Bart Ehrman defends belief in a historical Jesus.

[Jagella]

According to the Huffington Post article, Did Jesus Exist?, New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has the following to say:

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

What's so important about Ehrman's position on the historicity of Jesus to Christian apologists is that not only does Ehrman insist that Jesus did exist, but Ehrman is an atheist! Since he's an atheist, he cannot be biased toward a real Jesus or so apologists seem to believe. So here we have a distinguished professor of New Testament who believes in a historical Jesus and without a Christian bias, or so we are told.

Question for Debate: But how unbiased is Ehrman really?

Of course, we all have biases that can skew our thinking, but there are many different kinds of bias and different degrees of bias. Some biases can be overcome with sufficient evidence, and other kinds of bias will remain regardless of the evidence. I think it's safe to say that an atheist can indeed have a pro-historical-Jesus bias. After all, depending on your theology, a real Jesus doesn't necessitate a real God. So Ehrman might well have a real-Jesus bias, and his being an atheist does not preclude his having such a bias.

There's plenty more I can say about Ehrman's article, but I will save that for later in the discussion.

[historia]

If someone makes a mistake, does that mean they are "lying" and we shouldn't believe them?

First, you are asserting without justification that what Ehrman said is a mistake.

My question is not about Ehrman.

Again, for the third time: If someone makes a mistake, does that mean they are "lying" and we shouldn't believe them?

This is a simple yes-or-no question.

Is Ehrman saying here that we "must" believe that Jesus existed simply because early Christians "said so"? Not at all. He notes, rather, that historians never simply accept what a source says at face value.

It doesn't matter what they do or do not take "at face value."

No, that is exactly the issue here.

To say we "must" believe a source simply because it "says so," is to claim that that source is inherently authoritative. Ehrman is not saying early Christian sources are inherently authoritative. Rather, he's saying historians can suss out historical details from these sources after critical analysis.

That is not at all the same thing as saying we "must" believe a source simply because it "says so." You have grossly mischaracterized Ehrman's position.

All I see is you offering ad hoc explanations for what "brother of the Lord" meant and making the erroneous claim that Paul "denies he got his knowledge of Jesus from people but from a revelation," which is simply not what Galatians 1:12 says.

Oh--you didn't bother to post the passage. Why not? Let me do so now: Galatians 1:12 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

...for I did not receive it (the gospel) from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

So Hist, what is it about this passage that you don't understand?

You're conflating two different things here. The "gospel" and "knowledge of Jesus" are not the same thing. One can know a lot of things about Jesus without ever knowing the good news Paul claims to have received.

In fact, the very next verse effectively rules out your sweeping misreading of this passage:

You have heard, no doubt, of my earlier life in Judaism. I was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it.

Obviously, if Paul persecuted the early Christian community, then he must have found their beliefs to be in some way objectionable. But, if he knew their beliefs well enough to find them objectionable, then he must have known (at least at a basic level) what the early Christians believed about Jesus. It beggars belief to imagine otherwise. So he most likely knew at least something about Jesus prior to his revelation.

How likely is it that Paul knew the blood-brother of Jesus, but that brother never bothered to say anything to Paul about Jesus, something Paul very clearly tells us? So the James in Galatians 1:12 was almost surely not the blood-brother of Jesus. If this James was such a brother, then he would have told Paul about his brother, Jesus.

You're limping from one false premise to the next here.

So one of the main arguments for a historical Jesus comes down in flames.

These repeated boasts make it look like you're overcompensating for a weak argument.

[historia]

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God.

This is, of course, mistaken.

Paul refers to Jesus only as 'Lord' in several verses. Let's take two of the more obvious examples:

None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.

'The Lord' here obviously refers to Jesus, since he was crucified and raised.

Likewise in Galatians 1:19, the Lord clearly refers to Jesus.

Paul appeared to be speaking of James as being the "brother of God,"

Absurd.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I would dismiss B out of hand. It is far too conspiratorial, would require multiple people to be involved in said deception, and there is no evidence upon which to base this belief.

