Well after reading the title dropped several times and looking into it, I went ahead and ordered Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" as a(n admittedly cheap) x-mas present for a few friends and family members.
Was surprised to learn he is a sitting professor that teaches a few miles down the road. Very much looking forward to reading his historical proofs for the existence of Jesus and discussing it with my giftees.
It's a good book, albeit hastily written, since he basically put aside his work on a much more important book about how Jesus came to be considered God after his death, in order to dash this one out.
The thing is, among real historians, there is no controversy at all about the existence of a historical Jesus. Zero. Ehrman was appalled at how many of his students had been sucked into this "Jesus was a myth" hoax, and how much crap scholarship was being disseminated by people with axes to grind.
Jesus sells books, that's for damn sure. Reza Aslan and Bill O'Reilly both had best-sellers this year.
But real historical scholarship rarely makes the best-seller lists. And that's what this is.
The thing is, among real historians, there is no controversy at all about the existence of a historical Jesus.
So - clyons exaggerated a bit by saying that there is "no" controversy... What controversy there is resembles a small whirlpool in a vast ocean. Its closest analogy is probably to the "controversy" over global climate change, or to the "controversy" between evolutionary science and creationist/ID pseudoscience. It's equally disingenuous to suggest that a minority opinion is more significant and influential than it actually is.
shareNONSENSE! There is NO evidence AT ALL for an earthly Jesus! You are mistaking PROMOTION & PROPOGANDA for evidence! I have even spoke to doctorates in history and the head of the history departments at universities and even they admit it comes down to whether you believe the bible or not! Even they admit the evidence for Jesus outside Christian sources is weak or non existent!
The same reasons Christians dismiss other gods Jesus can be dismissed as well! There is a reason Christianity is DYING out all over the west! It doesn't have a shred more credibility than any other religion!
Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!
No historian or any other qualified scholar ever told you that religious faith is necessary to believe in a historical Jesus.
You're lying.
Jesus is NOT historical and is Judeo Christian MYTH! Crackpot ChristNUTS like clyons accept scripture as evidence yet dismiss all other scriptures that speak of other gods! He is a classic Christian hypocrite! There is ZERO independent evidence to support a historical Jesus! Check out the scholarly support below:
All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.
-Bishop John Shelby Spong
The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life.
-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
You can't quote a single legitimate historical scholar.
And the last quote proves you are wrong--if Jesus had been a myth, it would not have taken until modern times for anyone to consider that possibility.
You idiot. Merry Christmas.
If Jesus didn't exist, we should have to invent him - which is exactly the path Mythicists take. To me, Jesus is much too difficult a savior to have been invented: as he said his Way is narrow and involves a daily dying to one's ego, expressed through constant attention to the needs of others and less attention on one's own anxious, grasping self. Christ is no pie-in-the-sky docetic combatter of Gnostic phantoms. He's a hard act to duplicate, not an easy myth.
shareClyons, you brain dead ChristNUT those are legit scholars blind fool! Your "legit scholars" have NOTHING except "the bible says so". Not a single historical character EVER saw an earthly Jesus and some early Christians THEMSELVES never thought he was earthly! NONE certainly ever saw him!
Jesus is no different than any other sky fairy as the religion continues to die out in America with 4,000 to 6,000 churches closing a year! Your pathetic attempts to legitimize the Judeo Christian MYTH are going nowhere!
Oh are you still here?
It's pretty bad over at the faith religion and spirituality board for you, isn't it?
You kind of get picked on by everybody.
Poor baby.
Actually, megafauna, only one of those “legitimate scholars” is a scholar, and that is Steve Mason. However, he has stated that a historical Jesus did exist, and has written a book on Josephus; he regards, at the very least, the passage about James the Just to be legitimate. I’ve always found it hilarious how mythicists quote mine scholars for quotes that “back up” their side, but don’t even bother looking at that scholar’s conclusion.
