Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

[youkrst]

oh yes, i had certainty of beliefs, wrong beliefs, damaging beliefs, church dogma unexamined in the light of criticism.

i laugh at all that hell tosh now, but it was no laughing matter back in the day.

and many are still very much back in that day, though it is more like a night.

i see them from time to time and it always saddens me, they suffer needlessly, for want only of an open mind and a little discussion and research.

[Robert Tulip]

You asserted that there was an, "absence of definitive early citation." you also say that "Before Irenaeus, ie until more than a century after they were supposedly written, there was no definitive Gospel text."

Irenaeus (mid 2nd c. AD - 202). All of the following are thus before Irenaeus (and there are more, I've merely chosen a sampling to prove the point).

- Ignatius (30-110 AD) quotes Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.

I'm responding to this claim by Doulos here, as it is more relevant than on the thread where he made it.

This is a fine exhibit of apologetic irrationality, as also displayed by Ehrman. To understand how bizarre Doulos' claim about Ignatius actually is, readers may wish to look at Earl Doherty's systematic demolition of Ehrman's argument about this character who claimed the virgin birth had to be accepted as historically real.

At Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 12 Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 2: Ignatius of Antioch, we find the following which gives the lie to Doulos' assertion that Ignatius made "definitive citations" of the Gospels as we have them. I encourage readers to review all of Doherty's posts in this series, as they do provide something definitive, that Ehrman is engaged in nothing more than baseless rhetoric that lacks any evidentiary basis.

Ignatius ignorant of a Gospel

Before looking at some of Ignatius’ other remarks, we need to note that in none of his letters, even when putting forward his claims about a human Jesus, does the bishop of Antioch appeal to a written Gospel. He knows a handful of basic biographical ‘facts’ about Jesus, his birth to Mary, baptism by John, crucifixion by Pilate, a rising from the dead, all at an historical time and place. But he gives no sign that he has in his possession a document which is the source of that information. If he had, we can certainly expect that he would appeal to it, point his readers to it, throw it in his opponents’ faces.

A single passage in the letters resembles a Gospel scene. In Smyrneans 3, Ignatius offers a “touch me” post-resurrection scene to ‘prove’ that Jesus rose in the flesh of his former body and was not a phantom. But here, too, he does not point to a document as his source, or even to apostolic tradition. Scholars like Schoedel (op.cit., p.225) tend to judge that he is not deriving it from Luke’s similar scene, nor from John’s ‘doubting Thomas’ scene, but either from something of his own or some Christian prophet’s invention, or from a floating oral tradition.

Consider the implications

Ehrman fully supports this lack of derivation from a written Gospel for anything Ignatius says. After all, if Ignatius did not derive his data from a Gospel, then he must know it through separate tradition, and so this constitutes for Ehrman “another independent witness to the life of Jesus.” But consider the implications.

This is the year 110 (or later if the letters are forgeries) in Antioch, a stone’s throw from the Syrian-Galilean region where Jesus conducted his ministry, where the evangelists Mark and Matthew wrote (Matthew is commonly dated c.80 CE with a suggested provenance in Antioch itself!), and yet the bishop of that city does not possess a copy of a written Gospel?

The story of Jesus which this bishop has received is limited to the bare-bones biography he puts forward over six letters? Not once in all of the seven letters is there a reference to a single teaching by Jesus, a single prophecy or a single miracle.

Facing a body of heretics who deny all that he holds dear, it is astonishing that Ignatius has not managed to obtain a copy of an account of Jesus’ life reputedly written almost 40 years before (or longer). Mark’s passion account alone, with its scene of a tortured Jesus in Gethsemane and the despairing cry from the cross, would have been perfect ammunition against those who were claiming that Jesus did not suffer.

Christians may not have had photocopiers, but the clamor we should expect for the first written account of the figure they all worshiped did not lead to getting a copy to Antioch from Mark’s home town (a couple of hundred miles away?) by the time 40 years had passed? Even the Israelites did better crossing Sinai!

An Allegory reaches Ignatius as History

Even 20 years or so, if Mark was written around 90, should not have been a stretch. Unless, of course, Mark was originally written as a piece of symbolism, not meant as history, and it took a couple of decades for the story’s basic features to filter out to the surrounding Christian world, through rumor and missionary contact, through expansion and redaction of the story in other nearby communities, eventually to be accepted by some as historical fact — particularly those who would have found it appealing and useful.