Obviously it's necessary to deny the possibility of the members of the early-Christian sect cooperating together to pull the wool over people's eyes if you wish to preserve faith in what they claimed. If you accept that people can and do conspire, and they often do in the context of religious activities, then you may end up like I am, Tam! Examples of such collusion include the TV-evangelist scandals of the 1980s and faith-healing.

But really B doesn't necessarily involve conspiracy. Paul may have sincerely believed James' claim that James was the sibling of Jesus, and Paul was duped by James.

With these facts in mind, can you still rule out B especially considering that Paul would never have been able to check out James' story?

The fact that conspiracies exist is not evidence that there is a conspiracy HERE, Jagella. The fact that people lie is not evidence that James lied.

I need evidence if I am going to consider something. There is no evidence here.

I must dismiss C as well. C would have been out of character for Paul, who rebuked people for boasting in men, and for elevating and following individuals such as himself, or Cephas, or Apollos. (1 Corinth 3:4; 4:6; 3:21)

I'm not sure if I agree with your interpretation of what those passage say. Paul was preaching against divisions in the Corinthian church. He never said that James could not have special status in the church; it was OK as long as people didn't fight over it.

You are free to disagree as you choose. But I will add some additional words from Paul for his views on the subject of elevating one servant over another:


What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.
1 Corinth 3:5-9

...A is the plain reading of the text AND we have corroborating information that Christ has a flesh and blood brother named James.

We have no unambiguous evidence at all that James was Jesus' blood-brother. If we did, then we wouldn't be arguing the whole matter. In addition, I see no "plain" meaning of Galatians 1:19. The text is ambiguous as I have documented throughout this thread.

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God. So it appears that Galatians 1:19 is referring to James' relation to God rather than to Christ. I hope you agree that God had no blood-brothers!

[/quote]



Historia and Mithrae beat me to it, but:



And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 1 Corinthians 6:14

The Lord in the above is obviously referring to Christ, not God.

See also the entire Chapter 11 of 1 Corinthians where Paul speaks about the Lord's supper.

Also, 1 Thess 4:15-17

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever.


Lord in the above is referring to Christ.

The following as well:


For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 1 Thess 5:2



These are just a few.



But in addition to those, Jagella, where is anyone ever called the brother of God?




Peace again to you!

[Jagella]

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God.

This is, of course, mistaken.

Paul refers to Jesus only as 'Lord' in several verses. Let's take two of the more obvious examples:

And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.

What Bible version are you using? It's important to cite the version like I did because the different versions are usually worded differently. So let's check 1 Corinthians 6:14 starting with the

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):

And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.

and the
Living Bible (TLB):

And God is going to raise our bodies from the dead by his power just as he raised up the Lord Jesus Christ.

and the
East-to-Read Version (ERV):

And God will raise our bodies from death with the same power he used to raise the Lord Jesus.

So we have some discrepancies here. Is it "Lord," "Lord Jesus Christ," or "Lord Jesus"? To find out, let's check 1 Corinthians 6:14 in Greek:

� δὲ Θεὸς καὶ τὸν Κ��ιον ἤγει�εν καὶ ἡμᾶς �ξεγε�εῖ διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως α�τοῦ.

The closest word-by-word translation into understandable English I can come up with is the following:

And God has both raised up the Lord and will raise out us by the power of him.

So the words "Jesus" and "Christ" do not appear in this Greek. Does it follow that the NRSV gets it right, and the TLB and ERV are wrong, their translators doing a sloppy job of translating Greek into English? I don't think so. If 1 Corinthians 6:14 is worded simply as the NRSV does leaving out "Jesus" and/or "Christ," it looks as if God has raised himself. So the translators who created the TLB and ERV no doubt inserted "Jesus" and/or "Christ" to make 1 Corinthians 6:14 less ambiguous.

But most germane to our discussion, the translators who created the TLB and ERV no doubt realized that Paul normally used some variation of "Lord Jesus Christ" to refer to Jesus rather than just "Lord." Like I explained to Tam, Paul's writing like any writing is imperfect, and that's why he was so inconsistent and ambiguous when he referred to Jesus and to God.

