talking about the jesus as described in the standard niv kjv or whatever bubles.

 

the jesus MUST BE

 

1. born by virgin mary impregnated by the father through holy ghost,

2. born in bethelm, escaped to egypt before 5 yo n returned

3. all events and incidents as reported in the standard bible

4. including died n resurrected.

 

if any of these or some events are untrue, how do one believe what part of jesus/bible is true,,,,

 

can we believe in some and disbelieve in some?

 

i believe there is many JESUSes during that period, and even now, but for this discussion, can we cherry pick which part of Jesus is that.

 

even today, there are people named Jesus, or Rabbi named Jesus, or someone in the death row named Jesus

 

but if you don't believe in a resurrected jesus as depicted in the bible, then which jesus are we talking about here?

[♦ ficino ♦]

Usually within discussions about the "historical Jesus," a minimal characterization is that we're investigating the existence of an itinerant Galilean Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua/Jesus who was crucified by the Romans - and presumably who lived around the time of Pilate's stint as governor.

 

Brother Jeff, this may be unrealistic, but can you summarize for us those arguments of Bart Ehrman that you find particularly cogent? How does Erhman get "behind the gospels" to what he may suppose was the "real guy"? If it turns out that the best Ehrman has are Criteria of Authenticity, those will not be much to go by.

[pratt]

even with historical jesus

 

kindly define historical jesus:

 

who shall this historical jesus be?

 

1. must be born 10BC to 10AD

2. preach end times in israel temples

3. prosecuted and charged by pilates court

4. crucified

 

 

what is minimal characterisation?

 

sorry, i am not being arrogrant or nit picking, just wondering how much or how little this jesus is gonna be?

 

if we set the bar too high with many criteria, there may not be any candidate,

if we set the bar too low, then we may have many others

 

also, other than bible, what documents/historians can we accept as credible source?

[Brother Jeff]

Usually within discussions about the "historical Jesus," a minimal characterization is that we're investigating the existence of an itinerant Galilean Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua/Jesus who was crucified by the Romans - and presumably who lived around the time of Pilate's stint as governor.

 

Brother Jeff, this may be unrealistic, but can you summarize for us those arguments of Bart Ehrman that you find particularly cogent? How does Erhman get "behind the gospels" to what he may suppose was the "real guy"? If it turns out that the best Ehrman has are Criteria of Authenticity, those will not be much to go by.

 

Hmm... I'll have to give that some thought and browse the book again. It's been at least a year since I read it...

[Vigile]

Once you strip the miracles, there isn't much left, so who really cares if there was a real character that was embellished upon? If there was, what we have available is still 90% or more myth. As for the sources, today's Infowars is a better source than what we have to go on with the gospels. 

[Vigile]

To be fair though: most historical characters from that long gone era are scantily mentioned in the sources. How does Jesus fare when compared to other well-known persons we accept as historical?

 

At the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, I've personally seen the swords, the helmets, the coins and most importantly, the busts of many Roman figures of the time. There is an entire floor, the size of a football field, dedicated to the Romans. It's my understanding that we have many of the Roman records too, including census records and legal documents. 

 

Of course a crazy street preacher, if he existed, wouldn't be found amongst any of these, but as they say, absence of evidence is not in fact evidence. 

 

[hockeyfan70]

I've moved from someone who firmly believed that a man named Jesus existed to the side that says he was a myth or perhaps an amalgam of a few apocalyptic prophets around that time.

 

A really good peer-reviewed book about the myth of Jesus is by Richard Carrier and is called On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason For Doubt. https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1909697494&linkCode=as2&linkId=C66FOJUE2U55IXON&redirect=true&ref_=as_li_tl&tag=jamefmcgrshom-20

 

Also the book Nailed by David Fitzgerald is also very good.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian-Myths-Jesus-Existed/dp/0557709911/ref=pd_sim_14_3?ie=UTF8&dpID=41xz4C9mqoL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR107%2C160_&refRID=KN6RQX1FZYWXMJBZFRRT

 

Both were interviewed by The Thinking Atheist podcast in October.

