'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case

[Leonardo]

Forgive me, I'm not a historian (or even much of a history buff so to say), but you are going to claim no one, in the history of humans, have made similar claims of the Greek, Norse or Egyptian pantheon deities (any of them, or any of the demigods) as Paul made about Jesus? Tastes like bull****

May I present the first witness for the defence. The Norse God of Thunder.

[eight bits]

Copa

but you are going to claim no one, in the history of humans, have made similar claims of the Greek, Norse or Egyptian pantheon deities (any of them, or any of the demigods) as Paul made about Jesus?

Was I going to do that? I don't think so; this is news to me. Let's re-read what I wrote.

Paul thinks the man he encountered in a vision was somebody who once lived during Paul's lifetime. That places Jesus in a different literary category from Zeus, Odin and Osiris.

So far as I am aware, none of the literary (= something written down which living people are able to read) ancient top-god stories concern a man who lived during the narrator's lifetime.

The genre of "real-life ghost story" was apparently known. Pliny the Younger (Letters, book 7, number 27) tells about Athenodorus encountering the spectre of a dead man who correctly revealed his hidden burial place to the philosopher. So, information is depicted as able to pass from the dead to the living by visionary experience.

The same source also tells a story of a real man enountering a goddess of sorts, who predicts his future. Nobody thinks that this was a real woman who lived, however. (Apparently, she was a hot giantess....)

Tiggs' snippet from Acts (which, of course, I have cited many times on this board) is similar. In Luke's story there is nothing to suggest that the townsfolk thought Jupiter and Mercury were men. Obviously, they have it the other way around: they think two men are Jupiter and Mercury.

It is reasonable to suppose that they thought they were meeting gods adopting the form of men for a short-term visit to Earth, something that those gods do in their myths. Philemon, a name which has come up earlier in this thread, is from a character in one of those "sojourn" myths.

The "close parallel" myths (a superman who lived and died on Earth, like Hercules or Krishna) are set in the indefinite past, with a geography that recalls, but does not necessarily correspond with, the geography familiar to the narrator. For example, Ulysses, a visitor to the underworld who returns to our world, sails a sea with some islands that aren't there in our world.

With luck, then, some of the above clarifies what I was "going to claim." The character who appears in Paul's letters is unique within the scope of the literature contemplated. The scope of that unqiueness was set by the other poster.

I did not take him to mean any claim ever made by anybody about any Greek, Norse or Egyptian mythological character. It is uncontroversial that the Roman Senate believed it could confer "divine honors" on people, living or dead, and that ancient kings (like our contemporary Emperor of Japan) claimed divine descent, or even personal divinity outright.

We are disscussing ancient stories that survived long enough for us to know about them, about chief gods of a pantheon, either their persistent human avatars (Krishna) or human children (Hercules) or for that matter, since Paul isn't so specific about what Jesus' nature is supposed to be apart from his mortality, human intimates of transcendent and divinely inspired accomplishment (Ulysses).

-

Edited April 25, 2012 by eight bits

[Copasetic]

So far as I am aware, none of the literary (= something written down which living people are able to read) ancient top-god stories concern a man who lived during the narrator's lifetime.

So you mean to tell me, none of the Greek, Egyptian or Norse gods or demigods were claimed to have lived or walked the earth during the lifetime of any writers of those eras?

Seems far fetched dude.

[Copasetic]

Copa

So far as I am aware, none of the literary (= something written down which living people are able to read) ancient top-god stories concern a man who lived during the narrator's lifetime.

So you mean to tell me, none of the Greek, Egyptian or Norse gods or demigods were claimed to have lived or walked the earth during the lifetime of any writers of those eras?

Seems far fetched dude.

From someone far more educated about ancient literature than me (thanks )--Achilles and Gilgamesh. And I believe there is likely a lot more.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Copasetic

[Copasetic]

And another, from Norse mythology!

Harald "Bluetooth" Gormsson, son of Gorm the Old, son of Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye, son of Ragnar Lodbrok. A Man-God-King of Denmark? Sure why not!