Ignatius seems to have received those rumors and reports, and he and others in his circle of communities have swallowed the new fish whole, while having to contend with those who have failed or refused to do so.

No Apostolic Tradition

Not only does Ignatius not possess a copy of a Gospel, he also argues from a position which lacks a few other things. One of them is apostolic tradition, another is an appeal to simple history within his faith movement: the argument that “Christians have believed these things for generations.” Ehrman is quite mistaken when he says: "And he was bishop in Antioch, the city where both Peter and Paul spent considerable time in the preceding generation, as Paul himself tells us in Galatians 2. His views too can trace a lineage straight back to apostolic times." (pp. 103-104)

And just where in Paul do we find views like those of Ignatius, that Jesus was the son of Mary, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by Pilate? Tracing a lineage of ideas back through preceding generations, through a chain of apostles and their teaching, is something which Ignatius never does.

Not even the bishops and other community leaders who he urges should be obeyed are appealed to as holding passed-on truths going back to the apostles. (We might note that whatever the dispute in 1 John 4, neither does that writer appeal to a lineage of belief and history, or to the principle of apostolic tradition. In fact, the Johannine community seems at this stage to have nothing that can be traced back to a Jesus, and God is the source of its revelation.)

Against this sort of scholarly analysis, Doulos wants to claim without evidence that Ignatius is a "definitive citation" of the Gospels, and he tries to mock me for pointing out his error.

[Doulos]

You asserted that there was an, "absence of definitive early citation." you also say that "Before Irenaeus, ie until more than a century after they were supposedly written, there was no definitive Gospel text."

Irenaeus (mid 2nd c. AD - 202). All of the following are thus before Irenaeus (and there are more, I've merely chosen a sampling to prove the point).

- Ignatius (30-110 AD) quotes Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.

I'm responding to this claim by Doulos here, as it is more relevant than on the thread where he made it.

This is a fine exhibit of apologetic irrationality, as also displayed by Ehrman. To understand how bizarre Doulos' claim about Ignatius actually is, readers may wish to look at Earl Doherty's systematic demolition of Ehrman's argument about this character who claimed the virgin birth had to be accepted as historically real.

At Earl Doherty’s Response to Bart Ehrman’s Case Against Mythicism – Pt. 12 Three Voices on the Historical Jesus – No. 2: Ignatius of Antioch, we find the following which gives the lie to Doulos' assertion that Ignatius made "definitive citations" of the Gospels as we have them. I encourage readers to review all of Doherty's posts in this series, as they do provide something definitive, that Ehrman is engaged in nothing more than baseless rhetoric that lacks any evidentiary basis.

Ignatius ignorant of a Gospel

Before looking at some of Ignatius’ other remarks, we need to note that in none of his letters, even when putting forward his claims about a human Jesus, does the bishop of Antioch appeal to a written Gospel. He knows a handful of basic biographical ‘facts’ about Jesus, his birth to Mary, baptism by John, crucifixion by Pilate, a rising from the dead, all at an historical time and place. But he gives no sign that he has in his possession a document which is the source of that information. If he had, we can certainly expect that he would appeal to it, point his readers to it, throw it in his opponents’ faces.

A single passage in the letters resembles a Gospel scene. In Smyrneans 3, Ignatius offers a “touch me” post-resurrection scene to ‘prove’ that Jesus rose in the flesh of his former body and was not a phantom. But here, too, he does not point to a document as his source, or even to apostolic tradition. Scholars like Schoedel (op.cit., p.225) tend to judge that he is not deriving it from Luke’s similar scene, nor from John’s ‘doubting Thomas’ scene, but either from something of his own or some Christian prophet’s invention, or from a floating oral tradition.

Consider the implications

Ehrman fully supports this lack of derivation from a written Gospel for anything Ignatius says. After all, if Ignatius did not derive his data from a Gospel, then he must know it through separate tradition, and so this constitutes for Ehrman “another independent witness to the life of Jesus.” But consider the implications.

This is the year 110 (or later if the letters are forgeries) in Antioch, a stone’s throw from the Syrian-Galilean region where Jesus conducted his ministry, where the evangelists Mark and Matthew wrote (Matthew is commonly dated c.80 CE with a suggested provenance in Antioch itself!), and yet the bishop of that city does not possess a copy of a written Gospel?

