Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[Goat]

@ Mithrae, Historia, Eden and Stubbornone
. Here is the source link and below I am posting some of the article with highlights.

No source.

Plagiarizing the Internet is not debate.

I extracted the piece of the paragraph Nickman did that showed where he provided a link to the source. That makes it not plagiarizing, since the source was provided. Extracting highlights to make a point, and providing a source is
known as 'supporting your claim. That is one of the methods that is quite legitimate to support a claim.

[Nickman]

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

I agree with Ehrman completely. The ideas he's expressing here in this interview, and in the book Did Jesus Exist?, are shared by virtually all scholars. I'm glad you've finally hit upon some scholarly material!

I also think that the non-biblical references to Jesus in Josephus, Tacitus, etc., don't really amount to much. They are fun to debate, though.

It seems that this thread is long overdue in being shut down. Perhaps we should move some of the more interesting discussions to a new thread (or two).

Well, I have always enjoyed Ehrman's literature and in this debate I have maintained my own ideas and tried to support them independently. I feel I have on many levels without appeal to authority. Some topics I cannot and for those I must use more scholarly sources. It is very fun to debate and support your own claims without resorting to an appeal to authority.

What topics do you suppose that we make a side topic for?

[historia]

What topics do you suppose that we make a side topic for?

I was thinking of starting a thread on the TF specifically. It seems that some of the more interesting points here could be reformulated in that thread.

[Nickman]

What topics do you suppose that we make a side topic for?

I was thinking of starting a thread on the TF specifically. It seems that some of the more interesting points here could be reformulated in that thread.

I think that is a great idea. I like the TF topic and I also would like to debate the Book 20.9.1-4 topic as well, in favor of an interpolation.

[historia]

What topics do you suppose that we make a side topic for?

I was thinking of starting a thread on the TF specifically. It seems that some of the more interesting points here could be reformulated in that thread.

I think that is a great idea. I like the TF topic and I also would like to debate the Book 20.9.1-4 topic as well, in favor of an interpolation.

Cool, I'll start a thread covering both topics. You have a very interesting take on the Book 20 reference.

[Nickman]

What topics do you suppose that we make a side topic for?

I was thinking of starting a thread on the TF specifically. It seems that some of the more interesting points here could be reformulated in that thread.

I think that is a great idea. I like the TF topic and I also would like to debate the Book 20.9.1-4 topic as well, in favor of an interpolation.

Cool, I'll start a thread covering both topics. You have a very interesting take on the Book 20 reference.

Cool Thanks. Where is it located? I may pull my post from here on the specifics about Book 20 and post them on the other one to save my fingers.

[Mithrae]

In short, Jesus must have existed, and must have really been crucified – since if Christians wanted to convert Jews, they would not have made up the idea that a crucified man was their messiah. But the reality is they had no choice. They thought Jesus was the messiah and they knew he had been crucified, and so they devised the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. Christians today would say that these early Christians were *right*; non-Christians would say they were *wrong*. But for the question of whether Jesus existed or not it doesn’t matter which side of that issue you stand on. The fact that Jesus was declared as the (crucified) messiah shows that he could not have been made up by his Jewish followers. And so he must have really existed, and been crucified.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

It's quite sound reasoning which you earlier dismissed...

• Nickman wrote:
  • Mithrae wrote:

    In response you've said you meant merely that "he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels" such as the virgin birth. But saying that Paul comments on Jesus' culture, mother, ancestry and brothers but not a virgin birth is not an argument against Jesus' historicity. You're actually pointing out a very good reason to suppose that the later stories and legends were built around a real man, seriously undermining your third point.

    If Jesus was a man, the stories surrounding him are embellished, inaccurate, and unreliable. No one can honestly say that what they read is actually what happened.

    No-one but conservative Christians does say that. But the fact that he was a Galilean teacher who wound up getting himself executed is obvious, not least because of the kind of reasoning sometimes called the criterion of embarassment. It's extremely unlikely that any Jew would invent a crucified Messiah; but since that's clearly what Paul and the gospels present, we can infer that Jesus was in fact crucified and Paul's extensive theology (perhaps building on Jesus' disciples own thoughts) sought to explain how this could be. Absent from Mark's gospel but present in Matthew and Luke are Jesus' descent from David, his birth in Bethlehem, and John's hesitation or deference towards baptising Jesus, all of which serve to elevate Jesus and reinforce his messianic credentials. So we can infer that those elements in Mark's story probably were not invented: He really was Jesus of Nazareth, not some Bethlehem-born royal prodigy, and he probably was baptised by John.
  This is a possibility, ill give you that. Its not one I endorse though.

