Page 2 of 28

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:05 am
by ant
I do suspect, however, that Ehrman is jumping on the Did Jesus Exist bandwagon
That's a hilarious presumption.

Ehrman indicates that the mythicist angle is so poorly represented by non academics that proclaim themselves as scholars in the field of ancient history, and that he receives hundreds of emails from mythicists to respond to their claims that he thought it would be appropriate at this time to respond.

The mythicist angle is similar to a fad that pops its head up every 20 years or so.
It is nothing new or original. It simply is dismissed each and every time because the evidence claims are either shallow or completely baseless and the conspiratorial stories are, well.., conspiratorial.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:42 pm
by oblivion
ant wrote:[

That's a hilarious presumption.
Probably. Like I said, I need to read the book, not just the article.So, as we say here in Germany, I've made "nails with heads" and ordered the book. I'm without internet for 3 weeks so will make some (hopefully intelligent) comment about it when I'm back online.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 2:16 pm
by ant
oblivion wrote:
ant wrote:[

That's a hilarious presumption.
Probably. Like I said, I need to read the book, not just the article.So, as we say here in Germany, I've made "nails with heads" and ordered the book. I'm without internet for 3 weeks so will make some (hopefully intelligent) comment about it when I'm back online.
I have it on my IPhone! 8)

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:34 pm
by geo
Ehrman is right that the mythicists represent a fringe position. That doesn't mean they're right or wrong, just that most credible historians and scholars do indeed accept Jesus as a historical figure.

I am surprised at the tone of Ehrman's article though. He certainly seems to be foaming at the mouth. What's he have to feel so threatened about?

I do have some questions with regards to the following claims.
With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).
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. What are these other numerous independent accounts that come within a year or two of Jesus' life?

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.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but based on this article alone, I wouldn't be inclined to read Ehrman's new book.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 5:47 pm
by geo
Another passage from the article.
Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal -- even articulate -- in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion -- a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers' imagination?
This argument may be true of some mythicists. If Jesus didn't exist, it certainly makes Christianity look very silly. The only problem is that you can't prove that Jesus didn't exist based on lack of evidence. (You can't prove a negative.) The mythicists do make a bit of noise, but they will never have an ironclad case. And 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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:15 pm
by DWill
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:52 pm
by ant
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:01 pm
by geo
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:02 pm
by geo
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.

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

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:29 pm
by Robert Tulip
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.