[Copasetic]

From China! Zhang Sanfeng

[eight bits]

Copa

What we have here is failure to communicate.

If you cannot be bothered to read what I have already written twice, then I won't bother writing it a third time.

[brainiac]

The mythicist are people who lack the thinking i'm sure they are not aware they recognized the year B.C. before Christ was born and A.D. the year of our lord after Christ was born which means since he was born it was already 2012 years which is actually adopting at present.

[Beckys_Mom]

The mythicist are people who lack the thinking i'm sure they are not aware they recognized the year B.C. before Christ was born and A.D. the year of our lord after Christ was born which means since he was born it was already 2012 years which is actually adopting at present.

Well brainiac.!!.. I guess you have settled it all.. I never knew what BC and AD stood for... I once thought BC stood for - Bacon Cheeseburger and AD stood for - After Dinner. Or A Desert lol . And now it is all clear..You post certainly sheds light and makes me think WOW this Christ guy really did exist.!!

The above is just me codding about with you.. Joking..

[fullywired]

Well brainiac.!!.. I guess you have settled it all.. I never knew what BC and AD stood for... I once thought BC stood for - Bacon Cheeseburger and AD stood for - After Dinner. Or A Desert lol . And now it is all clear..You post certainly sheds light and makes me think WOW this Christ guy really did exist.!!

The above is just me codding about with you.. Joking..

I thought it was brainiac who was codding about

fullywired

[Jor-el]

Give the guy a break, he's a newbie... you'll frighten him away.

Don't worry Brainiac, they're just kidding with you.

Seriously though, BC and AD are not genuine markers for anything, much less the birth of Jesus Christ, who by all indications was born a few years earlier than 1 AD. It is an artificial calendrical construct based on a centuries later innovation. It was initially instituted in the 6th century. That is over 500 years after the fact, and they made a number of mistakes in their calculations.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Jor-el

[eight bits]

Bart Ehrman, on his blog, has recently replied to Carrier's hatchet piece:

in the brief note here,

http://ehrmanblog.org/response-to-carrier/

and the lengthy one here,

http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/

Ehrman cops to getting "Letter 10" wrong, omitting details about the "fire brigades," and missating the major field of Carrier's Ph.D. The rest, not so much. He emphasizes that it is a popular book, not making a case to scholars about something academically controversial, but explaining to ordinary folk why most scholars share the consensus that they do on the existence question.

[Doug1029]

It is sad that someone is again going to make money over the question of whether or not Jesus existed...of course he did...Anyone that denies that has that requires such a burden of proof that Socrates would not be able to meet.

Ehrman's thesis (Jesus existed.) is based on Paul having existed. Of course, if Paul didn't exist, or is a garbled account of a real person (Appolonius of Tyana, aka "Pol"), then Ehrman's thesis is weakened.

There is, however, one little shred of evidence to support Jesus' having lived: Papius said he had "the words of John ringing in my ears." Ireneaus mentions in Book V of "Against Heresies" that Polycarp was "a hearer of John." That's all there is: one "ear witness" and a hear-say account that another person heard John speak. But, where there is a follower, there is likely a leader. Jesus' existence is implied by history, but not proven (and probably not proveable). We're back where we started: believe by faith, or don't. There is but scant evidence.

Doug

[Beckys_Mom]

Give the guy a break, he's a newbie... you'll frighten him away.

Don't worry Brainiac, they're just kidding with you.

Give brainiac some credit Jorel... I think he can read my post that clearly says -> - I am codding with you joking... <-- A bit of a dead give away.. ya think ?

I thought it was brainiac who was codding about

fullywired

I know, I 1st read it and thought it was a joke, that why I joked back lol

Edited April 27, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Tiggs]

Carrier's rebuttal to Ehrman's brief responses, where he continues to destroy Ehrman's book from orbit.

I'm not entirely sure what other kind of response Ehrman would have been expecting, after explicitly (and ironically, incorrectly) naming Carrier within his book as someone that was not adequately qualified to comment on the historicity of Jesus, as opposed to, say, himself.