-------

Probably thousands in the case of Judas of Galilee - according to Wikipedia the whole zealot movement is traced by Josephus back to his revolt against taxation. But apparently not a peep was said about him by Philo, Seneca or Pliny the Elder So we can conclude that your argument from silence is a bad argument, even if we take the absurd position that the gospels' miracles and great numbers are a reliable basis for historical consideration.

That is a good point. I can't claim the argument of silence for Jesus and not honor that for Judas or Theudas.

On the gospel claims; I wouldn't say that the gospels are reliable for historical consideration. I would make the claim that if we were to use them as accurate then Jesus would be a highly popular man and he would have made quite a stir. Enough to be reported as such by historians. It may be that the figure that has been embellished (Jesus) was not what the gospels claim. That is most likely a more accurate assumption.

(And you are being even more absurd, calling him "the most popular man of all time," which the gospels do not suggest.) The 1st century population of Jerusalem is estimated at some 600,000, the whole of Judea and Galilee obviously even moreso. The largest crowd ever mentioned in the gospels or Acts is less than 1% of that.

If we go by the gospels he was pretty popular. My exaggeration was for humour. If we were to go by the gospels, Jesus did more than any other man. He made miracles, healed many, people rose from the dead (Lazarus and the zombies), and walked on water. He also got the entire Sanhedrin in a fluster and also caused Pilate have to deal his trial. It would have been a pretty big scene. I take the stance, however, that if he was real he didn't make the scene or do the things that were written in the gospels.

According to the gospels Herod hadn't even heard of Jesus until after he'd executed John the Baptist, and Pilate couldn't care less whether he lived or died - hardly the attitude a governor would have towards a major leader of the people. Based on the actual numbers claimed in the gospels and Acts, we'd be hard-pressed to suppose that even 1 in 10 people of Judea/Galilee had heard anything more than vague 2nd-hand rumours about the man. In fairness most of his fame would have been concentrated in Galilee (a quarter or even a third of the people knew someone who'd been around for his 'miracles'?) and to former fishermen that taste of fame might seem like the whole world knew what was happening.

Clearly, even assuming the truth of the gospel stories and the actual numbers they report, the argument from silence is rather weak. It merely helps to further illustrate that many of the arguments thrown around various interweb sites show the same lack of critical thinking which can characterise some of the more outspoken fundamentalist apologetics.

If we read further in 20.9.4

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Ananias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us.

The whole story is about a sedition with the high priests. It has nothing to do with a Jesus of Nazareth. The words "who is called Christ" are an interpolation. It detracts from the actually story of a priestly sedition to gain supremacy. People just don't like to read. Josephus is recording a fight between two sects of the high priesthood and someone saw opportunity to add words that don't fit for their christian agenda, just like they did in book 18. It just doesn't fit.

That passage you've quoted clearly explains why this sedition between the high priests arose - the replacement of yet another high priest by Agrippa. Skipping over a chunk of Josephus' text and trying to read that back into the actions of Ananus a year or so earlier is not sound reasoning. But there does seem to be a consistent theme in this part of Josephus' work. See if you can work out what it is:

• 20.8.10 - Describing the sicarii outlaws, and a deceiver slain with his followers
  
  20.8.11 - Desire for privacy causes tension between the priests, Agrippa and governor Festus; high priest Ishmael is detained in Rome
  
  20.9.1 - High priest Ananus junior abuses his power and is replaced
  
  20.9.2 - Governor Albinus combats the sicarii; (former) high priest Ananas senior uses his wealth currying favour with Albinus, while stealing tithes from the priests
  
  20.9.3 - The sicarii kidnap Ananus' son Eleazar, who persuades Albinus to release some of their number in exchange
  
  20.9.4 - Agrippa expands Caesaria Philippi and angers his people by transferring many artworks there; he causes further unrest by replacing high priest Jesus ben Damneus with Jesus ben Gamaliel; the high priests squabble amongst themselves, with Agrippa's kinsmen taking sides
  
