Bona asked me to read the book before passing judgment; I have spent some time reading the book page to page as well as filliping to interesting parts. I am not done so I reserve the right to change my opinion.

First off the compariasion of Jesus to other historical figures isn’t properly framed. While both Jesus and Ceaser are equally know today, Jesus having a slight edge, Ceaser was better known during his life than Jesus. Ceaser left archeological evidence to his existence in addition to the mentions that he gets from historians. The two together allow for the relative truth to be constructed for Ceaser. Jesus has the one line references from historians as well as the New Testament, but leaves no archeological evidence. To be fair to Jesus he wasn’t that important and didn’t have the funds or the political sway to immortalize himself, nor did he change the political system of the Roman empire or wage a sweeping war across Gaul.

Second Ehrman makes an appeal to the authority in dismissing the Jesus Myth theory. While it may be true that historians and scholars overwhelmingly reject the idea of Jesus as a conspiracy theory, that doesn’t make them right. I think the appeal needs to be the evidence. Fortunately Ehrman does lay out his evidence. So far the evidence seems to rest on three interconnected ideas. The inconstancies and untruths of the Gospels are evidence that it was not made up. Ehrman seems to argue that if it was a grand conspiracy theory they would have done a better job in creating it. He also states that Paul knowing James, the brother of Jesus, is credible. Last if you strip away the supernatural and look at the message it is a historically appropriate message.

My opinion, so far, is that Ehrman makes many assumptions and is concentrated on the debunking the conspiracy theory. Right now before finishing the book I say that Ehrman doesn’t change my mind. The only Jesus that the world knows is fake, he never existed. There may have been a different Jesus but the only thing any of us can do is speculate.

"The only Jesus that the world knows is fake, he never existed." And that makes the search for an historical Jesus irrelevant. Even assuming there was a Jewish peasant whose agitating earned him a Roman execution, he had nothing to do with the God-man of Xtianity. He would no doubt be shocked and dismayed at the perversion of his name.

And-we-know-absolutely-zilch-about-him-ly yrs,

S

See, for example, the skeptical dissection of Ehrman's less-than-rock-solid premise, under "Bart Ehrman''s 'Did Jesus Exist?," at: "Freethought Nation," http://truthbeknown.com/freethought/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3923; and http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=3923&start=150
____


Then this critically-minded response from a PhD in comparative literature/ancient Greek:

"When asked in a recent interview ('The Infidel Guy Show') about the evidence for the historical Jesus, Bart Ehrman threw out the tired line 'No Serious/No Reputable Scholar doubts that a historical Jesus existed.' Ehrman’s support of the historical Jesus is used by apologists to show how even extremely liberal theologians like Bart cannot bring themselves to doubt a historical Jesus (the title of one blog post is 'Atheist Stumped by Overwhelming Evidence for Jesus’ Existence…From an AGNOSTIC LIBERAL').

"The interviewer points out that 'Jesus Christ' may have referred to any communities’ version/chosen representative claiming the title of Christ (there were dozens), but Ehrman rebuts by arguing for one, specific historical personality which was then recorded differently by the various gospel writers – who each present unique versions of the literary character. This is to be expected – as perhaps a handful of Obama biographers may paint a different narrative of the life of our current president.

"Countering the 'argument from silence' (that there is no evidence for Jesus Christ), Ehrman pulls out the worn staple of Christian apologetics, 'wWell, what evidence is there for Julius Caesar?' (i.e., what evidence is there for anyone in history/what constitutes 'evidence'). Ehrman continues:

“'You need to consider historical evidence, and to say that historical evidence doesn’t count, I mean, why not just deny the Holocaust. Why not deny that Abraham Lincoln existed. You have to look at the evidence… There is very hard evidence. For example, we have the letters of Paul – Paul knew Jesus’ family and relatives and made “off the cuff comments” about “James the brother of the Lord.' As a historian, there is no doubt that Paul wrote Galatians . . . This is what I do for a living, I’ve been doing this for 30 years, everybody who’s looked at this thing seriously, there’s nobody who doubts this. Name ONE New Testament scholar who doubts that Paul wrote Galatians.'

"Ehrman’s hard evidence is this: Paul met with James. James is the 'brother of the Lord.' THEREFORE Jesus existed.

"Ehrman is] [a]sking the wrong questions.

"Focusing on whether of not Jesus existed is entirely the wrong question because, as we’ve seen, the impenetrable army of New Testament Scholars will destroy anybody who claims that he doesn’t (much like focusing on the question of whether God exists clouds much more important issues of social justice and ethics, for example). There is no evidence that Jesus didn’t exist, and a lack of evidence in the historical Jesus cannot prove he didn’t exist. I’ll have to concede with Bart that, taking biblical evidence, there is no indication that there was not a historical Jesus.