A gift-basket of Hugs, rainbows and unicorns, perhaps?

[eight bits]

Tiggs

There doesn't seem to be any huge disagreement about facts between Ehrman and Carrier. Ehrman has acknowledged the lapses that Carrier brought up. Their remaining dispute centers on diversity of inferences. If I were a fan of one or the other champion, as I surmise that you are, then that would be a reason to follow the contest. But I'm not.

As so often happens here at UM, the title of this thread doesn't accurately describe its concern. Ehrman, qua historian, isn't "making his case." He believes there is no case to make about the narrow question before him. He believes historians' work is long since finished except to explain to interested non-historians why it's finished.

No doubt Ehrman's attitude will offend historians who subscribe to the view which Ehrman pronounces defeated. I have some sympathy for that protest, since I think the question is close to a coin-toss. Carrier's speculation that some historians are silently closer to my opinion than Ehrman's (or to any version of mythicism, either) was interesting, of course.

However, I have no sympathy for the introduction of ad hominem vitriol into an academic disucssion. This is not the first time I have seen Carrier do this. If there were a disagreement about facts that Carrier was qualified to illuminate, then I would have to hold my nose and consider his arguments. But there is no substantial disagreement about facts; there is a disagreement about the interpretation of facts.

I also dislike that Carrier's pieces about scholarly matters become discussions of himself. Ehrman misstated what Carrier's major field was. Point of privilege to correct that, granted. But there is no privilege for any discussion of why Ehrman made the mistake. Carrier does not know why Ehrman made the mistake, and cannot know this by natural means. So, why does Carrier go on about it? Surely not because his Ph.D. qualifies him to illuminate that question.

Of course, there is one perfect defense to both of my concerns: whatever Carrier writes about current events simply isn't an academic contribution. Ah, now that I can accept. It's pretty much what I think anyway.

[regeneratia]

It is a misleading and false book... just as the bible fraud was. This gentleman falsifies his sources and actually uses, non-existent sources... that means only one thing, he is a man with a mission, even if he has to lie to succeed in it...

I realize that you have a right to your opinion, as I have with mine. However I find those accusations unsubstantiated. Therefore, your words are not to be believed.

[Tiggs]

There doesn't seem to be any huge disagreement about facts between Ehrman and Carrier. Ehrman has acknowledged the lapses that Carrier brought up. Their remaining dispute centers on diversity of inferences.

Really? Perhaps we read different reviews.

In the one I read for example, I distinctly remember reading a sentence that said "This is just a selection, to collectively illustrate a general point" under the heading "Errors of Fact".

As such, I expect that Ehrman probably has at least another round or two on the Carrier fact-o-meter yet.

If I were a fan of one or the other champion, as I surmise that you are, then that would be a reason to follow the contest. But I'm not.

According to Ehrman, there is no other champion. It's Ehrman or bust, as Carrier's not qualified enough and Price isn't employed enough.

In general, I find any argument from authority is fallacious, and to see Ehrman employ that argument at the extremes required to perform character assassination of both Price and Carrier, both with Ph.D's in the relevant field in question, is about as targeted an Ad Hominem as you can get.

As I mentioned earlier within this thread - I'm agnostic to the historicity of Jesus. As such, Carrier reflects my overall conclusion much more than Ehrman does, even though, ironically, I don't particularly agree with Carrier in regards to Paul. Sometimes I completely disagree with both of them.

For example - Ehrman uses the following logical chain to prove Historicity of Jesus:

• Paul was Historical
  
• Paul wrote Galatians
  
• In Galatians, Paul meets James, the brother of Jesus
  
• Paul was telling the truth in Galatians
  
• James was telling the truth about Jesus being his brother
  
• Therefore Jesus was historical.
  

Carrier breaks the chain by claiming that the word Brother could easily be used in a context that means the same as believer, such as the 500 brethren who saw Jesus after his resurrection.

Personally, I'd go with later insertion into the text. The lines in Galatians 1 that mention the meeting with James:

¹⁸ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas^[a] and stayed with him fifteen days.