  20.9.5 - Albinus' time nearing its end, he seeks to be well-remembered by executing all the worse criminals and fining then freeing the lesser offenders; the prisons were emptied, but the country was filled with robbers
  
  20.9.6 - The Levites seek Agrippa's permission to set aside their former garments and wear whatever linen they desired; Josephus writes that this violated their law, and punishment must surely follow
  
  20.9.7 - The temple's construction work is completed, and over eighteen thousand workers are unemployed; Agrippa denies permission to employ them further on rebuilding the eastern cloisters; Agrippa replaces high priest Jesus ben Gamaliel with Matthias ben Theophilus, "under whom the Jews' war with the Romans took its beginning"

Same goes for JohnnyTB. I find Christian overtones in the text that do not appear to be from a Jewish historian.

Somehow even though though Josephus explicitly contradicted the Christian view of John's baptism for remission of sins, you previously managed to read it that he was presenting the Christian view What new evidence have you discovered?

[historia]

I was thinking of starting a thread on the TF specifically. It seems that some of the more interesting points here could be reformulated in that thread.

I think that is a great idea. I like the TF topic and I also would like to debate the Book 20.9.1-4 topic as well, in favor of an interpolation.

Started a new thread, Josephus on Jesus and James, for those who might like to continue this debate in a thread with a little less noise.

[Nickman]

In short, Jesus must have existed, and must have really been crucified – since if Christians wanted to convert Jews, they would not have made up the idea that a crucified man was their messiah. But the reality is they had no choice. They thought Jesus was the messiah and they knew he had been crucified, and so they devised the idea that the messiah had to be crucified. Christians today would say that these early Christians were *right*; non-Christians would say they were *wrong*. But for the question of whether Jesus existed or not it doesn’t matter which side of that issue you stand on. The fact that Jesus was declared as the (crucified) messiah shows that he could not have been made up by his Jewish followers. And so he must have really existed, and been crucified.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. I still stand by the the idea that many of the extra-biblical texts are in fact insufficient for building a case of his existence. Yet, this theory above seems convincing that there may have been an actual figure, but that figure wasn't the Jewish Messiah.

It's quite sound reasoning which you earlier dismissed...

• Nickman wrote:
  • Mithrae wrote:

    In response you've said you meant merely that "he makes no reference to specifics in the gospels" such as the virgin birth. But saying that Paul comments on Jesus' culture, mother, ancestry and brothers but not a virgin birth is not an argument against Jesus' historicity. You're actually pointing out a very good reason to suppose that the later stories and legends were built around a real man, seriously undermining your third point.

    If Jesus was a man, the stories surrounding him are embellished, inaccurate, and unreliable. No one can honestly say that what they read is actually what happened.

    No-one but conservative Christians does say that. But the fact that he was a Galilean teacher who wound up getting himself executed is obvious, not least because of the kind of reasoning sometimes called the criterion of embarassment. It's extremely unlikely that any Jew would invent a crucified Messiah; but since that's clearly what Paul and the gospels present, we can infer that Jesus was in fact crucified and Paul's extensive theology (perhaps building on Jesus' disciples own thoughts) sought to explain how this could be. Absent from Mark's gospel but present in Matthew and Luke are Jesus' descent from David, his birth in Bethlehem, and John's hesitation or deference towards baptising Jesus, all of which serve to elevate Jesus and reinforce his messianic credentials. So we can infer that those elements in Mark's story probably were not invented: He really was Jesus of Nazareth, not some Bethlehem-born royal prodigy, and he probably was baptised by John.
  This is a possibility, ill give you that. Its not one I endorse though.

Well, as I wrote in my last post, I disclosed my entire reasoning on this thread. You must remember too, that I was addressing 4 people. In that scenario it is hard to get to everything directed to me.

According to the gospels Herod hadn't even heard of Jesus until after he'd executed John the Baptist,

Not completely true. In Mark he didn't but in Matthew he did. Herod already tried to slaughter the baby Jesus long before JTB was beheaded.

and Pilate couldn't care less whether he lived or died - hardly the attitude a governor would have towards a major leader of the people.

You seem to know the thoughts of an ancient Roman Governor.