Also, you’re quoting Spong? You do know that he is a Christian, right? He is a former Episcopalian bishop. Hell, he isn’t even a scholar of the New Testament. Why are you quoting “ChristNUTS” to “support” your position? Come on, megafauna, even you are better that this. (Though I think the only reasonable explanation at this point is that you are a troll)
As for the other two “scholars”, they aren’t scholars. Moncure D. Conway and J.M. Robertson both wrote in the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth century, and neither of them were professional scholars. There works are way out of date today, just as they were irrelevant back when they were written. (Though the Robertson quote is correct, in that Jesus mythicism reached its height in the late nineteenth century) The fact that mythicists have to dig this deep for “support” is tragic.
Also, you are quite incorrect when you say that early Christians did not believe in an earthly Jesus. Paul wrote only twenty years after Jesus was crucified; this is a very short time, historically speaking. Paul mentions that Jesus had a flesh and blood brother, James the Just; James is also the subject of Josephus’ second passage about Jesus. He was an earthly descendant of King David, he was “born of a woman, born under the law”, and Paul mentions meeting the other apostles; in fact, he gets into an argument with Peter/Cephas.
Not to mention that Paul preached "Christ crucified" as a recently executed, historical figure. If Paul's Jesus were wholly mythical, Paul would not have had cause to complain about pagans mocking his message. Pagans would not have been scandalized by a dying-rising god's adventures in a platonic sublunar realm.
Paul confirms the Gospels' claim that Jesus only ministered to Israel and was killed in Jerusalem, things that do not happen with a mythic Christ.
Paul mentions that Jesus had siblings, and that some of Jesus' Judean disciples were married - and said that he had the same right to be married as they did.
Paul says that Judea was undergoing suffering for historically rejecting a historical Jesus.
Paul examines Jesus' teaching on divorce, then adds some of his own ideas, thus establishing that for Paul Jesus was a real teacher, as well as confirming the Gospel Jesus' strict divorce teaching.
Etc.
= = = = =
BTW, if anyone might be interested, I've just started reading a great book about the historical Jesus and how his image changed from that of charismatic preacher to divine Son of God:
Christian Beginnings From Nazareth to Niceaea, AD 30-325, by Geza Vermes, Penguin Books, NY 2013.
It should be mentioned that Jesus' unusually strict teaching on divorce was essentially feminist in nature--since men in Judea tended to control most of the wealth, the mutual right of each partner to divorce each other under Jewish law often led to older wives being abandoned in favor of younger women--one is tempted to say 'trophy wives'. No alimony laws, so this often led to destitution, unless the woman's birth family would take her back.
The Jewish divorce law was crafted for a society of nomadic herders--such societies tend to have very lenient divorce laws--that was certainly the case for my Celtic ancestors. When wealth is measured in livestock, not land or money or a business, a rejected wife can simply return to her family with her share of the animals she brought with her into the marriage.
Jesus was directing his anti-divorce teaching at men. One reason among many why Christianity attracted so many passionate female adherents. But patriarchy crept back in, of course.
Great posts from both of you.
As usual, you have contributed an interesting, salient fact to the conversation!
shareCOMPLETELY wrong count groucho. All you pro Christian nuts do is cite the bible. That means nothing. Plenty of historical characters were around the time of the alleged Jesus but never wrote he existed. The dying god man/resurrection myth has been done many times before yet you dismiss those! All you guys show is that you are anything but objective. If you TRULY knew what objective means you would realize there is not a SINGLE objective source who saw an earthly Jesus. The Christ MYTH has been spread by FORCE and BRIBERY but never had an ounce of objective evidence!