[♦ ficino ♦]

There's a long but pretty good debate on the HJ between Richard Carrier and Zeba Crook. Crook is not a Christian but is an academic who holds that Jesus existed, though we can't know many details about him. Carrier says the myth preceded the biography. The debate begins at about minute eleven.

 

 

A key point of difference lies in the problem, how to evaluate what we read in the Pauline epistles.

 

Carrier is often dismissed as a crank by mainstream scholars (those who pay attention to his work at all). That's a mistake. I have read articles by him in refereed journals.

 

One problem with Carrier is his use of the Ascension of Isaiah to show that there was belief among Jews in a divine son figure who came down to the lower realm of the heavens to contest demons, etc. Some of Carrier's critics say he bungles the interpretation of that text, as well as its dating. I am not qualified to voice an opinion on that problem.

[Blood]

Carrier is a decent scholar, and worth considering, but he comes with baggage as well, in that his entire focus seems to be proving Jesus didn't exist. I would expect somebody with a PhD in Ancient History from Columbia to have published on many areas related to that field, but nearly all his writing is dedicated to either debunking the New Testament (he hardly glances at the OT) or criticizing modern Christianity. This is apologetics in reverse. 

 

There are serious problems with Carrier's exegesis -- accepting Bible scholars at face value regarding the authenticity of Pauline epistles and the historicity of Paul and/or "12 disciples of Jesus;" insisting that there was a pre-Christian belief in a divine figure named Jesus through a tendentious reading of Philo of Alexandria; proposing that "The Ascension of Isaiah" was a key text for Christians, when it isn't included in the NT and barely mentioned or known among the church fathers and commentators; acting very much like a conventional Christian apologist by dismissing passages inconvenient to his theory as "interpolations," and so on. 

[Blood]

So you're saying that people like Bart Ehrman and other serious Bible scholars like him are in the minority? I don't think so...

 

 

If by "serious" you mean "secular," you're wrong. And it is worth noting that the supposedly critical Bart Ehrman never questions the main assumptions of the Jesus Academy -- that the Bible is based on "oral history," that Biblical writers are de facto historians, that the Old Testament's base texts date from the 10th Century BCE, and so on. So he basically agrees with 90% of what the mainline Christian scholars believe. He just draws different conclusions. 

 

Here's what John Barton writes in the Blackwell Companion to Modern Theology (2004): 

 

"In the last twenty years or so there has been a major shift in biblical studies. Consensus even about method has broken down, and the field is now a battleground of conflicting approaches, with no agreed conclusions any longer. 

 

"This can intensify a popular feeling among believing Christians and Jews that biblical scholars are the enemies of faith. In fact, most biblical scholars the world over are religious believers themselves, though not always of a very orthodox kind. Nearly all are Christians, but in recent years biblical studies have been practiced more among Jewish scholars. Only in very recent years have agnostics and even atheists come to take an interest in the bible, partly because of the turn to literary and sociological interpretations ... But a religious motivation for biblical study is still the predominant one. 

 

"...for most people who study the Bible the concern remains, as it has always been, to yield results that are helpful and informative for religious believers. Until the last couple of decades this was achieved through what is called "the historical critical method" - not really a method, more a series of questions that can be put to the text, a particular style of interrogating it."

[qadeshet]

To be fair though: most historical characters from that long gone era are scantily mentioned in the sources. How does Jesus fare when compared to other well-known persons we accept as historical?

 

Historians use both Primary Sources and Secondary Sources. When using Secondary Sources, Historians are much less certain.

 

Distinguish Between Primary and Secondary Sources.

 

2. Primary sources

These are contemporary accounts of an event, written by someone who experienced or witnessed the event in question. These original documents (i.e., they are not about another document or account) are often diaries, letters, memoirs, journals, speeches, manuscripts, interviews and other such unpublished works. They may also include published pieces such as newspaper or magazine articles (as long as they are written soon after the fact and not as historical accounts), photographs, audio or video recordings, research reports in the natural or social sciences, or original literary or theatrical works.

 

3. Secondary sources

The function of these is to interpret primary sources, and so can be described as at least one step removed from the event or phenomenon under review. Secondary source materials, then, interpret, assign value to, conjecture upon, and draw conclusions about the events reported in primary sources. These are usually in the form of published works such as journal articles or books, but may include radio or television documentaries, or conference proceedings.

