Freethought Nation

LOL!

Do you think that the reason that Bart thinks Jesus was a real person is because he is using textual criticism - the same method he uses in his other books to prove if something written in the Bible was an interpolation, if something was likely really said or added later for political or whatever reasons?

Since his method requires the existance of "Q" and other early source documents (that have never been found), maybe higher textual criticism is a big FAIL?

Found this posted on Robert Price's Facebook Group (TheBibleGeekListeners):

Well, well ... even Prof. Ehrman can make scribal errors:

Did Jesus Exist? page153:

"This in fact is how the divine man Heracles is born. His mother, Alcmene, is ravished by the king of the gods, Zeus, and afterward she is also made pregnant by her husband, Amphitryon. And so she bears twins, the immortal Zeus and the mortal Iphicles."

Who were those twins again?

'Did Jesus Exist?' A Historian Makes His Case

So, did Jesus really exist? With his new book, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, wanted to provide solid historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.

"I wanted to approach this question as an historian to see whether that's right or not," Ehrman tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz.

The answer is straightforward and widely accepted among scholars of all faiths, but Ehrman says there is a large contingent of people claiming that Jesus never did exist. These people are also known as mythicists.

"It was a surprise to me to see how influential these mythicists are," Ehrman says. "Historically, they've been significant and in the Soviet Union, in fact, the mythicist view was the dominant view, and even today, in some parts of the West – in parts of Scandinavia — it is a dominant view that Jesus never existed," he says.

Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible, Ehrman says. According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.

"Most importantly," he explains, "these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again."

In his book, Ehrman marshals all of the evidence proving the existence of Jesus, including the writings of the apostle Paul.

"Paul knew Jesus' brother, James, and he knew his closest disciple, Peter, and he tells us that he did," Ehrman says. "If Jesus didn't exist, you would think his brother would know about it, so I think Paul is probably pretty good evidence that Jesus at least existed," he says.

In Did Jesus Exist?, Ehrman builds a technical argument and shows that one of the reasons for knowing that Jesus existed is that if someone invented Jesus, they would not have created a messiah who was so easily overcome.

"The Messiah was supposed to overthrow the enemies – and so if you're going to make up a messiah, you'd make up a powerful messiah," he says. "You wouldn't make up somebody who was humiliated, tortured and the killed by the enemies."

So Jesus did exist, but who was he? Ehrman says when historians focus on the life of Jesus, they discover a Jesus who is completely different from the one portrayed by popular culture or by religious texts.

"The mythicists have some right things to say," Ehrman says. "The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."

When Raz asks Ehrman about his relationship to Jesus, Ehrman says that most of it is very historical but that Jesus teaches us valuable lessons.

"Jesus' teachings of love, and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives," he says. "On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put."

"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible... According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.... Most importantly...these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again.... The mythicists have some right things to say... The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."

There have been many Jesuses - Josephus discusses 20 of them. The Old Testament speaks of several "Jesuses," which is the rendition of the name "Joshua" in the OT. However, it is not their story being told in the New Testament.

Other HYPOTHETICAL source documents, mind you.

That's one thing Carrier called Ehrman on. Ehrman was claiming we have the Aramaic source texts behind the gospels, when we really do not HAVE them, they are hypothetical.

I still struggle with Q. Sometimes it makes sense, othertimes it's useless and seems like unecessary baggage.
I did read somewhere recently on one scholar who speculated that Marcion's gospels was possibly the real Q, by that he meant, it was the real source text used by both Matthew and Luke. I'll see if I can't find his name and statement.

He [Ehrman] believes the “lucky seven” Pauline Epistles to be authentic and holds to what I regard as unrealistically early (apologetics-derived) dates for the gospels.

The Archaeological Evidence For Jesus (PHOTOS)

It's March, Easter approaches, and new books about Jesus have appeared. It is an interesting and diverse batch this time around. Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" (Harper) very ably assembles the evidence, showing that claims that there never was a historical Jesus fly in the face of common sense and more than sufficient evidence. "The Jesus Discovery" (Simon & Schuster) by James Tabor and Simcha Jacobivici argues that a south Jerusalem tomb (called the "Patio Tomb" because it is accessed via the patio of a condo) belonged to a first-generation Christian family. Tabor and Jacobovici think they have found an inscription that alludes to Jesus resurrected and ascended to heaven. Archaeologists are not convinced; some are complaining that the authors have grossly misinterpreted the evidence. Ehrman's interpretation of the evidence is convincing; Tabor's and Jacobovici's is not.