"HOWEVER, when viewing the literature/story of Jesus Christ as written in the gospels, complete with supernatural events and claims, the Bible overlaps with previous literary traditions to such a degree that it is impossible for any of those claims/stories to have begun with a historical Jesus Christ. So what Bart is saying (and what, if pushed to 'follow the evidence' as he himself mandates, he would have to agree to) is that there was a historical figure of Jesus but all of the fantastical elements of the story that are prefigured by earlier literary traditions did not originate with him.

"So the 'historical Jesus' of Ehrman and New Testament scholars was not born of a virgin, did not say most of the things ascribed to him (at least not all the stuff that is so familiar to Philo, Stoicism, the Essenes or the Pharisees), was not the 'Logos/Son of God,' and did not resurrect.

"For me, what is profoundly important is to show that the New Testament descriptions of Jesus Christ are literature based on compound mythology, resulting in the final claim (which is NOT revolutionary but rather was the decision of nearly a century of Bible scholars in the early days of historical criticism) that the Jesus of History is virtually unknowable and the Jesus of the gospels is mythology.

"Yet Bart Ehrman is very, very careful to continue preaching that Jesus was historical (even while publishing books that undermine Christianity). Interestingly, in the interview Robert M. Price comes up – he’s a Biblical/New Testament scholar who has publicly argued in favor of a mythical Christ, and Ehrman is adamant, totally assured, that Price doesn’t currently hold a teaching position (this is unfortunately a vicious circle: As Ehrman has pointed out, ALL New Testament scholars unanimously agree that Jesus existed – those, like Price – who dare to disagree, cannot possibly hope to find a teaching position anywhere; leading to the continuation and preservation of a body of biblical scholars who unanimously agree that Jesus was historical).

"Meanwhile, Christians use Ehrman and the other New Testament scholars’ assertion in the historical Jesus to bolster their faith, when neither Ehrman, any biblical scholar, nor any Christian apologist can explain the deeply troubling parallels between Christian literature and pagan mythology. (Christians argue that it doesn’t exist or it is natural that 'Pagan-Christs' prefigured the Real Truth; while biblical scholars say “well sure all that stuff was taken from pagan mythology, but that all came later, it has nothing to do with the real Jesus.”)

"But what if it didn’t come later? It can be proven, citing biblical passages, that the physical body of Jesus Christ was doubted even before Paul, in the very earliest days of Christianity; groups were already claiming Jesus did not come in the flesh, but in some kind of spiritual body.

"'Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.' (1 John 4: 1-3)

"Is the existence of a Jesus Christ with only a non-physical, ghostly body the same as the one Ehrman believes in? Is there any way at all to account for these early Christian groups who denied that Jesus came in the flesh?

"Ehrman keeps pointing out 'the evidence;' but is the small amount of evidence leading us to a historical Jesus enough to counteract the massive amounts of evidence that seem to question whether Jesus actually lived, breathed, ate, died or resurrected (rather than merely 'in semblance')?

"At the very least, I find it to be an extremely fascinating and worthwhile question. Unfortunately, very few researchers are interested in that question, and we are immediately rebuked/dismissed by Ehrman and his cronies because we are not 'Serious New Testament Scholars' (my PhD is merely in comparative literature/ancient Greek, so obviously I don’t know what I’m talking about).

"P.S.--Ehrman is an excellent researcher and his books are well worth reading; although I was a little disappointed by some of the rhetoric/logical gaps in this interview, as well as his out of hand dismissal of the larger issues at question (which, to be fair, were the interviewer’s responsibility), I appreciate and enjoy most of Ehrman’s work."

("Bart Ehrman: Did Jesus Exist? Is There Evidence for a Historical Jesus?," on "Holy Blasemphy," under "Is Jesus a Myth?," at: http://www.holyblasphemy.net/bart-ehrman-did-jesus-exist-is-there-evidence-for-a-historical-jesus/christmyththeor)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 04:01PM by steve benson.

I think it's possible that there was a person or persons that inspired the Jesus story, but to say that no reputable historian doubts it gets Ehrman off on the wrong foot with an appeal to authority. I would have felt better if he had said that it is "likely" that there was a historical Jesus rather than to say that there undoubtedly was, because I don't think there's enough evidence to prove it either way. If I do see some references to evidence in the reviews (no appeals to authority) that are good enough to substantiate his claims, I'll consider getting his book because I really would be interested in owning a book with that kind of information that I could refer to..



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 06:15PM by Makurosu.