 

Lets examine the historicity of Jesus and leave the bulk of material used by historians off the table.

 

Solid plan qasdeshet. Let's see how it works out.

 

Your Bible knowledge will be helpfull. Thanks.

 

A polite request to qadeshet and the TrueScotsman (and perhaps anyone else interested?)

 

Any chance that your recent discussions about Jesus that have been spread over several different threads in the Den can now be focused into just this one?

 

No agenda, no pressure and nothing implied against anyone, btw.

 

It just seems to me that this thread is the perfect place for you guys to pursue what is clearly an important topic to you.

 

Many thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Exactly.

 

There are a lot of ways to approach this question. One very useful route that I've found is to ask such questions as:

 

"Are Biblical writers 'historians' in the ancient or modern sense?"

"What exactly was the role and methodology of historians in ancient times?"

"What were the motivations and purposes of the Biblical writers?"

"Was it necessary for Biblical writers to have 'sources' or 'oral history' to write their stories? Or could they simply write something from their imaginations?" 

"Did Daniel, for example, exist? Or did Biblical writers simply take or invent this name (which means "El Judges") and write a parabolic or apocalyptic story around it as a teaching device for their congregations?" 

"Did Greek historiography influence some Bible writers?"

 

These are all complex questions that require answers more involved than I want to get into now. One thing that I've discovered, however, is that modern Bible scholars make it very difficult for you to even get to a point where you are in a position to ask such questions, much less provide answers. This isn't a conspiracy. The root of the problem is that they don't want to ask those questions themselves. 

 

For example, I read so many references in the scholarly literature to The Septuagint that I long assumed that this book was preserved in its original form and existed in some museum. This is the natural assumption one gets from reading Bible scholars. They are constantly referring to what The Septuagint says. There is never the slightest doubt or reservation expressed about some passage in The Septuagint. It's only been relatively recently that I discovered that The Septuagint does not, in fact, exist. What Bible scholars mistakenly refer to as "The Septuagint" are actually mostly Christian Greek Old Testaments from the Fourth Century CE or later, i.e. 600-700 years after The Septuagint translation was first achieved. 

 

The point is that the question, "Did Jesus exist?," is far too narrowly focused. The horizon has to be opened up and the entire spectrum of ancient literature, religion, history, linguistics, and so on has to be brought to bear on the subject. Real people did indeed become exaggerated legends. But the reverse phenomenon also happened -- legends became historicized. Myths became rationalized. We need to consider a wide range of possibilities, not just the extremely narrow range that the scholarly priesthood has pre-determined for us. 

 

Thanks Blood. The real question is the Genre of the NT material. Bible Scholars start whith the assumption that the Gospels have at least some Historical basis. But tell me, what class of writing starts with "Once upon a time", "In the beginning, or "There were shepherds abiding in a field"? The Bible is a collection of Myths, Legends, and Folktales, written by men. The Genre of the Bible is literature.

 

The short and simple answer to "Did Jesus exist?" is... YES. Almost all serious historians and biblical scholars accept the existence of a historical Jesus. The few who don't are in the lunatic fringe of atheism. I realize that people like Earl Doherty mean well, and I have read one of his books (The Jesus Puzzle), but he is arguing for a position that almost no serious scholars even entertain, much less accept. Robert Price is the only serious biblical scholar I can think of who doesn't accept the existence of a historical Jesus. He is very much in the minority among scholars, and for good reason...

 

Hi Brother Jeff! Glad you're back. I am as certain as I can be that you're playing Devil's Advocate. Great idea! Please continue to wear that robe for a while. And what do you think about this idea I've been having. End3 and ironhouse are wonderfull to have here because we need the debate, but they have little debating skills. Maybe we can create our oun "TrueChristian" and play Devil's Advocate. One that we can use for debate. I know that many of us can make a better case than ironhorse. Not a "secret Atheist", but one we can all share. Don't we all love an occasional challenge?

