Bart Ehrman is a type of apologist, in one sense. He was a believer who got too deep into critical scholarship, so deep that he began to see the layers of fraud unfolding before his eyes. He's operating on the assumption that Jesus was historical and God on earth, followed by dropping the God on earth belief, while still assuming there must have been some type of historical doomsday cult leader type at the base of the myth. He's been opening up in awareness gradually, step by step. His apologetics are now related to trying to keep historians looking accurate, instead of defending the bible as absolute truth.

But, having said that, the real question is what does his apologetics have to do with the truth of his thesis? His thesis is that Jesus is based on an obscure doomsday cult leading prophet type from the first century who failed and his later followers deified him and apologized for his failed doomsday. It stems from taking pieces from Mark and others and trying graft together a picture of a doomsday cult leader.

To see how this holds in debate, I have a link to a formal debate between one of Ehrmans fans (Apostate Abe) against opposition to the claim:

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-histo ... -leader/2/

== Conclusion ==

I have proven in this debate that the gospel authors were willing to lie, borrow, and cheat to gain followers for Christianity. My opponent never disproves the Jewish claims about Jesus being a combination of false messiahs. Even if you believe the gospels, I have provided copious textual evidence that John the Baptist, not Jesus, was the apocalyptic ascetic (and two-thirds of Jesus scholars agree with my interpretation). And during this time period, asceticism and apocalypticism were completely intertwined (as seen by the Essenes). If Jesus was not an ascetic, he was not apocalyptic, and I've clearly won that he was not ascetic. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.

And this where Ehrman's overall thesis leads in the end. This debate in favor of the positive claim that a real historical Jesus was a failed doomsday cult leader ended in loss. We actually have a lengthy thread going about Ehrman's new ebook to prove an historical Jesus (entered by Apostate Abe), an effort that has since been put off now for at least another year from what I was told in the exchange:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... =15&t=3923

It isn't exactly Ehrman's historian-ship apologetics that are the downfall of his thesis so much as the fact that the gospel Jesus is by far an amalgamation of various prophet types, including a potential ascetic / apocalyptic John the baptist book of sayings tossed in among other things. There's always many different sides to this supposed one man Jesus, often times too conflicting to reconcile. And, a composite of say 20 different people and countless mythological archetypes strips bare to being no one particular person or archetype, therefore, the Jesus myth is a myth any which way we approach the issue.....

geo wrote:

lady of shallot wrote:
I don't think that's how it works, Lady. Someone who wants to believe in Jesus isn't going to be open to the mythicist question or even pay it lip service.

Geo, yesterday I had a conversation with a sister who is the sort of person you describe here. Since she introduced the question of religion. . . telling me her daughter would once again start attending church services . . . even though "that Bitch" (the priest in this church) is still presiding, I told her about this thread here.

My sister said not to tell her there is no historical Jesus because she has been to Israel!

I think it is important to say that there are people who question the historicity of Jesus. Of course such a consideration will not change the minds of most, or even give them pause for thought but there are those (like I once was) to whom it is important.

Of course one can reject the divinity of Jesus and I was that kind of atheist, but it lends a lot more weight to point out that in fact there is a doubt of his historicity.

To me it is a wrong to teach people that which is not true. To make them live their lives by such false belief systems. To frighten them and intimidate them. To make them accept so much less from life than they need to.

I'm repeating myself, but I find it impossible to believe that the Jesus in the Gospels is historical, in the sense the man portrayed there performed the feats claimed or possessed the identity assigned to him. Even the prosaic parts stand a good chance of not being historical in the sense of accuracy. Even the name of the man might not correspond to anyone who actually had some kind of career as a preacher.

Geo is right that the alternative to "no discernible biographical authenticity" is not necessarily that Jesus is meant as myth. The "history-like quality" of this story has some significance, not as any marker of its truth as we look at it today, but as an indication of the cultural views that created it, which were very influenced by what today we would label as literalism or fundamentalism. If the story arc of the Christ story has parallels in previous myth--which I don't doubt at all--still the unconscious attempt to root these mythical elements in a history tells us something about how the creators of it thought. There is a continuity with the older "history" of the Old Testament. Although most here would agree that Abram or Abraham isn't a historical figure--that is, he is fictional in the sense that nobody was called by God to found a great race, nobody was given a God-command to kill his son, Abraham is given a strong historical dimension that I think isn't a hallmark of myth at all. Or maybe it should be that it's a different kind of myth that tries to appropriate the authority of history.