I am reminded of the long argument about whether Homer (traditional author of the Iliad and the Odyssey) really existed.

After decades of debate, scholars (supposedly) came to the conclusion that the traditional Homer did not exist and therefore did not write the Greek classics, which were written by somebody else, who happened to be named Homer.

... that the mentioned "scholars" and "historians" are biblical scholars and historians.

Its my take that if they all ran around sayin' JuHEEsus never existed, they would quickly find themselves in the unemployment line.

I think they know this.

Timothy



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 06:30PM by Timothy.

Citing scholars who have devoted their life to a subject may be an appeal to authority but it is done all the time.All scholarly books have lists of sources and bibloiograpy which is , surprise,an appeal to authority. There is nothing wrong with that. What strikes me is how the people who blame me for appealing to authority or Bart Ehrman do exactly the same thing except their 'scholars' are often ssupect and have no credentials.Appealing to published classicists or historians who have been peer reviewed is hardly the same thing as appealing to the 'authority' of Freke and Gandy or Achyra S. Give me a freaking break. You guys really need to educate yourselves on scholarship and ancient history.

The evidence should support the scholarly work, not past scholars. I have so far found the evidence to be conjecture and assumption.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 06:27PM by steve benson.

... believe in the existence of divine JuHEEsus?

Oh, and whenever two or more are gathered in promoting his name, there is conspiracy.

Just sayin'

Timothy

I'm generally a fan of his work, but I too will withhold judgement on this one til I get to read it.

I don't really have a dog in the historical/myth fight, but I do know that the gospels are loaded with mythic/literary constructions. Trying to find the actual kernel of a human being behind that is going to be quite a challenge.


Also, here is an opinion by a mythicist I actually respect (Richard Carrier). http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 07:21PM by archytas.

Wow. You guys are brilliant. I don't know if I belong here. I love the way Steve Benson quoted a guy who larded his comments with such utter subtleties such as accusing Ehrman of "preaching" and "...Ehrman’s support of the historical Jesus is used by apologists.." That doesn't hit any atheist buttons -- their hysterical fear that if you prove there was a historical Jesus, why next thing you know you will be believing he is God!

I loved this bit: "...the small amount of evidence leading us to a historical Jesus enough to counteract the massive amounts of evidence that seem to question whether Jesus actually lived, breathed, ate, died or resurrected (rather than merely 'in semblance')?" I guess there is just no way someone could go through -- he lived, breathed, ate, and died -- without going to -- he resurrected. Yeah. I think that about a lot of humans. If they live, breathed, ate, died, they must have resurrected too! It's just logic. Who wouldn't connect those -- just sort of automatically? I just love this "scholar" Benson quoted -- because he's about a cunning and indirect as that preacher ol' Santorum was listening to the other day screaming about how Muslim and liberals could just leave the country! Just leave!

But you guys must realize there was no Buddha, right? I mean -- the guy was clearly an invention!

"Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[19]"

But Buddha and Jesus aren't the only ones. Oh no. There was no Lao Tzu. They claim he was born an old man, and that is pretty preposterous -- so I think we can deduce there was no such person. I mean -- gimme a break! It's not like that could like -- be a metaphor or something. Them commie believers. They are always trying to sneak stuff by ya' like that! Saying in this tired voice, "Maybe it's a metaphor. Maybe mythology has symbolic significance." That's how they fool ya' into believing! They are very tricky, and you have to watch out of them masquerading as "scholars." And also the commies that hid under Grandpa Benson's bed!

But not only can we dismiss every religious figure in all of history as not being "historical" (because all had legends about them), but here's the kicker: This is the part I really think you're going to like -- There is no Rome! That's right! Because you know there were never no pair of twins that Mars fathered with some "vestal virgin," twins suckled by wolves and raised by -- I dunno -- a woodsman and his wife maybe? So as there weren't no twins, that means there weren't no Rome! It's not as though myth could be related to -- ya' know -- the real world. That NEVER happens! It's it smells like a duck, it's probably one of those commie scholars who hid under my grandpa's bed!

I amaze myself with my own intelligence.

LOL

In the meantime, here's another book for you to consider:

"Jesus is Dead," in which Robert Price argues that there is no compelling evidence that Jesus ever lived. Price is a U.S theologian and author who teaches philosophy and religion at Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary. He is also a professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute, was a participant in the Jesus Seminar and has published such books as "Deconstructing Jesus' and "The Case Against the Case for Christ."



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 07:55PM by steve benson.

Your right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and if anyone disagrees with you than you need to insult?

