• In total there are 49 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 48 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

If anyone wants to read a well-written summary of the book from a pro-Ehrman blogger, it's here: http://fallenfromgrace.net/2012/04/02/d ... ok-review/

The fascinating aspect for me of a debate like this is how every person weighs the evidence differently and comes up with an "on-balance" opinion one way or the other.
Last edited by DWill on Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

What's he have to feel so threatened about?
You can be critical of a view without feeling "threatened" by it. It's silly to conclude his response to the mythicist claims is because he is fearful or threatened by it.

Paul's writings seem less than decisive on the question of Jesus as a historical figure and, anyway, he's not very trustworthy. He definitely had an agenda.
You are completely off base with that presumption. Paul was a persecutor of Christians prior to his conversion. Actually, I believe there is reference to Paul acknowledging Christ's existence prior to his conversion to Christianity (I'd need to look over sections of Ehrman's book). All Pauline scholars, theist, agnostic, atheist alike, who have spent their entire lives interpreting his work all agree that his writings are for the most part a reliable account of the historical Jesus. It's you that do not trust him. Let's be clear on that.
The last paragraph quoted also seems highly suspect. There are, in fact, many unusual birth traditions that predate Christ. And since a virgin birth is impossible, this aspect of the Christ story is definitely myth, so it makes no sense to use is as an argument for Jesus as a historical figure.
Where have scholars of the historical Jesus claimed that their is evidence of his virgin birth? I don't think Ehrman, and other serious scholars have claimed that Mary was a virgin. It is not uncommon to add some myth to actual accounts of historical people, particularly those that existed over 2000 years ago. Give me a break.

Of course you wouldn't be inclined to read his book. You've judged the book based on the article alone. That is your choice.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

ant wrote:
What's he have to feel so threatened about?
You can be critical of a view without feeling "threatened" by it. It's silly to conclude his response to the mythicist claims is because he is fearful or threatened by it.
This kind of discussion tends to get polarized and I don't really want to get dragged into it. But just to be clear, I have always thought Jesus was a historical figure (although I don't really care that much either way). The early Christians were obviously myth-makers in their own right, but I've never found the mythicist position very convincing. It seems unlikely that the person depicted in the gospels and in Paul's writings was completely invented. On the other hand, we know next to nothing about this man Jesus because what has been passed down over the generations has obviously been heavily embellished. I don't believe either position can be determined with any kind of certainty.
ant wrote:
Paul's writings seem less than decisive on the question of Jesus as a historical figure and, anyway, he's not very trustworthy. He definitely had an agenda.
You are completely off base with that presumption. Paul was a persecutor of Christians prior to his conversion. Actually, I believe there is reference to Paul acknowledging Christ's existence prior to his conversion to Christianity (I'd need to look over sections of Ehrman's book). All Pauline scholars, theist, agnostic, atheist alike, who have spent their entire lives interpreting his work all agree that his writings are for the most part a reliable account of the historical Jesus. It's you that do not trust him. Let's be clear on that.
I don't know how you can say Paul is going to be an objective source for a historical Jesus. Paul was competing with other religious groups for people’s allegiance, so he had to be fairly convincing. Regardless of the fact that Paul once prosecuted Christians, clearly he converted at some point and became by far the most influential of the early Christian missionaries. Promising heaven to believers must have surely helped his case. Here's an excerpt from Paul's letter to the Philippians:

12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

He's saying here that if you believe in Jesus, you will go to heaven. Paul was probably a religious fanatic as many were during this time period. Most Christians believe that the source for Paul's writings was God himself. And Paul himself apparently believed this as well:

"For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

So call me cynical, but I don't think Paul is going to be a very objective source.
ant wrote:
The last paragraph quoted also seems highly suspect. There are, in fact, many unusual birth traditions that predate Christ. And since a virgin birth is impossible, this aspect of the Christ story is definitely myth, so it makes no sense to use is as an argument for Jesus as a historical figure.
Where have scholars of the historical Jesus claimed that their is evidence of his virgin birth? I don't think Ehrman, and other serious scholars have claimed that Mary was a virgin. It is not uncommon to add some myth to actual accounts of historical people, particularly those that existed over 2000 years ago. Give me a break.
My point is that Ehrman is using the myth part of Jesus' life to defend his argument for a historical Jesus. Does that make sense to you? It doesn't to me.
ant wrote:Of course you wouldn't be inclined to read his book. You've judged the book based on the article alone. That is your choice.
My comment was that Ehrman's tone seems a tad defensive and some of his arguments aren't very convincing even in this short space of this article. So based on this article, I'm not very impressed and not inclined to read his book. Although I wouldn't be inclined to read his book anyway.
Last edited by geo on Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

DWill wrote:The fascinating aspect for me of a debate like this is how every person weighs the evidence differently and comes up with an "on-balance" opinion one way or the other.
Sounds like politics.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2661 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

geo wrote:you can't prove that Jesus didn't exist based on lack of evidence.
Consider that argument for other fictional characters.

