Did Jesus Exist - Bart Ehrman's new book

[ant]

I always use Robin Hood as my example. The historical record is too fragmented to say with any kind of certainty that either of these guys actually existed.

What historical evidence have you examined for the above?
How are you examining said historical evidence?
How much historical evidence is there for Robin Hood in comparison to Jesus?

[ant]

If anyone wants to read a well-written summary of the book from a pro-Ehrman blogger, it's here: http://fallenfromgrace.net/2012/04/02/d ... ok-review/

The fascinating aspect for me of a debate like this is how every person weighs the evidence differently and comes up with an "on-balance" opinion one way or the other.

I agree, but...,

One has to know how to interpret and weigh the evidence. If they are not qualified to do so, then their interpretation/conclusions is more than likely bogus.

[ant]

Re Osiris, if you want to know about the continuity between Christian myth and ancient Egypt I recommend you read Christ In Egypt by DM Murdock. I note Ehrman reserves particular vitriol for Murdock, and is entirely sloppy and wrong in his refusal to engage on serious scholarship regarding the topics she writes about. There is a weird psychological and political process going on here, rather like how the Church Fathers whipped themselves in a lather in order to suppress Gnosticism.

Robert,

Can you answer my Osiris question in a nutshell?

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

[Robert Tulip]

Robert, Can you answer my Osiris question in a nutshell? What ancient source ,for example, indicates that Osiris was born on Dec 25 before 3 shepards?

Hi ant. No one has ever made that claim about Osiris to my knowledge. Jesus is seen as drawing from attributes of both Osiris and Horus. The Christmas motif for Horus is discussed by Plutarch, who says

Isis and Osiris LXV.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plu/pte/pte04.htm

common and trivial stories ... identify the legends concerning these deities with the seasonable changes of the atmosphere, or with the growth, sowings, and ploughings of the grain; and who say that Osiris is then buried when the sown grain is hidden in the ground, and that he comes to life and shows himself again when there is a beginning of sprouting; ... and that Harpocrates is born about the winter solstice... when they hear all this, people are satisfied and believe it.

Harpocrates is the Greek name for Horus, who Plutarch says is the subject of a "common and trivial story" about being born "about the winter solstice".

Re the three "shepards", I assume you mean the three kings, not the shepherds in the fields?

One interesting source on this from Egypt is this picture, showing three Gods greeting the sun God born on the winter solstice



Further detail on these questions is at http://www.truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

[DWill]

If anyone wants to read a well-written summary of the book from a pro-Ehrman blogger, it's here: http://fallenfromgrace.net/2012/04/02/d ... ok-review/

The fascinating aspect for me of a debate like this is how every person weighs the evidence differently and comes up with an "on-balance" opinion one way or the other.

I agree, but...,

One has to know how to interpret and weigh the evidence. If they are not qualified to do so, then their interpretation/conclusions is more than likely bogus.

Makes sense. For health advice, I'll go to somebody who graduated medical school rather than to somebody who didn't. Challenges from outside the fold should not be dismissed, however, just on the basis of lack of credentials. There is still a valuable role that amateurs can play. They can sometimes ask questions that the trained authorities don't think of.

[geo]

I always use Robin Hood as my example. The historical record is too fragmented to say with any kind of certainty that either of these guys actually existed.

What historical evidence have you examined for the above?
How are you examining said historical evidence?
How much historical evidence is there for Robin Hood in comparison to Jesus?

I've read enough about Robin Hood to know there is virtually no historical information about the man. The definitive book about Robin Hood was written by J.C. Holt, Professor of Medieval History at the University of Cambridge, which I've read (and still keep a copy in my library).

From the preface:

"This book is about a legend rather than a man. The legend began more than seven hundred years ago. The man, if he existed at all, lived even earlier. He has survived as a hero in ballad, book, poem and play ever since. He cannot be identified. There is a quiverful of possible Robin Hoods. Even the likeliest is little better than a shot in the gloaming."