So in conclusion, I should point out that it's very important not to oversimplify Biblical interpretation. The language any Bible version is written in is subject to the whims of its translators and editors. We must also deal with the nuances and simple careless mistakes of writers like Paul. One of the major imperfections of Paul's writing was its ambiguity, and that includes passages like Galatians 1:19 in which we simply cannot be sure what he meant by "James, the Lord's brother."

Have a good day, Brother Historia!

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 92 by tam]

Please check my Post 93 in which I responded to Historia's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:14. He failed to cite what Bible version he is using. I posted three variations of 1 Corinthians 6:14 using three different Bible versions (all of which I cited), two of which use either "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" instead of only "Lord." I also cited the Greek and translated it by myself and found that the Greek of 1 Corinthians 6:14 does not include the words "Jesus" or "Christ." Although this revelation might appear to be a win for both you and Historia, it's important to understand that translators, at least good ones, word passages to remove ambiguity. The translators for the TLB and the ERV like I no doubt realized that Paul almost never referred to Jesus as merely "Lord," and that's why they inserted the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ" into 1 Corinthians 6:14.

So the moral of the story is that like it or not, all language is imperfect and often ambiguous. That's why nobody can be completely sure what "the Lord's brother" means.

Have a great day, Sister Tam!

[Jagella]

My question is not about Ehrman.

I'm confused. I thought we were discussing Ehrman. Whose "mistake" are you referring to, then?

Again, for the third time: If someone makes a mistake, does that mean they are "lying" and we shouldn't believe them?

This is a simple yes-or-no question.

I thought it was a rhetorical question. Forgive me. My answer is no, of course. A false statement is not necessarily a lie and can be an honest but careless mistake. So it's possible that Ehrman just gets sloppy when he claims something that turns out to be untrue.

But how likely is it that Ehrman makes so many dumb mistakes? He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, so he's no flunky. Is he unable to competently study mythicism and accurately report on it? I don't think so. Ehrman is probably deliberately lying about mythicists.

To say we "must" believe a source simply because it "says so," is to claim that that source is inherently authoritative. Ehrman is not saying early Christian sources are inherently authoritative. Rather, he's saying historians can suss out historical details from these sources after critical analysis.

That is not at all the same thing as saying we "must" believe a source simply because it "says so." You have grossly mischaracterized Ehrman's position.

OK, so we are discussing Ehrman.

Now, I do understand that Ehrman does not base his claim for a historical Jesus on everything his sources say. Yes, he uses his "critical analysis" to "suss out" what he thinks is true from all the baloney.

But the fact still remains that he is basing his position on what the New Testament says! Not all of it, but at least some of it.

Just because Ehrman doesn't believe all of what the New Testament says doesn't mean he still doesn't use some of it.

OK, Hist? None of this is difficult as long as you keep an open mind.

You're conflating two different things here. The "gospel" and "knowledge of Jesus" are not the same thing. One can know a lot of things about Jesus without ever knowing the good news Paul claims to have received.

That's some interesting semantics, there. So what might Paul have known about Jesus that he didn't think was good news? Did Paul know something about Jesus that was bad news? LOL

Obviously, if Paul persecuted the early Christian community, then he must have found their beliefs to be in some way objectionable. But, if he knew their beliefs well enough to find them objectionable, then he must have known (at least at a basic level) what the early Christians believed about Jesus. It beggars belief to imagine otherwise. So he most likely knew at least something about Jesus prior to his revelation.

I'm not sure why Paul needed to know what Christians believed to persecute them. He may have persecuted them for their practices.

By the way, I find this story of Paul persecuting Christians to be unlikely. How did he go about persecuting them? Did he ride around with a gang of armed thugs bullying Christians while the Romans looked on doing nothing? I don't think that the Romans would have been so foolish as to allow Paul to harass Christians. So my point is that Paul is not a good source of historical information about Jesus, James, or anybody else. There's way too much about him that is fishy.

You're limping from one false premise to the next here.

You're skirting the issue. If James was the blood-brother of Jesus, then he would have shared what he knew about Jesus with Paul, and Paul would then have likely preached that knowledge.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 92 by tam]

Please check my Post 93 in which I responded to Historia's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:14. He failed to cite what Bible version he is using.