How do we prove that Bilbo Baggins did not exist? For a start, we know that hobbits were invented by Tolkien. We also know that he wrote it as fiction. But some people may believe in Middle Earth, just as people believe in planet Elron or planet Mormon. In these cases we have active evidence of invention, and that is enough proof of nonexistence.

How do we prove that Don Quixote did not exist? This is slightly harder, because Cervantes maintains vigorously throughout the book that the events described are true in every respect. However, it is also very easy to tell that he is satirising claims of historical veracity made in medieval chivalric romances.

Turning then to those romances, how do we prove that Lancelot, Galahad and King Arthur did not exist? Maybe they did, but is it obvious that the fables that grew up around them bear only the slightest relation to any historical reality, and evolved by folk tradition over a period of centuries in oral story telling.

A similar case can be made for Jesus Christ as for Sir Galahad. There is no evidence whatsoever for either of them, except for vigorous assertions by their proponents. It may even be that the idea of Jesus Christ began as oral story well before it hit the presses. It seems the Essenes may have expected an "Anointed Savior", a "Christ Jesus" as part of their secret mysteries, and so started telling fables about this Jesus character. This powerful myth of a dying and rising savior, updating the old archetype, could then easily latch on to any number of pretenders.
those who take their (Christian) faith seriously are never going to be convinced that Jesus wasn't a historical person. Indeed, they believe that he was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, and that he performed miracles. Who's going to try to convince believers that he wasn't a historical person? So if this is indeed one of mythicists' subconscious motives, it's never going to be very effective.
Don't be too hasty geo. As more people come to the view that the invention of Christ presents a more ethical, coherent and compelling account of the available evidence, it is entirely possible that Christianity will evolve to a new phase in which the Gospels are regarded as fiction. After all, Jesus said he came into the world to bear witness to the truth. We can hardly call ourselves followers of Jesus if we insist on believing something we consider false.

Treating Christ as a myth does not necessarily criticize the ethical content of the Gospels, only the gullibility of believers and the duplicity of the church. Recognising that people have been extremely gullible and the church has manipulated this to gain power meshes well with the sense of 'total depravity' in Calvin's theory of the fall from grace. Part of the fall is that people were duped by the Gospel fiction promulgated by the church. Redemption will involve recognition that the story of the Historical Jesus is fiction.

I don't know why you call the motive of mythicists 'subconscious'. Most mythicists I have read are conscious and deliberate about wanting to convince Christians of the flimsy and erroneous basis of traditional faith.
Last edited by Robert Tulip on Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
geo wrote:you can't prove that Jesus didn't exist based on lack of evidence.
Consider that argument for other fictional characters.
The usual burden of proof doesn't seem to apply for a religious figure. Anyone who makes the claim that Bilbo Baggins was based on a real person would have to back that up with evidence. Neither does a quasi-historical figure like Sir Galahad get a free ride because he's not subject to fanatical religious belief. I don't think anyone takes a strong position either way. I always use Robin Hood as my example. The historical record is too fragmented to say with any kind of certainty that either of these guys actually existed.

But the historical Jesus has been presumed for so long that it no longer needs a preponderance of evidence. I think the historical record is too nebulous and too fragmented to undo that presumption, so Jesus as a historical person will stand as is. Perhaps that assumption will be challenged by mainstream historians and scholars at some point. Right now it seems that religious belief cements Jesus' status in place. Arguably the skeptical position would be that Jesus probably existed. I've never heard anything to sway me from that position.
Robert Tulip wrote:
those who take their (Christian) faith seriously are never going to be convinced that Jesus wasn't a historical person. Indeed, they believe that he was the Son of God, that he was born of a virgin, and that he performed miracles. Who's going to try to convince believers that he wasn't a historical person? So if this is indeed one of mythicists' subconscious motives, it's never going to be very effective.
Don't be too hasty geo. As more people come to the view that the invention of Christ presents a more ethical, coherent and compelling account of the available evidence, it is entirely possible that Christianity will evolve to a new phase in which the Gospels are regarded as fiction. After all, Jesus said he came into the world to bear witness to the truth. We can hardly call ourselves followers of Jesus if we insist on believing something we consider false.
I would think that anyone who accepts the supernatural Jesus is never going to take an objective stance towards the historical Jesus. Maybe you're right that over time, people will back off the literal and supernatural aspects and look at Biblical teachings in a completely metaphorical way, gleaning only the messages of morality and universal love.