Based on the actual numbers claimed in the gospels and Acts, we'd be hard-pressed to suppose that even 1 in 10 people of Judea/Galilee had heard anything more than vague 2nd-hand rumours about the man. In fairness most of his fame would have been concentrated in Galilee (a quarter or even a third of the people knew someone who'd been around for his 'miracles'?) and to former fishermen that taste of fame might seem like the whole world knew what was happening.

This is all based on assumption. "If" Jesus was just a lowly figure and the gospels do not depict him accurately by any means, then you might be right. The problem is that we cannot comprehend how much of the story is true and what is not. I have good reasons to dismiss most of it.

Clearly, even assuming the truth of the gospel stories and the actual numbers they report, the argument from silence is rather weak. It merely helps to further illustrate that many of the arguments thrown around various interweb sites show the same lack of critical thinking which can characterise some of the more outspoken fundamentalist apologetics.

I disagree. On one side, if Jesus was mundane and insignificant as we suppose, he would have had little impact and the silence argument would actually support that. On the other hand, if Jesus was in fact what the gospels say, I conclude that he would have been highly significant, noteworthy and remarkable and people of importance would have written about him. The problem is that they didn't write about him in the way we would expect to see given the gospel narratives. That leaves us with two possibilities, IMO. 1-He didn't exist and 2-He was not what the gospels claim and was later embellished. Given the evidence and a good debate I feel that the evidence leads to an embellished preacher.

That passage you've quoted clearly explains why this sedition between the high priests arose - the replacement of yet another high priest by Agrippa. Skipping over a chunk of Josephus' text and trying to read that back into the actions of Ananus a year or so earlier is not sound reasoning. But there does seem to be a consistent theme in this part of Josephus' work. See if you can work out what it is:

• 20.8.10 - Describing the sicarii outlaws, and a deceiver slain with his followers
  
  20.8.11 - Desire for privacy causes tension between the priests, Agrippa and governor Festus; high priest Ishmael is detained in Rome
  
  20.9.1 - High priest Ananus junior abuses his power and is replaced
  
  20.9.2 - Governor Albinus combats the sicarii; (former) high priest Ananas senior uses his wealth currying favour with Albinus, while stealing tithes from the priests
  
  20.9.3 - The sicarii kidnap Ananus' son Eleazar, who persuades Albinus to release some of their number in exchange
  
  20.9.4 - Agrippa expands Caesaria Philippi and angers his people by transferring many artworks there; he causes further unrest by replacing high priest Jesus ben Damneus with Jesus ben Gamaliel; the high priests squabble amongst themselves, with Agrippa's kinsmen taking sides
  
  20.9.5 - Albinus' time nearing its end, he seeks to be well-remembered by executing all the worse criminals and fining then freeing the lesser offenders; the prisons were emptied, but the country was filled with robbers
  
  20.9.6 - The Levites seek Agrippa's permission to set aside their former garments and wear whatever linen they desired; Josephus writes that this violated their law, and punishment must surely follow
  
  20.9.7 - The temple's construction work is completed, and over eighteen thousand workers are unemployed; Agrippa denies permission to employ them further on rebuilding the eastern cloisters; Agrippa replaces high priest Jesus ben Gamaliel with Matthias ben Theophilus, "under whom the Jews' war with the Romans took its beginning"

I still find no reason for Jesus "who is called Christ" in the text. The text is sufficient on its own without those words.

Somehow even though though Josephus explicitly contradicted the Christian view of John's baptism for remission of sins, you previously managed to read it that he was presenting the Christian view What new evidence have you discovered?

Ill look into it more. And reply accordingly.

[Mithrae]

According to the gospels Herod hadn't even heard of Jesus until after he'd executed John the Baptist,

Not completely true. In Mark he didn't but in Matthew he did. Herod already tried to slaughter the baby Jesus long before JTB was beheaded.

Different Herod. That is very basic knowledge.

and Pilate couldn't care less whether he lived or died - hardly the attitude a governor would have towards a major leader of the people.

You seem to know the thoughts of an ancient Roman Governor.

He was happy to release either Jesus or Barabas, and kill the other. Again, very basic biblical knowledge.

Based on the actual numbers claimed in the gospels and Acts, we'd be hard-pressed to suppose that even 1 in 10 people of Judea/Galilee had heard anything more than vague 2nd-hand rumours about the man. In fairness most of his fame would have been concentrated in Galilee (a quarter or even a third of the people knew someone who'd been around for his 'miracles'?) and to former fishermen that taste of fame might seem like the whole world knew what was happening.