I used the version you said YOU used:

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God - Jagella

So this claim was wrong.

I also gave you multiple examples of Paul using "Lord" ONLY, in reference to Christ (also using the NSRV). And there are no passages where anyone refers to God as 'brother'. So we can certainly rule that option out.




Peace again to you!

[Jagella]

I used the version you said YOU used...

Which version are you referring to? I've cited three versions: NRSV, TLB, and ERV. I assume you mean you used the NRSV. Please cite the version you use, and I will make a point of doing so as well.

Finally, I just did a quick search of the NRSV Bible, and whenever Paul referred to Jesus specifically, he uses the words "Jesus" and/or "Christ." Yes, in some passages he might say "Lord Jesus Christ," but whenever he uses only "Lord" or some variation of "Lord" alone, he refers to God - Jagella

So this claim was wrong.

When I searched the NRSV, a huge number of results came up. Paul uses the word "Lord" or some variation on it a total of 242 times. So I just skimmed the first thirty or so, and in that sample I saw no instances of Jesus being referred to as "Lord" with no "Jesus" or "Christ" attached.

But isn't Jesus God, according to Paul's theology? As far as I know Paul never discussed how Jesus and God might be distinguished or cannot be distinguished. So again, we encounter more ambiguity in Paul's writing. So "Lord" used alone might refer to God, Jesus, or both!

And peace to you too, Sister Tam!

[The Nice Centurion]

Jagella quoting Bart Ehrman:

• "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind."
  
  Bolding mine.

Does anyone know the sources Ehrman is referring to here? I'm not aware of any documents that mention Jesus dating that close to his life. I've conducted a brief search on the internet, but can find nothing that matches this description.



Tcg

Bart Errorman, here once again falsely referred to as Bart Ehrman, is supposed to have made numerous errors in his book, because nomen est omen.

But even aside that fact, the above is a case of Ehrmans dreaded ",We Have` Lies"!

Mistake #2: Ehrman actually says (and I can’t believe it, but these are his exact words):

With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) — sources that originated in Jesus’ native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.

He actually says we have such sources. We do not. That is simply a plain, straight-up falsehood. I can only suppose he means Q or some hypothesized sources behind the creedal statements in Paul or the sermons in Acts, but none of those sources exist, and are purely hypothetical. In fact, barely more than conjectural. There is serious debate in the academic community as to whether Q even existed; and even among those who believe it did, there is serious debate about whether it comes from Aramaic or in fact Greek sources or whether it’s one source or several or whether it even goes back to Jesus at all. The background to the creeds and sermons are even more conjectural (the creeds might go back to Aramaic sources, but none attest to a historical Jesus in the required sense of the term; and the sermons almost certainly do not go back to Aramaic sources, but are literary constructions of the author of Acts, writing in a Semitized Greek heavily influenced by the Septuagint; see Proving History, pp. 184-86 and Richard Pervo’s The Mystery of Acts, just for starters).

So what Aramaic sources do we “have,” Dr. Ehrman? Do tell.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10035

Those “sources” of the Gospels
.

. . . our surviving accounts, which began to be written some forty years after the traditional date of Jesus’s death, were based on earlier written sources that no longer survive. But they obviously did exist at one time, and they just as obviously had to predate the Gospels that we now have. (pp. 78-79)

Obviously?
This is a curious statement. Usually one uses the term “obviously” only after one has indicated the basis for the obviousness. But since any sources of the Gospels would indeed “obviously” predate the Gospels without that point needing demonstration, perhaps Ehrman is taking the obviousness of written sources as equally self-evident.

But our knowledge of such sources is extremely limited. Once again, the Prologue of Luke is appealed to: those “many” earlier authors who had compiled narratives about the life of Jesus. One of them, of course, is indeed “obvious”: the Gospel of Mark. But this is a source that we do have, and so it falls outside the range of those claimed by Ehrman which “no longer survive.” What we are looking for is evidence that written sources of the life of Jesus predated Mark, sources on which the Gospel content is based.
https://vridar.org/2012/05/04/8-earl-do ... e-gospels/

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to Tcg in post #6]

Ehrman's sources are hypothetical. Historical Jesus is a faith based belief.