Why do mythicists take such a strong stance that Jesus never existed? I've suggested myself that this stance comes from a subconscious anti-religion attitude. Subconscious because they aren't aware that this is the source of their vehemence. But this isn't very convincing. Maybe the argument for the historical Jesus has a polarizing effect because it is ultimately irrational. The mythicists have to speak loudly to get through the believers' irrationality? Just tossing this out for discussion.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
johnson1010
Tenured Professor
Posts: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:35 pm
15
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1280 times
Been thanked: 1128 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

RT's right about the comparison to other fictional characters, and that certainly bleeds over to characters who were explicitly meant to be fiction.

H.P. Lovecraft

http://www.booktalk.org/why-settle-for- ... t9177.html?

There is a real Cult of Cthulu out there, much to H.P. Lovecraft's anoyance.

I don't doubt that the myth of Jesus Christ did grow up around some guy who really existed. But that doesn't mean that the bible is an accurate depiction of that man's life.

So in that sense, i am inclined to say Jesus Christ never existed, because the things Jesus is famous for are all the things which could not have happened, rather than the much more hum-drum existence that was actually lived by some cult leader who was the template for this myth.

Santa Clause may have started with a real man as well. Just some guy who liked to reward kids who were well behaved with a toy rocking horse or something. Just because that guy might have really lived is no proof that Santa Clause is real.
In the absence of God, I found Man.
-Guillermo Del Torro

Are you pushing your own short comings on us and safely hating them from a distance?

Is this the virtue of faith? To never change your mind: especially when you should?

Young Earth Creationists take offense at the idea that we have a common heritage with other animals. Why is being the descendant of a mud golem any better?
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

Bart Ehrman makes the point in the excerpted part from the Fallen from Grace blog, that for him personally, it makes little difference whether Jesus has a biographical core. He calls himself an atheist-leaning agnostic. So it isn't just religious folks that will insist that Jesus comes from history. I would hazard a guess that the majority of academics in departments of religion aren't what we'd call believers, either. Yet they apparently do endorse the historical Jesus. What would be their motive if it's not a religious one? That's not a rhetorical question, as they still could fear that their field would be drained of relevance if Jesus was agreed to be a fiction. They have built their careers on presenting an alternate view to the devout conception of Jesus. But to deep-six Jesus himself would be consigning them to the comparative lit department. History has a bit more clout.

The academic consensus that Jesus existed still must be taken seriously, IMO. We non-specialists, non-experts, must rely on the consensus of experts in several areas besides religion. For example, climate change. We need to have confidence and trust in the relative objectivity of those who have been credentialed as authorities. It is entirely reasonable that we ration our confidence based on the qualifications that Ehrman lists, such as PhDs in "cognate fields" and reading fluency in ancient languages. And whenever we are asked to accept conspiracy-tinged claims that a cabal is blocking the truth from emerging, we need to be especially alert and skeptical.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

And whenever we are asked to accept conspiracy-tinged claims that a cabal is blocking the truth from emerging, we need to be especially alert and skeptical.
And that is what a lot of the meat is as it relates to mythicists and some of their claims.

I agree with your comments on experts in the field, which the majority of mythicists clearly are not.
A reading of ancient sources entails a broad range of expertise in ancient languages - Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic. Modern languages of Scholarship - German and French also come into play.
It is silly to give total credence to those that are grossly under qualified in the field, but are excellent authors that can convince a layman of anything. Yet most of these layman who have been convinced by amateurs are firm supporters of scientific qualifications in other areas of study.
It goes without saying that those who vociferously claim that the historical Jesus is nothing more than myth are actually directing their vehemence at religion itself.
Last edited by ant on Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

Unread post

I don't doubt that the myth of Jesus Christ did grow up around some guy who really existed.
So in that sense, i am inclined to say Jesus Christ never existed,
What??

Here we have "P"

then..,

Not "P"


Wishy-washy
Santa Clause may have started with a real man as well. Just some guy who liked to reward kids who were well behaved with a toy rocking horse or something. Just because that guy might have really lived is no proof that Santa Clause is real.
What source are you submitting as evidence for the above?
If it is an analogy, it is a poor one.
Last edited by ant on Fri Apr 06, 2012 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”