shareEvery culture examined, whether ancient or modern, has the concept of a dying and resurrected god. The manifestation takes many forms and is as primal as the unconscious recognition of the deep spiritual meaning grafted onto the vernal equinox, the present religious veneer just as superficial and with as little "true" depth as a drying stream. That river bed, though not quite as full as it has been for the past several millennia, can be reasonably and inevitably traced to (if not the ultimate source, at least a primary one) the Nile, Euphrates, and Tigris
So Tammuz, too, is identified with the concept of the eternal dying and resurrected god. Both Osiris and Tammuz represent, perhaps, the development of the Christ myth in western civilization and this is connected to man's urge to dramatize when dealing with supernatural realities.The human mind is given to project an unconscious archetypal image onto people or objects, creating mythical figures. A mythical image of a godman, who redeems heroically the fragile fragmented man of his failures/sins and offers an escape, a ray of hope, holds sway over him. When the true nature of the target figure is seen, the projection is shattered into pieces. A fallen idol remains, but the archetypal desire for the human race to achieve ego immortality remains. When one god dies, another is created to replace the deceased object; so has such a belief always been, likely it will always remain.
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/d/dying_and_resurrected_gods_archetypal_manifestation_of_psychological_need.html
Sure, but name another culture that has writings of somebody contemporaneous with that 'god', writing about him as somebody who lived, and saying "I met his brother."
Of course culture shaped recollections of the real Jesus into a mythic narrative, but the reason people believed he rose from the dead is most likely that somebody removed his body from the tomb. Not because of myths from other cultures that devoutly monotheistic Jews of this era would be unfamiliar with.
I make fun of you a lot, and so do lots of other people at IMDb--including most atheists here--but you need to realize that's because you never really say anything of substance. You don't even engage other people. You never really respond to anything anyone says. You just seem to be cutting and pasting materials you don't fully understand.
You must have gotten horrible grades in school.
What’s with the goalpost moving, megafauna? You said that the earliest Christians did not believe in an earthly Jesus; I refuted that, and then you refuse to acknowledge that? What the hell. Also, how am I a Christian for believing that a historical Jesus existed? So, people who believe that an apocalyptic prophet, in the ghetto of the Roman Empire, was executed for making a disturbance at the Temple are Christians? People who don’t believe that he rose from the dead are Christians? News to me; I guess I’m a Christian because megafauna said so. Most importantly, however, I think that mythicists need to realize something: the Bible is not just one book; it is a collection of different pieces of literature from different authors, contexts. cultures, intents, and languages. When Paul wrote his epistles, he did not intend for them to be put into a holy book; he was just giving his input as to what the early Christians should do. Paul also writes firsthand accounts of meeting people who knew of an earthly Jesus and of his teachings. To discount this valuable source of history just because it is “citing the bible” would be foolish.
Also, this notion that Jesus never existed because no contemporary historian wrote of him needs to be put to rest. Whenever someone suggests this, it just shows that person’s uninformed opinion of how history is recorded. We don’t have contemporary sources for many people throughout history: such as Socrates. We also have very limited sources for Hannibal and Alexander the Great, two of the greatest generals ever. While it would certainly be foolish to say the evidence for Jesus’ existence is just as solid as these two, the point is that because these two have few contemporary records, the question becomes: why, exactly, should we expect contemporary sources for an apocalyptic prophet in a neglected place in the world at that point.
Another criterion for the whole “MUH CONTEMPORARY SOURCES” thing would be to look at other Jewish leaders that are comparable to Jesus. There’s Theudas, a Jewish rebel who lead a short-lived revolt in 46 AD. Certainly seems to have been more popular than Jesus. Do we have any contemporary sources of him or his revolt? Nope. Our only source for Theudas is Josephus. In fact, the only person interested in Judaea during this time period was Josephus. Who else do we have? Judas of Galilee led a revolt in 6 AD to protest a Roman census for taxation purposes. Do we have any contemporary records of Judas? Nope, we just have Josephus. A “Samaritan prophet” proclaimed himself the Messiah in 36 AD, and rallied some followers to Mount Gerizim where they were slaughtered by the Romans. Do we have any contemporary sources? Nope, we just have Josephus. John the Baptist was Jesus’ mentor and has a following that still goes to this day known as the Mandaeans. (I’m still confused as to why mythicists don’t doubt John the Baptist’s existence) Are there any contemporary sources for John the Baptist? Nope, the only source is, you guessed it, Josephus. The point is: no one really cared for Judaea, except for Josephus. To expect contemporary sources for Jesus and not for other Jewish leaders of the era is a double standard.