[qadeshet]

The vast majority of "Bible scholars" believe Jesus rose from the dead, so I guess that settles the issue. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fringe lunatic and Holocaust denier. 

 

Thanks Blood. Is this a reply to Jeff? Thanks for playing along with him..

 

 

The vast majority of "Bible scholars" believe Jesus rose from the dead, so I guess that settles the issue. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fringe lunatic and Holocaust denier. 

 

That's not true. I know of plenty of Bible scholars who are atheist or agnostic, so obviously they don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Let's not paint with such a broad brush, okay? It may be harsh to call Earl Doherty and authors like him "fringe lunatics", but they are arguing for a position that almost no serious scholars even entertain much less accept. If the "Mythicists" had a serious case for the nonexistence of Jesus that was worth considering, that wouldn't be the case...

 

 

 

Deny all you want, it absolutely is true. You're on a very slippery slope when you start extolling arguments from authority and/or consensus from so-called "Bible scholars." Skepticism and critical thinking is strongly discouraged in the Jesus Academy. Many of these so-called scholars have to sign contracts in which they are forced affirm that the Bible is "The Word of God" and any deviation from this belief will result in their termination. This is NOT a minority of Bible scholars. It is a very large proportion of them. 

 

Thanks Blood. For what it's worth, about 75% of Bible Scholars believe that the Resurrection, or something like it occured.

 

Scholarly Consesus for the Resurrection?

 

So you're saying that people like Bart Ehrman and other serious Bible scholars like him are in the minority? I don't think so...

 

I hope you're having fun Brother Jeff. Your posts always make me smile. I'm enjoying this too.

 

I earned a Ph.D. in Classics (Greek and Latin) from Columbia. I publish on ancient textual criticism, manuscripts, and occasionally, philosophy in refereed journals and am finishing a book for Oxford Univ. Press.

 

Why do I say this?

 

Because I have some academic training. I am not an expert in early Christian studies or Judaic studies of the intertestamental period. But I know some things. I even took a year-long course on Josephus under Morton Smith (bwa ha ha!).

 

I used to hang out on earlywritings and participate in discussions about the historical Jesus. Blood would often chime in over there. Do you still post there, Blood?

 

I have an article on the literary reception of Socrates in the 4th century B.C. coming out this summer in a European journal. The problem of the historical Socrates is bad enough. But at least, tho' the dude did not leave writings that we know are his (a side problem in itself, but never mind), there are hostile witnesses, i.e. comic poets, from during his lifetime or shortly thereafter. So we have a negative picture of the man, against which to balance the laudatory picture we get from Plato and Xenophon and Aeschines of Sphettus and others.

 

With Jesus ... not even that. No contemporary witnesses at all. To say nothing of contemporary hostile witnesses. The ONLY sources we have to start with are the letters attributed to Paul and various gospels.  None of these, as far as we can tell, makes a strong claim to be a production of an eyewitness.

 

So the investigator into the historical Jesus is already standing behind the 8 ball.

 

Then, we have to deal with the nature of the 1st century sources (assuming the genuine Paulines and the synoptics are 1st century - which is an assumption that gets dicey in the case of Luke, at the least). They are written so that the reader may believe the Jesus is the Christ. They are propaganda in a literal sense of the term.

 

Nothing in the gospels stands untainted by propagandistic motives of the writers. EVERYTHING is overlaid with an apologetic agenda.

 

We have, then, no neutral basis for trying to detach nuggets of historical truth from the overlay of propaganda under which everything is presented.

 

The above problem renders the Criteria of Authenticity so beloved of the form critics very sketchy.  I can supply some references to discussions of this problem.

 

The non-biblical sources are all later. In the case of Tacitus, we cannot get behind the Annales to the source. If the source was Pliny, Pliny will have most likely gotten his information from Christians of the early 2nd century. THEY are not eyewitnesses; their testimony is not of historical value.

 

Justin Martyr is a problem. He refers cryptically to the memoirs of the apostles. But most of his writings are like Paul's - riffs on the so-called OT without Jesus' biography. Very strange.

 

And on and on.

 

Against all this - we have a cult that I think we can document from at least the early second century, and there has to have been an origin. Shall we think its origin was "mythicizing" midrashic exegesis, onto which was later added a fictitious biography?