The story of Jesus which this bishop has received is limited to the bare-bones biography he puts forward over six letters? Not once in all of the seven letters is there a reference to a single teaching by Jesus, a single prophecy or a single miracle.

Facing a body of heretics who deny all that he holds dear, it is astonishing that Ignatius has not managed to obtain a copy of an account of Jesus’ life reputedly written almost 40 years before (or longer). Mark’s passion account alone, with its scene of a tortured Jesus in Gethsemane and the despairing cry from the cross, would have been perfect ammunition against those who were claiming that Jesus did not suffer.

Christians may not have had photocopiers, but the clamor we should expect for the first written account of the figure they all worshiped did not lead to getting a copy to Antioch from Mark’s home town (a couple of hundred miles away?) by the time 40 years had passed? Even the Israelites did better crossing Sinai!

An Allegory reaches Ignatius as History

Even 20 years or so, if Mark was written around 90, should not have been a stretch. Unless, of course, Mark was originally written as a piece of symbolism, not meant as history, and it took a couple of decades for the story’s basic features to filter out to the surrounding Christian world, through rumor and missionary contact, through expansion and redaction of the story in other nearby communities, eventually to be accepted by some as historical fact — particularly those who would have found it appealing and useful.

Ignatius seems to have received those rumors and reports, and he and others in his circle of communities have swallowed the new fish whole, while having to contend with those who have failed or refused to do so.

No Apostolic Tradition

Not only does Ignatius not possess a copy of a Gospel, he also argues from a position which lacks a few other things. One of them is apostolic tradition, another is an appeal to simple history within his faith movement: the argument that “Christians have believed these things for generations.” Ehrman is quite mistaken when he says: "And he was bishop in Antioch, the city where both Peter and Paul spent considerable time in the preceding generation, as Paul himself tells us in Galatians 2. His views too can trace a lineage straight back to apostolic times." (pp. 103-104)

And just where in Paul do we find views like those of Ignatius, that Jesus was the son of Mary, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by Pilate? Tracing a lineage of ideas back through preceding generations, through a chain of apostles and their teaching, is something which Ignatius never does.

Not even the bishops and other community leaders who he urges should be obeyed are appealed to as holding passed-on truths going back to the apostles. (We might note that whatever the dispute in 1 John 4, neither does that writer appeal to a lineage of belief and history, or to the principle of apostolic tradition. In fact, the Johannine community seems at this stage to have nothing that can be traced back to a Jesus, and God is the source of its revelation.)

Against this sort of scholarly analysis, Doulos wants to claim without evidence that Ignatius is a "definitive citation" of the Gospels, and he tries to mock me for pointing out his error.

Why Robert, I don't mock you for pointing out my error, since you haven't.

I do point out to you that you ignore evidence and fail to address issues. You made the allegation that there is "absence of definitive early citation" before Irenaeus in 180 AD.

I posted 3 examples of citation prior to Irenaeus:
- Ignatius (30-110 AD) quotes Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Phillipians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, and I Peter.
- 'Epistle of Barnabas' (dated 70-130 AD) cites Matthew, and Mark
- 'Shepherd of Hermas' (dated 80-90 AD) cites John, the synoptic Gospels, Ephesians, 1 Peter, Hebrews, James and the Book of Revelations.


a) dealing with one, still leaves you with two that disprove your statement
b) when you're done with those, there are many more

The point is that your assertion does not match with the historical textual evidence.

If you really like, I can also discuss the ideas of your 'scholarly analysis.' I really much prefer to actually 'think' things through, rather than refer to someone else's thinking. I hope you also realize that one of the main critiques of Earl Doherty is that he isn't scholarly. He has a BA, but no advanced research or degree.

[Doulos]

I'm not sure why that would make you a mythicist though, so please explain.

The Romans invented Jesus which is why the Jews were unable to be converted.
For me Christ is not a man or woman its a state of Mind obtained when one becomes God Realized through Gnosis.
Any autodidact will tell you that organized religion is about control and manipulation which is why I have no time for it.


Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.
Seneca The Younger

In this lovely little book the authors explain the government does not want people to think again its about enslaving the masses.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spiritual-Teach ... 1840324228

This is why reading and the propagation of such books is so important today more than ever before. Every way you turn you will see the liars disseminating more lies just like they do with evolution.

Sorry Erickson, still not sure how you arrive at this conclusion from the basis of Jesus not being the actual name.

By the way, I'm not sure if that quote actually comes from Seneca. Try searching for which of Seneca's writings it comes from, and I think you'll find the answer is... none.