Also, I don’t have time for the dying and rising god discussion again. I will just leave this here:
http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/
While the author is not a scholar, he does cite plenty of scholars in his refutation of Zeitgeist.
I do know the meaning of objective, megafauna. Scholars that have devoted their entire career to understand the history of Christianity and its origins are objective. When you say that I am a “pro Christian nut” for stating my reasonable position, and that Christianity was spread by “FORCE” and “BRIBERY”, I have good reason to think that you are not objective. What gift are you going to give us next, that Christianity held back scientific progress for 1000 years? Judging by your response, I know that you didn’t read my original post, and I doubt you’ll read this one. I think that I’m kind of an idiot for talking to a brick wall.
For the moment, he'll pretend he doesn't. Wait until he thinks you and I and Bastach are no longer paying attention. Then post the same rubbish again. And again. And again. Never responding directly to anything we say, never making an argument that came out of his own head. Figuring maybe he can outlive us, and that way get the last word. The only way somebody like him can ever win an argument.
Very much looking forward to reading his historical proofs for the existence of Jesus and discussing it with my giftees.
Funny you ask. Just started it about a month ago. Good read. Lots of interesting information, but it's nothing mind blowing. I'd say the most important topic of the book is simply that of informing the reader how the study of history works.
A common myther theme is to say something like "you can't use the bible to prove the bible", which is true if you're talking about religious claims like whether Jesus was divine, whether he did miracles and came back to life after being killed. But for the more historical questions like whether he existed, what he did and said, and where these things took place, the books of the New Testament (as well as other surviving manuscripts that mention him) are invaluable historical texts. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand how the study of history works.
These sources are obviously not ideal. 1) None of the authors claim firsthand contact with Jesus 2) none of the authors are disinterested sources, and 3) most of these texts are copies rather than originals. Having said all that, they are still legitimate sources, especially when you start to get 5 or 10 independent ones that clearly have no knowledge of each other, saying some of the same things. At that point you can piece together certain parts of Jesus' life with a realistic degree of certainty. And if someone then comes in and says "this is all just a fabrication", the onus of proof is on them. That argument simply doesn't have adequate support.
I think another hugely important fact that mythers often miss is that these texts were not originally written with the intent of being part of a canonized "bible". They were not meant to be holy scripture. The authors were folks who wanted to record the stories about Jesus that had been passed along to them via oral tradition and/or earlier writings.
I'm about to get into the part where Ehrman talks about what Jesus may have preached. This is important to me because just stating he was a Jewish teacher that was crucified by the Romans, doesn't say all that much. In fact some mythers will even grant that.
I'm also now looking forward to "How Jesus Became God". That's next.
And if someone then comes in and says "this is all just a fabrication", the onus of proof is on them. That argument simply doesn't have adequate support.Well, certainly not if it's an opponent that's depicting it.
A common myther theme is to say something like "you can't use the bible to prove the bible", which is true if you're talking about religious claims like whether Jesus was divine, whether he did miracles and came back to life after being killed.
I think another hugely important fact that mythers often miss is that these texts were not originally written with the intent of being part of a canonized "bible".
You do recognize that the book is polemical in nature, intended as a response to Christ mythicism, right?
All in all it's been seen as a poor deconstruction of mythicist arguments
Is that a myther theme? I wasn't aware that they owned it.
A lot of polemic against mythicism is predicated on the idea that this or that argument belongs exclusively to "mythers,"
I regard the canon as an irrelevant artificial category.
IMO, harmonization is a believer's game, and has no place in scholarly consideration of the texts.