So the various seemingly historical elements of the Gospels that people have seized on to claim that Jesus is historical (such as the man challenging the authorities and gathering enemies who want to do him in, exactly as with Martin Luther King, Jr.) show clearly only that the Jews who built this story over the decades after an ostensible hero was sacrificed, believed according to their tradition that Things Had Happened. That few or none of them might have happened, in the sense of happening to one, discrete person, seems not to indicate that the purpose of the writings was to be mythic and allegorical.

That's an attempt to differentiate my position from the the ones staked out by Robert and ant.

lady of shallot wrote: . . . I think it is important to say that there are people who question the historicity of Jesus. Of course such a consideration will not change the minds of most, or even give them pause for thought but there are those (like I once was) to whom it is important.

Sure, saying there are people who question the historicity of Jesus is a simple statement of fact. The point I would make is that we don't know whether the Jesus depicted in the Bible is based on a historical person or purely mythical. There's a distinction to be made here between history and faith. With history we don't choose what to believe and what not to believe. We don't talk about the battle at Troy in terms of belief, but on what the evidence shows. As such, we would say that the historical evidence suggests there was an actual Trojan War and that most classical-era Greeks believed it to be a historical event. That's exactly how we should approach the question of Jesus' life, but for True Believers, it's not possible to objectively look at Jesus' life except through the lens of belief.

The question of Jesus as a divine entity is based totally on subjective faith while the more esoteric debate about whether he existed as a human being needs to be an objective survey of history. They are necessarily separate queries. Does that make sense?

geo wrote:
The question of Jesus as a divine entity is based totally on subjective faith while the more esoteric debate about whether he existed as a human being needs to be an objective survey of history. They are necessarily separate queries. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does and the "objective survey of history" is what I would like to see take place. (As actually it has with some "surveyors")

Hello, all.

Thanks for sharing.

I think we still need to be careful when dipping into complex matters like this. The internet has a plethora of Google Scholars.

TVAM ASi wrote:

To see how this holds in debate, I have a link to a formal debate between one of Ehrmans fans (Apostate Abe) against opposition to the claim:

http://www.debate.org/debates/The-histo ... -leader/2/

As I read through this debate, the below confused me:

The first problem with the Tacitus passage is that he specifically calls the Christian belief that the Romans killed their Messiah "a most mischievous superstition." The syntax of the sentence is strange – because it's a translation – but Tacitus has clear contempt for the Christians, based on the passage. He is merely mentioning what the Christians believe and then says he believes it to be a "superstition." The second problem is that "Christus" just means "the anointed one" or "messiah," but as I mentioned above, the Romans crucified MANY false messiahs (who are mentioned in ancient Jewish texts). [This raises another question: if the Jews hated Jesus so much that (according to the New Testament), a crowd of them forced Pontius to crucify him, why don't they joyfully record this "false" messiah's death, along with the many others that *are* recorded?] Regardless, if Tacitus wanted Jesus' identity recorded for antiquity, he would have referred to him as "Jesus of Nazareth" not "the Christian messiah" (Christus). The fact he didn't use Jesus' proper name is further proof that Tacitus didn't believe the claim to be true. You know, besides him calling it a "mischievous superstition."

Why is Tacitus' contempt for Christians being used to throw out this part of the Annals 15.44? His hostility toward "Christus" and "Christiani" actually makes him an important source.
Do mythicists claim 15.44 to be a Christian forgery? No Christian would have described his fellow brothers in such a crude manner. It doesn't make sense.

and then says he believes it to be a "superstition."

This is not a demonstration of a correct understanding of the word "superstitio" as written in the Annals.
"Superstitio" did not mean "superstition" in the modern day sense. "Superstitio" in the context of the time meant a foreign cult whose core beliefs were inimical to Rome. (Janssen - "Superstitio and the Persecution of the Christians")

The second problem is that "Christus" just means "the anointed one" or "messiah," but as I mentioned above, the Romans crucified MANY false messiahs (who are mentioned in ancient Jewish texts).

Regarding the claim "Christus just means the anointed one or messiah" - what source was used to arrive at this definition? The debater doesn't cite a source.
Nevertheless, the Annals indicate:

Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition (superstitio or cult as it is properly translated) was checked for the moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself....,

When translated properly, this points to a specific man that was recognized as the leader of a specific cult.

