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.

[Zzyzx]

.
I am not impressed when Bart Ehrman or anyone else expresses an opinion about the existence of Jesus – and have no objection to the proposal that Jesus existed as a wandering Jewish preacher (who was later ‘deified’ by promoters of a new splinter group religion from Judaism).

I await verifiable evidence that he was supernatural or that he performed supernatural feats – and do not bow to pressure to ‘just believe so you can go to heaven after you die’.

[Jagella]

I am not impressed when Bart Ehrman or anyone else expresses an opinion about the existence of Jesus –

In Ehrman's case he expresses his opinion as a fact, and he offers little evidence to back up that opinion. The following is evidently the best he can do:

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. Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus’ life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus’ closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.

I see some blatant question-begging here. If Jesus had a native tongue, a life, a disciple, and a brother as Ehrman tells us here, then we must assume Jesus existed to do so, but that's what Ehrman is trying to establish--that Jesus existed. Ehrman is assuming what he's trying to prove.

Ehrman also fails to point out that all we have for Jesus are stories and testimonials, but we have basically the same evidence for figures that even Ehrman would dismiss as mere myths (e.g. King Arthur). So why assume Jesus lived but Arthur was mere legend?

...and have no objection to the proposal that Jesus existed as a wandering Jewish preacher (who was later ‘deified’ by promoters of a new splinter group religion from Judaism).

Sure, but there are other possibilities.

I await verifiable evidence that he was supernatural or that he performed supernatural feats – and do not bow to pressure to ‘just believe so you can go to heaven after you die’.

And I await evidence that makes a historical Jesus probable. And like you I won't bow to pressure that I must agree with that "consensus of Biblical scholars" that Jesus existed. Such scholars need to demonstrate that they can tell fact from fiction, a dubious claim at best.

[Mithrae]

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.

Pretty sure most of them don't think that his religious views have any bearing on the matter. Rather, there are some critics (such as you) who suggest, without any credible evidence, that mainstream scholarship of Christian origins is tainted by bias. And as we see in this thread, that's apparently an article of faith which persists even in the face of the most obvious type of counter-example (scholars who are not Christian).

We generally don't know if or in what way one scholar or another is biased.

But please try to understand, the onus is not on folk who accept the mainstream position - whether they are 'apologists' in your lexicon or not - to present or prove someone without any bias. The onus is on you to show both that it's the case AND that it's somehow undermined the quality of virtually all scholars' work.

[Jagella]

Pretty sure most of them don't think that his religious views have any bearing on the matter.

I'm pretty sure that many real-Jesus apologists just eat up Ehrman's defense of belief in a historical Jesus. Just watch The Mythicists by Kevin Rogers on YouTube for but one example of the love they show for Ehrman's apologetic.

Rather, there are some critics (such as you) who suggest, without any credible evidence, that mainstream scholarship of Christian origins is tainted by bias.

The frightening reality is that there is good reason to see Biblical studies as tainted by Christian bias. Aside from the obvious fact that Biblical studies has always been sponsored by Christian groups, we have available two books that expose this bias:

The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist?

The End of Biblical Studies exposes that "liberal-Christian" bias in general, and Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth exposes the bias of Bart Ehrman in particular.

And as we see in this thread, that's apparently an article of faith which persists even in the face of the most obvious type of counter-example (scholars who are not Christian).

Are you saying that non Christian scholars cannot have a bias for a historical Jesus? I don't see why not, and it's not hard to come up with reasons why even atheists may want such a Jesus. Their careers may depend on it! Ehrman, for example, often cites other Bible scholars' belief in a historical Jesus and wanting to impress those scholars as reasons to espouse belief in a historical Jesus.

But please try to understand, the onus is not on folk who accept the mainstream position - whether they are 'apologists' in your lexicon or not - to present or prove someone without any bias. The onus is on you to show both that it's the case AND that it's somehow undermined the quality of virtually all scholars' work.

In that case you better set the bar higher than I can ever jump.

[Tcg]

[quote="Jagella"]


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

[Mithrae]

Rather, there are some critics (such as you) who suggest, without any credible evidence, that mainstream scholarship of Christian origins is tainted by bias.

The frightening reality is that there is good reason to see Biblical studies as tainted by Christian bias. Aside from the obvious fact that Biblical studies has always been sponsored by Christian groups, we have available two books that expose this bias:

The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman s Did Jesus Exist?

The End of Biblical Studies exposes that "liberal-Christian" bias in general, and Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth exposes the bias of Bart Ehrman in particular.

Hmmm.....

Evidence that's not so good is the following:

• â–º The evidence is nonphysical. Example, a purported ghost haunting a mansion
  â–º The evidence is biased. Example, a Fox editorial crediting President Trump for low unemployment
  â–º The evidence is accessible only to people who have specialized training. Example, dating the Shroud of Turin
  â–º The evidence is controversial. Example, the assassination of JFK instigated by a conspiracy

Your 'good reasons' seemingly match at least three and (depending on how biased your sources are) perhaps four of those criteria and do not clearly match any of your 'good evidence' criteria. It seems you have dramatically changed your ideas in the past day or two?