To quote Richard Carrier (in response to Ehrman):

"Thus, you should not attack mythicists as a group, for merely sharing a common position or theory, as if there were no distinctions among them as to capability and quality of work. That’s defending a dogma, not a method. Rather, you should attack particular and demonstrable failures of method and competence. And not just claim incompetence, but prove it. Anything else is just special pleading and ad hominem. To do it in the guise of shaming anyone who would dare side with us by denouncing in advance their competence and sanity and implicitly threatening their jobs only makes this despicable rather than merely fallacious."

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow. You guys are brilliant.

Thank you.

> I don't know if I belong here.

Damn near everyone belongs here. Welcome.

> I love the way Steve Benson quoted a
> guy who larded his comments with such utter
> subtleties such as accusing Ehrman of "preaching"
> and "...Ehrman’s support of the historical Jesus
> is used by apologists.." That doesn't hit any
> atheist buttons -- their hysterical fear that if
> you prove there was a historical Jesus, why next
> thing you know you will be believing he is God!
> I loved this bit: "...the small amount of evidence
> leading us to a historical Jesus enough to
> counteract the massive amounts of evidence that
> seem to question whether Jesus actually lived,
> breathed, ate, died or resurrected (rather than
> merely 'in semblance')?" I guess there is just no
> way someone could go through -- he lived,
> breathed, ate, and died -- without going to -- he
> resurrected.

If Jesus wasn't resurected, Christianity has some big problems even if he lived, breathed, ate or died. If he did none of those things, he could not have been resurected and where would Christianity be?

>Yeah. I think that about a lot of
> humans. If they live, breathed, ate, died, they
> must have resurrected too! It's just logic. Who
> wouldn't connect those -- just sort of
> automatically? I just love this "scholar" Benson
> quoted -- because he's about a cunning and
> indirect as that preacher ol' Santorum was
> listening to the other day screaming about how
> Muslim and liberals could just leave the country!
> Just leave!
> But you guys must realize there was no Buddha,
> right? I mean -- the guy was clearly an
> invention!

In terms of what Buddhism teaches, it doesn't matter if there was a Buddha. Remember, If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. If you were to kill Jesus on the way, you'd be, well, crucified. Christinity needs a real Jesus while Buddhism doesn't.

If there was no historical Jesus, there was no resurection and there is no Christianity. You can't say that about Buddha.

> "Traditional biographies of Gautama generally
> include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural
> events. The character of the Buddha in these
> traditional biographies is often that of a fully
> transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being
> who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the
> Mahāvastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama
> is said to have developed supramundane abilities
> including: a painless birth conceived without
> intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or
> bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity
> with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to
> "suppress karma".[19]"

If none of these occured, Buddhism would still be internally consistant. You can't say that about Christianity, you need a live Jesus and an actual resurection.

> But Buddha and Jesus aren't the only ones. Oh no.
> There was no Lao Tzu. They claim he was born an
> old man, and that is pretty preposterous -- so I
> think we can deduce there was no such person. I
> mean -- gimme a break! It's not like that could
> like -- be a metaphor or something. Them commie
> believers. They are always trying to sneak stuff
> by ya' like that! Saying in this tired voice,
> "Maybe it's a metaphor. Maybe mythology has
> symbolic significance." That's how they fool ya'
> into believing! They are very tricky, and you have
> to watch out of them masquerading as "scholars."
> And also the commies that hid under Grandpa
> Benson's bed!

If you were able to conclusively prove that there was no Buddha, no Lao Tzu or no Socrates, that would still not be proof that there WAS a historical Jesus.

> But not only can we dismiss every religious figure
> in all of history as not being "historical"
> (because all had legends about them), but here's
> the kicker: This is the part I really think you're
> going to like -- There is no Rome! That's right!

There was a Rome because you can go there and climb on the stones of the Colliseum (although you would get arrested). That's empirical evidence, measurable, repeatable, falsifiable.

> Because you know there were never no pair of twins
> that Mars fathered with some "vestal virgin,"
> twins suckled by wolves and raised by -- I dunno
> -- a woodsman and his wife maybe? So as there
> weren't no twins, that means there weren't no
> Rome! It's not as though myth could be related to
> -- ya' know -- the real world.

There being no orphan twins does not negate the stones of the Colliseum while the lack of a historical Jesus does negate the resurection.

> That NEVER happens!
> It's it smells like a duck, it's probably one of
> those commie scholars who hid under my grandpa's
> bed!
>
> I amaze myself with my own intelligence.

Well, at least one person is amazed.

PS Not liking Benson doesn't prove there was a historical Jesus either.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 08:54PM by lulu.