 

Such a scenario boggles the mind. So biblical scholars don't "go there." Ancient historians don't see career advancement lying in in-depth work on this problem, so they don't delve into it.

 

I am left in a position of exhaustion. If someone can provide a strong, well-evidenced case, I'm all ears. Until then, after a better part of a lifetime spent dabbling my toes in these problems (but with considerable methodological resources), I can say no more than that he may well have been a real itinerant preacher of enthusiastic bent.

 

OK, someone with solid evidence that hasn't been debunked, hit me/us with your best shot.

 

cheers, f

 

Honestly Ficino, this is too good to waste on a thread, and get lost. I would like to see this on the Main Blog. I can't do this, but someone should. Great work. Just don't get a big head.

[qadeshet]

Ficino, Dr. Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" is a great place to start. Dr. Ehrman lays out a very strong case for the historical existence of Jesus in that book. I was quite impressed. Earl Doherty has written a response to it that he claims lays the question to rest on the Mythicist side of things, but I have not taken the time to read it yet. It's not that I'm not interested, really, but more that my focus lately has been on other things, and I just don't think that Doherty, though he means well, has much authority. He isn't a biblical scholar, and very few scholars take his work seriously. 

 

Thanks Brother Jeff!

 

i would assume we are talking about the jesus as described in the standard niv kjv or whatever bubles.

 

the jesus MUST BE

 

1. born by virgin mary impregnated by the father through holy ghost,

2. born in bethelm, escaped to egypt before 5 yo n returned

3. all events and incidents as reported in the standard bible

4. including died n resurrected.

 

if any of these or some events are untrue, how do one believe what part of jesus/bible is true,,,,

 

can we believe in some and disbelieve in some?

 

i believe there is many JESUSes during that period, and even now, but for this discussion, can we cherry pick which part of Jesus is that.

 

even today, there are people named Jesus, or Rabbi named Jesus, or someone in the death row named Jesus

 

but if you don't believe in a resurrected jesus as depicted in the bible, then which jesus are we talking about here?

 

Probably the best we can come up with is Prof Bart Ehrman's Failed Apocalyptic prophet, who got killed and stayed dead.

 

Usually within discussions about the "historical Jesus," a minimal characterization is that we're investigating the existence of an itinerant Galilean Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua/Jesus who was crucified by the Romans - and presumably who lived around the time of Pilate's stint as governor.

 

Brother Jeff, this may be unrealistic, but can you summarize for us those arguments of Bart Ehrman that you find particularly cogent? How does Erhman get "behind the gospels" to what he may suppose was the "real guy"? If it turns out that the best Ehrman has are Criteria of Authenticity, those will not be much to go by.

 

I'm sure Brother Jeff is having fun.

 

even with historical jesus

 

kindly define historical jesus:

 

who shall this historical jesus be?

 

1. must be born 10BC to 10AD

2. preach end times in israel temples

3. prosecuted and charged by pilates court

4. crucified

 

 

what is minimal characterisation?

 

sorry, i am not being arrogrant or nit picking, just wondering how much or how little this jesus is gonna be?

 

if we set the bar too high with many criteria, there may not be any candidate,

if we set the bar too low, then we may have many others

 

also, other than bible, what documents/historians can we accept as credible source?

 

I do not accept the Bible as a credible source. That is a contention that should br proved, not assumed. Is the Epic of Gilgamesh a credible source for the existence of Gilgamesh?

 

 

Usually within discussions about the "historical Jesus," a minimal characterization is that we're investigating the existence of an itinerant Galilean Jewish apocalyptic preacher named Yeshua/Jesus who was crucified by the Romans - and presumably who lived around the time of Pilate's stint as governor.

 

Brother Jeff, this may be unrealistic, but can you summarize for us those arguments of Bart Ehrman that you find particularly cogent? How does Erhman get "behind the gospels" to what he may suppose was the "real guy"? If it turns out that the best Ehrman has are Criteria of Authenticity, those will not be much to go by.

 

Hmm... I'll have to give that some thought and browse the book again. It's been at least a year since I read it...