¹⁹ I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

²⁰ I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

aren't actually attested to in the earliest version of Marcion's Galatian's.

Which leaves the door rather wide open for the possibility of the text to be a later addition, especially since both Irenäus and Tertullian also seem to think that the first time Paul visited Jerusalem happened 14 years later, in Galatians 2.

But, y'know. Not being Bart Ehrman and/or the sitting head of Bible studies at a Western university, I'm obviously not qualified enough to comment.

[Jor-el]

Really? Perhaps we read different reviews.

In the one I read for example, I distinctly remember reading a sentence that said "This is just a selection, to collectively illustrate a general point" under the heading "Errors of Fact".

As such, I expect that Ehrman probably has at least another round or two on the Carrier fact-o-meter yet.

According to Ehrman, there is no other champion. It's Ehrman or bust, as Carrier's not qualified enough and Price isn't employed enough.

In general, I find any argument from authority is fallacious, and to see Ehrman employ that argument at the extremes required to perform character assassination of both Price and Carrier, both with Ph.D's in the relevant field in question, is about as targeted an Ad Hominem as you can get.

As I mentioned earlier within this thread - I'm agnostic to the historicity of Jesus. As such, Carrier reflects my overall conclusion much more than Ehrman does, even though, ironically, I don't particularly agree with Carrier in regards to Paul. Sometimes I completely disagree with both of them.

For example - Ehrman uses the following logical chain to prove Historicity of Jesus:

• Paul was Historical
  
• Paul wrote Galatians
  
• In Galatians, Paul meets James, the brother of Jesus
  
• Paul was telling the truth in Galatians
  
• James was telling the truth about Jesus being his brother
  
• Therefore Jesus was historical.
  

Carrier breaks the chain by claiming that the word Brother could easily be used in a context that means the same as believer, such as the 500 brethren who saw Jesus after his resurrection.

Personally, I'd go with later insertion into the text. The lines in Galatians 1 that mention the meeting with James:

¹⁸ Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas^[a] and stayed with him fifteen days.

¹⁹ I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

²⁰ I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

aren't actually attested to in the earliest version of Marcion's Galatian's.

Which leaves the door rather wide open for the possibility of the text to be a later addition, especially since both Irenäus and Tertullian also seem to think that the first time Paul visited Jerusalem happened 14 years later, in Galatians 2.

But, y'know. Not being Bart Ehrman and/or the sitting head of Bible studies at a Western university, I'm obviously not qualified enough to comment.

Just a question... Are there any actual early Marcion manuscripts that do not have Galatians 1:18-20, or are they merely hypothesized or reconstructed texts?

I am only aware of Higher Criticism attempts to explain away the text.

Isn't it also a contradiction by the selfsame Scholars that they also try to use the ancient artificial catholic explanation that "brother" could merely mean "believer"?

I would interpret that to mean that they are grabbing at all the straws they can.

[Jor-el]

I realize that you have a right to your opinion, as I have with mine. However I find those accusations unsubstantiated. Therefore, your words are not to be believed.

Accusations are a two edged sword, you have yours I have mine, the text is either believed or not. On that basis I have more than enough justification to dismiss Some scholars attempts to dismiss those texts.

That they have to resort to massive misrepresentation to get their points across is indicative of their entire field of study.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

According to Ehrman, there is no other champion. It's Ehrman or bust, as Carrier's not qualified enough and Price isn't employed enough.

Then, as you say, it appears that we each read a different reply.

In general, I find any argument from authority is fallacious

Yes, well, I don't. Not all uses of authoritative opinion are fallacious. Briefly, authority cannot be proof of a certainty, but it can be evidence for a belief.

Thus, for example, I can be impressed that the defendant's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, without being a fingerprint examiner myself. I cannot be certain of the defendant's guilt, or even that those are actually her fingerprints. But I can rationally form an opinion about both subjects in light of an expert's testimony.