This is all based on assumption. "If" Jesus was just a lowly figure and the gospels do not depict him accurately by any means, then you might be right. The problem is that we cannot comprehend how much of the story is true and what is not. I have good reasons to dismiss most of it.

Clearly, even assuming the truth of the gospel stories and the actual numbers they report, the argument from silence is rather weak. It merely helps to further illustrate that many of the arguments thrown around various interweb sites show the same lack of critical thinking which can characterise some of the more outspoken fundamentalist apologetics.

I disagree. On one side, if Jesus was mundane and insignificant as we suppose, he would have had little impact and the silence argument would actually support that. On the other hand, if Jesus was in fact what the gospels say, I conclude that he would have been highly significant, noteworthy and remarkable and people of importance would have written about him. The problem is that they didn't write about him in the way we would expect to see given the gospel narratives. That leaves us with two possibilities, IMO. 1-He didn't exist and 2-He was not what the gospels claim and was later embellished. Given the evidence and a good debate I feel that the evidence leads to an embellished preacher.

It's an unnecessary exercise in speculation, since no-one but conservative Christians (and you, in an argument adressed to me) suggests that the gospel accounts should be considered that accurate. But you're ignoring the simple fact that the gospels give specific numbers; the largest crowd mentioned is five thousand people, less than 1% of the estimated population of Jerusalem alone. Josephus says that some eighteen thousand were employed in construction of the temple! If Jesus had drawn crowds that size on a dozen different occasions, with no overlap of people between those crowds, and if each of those people told five others what they'd heard and seen, again with no overlap, it'd be some 300,000 people who'd heard anything more than vague 2nd-hand rumours. That obscene over-estimate is only a quarter of Josephus' estimate for the numbers who died in the Jewish revolt. Taking the gospels at their word, we should expect some four in five odds or higher that "people of importance" would have nothing more than vague and improbable rumours to go on. Josephus seems to have been the only historian of the region with enough attention to details to mention such stories. The argument from silence which you earlier endorsed depends on presuming even more fame for Jesus than the gospels themselves suggest! It is an absurd argument.

That passage you've quoted clearly explains why this sedition between the high priests arose - the replacement of yet another high priest by Agrippa. Skipping over a chunk of Josephus' text and trying to read that back into the actions of Ananus a year or so earlier is not sound reasoning. But there does seem to be a consistent theme in this part of Josephus' work. See if you can work out what it is:

• 20.8.10 - Describing the sicarii outlaws, and a deceiver slain with his followers
  
  20.8.11 - Desire for privacy causes tension between the priests, Agrippa and governor Festus; high priest Ishmael is detained in Rome
  
  20.9.1 - High priest Ananus junior abuses his power and is replaced
  
  20.9.2 - Governor Albinus combats the sicarii; (former) high priest Ananas senior uses his wealth currying favour with Albinus, while stealing tithes from the priests
  
  20.9.3 - The sicarii kidnap Ananus' son Eleazar, who persuades Albinus to release some of their number in exchange
  
  20.9.4 - Agrippa expands Caesaria Philippi and angers his people by transferring many artworks there; he causes further unrest by replacing high priest Jesus ben Damneus with Jesus ben Gamaliel; the high priests squabble amongst themselves, with Agrippa's kinsmen taking sides
  
  20.9.5 - Albinus' time nearing its end, he seeks to be well-remembered by executing all the worse criminals and fining then freeing the lesser offenders; the prisons were emptied, but the country was filled with robbers
  
  20.9.6 - The Levites seek Agrippa's permission to set aside their former garments and wear whatever linen they desired; Josephus writes that this violated their law, and punishment must surely follow
  
  20.9.7 - The temple's construction work is completed, and over eighteen thousand workers are unemployed; Agrippa denies permission to employ them further on rebuilding the eastern cloisters; Agrippa replaces high priest Jesus ben Gamaliel with Matthias ben Theophilus, "under whom the Jews' war with the Romans took its beginning"

I still find no reason for Jesus "who is called Christ" in the text. The text is sufficient on its own without those words.

Those words are in the text. They make sense, and they are quoted by Origen. You've given nothing but vague speculation and absurd reasoning to suggest - contrary to most scholars' conclusions - that they should not be there.