[Doulos]

oh yes, i had certainty of beliefs, wrong beliefs, damaging beliefs, church dogma unexamined in the light of criticism.

i laugh at all that hell tosh now, but it was no laughing matter back in the day.

and many are still very much back in that day, though it is more like a night.

i see them from time to time and it always saddens me, they suffer needlessly, for want only of an open mind and a little discussion and research.

Funny, as I came from an anti-Christian background.

My open mind, research and discussion led me to Christ.

[youkrst]

excellent!

if only i lived a bit closer i could go to church with you.

but since i blasphemed the holy spirit i have only a lost eternity being tortured in hell to look forward to, though he is a merciful god, he is also just, and i only have myself to blame for my lack of faith... ohhh... hang on a minute ....

bible quote from Romans 9

14 Are we saying that God is unfair? Certainly not!
15 The Lord told Moses that he has pity and mercy on anyone he wants to.
16 Everything then depends on God’s mercy and not on what people want or do. 17 In the Scriptures the Lord says to Pharaoh of Egypt, “I let you become Pharaoh, so that I could show you my power and be praised by all people on earth.”
18 Everything depends on what God decides to do, and he can either have pity on people or make them stubborn.

God... you bastard, you made me stubborn

PS: love you jesus

[Time Bandit]

Robert,

You are responding like a typical mythicist.
You, as other mythicists do, convieniently ignor historical evidence that does not suit your views and attempt to replace it with stories of Christian conspiracies that present stories of covert operations involving the insertion of documents that attempt to create or keep a Jesus myth in circulation - with no hard evidence to back those claims up

What ancient source for example indicates that Osiris was born on Dec 25 before 3 shepards?

The BE article is meant to stir the hornets nest.
Read it. Attacking the artIcle is secondary.
BE did a great job. Criticism of it is from Jesus haters. That is their problem not his

You, as other mythicists do, convieniently ignor historical evidence that does not suit your views and attempt to replace it with stories of Christian conspiracies that present stories of covert operations involving the insertion of documents that attempt to create or keep a Jesus myth in circulation - with no hard evidence to back those claims up

There is no historical evidence to back up a claim of this god man. You obviously do not realize Erhman is a fence sitter. The book is nothing more than an attempt to quell his critics.

BE did a great job. Criticism of it is from Jesus haters. That is their problem not his

Spoken like a true believer.

What ancient source for example indicates that Osiris was born on Dec 25 before 3 shepards?

What 1st Century historian indicates jesus was real? None!

[Robert Tulip]

Hi Time Bandit, welcome to Booktalk.

You may be interested to read the systematic demolition of Ehrman's specific arguments provided by Earl Doherty at Vridar. The Vridar blog, managed by my Australian compatriot Neil Godfrey, also presents informative critiques of fundie idiots such as Larry Hurtado and James McGrath. Also, Richard Carrier is mostly worth reading despite his arrogance and bigotry, for example this recent summary of the status of his conversation with Ehrman.

And for a hilarious piece of incompetent toadyism, see this.

Sorry to use such inflammatory language, but the quality of debate on this topic is very mixed. At least it is genuinely sparking debate, if not in public beyond the internet.

[Time Bandit]

Hi Time Bandit, welcome to Booktalk.

You may be interested to read the systematic demolition of Ehrman's specific arguments provided by Earl Doherty at Vridar. The Vridar blog, managed by my Australian compatriot Neil Godfrey, also presents informative critiques of fundie idiots such as Larry Hurtado and James McGrath. Also, Richard Carrier is mostly worth reading despite his arrogance and bigotry, for example this recent summary of the status of his conversation with Ehrman.

And for a hilarious piece of incompetent toadyism, see this.

Sorry to use such inflammatory language, but the quality of debate on this topic is very mixed. At least it is genuinely sparking debate, if not in public beyond the internet.

Thanks Robert for the welcome. Yes I am familiar with Doherty's demolition of it.David Fitzgerald is worth a read as well:

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All.
http://www.amazon.com/Nailed-Christian- ... 0557709911

I am about 20% through this but he highlights some excellent arguments and brings a lot of things to light. As I said Erhman's years of fence straddling has suddenly made him unsure of his POV.....

There are some discussions going on here as well:
http://www.jesusneverexistedforum.com/forum

[tat tvam asi]

I checked the book preview, looks interesting and to the point.