And from Chapter II: "Practically all that is known of the medieval legend of Robin Hood is derived from five surviving poems or ballads and a fragment of a play."

Such is the nature of history. How many men and women, even great men and women, have lived and died and done remarkable things who have been completely lost to the vagaries of time? The information about Jesus is about as nebulous as they come, and what has survived has become hopelessly enmeshed in religious belief. Most, if not all, comes in the form of fanatical religious testimonials that were written decades or more after his death. They are probably about as reliable as the English ballads about Robin Hood. And, yet, most scholars and historians argue that Jesus was a real person which can't easily be discounted. And as Robert Wright points out in The Evolution of God, there are too many idiosyncrasies about the man that are too inconvenient to have been completely fabricated. For example, according to the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah was supposed to be a descendant of King David and born in Bethlehem. Yet, Jesus was from Nazareth. The gospel writers explain this discrepancy in various conflicting ways of course. The mere fact that the Messiah couldn't perform miracles when commanded to do so by the authorities (awkward!) and that he was eventually crucified seem inconsistent with someone who is supposed to be the son of God. There are many more. It does seem more likely to this amateur at least that the myths that have been passed down about jesus were probably based on a historical person.

[Robert Tulip]

For health advice, I'll go to somebody who graduated medical school rather than to somebody who didn't.

And for religion advice, I'd go to ... ???

Training in religion is brainwashing into group-think. You cannot compare it to a normal intellectual discipline where evidentiary standards apply. The constraints of faith have infected the scholarly community in Biblical studies. They are a brittle guild. People who study religion tend to be cautious about offending pieties. And the biggest pious fraud of all is the claim that the Gospels are reliable historical documents. People naturally steer clear of getting into acrimonious debates, especially where doing so is career-limiting.

Playing the credentialist card on religion is just thuggery. In this field, arguments should be assessed on their merits, not on their affiliation. DM Murdock and Earl Doherty illustrate that people outside the shackles of academia can be far freer and more insightful in their scholarship than people in the university slave machine. Institutional corruption in Bible Studies routinely compromises scholarly integrity to the point that those who are inside the matrix don't even notice their intellectual chains.

The Emperor has no clothes

[DWill]

I might remind you that a former member liked to say that guild mentality or ideological strait-jacket determined that no skepticism about evolution could exist in university science departments. Besides, to make your accusation stick you'd need to show that faith plays a central role in the minds of academics in departments of religion. I'm not talking about the departments of Christianity that we find in Bible colleges; I'm talking about actual departments of religion--where the serious scholarship comes from--and which encompass all religions, not just Christianity. There is no pressure in this setting for specialists in Judeo-Christianity to have bona fides regarding faith.

Would you play the "credentialist card" when the focus shifts to climate-change authorities, Robert? Indeed, I think you have. What I'm saying is that in any scholarly field there is and must be prescribed training and study. In historical fields this training is just as important as it is in the sciences. This means that the conclusions of someone who has not received this training or acquired this knowledge are not as trustworthy as those of one who has. It doesn't mean that prominent amateurs such as yourself have nothing to contribute by way of probing questions and challenges. It is possible for hidebound opinions to develop in establishment camps. If the certified experts can't answer them, it may be time for a new paradigm. That is what Ehrman is trying to do in his book, prove that in this case the paradigm supporting that Jesus was somehow germinally historical, holds. Your side is convinced that only tradition keeps that view in fashion. Because in general your side doesn't have the knowledge or experience base of the other side, I will say frankly that the odds are against you.

I would echo Ehrman in saying that whether or not Jesus existed makes no personal difference to me, as I don't believe in that man of the Bible. It seems somewhat trivial, in fact--except that I strongly resist the total revisionist view that Jesus was a conscious fiction of people of that era. This is what seems insupportable to me and rather an outrage to history. He was believed to have been real except perhaps by esoteric camps who never win the day. That it was a central authority that pawned off the historical view on the gullible masses is wildly unlikely. The authority probably followed the lead of the masses. That's the best politics.