How to interpret this evidence is what my own book is all about: "Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence" (Westminster John Knox Press). I begin by explaining what archaeology is: the excavation and study of the remains of material culture. In the case of Jesus it means the excavating and interpretation of remains from the first century B.C.E. and C.E. in Israel (Galilee to the north and Judea and Jerusalem to the south). It means correlating what we discover with relevant written records (such as the writings of the New Testament and the writings of Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian). It often means applying space-age technologies. It is hard work and it is very rewarding.

The archaeological evidence shows that Jesus grew up in a small village, Nazareth, about four miles from Sepphoris, a prominent city in the early first century C.E. This city had a Greco-Roman look, complete with paved, columned street, but its inhabitants were observant Jews. The evidence further shows that Nazareth was linked to a network of roads that accommodated travel and commerce. The quaint notion that Jesus grew up in rustic isolation has been laid to rest. The youthful Jesus may well have visited Sepphoris, whose theatre may have been the inspiration for his later mockery of religious hypocrites as play-actors.

The evidence for the existence of synagogue buildings in the time of Jesus is now quite strong. Archaeologists have identified at least seven such buildings that date before the year 70. It is in the context of the synagogue that Jesus would have matured in the religious tradition of Israel and heard Scripture read and interpreted. Although some historians think rates of literacy in the first-century Roman Empire were quite low, archaeological finds, such as the tablets found in Vindolanda, England, near Hadrian's Wall, or the thousands of graffiti etched on the scorched walls of Pompeii and Herculaneum, suggest that at least a crude literacy was widespread and reached all levels of society. This evidence, along with the Gospels' portrait of a Jesus who debates scribes and ruling priests, asking them if they had ever read this or that passage of Scripture, suggests that Jesus, founder of a movement that produced and collected literature, was himself literate.

Archaeological discoveries have given us a pretty good idea of the wealth of the ruling priests Jesus encountered in the precincts of Jerusalem's famous temple. We may have the name of Caiaphas, the name of the high priest who condemned Jesus, inscribed on an ossuary (bone box). Only one year ago it was reported that an ossuary has been found with the name of the priest's granddaughter. A number of other priestly ossuaries and possibly even the burial chamber of the family of Annas, father-in-law of Caiaphas.

Of great interest are several discoveries that have a bearing on the crucifixion and burial of Jesus. These include the skeletal remains of a man who had been crucified. (An iron spike is embedded in his right heel!) Despite his execution, his body was taken down from the cross and was properly buried, in accordance with Jewish custom. There is no reason to think that Jesus was treated any differently. His body was placed in a tomb, with the expectation that his bones later would be gathered and placed in his family's tomb. The Easter discovery dramatically altered this expectation.

Will there be more? I have no doubt. Just last week, a court in Israel concluded that there is no convincing evidence of fraud in the case of the ossuary bearing the inscription, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The debates and controversies will continue.

Despite almost 2,000 years of searching, there are no extant first-century images or artifacts of any sort from Christianity. There is an odd artifact from Caesarea that supposedly names Pontius Pilate (note the misshapened "I" and "T" in this inscription, which look like they were added later), but nothing specific to Christianity to indicate that anyone had even heard of it during the first century.

GA, I too have been discussing Marcion's gospel as a source for the canonical gospels, beginning with Christ Con in 1999. I built upon the work of Charles Waite in History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200. Price picked up on that lead and investigated it very intelligently in his book Pre-Nicene New Testament, which I reviewed, specifically mentioning Price's adjustment to the Marcion-priority timeline.

In his response to Ehrman, Price reiterates his agreement with the later dating of the gospels, saying:

when asked if he then thought that Marcion was in effect ‘Q’, Professor Vinzent affirmed that he believes this to be the case.

In the meantime, the misogynistic hate speech against me because of this book has reached a new level.

Do you think that the reason that Bart thinks Jesus was a real person is because he is using textual criticism - the same method he uses in his other books to prove if something written in the Bible was an interpolation, if something was likely really said or added later for political or whatever reasons? Since his method requires the existence of "Q" and other early source documents (that have never been found), maybe higher textual criticism is a big FAIL?

Assessment of this debate depends on what people want to hear. Those who see evidence and reason as the basis of ethics will be appalled, while those who value belonging to a mythically oriented tribe of loyal Christians will celebrate Bart as their knight in shining armor.

Umm, don't know about that Robert. Ehrman is not too popular with loyal Christians. See if you can get one to read any of his earlier books. Check out his reviews on amazon. Mostly, his arguments are devastating to the true believer. Hardly think that saying Jesus as a man existed will absolve him from the damage he has done to the inerrancy believers.

I think he has a pretty thick skin when it comes to criticism of his work. I've seen a few youtube debates he's had, and often he does not seem to win them. I don't think he really cares.

I think he's just milking it. Controversy sells lots of books. That's what he does for a living.