Closer to our topic, consider the matter of Pontius Pilate's title(s). One, the other, or both? This is a contingent question, and turns on what is known about Imperial administrative policy.

Known by whom? Surely not by me, and as Ehrman notes, not by him either. As it happens, expert opinion is divided and sometimes hedged on the crucial factual point. Under the circumstances, then, Ehrman is entitled to claim that his opinion is rationally tenable, and to persist in it in the face of a different expert's contrary opinion. Carrier is entitled to think differently, but not to complain that some hold a different opinion than his.

As to the book, I haven't read it, so I can only go by what Ehrman now says its purpose was. Ehrman denies that the book sets out to prove the historicity of Jesus, so it is unsurprising to me that an argument of his doesn't prove the historicity of Jesus.

I have discussed an argument somewhat similar to the one you present in "bullets." I draw a different conclusion from it than what you attribute to Ehrman. Briefly, my view is that it places Jesus in a different category from mythological figures cataloged by another poster. I have also noted that I don't believe that Jesus' existence "follows" from that argument. My personal estimate that it is more likely than not that Jesus did exist relies on other considerations as well.

If you really want to pursue this in depth, then you need to find a fan of Ehrman. As I've noted, I'm not. He doesn't even agree with me about the answer to the current thread-title question. As I recall, you and I are closer on that question than Ehrman and I are.

[Tiggs]

Just a question... Are there any actual early Marcion manuscripts that do not have Galatians 1:18-20, or are they merely hypothesized or reconstructed texts?

There are no actual extant Marcionite manuscripts of which I'm aware of, due to the whole being-burnt-for-being-heretical thing and all.

What we do have are reconstructed texts from the extensive polemics written against it. Hence my use of the phrase "attested to".

Obviously, absence of text within a reconstructed text is not definitive proof of absence. It helps, however, that some of the vocabulary used within the contested verses only occurs within other demonstrable insertions. Most importantly, though, we have both Irenäus and Tertullian on record as describing Paul's first visit to Jerusalem occurring after 14 years, and not the 3 years quoted immediately prior.

I am only aware of Higher Criticism attempts to explain away the text.

You say that as if Higher Criticism is a bad thing.

Isn't it also a contradiction by the selfsame Scholars that they also try to use the ancient artificial catholic explanation that "brother" could merely mean "believer"?

I would interpret that to mean that they are grabbing at all the straws they can.

I'm not aware of any scholar holding both positions simultaneously. That would be your own particular strawman.

[Tiggs]

Yes, well, I don't. Not all uses of authoritative opinion are fallacious. Briefly, authority cannot be proof of a certainty, but it can be evidence for a belief.

Thus, for example, I can be impressed that the defendant's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, without being a fingerprint examiner myself. I cannot be certain of the defendant's guilt, or even that those are actually her fingerprints. But I can rationally form an opinion about both subjects in light of an expert's testimony.

I have no issue with authority being evidence of belief. I have issue with authority being used as evidence of fact.

In general, the uniqueness of fingerprints is rarely contested. If it were found that 1 in every 100 fingerprints were the same, then the entire value of fingerprinting would be in jeopardy, regardless of how expert the witness was at identifying matches.

Unless such an expert can reasonably demonstrate otherwise, when required - then his expertise is of much less value. "Because I say so" is not a sufficient argument. Nor is "Because I say so and everyone in my club that's only allowed to join my club if they believe that there are more than 100 unique fingerprints says so too".

I want to see actual evidence that there's more than 100 different fingerprints. Especially if a couple of people with Ph.D's in the same field have just testified under oath that there's only 100 and produced all of them, one of which matches the current defendant's fingerprint.

Closer to our topic, consider the matter of Pontius Pilate's title(s). One, the other, or both? This is a contingent question, and turns on what is known about Imperial administrative policy.

Known by whom? Surely not by me, and as Ehrman notes, not by him either. As it happens, expert opinion is divided and sometimes hedged on the crucial factual point. Under the circumstances, then, Ehrman is entitled to claim that his opinion is rationally tenable, and to persist in it in the face of a different expert's contrary opinion. Carrier is entitled to think differently, but not to complain that some hold a different opinion than his.