[ant]

Robert, Can you answer my Osiris question in a nutshell? What ancient source ,for example, indicates that Osiris was born on Dec 25 before 3 shepards?

Hi ant. No one has ever made that claim about Osiris to my knowledge. Jesus is seen as drawing from attributes of both Osiris and Horus. The Christmas motif for Horus is discussed by Plutarch, who says

Isis and Osiris LXV.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plu/pte/pte04.htm

common and trivial stories ... identify the legends concerning these deities with the seasonable changes of the atmosphere, or with the growth, sowings, and ploughings of the grain; and who say that Osiris is then buried when the sown grain is hidden in the ground, and that he comes to life and shows himself again when there is a beginning of sprouting; ... and that Harpocrates is born about the winter solstice... when they hear all this, people are satisfied and believe it.

Harpocrates is the Greek name for Horus, who Plutarch says is the subject of a "common and trivial story" about being born "about the winter solstice".

Re the three "shepards", I assume you mean the three kings, not the shepherds in the fields?

One interesting source on this from Egypt is this picture, showing three Gods greeting the sun God born on the winter solstice



Further detail on these questions is at http://www.truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Thank you, Robert. Interesting post. I looked over wikki and read a bit more about Osiris and similar gods that died and rose - Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, Heracles, Eshmun, Baal...,etc.

Gods like these were essentially connected with vegetation and worshiped in fertility cults. When crops died in the winter, but came back to life in the spring, so too was the case for the gods associated with crops(correct?). They are worshiped as dying-rising gods.

Common to all mythicists is the belief that Jesus was a Jewish version of the pagan fertility deity, invented by jews as yet another dying-rising god. This was the beginning of "historicizing" Christ until stories were told about him that created an entirely new narrative - Jesus transmogrified into the suffering son of god who died for mankind's sins.

What is the hard evidence that indicates dying-rising gods like were views that were known in Palestine around the time of the New Testament?

What is the evidence which proves the people of Palestine worshiped pagan gods who died and rose again?

The ancient near eastern gods were connected with seasonal cycles that occurred yearly. Christ's death and resurrection in comparison was a onetime event. What is the reason given by mythicists for this difference? Why are mythicists comfortable with stretching the comparison to create a parallel? Also, Christ's death was seen as an atonement for sins. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING of a sort occurs in ancient near eastern sources. Are mythicists comfortable with this stark contrast? Does it fit neatly into their hypothesis, or is it something that is being explained away to fit their data?

Christ's early teachings were not simply about his body being risen from the dead. It was that he experienced a resurrection - which is not the same thing. That ties in more with the jewish notion of resurrection as it relates to apocalypticism. That is a more plausible explanation for Christ's death and resurrection narrative than what mythicists claim. It is the more elegant explanation, based on the evidence. Why lean toward a more convoluted explanation?

[ant]

What I'm saying is that in any scholarly field there is and must be prescribed training and study. In historical fields this training is just as important as it is in the sciences.

I've beat this same drum ad nauseum, but no one seems to hear it.

That is what Ehrman is trying to do in his book, prove that in this case the paradigm supporting that Jesus was somehow germinally historical, holds. Your side is convinced that only tradition keeps that view in fashion

I think the mythicist camp is, or has tried to be (their views are not novel) a fringe paradigm of sorts.
But weak paradigms have characteristics that generate a dysfunctional practice. The Mythicist angle over the years has never had a good strong pair of legs under it to carry it very far. It is something that pops up occasionally and then disappears for a time. Also, the quality of the culture that utilizes the paradigm may indicate the quality of what is being used. Credentialed scholars that have backed the mythicist conclusions have been few and far between. It is mostly dominated by amateurs that do not have credentials necessary for true scholarship. Scholarship is one thing; story telling / creative writing is an entirely different matter.

The mythicist camp has no legs because it does not appear to asses itself effectively;

It lacks elegance (Ockhams R)
It appears to finagle (conspiracy theories)
It has no method to deal with failures. It is not self correcting.
It's endurance has been poor.