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/bart-ehrman-did-jesus-exist-is-there-evidence-for-a-historical-jesus/christmyththeor

Anyone notice that the great expert here didn't even give his name, let along where he got his PHD? Great source.I can check out Ehrman's credentials. How the hell am I supposed to check out Dr. Anonymous from, get this, Holy Blasphemy? Get real people.This guy could be a ditch digger for all we know. Geesh!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 08:32PM by bona dea.

In my post above, I posted a link to a review by a mythicist with a phd.

His review is a response to ehrman's huffpo article specifically.

I highly recommend it.

I also look forward to his review of the book.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 08:34PM by archytas.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Last if you strip
> away the supernatural and look at the message it
> is a historically appropriate message.

Interesting, but does a historically appropriate message prove a historical person?

Of course not, I think that Ehrman is being simplistic.

As I said in another thread I think his best arguments, although weak are (1)Paul knew Peter and James and is reputed to have written almost contemporarily, (2)in a negative way, the reserection narrative goes against what Jews would have expected, and to that I would add now that jacob has pointed it out (3)Jesus is reputed to have taught what alot of Jews already thought. Note that 2 and three are inconsistant. Are the 3 weak arguments synergistic, amounting as a whole to more than they do separately?

Until I read the book, I'll hold with we really can't know what happened before Paul. I'll see if Ehrman changes my mind. The book is only $14.00 on Amazon.

lulu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> jacob Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Last if you strip
> > away the supernatural and look at the message
> it
> > is a historically appropriate message.
>
> Interesting, but does a historically appropriate
> message prove a historical person?

Yes, that's how I see it too. That's pretty good evidence, but Dr. Ehrman sets the bar so high with his claims that there "undoubtedly" was an historical Jesus that he makes it very hard to build a successful case. It would have been more reasonable if he had said it's "likely" that there was a historical Jesus and avoid that precarious position.

My takeaway was that he thinks there was a preacher, Jesus, who preached apocalypticism and forgiveness but who never claimed to be divine, and that the divinity part was made up later.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 09:04PM by steve benson.

. . . knocking down from a microphone a supposed guy named Jesus who allegedly made a name for himself by preaching from a hill:

http://www.holyblasphemy.net/david-fitzgerald-debunks-historical-jesus-at-skepticon-3/christmyththeory



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 09:19PM by steve benson.

Great lecture. Well worth the hour spent watching.

It wouldn't surprise me, a hundred years from now, that LDS members will plausibly claim that there never really was an apostate named Steve Benson. And every bit of evidence adduced will be passed off as some sort of untrustworthy forgery resulting from a gigantic conspiracy.

Incidently, did any of you know that there was never a real Alexander the Great? Yes, it's a fact! His historical existence just cannot be proven!

See how easy this all is?

What if Ehrman's ideas of Jesus are as questionable as saying "There were no horses in the Americas until the arrival of the Spaniards"? What if they are as questionable as saying "The earth was not created in six days 4000 years ago." What if his views are -- just as he represents them -- the accepted scholarship in his field? Wouldn't you want to know that? Wouldn't any serious person want to know that? Just as they would want to know that the new earth theory has been disproved?

Once you take out the paranoid conspiracy theory -- they are just telling us this to hook us into being Christians! -- all you have left is a guy reporting this is the accepted research in his discipline, and he finds it irritating that in the name of "science" and "evidence" people are -- oddly enough -- ignoring both to set forth instead a theory that satisfies their emotional need to damn Christianity roundly.

I thought that was what it was all about -- learning to evaluate scholarly research dispassionately to find something ever closer to the truth. If that scholarly research proves there was a historical Jesus, don't you want to understand it?

And if not, how are you different from the people at FAIR and FARMS? How are you different from Mormons hotly contesting every fact, every discovery, every inference that disproves the Book of Mormon? How can you laugh at them -- while being them?

I am honestly shocked -- even flattened -- by the hypocrisy.

It is as though you imagine that the more anti-Christianity you are, somehow the better. Isn't the real point to be pro-logical, pro-rational, pro-evidence? You act as though believing Jesus never existed is even better than – say – just believing he wasn’t a god! Huh? How is that “better”? Whatever position is supported by the evidence is "better." And, as I say, what if the evidence points (as indeed it seems to do) to a historic Jesus? Don’t you want to go where the evidence points?

Eh – you can take the boy (or girl) out of the Mormon Church, but you can’t take the Mormon out of the boy (or girl)! Apparently…

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 09:42PM by Timothy.

janeeliot, in the interest of being pro-logical, pro-rational, pro-evidence, why don't you respond directly to my comments on your first post before sharing another missive?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 09:44PM by lulu.