Anonymous expert opinion, at least, is apparently divided. Inscriptions in Stone tablets - not so much.

Either way - I seem to recall that it was actually Ehrman who made the claim that the mythicist opinion was "exactly wrong".

I'm presuming that since Carrier isn't entitled to, then Ehrman doesn't have special permission to think differently and to complain that some hold a different opinion than his on this subject, either.

As to the book, I haven't read it, so I can only go by what Ehrman now says its purpose was. Ehrman denies that the book sets out to prove the historicity of Jesus, so it is unsurprising to me that an argument of his doesn't prove the historicity of Jesus.

I have discussed an argument somewhat similar to the one you present in "bullets." I draw a different conclusion from it than what you attribute to Ehrman. Briefly, my view is that it places Jesus in a different category from mythological figures cataloged by another poster. I have also noted that I don't believe that Jesus' existence "follows" from that argument. My personal estimate that it is more likely than not that Jesus did exist relies on other considerations as well.

I noticed your previous argument. It's interesting, but I'm not entirely sure how reasonable it is to ask for written eyewitness reports prior to the invention of the written word.

I'm also not entirely sure why Callisthene and Alexander/Zeus should be excluded, for example, whilst Paul and Jesus/God are not.

If you really want to pursue this in depth, then you need to find a fan of Ehrman. As I've noted, I'm not. He doesn't even agree with me about the answer to the current thread-title question. As I recall, you and I are closer on that question than Ehrman and I are.

Indeed.

[Jor-el]

There are no actual extant Marcionite manuscripts of which I'm aware of, due to the whole being-burnt-for-being-heretical thing and all.

What we do have are reconstructed texts from the extensive polemics written against it. Hence my use of the phrase "attested to".

Obviously, absence of text within a reconstructed text is not definitive proof of absence. It helps, however, that some of the vocabulary used within the contested verses only occurs within other demonstrable insertions. Most importantly, though, we have both Irenäus and Tertullian on record as describing Paul's first visit to Jerusalem occurring after 14 years, and not the 3 years quoted immediately prior.

Reconstructed texts cannot be "attested to" by anyone, at best they are guess rather than a fact. But we have are not facts, they hypothesized. As such they could have been totally different or even not existed at all.

The "demonstrable insertion" is not demonstrable at all from what I have read. We have quite a number of visits by Paul to Jerusalem, 4 at least that I am aware of. The fact that Galatians mentions two of them does not mean that there was ever an insertion in between both accounts. What nitwit inserting anything would confuse 3 years with 14 years?

Also the very text demonstrates drasticaly different contexts between the 1st visit (3 years) and the 2nd visit (14 years). In one, he goes alone, in the other he is accompanied. In one He meets James and Cephas, in the other he meets Peter as well. In one, he is welcomed, in the other he is opposed.

Yet Higher Criticism reduces this to one visit alone, with the rest being a later insertion. I find it strange that Paul would be welcomed and then immediately opposed in the very same visit, not mention going alone and suddenly finding himself accompanied by two friends who were not mentioned earlier.

You say that as if Higher Criticism is a bad thing.

I'm saying it takes some major imagination to come up with an insertion here.

I'm not aware of any scholar holding both positions simultaneously. That would be your own particular strawman.

If I'm not mistaken Richard Carrier, did just that, when he used that argument in his criticism of Ehrmans book. Knowing that he also holds the position that the Galations text is an insertion, seems to qualify him as one of those who does hold both positions.

[Tiggs]

If I'm not mistaken Richard Carrier, did just that, when he used that argument in his criticism of Ehrmans book. Knowing that he also holds the position that the Galations text is an insertion, seems to qualify him as one of those who does hold both positions.

Carrier has never, to my knowledge, used the insertion argument.

I, on the other hand, have and just did.

As regard that argument - I have no idea what you're talking about.

Irenäus and Tertullian make no mention of a solo visit by Paul to Jerusalem after 3 years. That's kind of the entire point.