Tacitus' connection of Christians with the Christ confirms what happened in Antioch in the late 30's when people of Antioch coined the word "Christianoi" (Acts 11:26). It is highly probable that the people of Antioch invented the term Christians for the followers of a leader called THE Christ.

Paul Barnett in his book, Finding the Historical Christ, states the following:

The earliness of the word "Christianoi" as disciples of THE Christ in Antioch supports the contention that the title THE Christ did not originate there in the four of five years after the crucifixion of Jesus. Rather, it suggests that the title originated in Jerusalem where the Romans crucified him because he claimed to be or more likely was said to be THE Christ the King of the Jews. In short, because they crucified him as the kinf of the Jews we must conclude that the title THE CHRIST did not begin postcrucifixtion but precrucifixion.

In short, Tacitus' open hostility toward the Christ makes him a good source. The connection of Christus (the Chirst) with Christiani takes us to the first usage of the word Christianoi in Antioch several years after the Christ was put to death. Christus was the Christ - a man.


Are either of these debaters knowledgable enough to be debating on something so obviously complex?

TVAM ASI,

I noticed your second link was to a website that had a group of mythicist supporters talking in an echo chamber.
I hope that doesn't sound to snippy, but how else should one put it?

Geo wrote:

Someone who wants to believe in Jesus isn't going to be open to the mythicist question or even pay it lip service.

Honestly?

Hmmm,

I'll prove you wrong.

I want to believe in Jesus. Maybe for not the same reasons as Christians, but still.

I am open to mythicists' questions. However, at this point they yet to have any serious publications that would demonstrate scholarly understanding of the complexity of the time in question and would subject it to peer review.

As I've pointed out before, some mythicists more prominent than Doherty are now leaving behind their claims of astrology, myth connections because of the lack of anything substantial to back it up. Also, the conspiratorial aspect of it is what turns me off the most.

I've read some blogs by mythicists who want notoriety because of their claims that they've been researching this for years and years and years.


Sorry, I need more than that.

Ant wrote:In short, Tacitus' open hostility toward the Christ makes him a good source. The connection of Christus (the Chirst) with Christiani takes us to the first usage of the word Christianoi in Antioch several years after the Christ was put to death. Christus was the Christ - a man.


Are either of these debaters knowledgable enough to be debating on something so obviously complex?

I don't know. But Apostate Abe is pretty knowledgeable about a lot of things and his opponent seemed to be as well. As far as some of the complexities and possible forgeries and the possible purpose for forgeries, here's an article that outlines several of the complexities that didn't even make mention in the debate:
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm

Ant wrote:TVAM ASI,

I noticed your second link was to a website that had a group of mythicist supporters talking in an echo chamber.
I hope that doesn't sound to snippy, but how else should one put it?

So you read through and saw Apostate Abe accusing mythicists of talking in an "echo chamber?" Did you also read through long enough to see that most these claims are not simply made up out of thin air by 19th century scholars, but are based on real primary source evidence that seems to parallel Christian ideas? For instance Abe questioned whether Horus was ever "the lamb of God" and yes, Massey was referring to the Horus king presented as a sheep in the book of the dead. Then the goal post was shifted and Abe decided to turn to a new claim which was that Horus as the sheep wasn't exactly like Jesus as the Lamb of God. But that's besides the point. The accusation is that all of these parallels are simply an echo chamber stemming from 19th century scholars with no basis in primary source evidence and that simply isn't true. All you have to do is follow the citations given and see where they lead....

Pauls letters were the earliest, but his Jesus is very different from the gospel Jesus that came along later:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=af ... 3MLKB7vFGU

Now this video begins to really narrow it down:


And he continues here contrasting Paul's heavenly Jesus idea with what came later as a historicized figure in the gospels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... NR5Uv2Z4yg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=JN ... R3liALvyss

i found him he's over here there and everywhere

The indwelling god is himself being brought to birth within the womb of humanity. Each individual is gestating a divinity within the deeps of his own nature. Christianity has fervently exhorted us to look into the empyrean to find the unapproachable God. All the while the infant deity slumbers unheeded within the heart. Christianity has largely nullified the force of St. Paul’s almost frantic cry to us: "Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is within you?"