In that case you better set the bar higher than I can ever jump.

So far your feet haven't even left the ground; "read this book, it proves I'm right" is not a credible argument.

The thing is, if the existence of Jesus is a plausible conclusion then there's no obvious reason to assume bias on the part of all the mainstream historians who've reached it, and conversely if it could be shown that the existence of Jesus is not a plausible conclusion then there'd be no need to shift discussion into speculation of biases for this or that scholar anyway... let alone the whole field! Yet even you in the past have acknowledged that it is indeed a plausible conclusion, despite offering a rather lower estimate of its probability (~50) than I would consider reasonable (~90%). So besides perhaps attempting to poison the well, what is speculation about Bart Erhman's supposed bias meant to accomplish?

[Jagella]

• "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.

I think that Erhman is referring to some of Maurice Casey's work which you can check in Casey's book, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?. Casey argues that since we can find fragments of Aramaic in the gospel (e.g. Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34), then the gospel writers must have been quoting an actual Jesus whom is believed to have spoken Aramaic. While I agree that a real Jesus might have been quoted in his native tongue, Aramaic, I don't think that fragments of Aramaic in the gospels means they must be derived from a historical Jesus. What's to keep myth-makers from putting Aramaic into the mouth of a Christ they created? Casey doesn't seem to understand this very simple logic.

In any event, what gets me about what people like Ehrman and Casey do to defend the historicity of Jesus is that it can be very hypocritical. What I mean by that is that they accuse mythicists of sloppy scholarship, yet their own work can get very sloppy (see Casey's work above). For another example, in the article I linked to Ehrman claims the following:

...there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world.

Guess again, Ehrman! You are wrong. Raphael Lataster holds a PhD (Studies in Religion) from the University of Sydney, and lectures there and at other institutions. He is a mythicist. Your own scholarship needs to be cleaned up a bit.

But I don't think these are truly examples of mistakes; I think the public is being deliberately misinformed by real-Jesus apologists. There is no good evidence for a historical Jesus, there is no good reason to believe he existed, and the "defenders of the faith" know it.

[Jagella]

Hmmm.....

Evidence that's not so good is the following:

• â–º The evidence is nonphysical. Example, a purported ghost haunting a mansion
  â–º The evidence is biased. Example, a Fox editorial crediting President Trump for low unemployment
  â–º The evidence is accessible only to people who have specialized training. Example, dating the Shroud of Turin
  â–º The evidence is controversial. Example, the assassination of JFK instigated by a conspiracy

Your 'good reasons' seemingly match at least three and (depending on how biased your sources are) perhaps four of those criteria and do not clearly match any of your 'good evidence' criteria. It seems you have dramatically changed your ideas in the past day or two?

Uh--Mith--what is this supposed to be? Whether you realize it or not, what you've posted here packs two text-book examples of fallacies. One, no matter how inconsistent you think I am, it has nothing to do with the topic of this debate. And two, digging up something I argued earlier is a red herring that distracts attention from the topic of debate.

But to address your concerns about my criteria, please read the following very carefully:

My criteria are meant to judge the quality of evidence--not the quality of books.

Although it appears you have not read either book of the books I linked to, I'd suggest you do so. If you read them, then you can make a judgment--based in knowledge rather than prejudice--about the evidence presented in those books. You are welcome to use my criteria to judge that evidence.

So far your feet haven't even left the ground; "read this book, it proves I'm right" is not a credible argument.

Ahh--fallacy number three: a straw-man argument! I never argued that either book proves I'm right.

...what is speculation about Bart Erhman's supposed bias meant to accomplish?

If you bothered to read the OP carefully, then you should understand that I'm aware that some real-Jesus apologists seem to believe that atheists cannot have a pro-real-Jesus bias, and they often cite Ehrman as an example. I'm debating the assumption that scholars who are atheists cannot have such a bias. So pointing out that a real-Jesus apologist is an atheist accomplishes little regarding the credibility of that apologist.

So Mith, please answer the question for debate and address the issues raised in the OP.

[Mithrae]

My criteria are meant to judge the quality of evidence--not the quality of books. . . .


So Mith, please answer the question for debate and address the issues raised in the OP.

Unless I'm missing something you haven't offered any real evidence to support your contention on this unusual topic, the supposed bias of this particular scholar. The closest, tangentially-relevant comments you had offered you have now - after being shown that they don't measure up to even your own criteria let alone the 'high bar' you, perhaps rhetorically, suggested that I set - conceded were not any kind of evidence or argument at all. As I initially said, no-one else has any kind of onus to present you with a specimen of unquestionable objectivity and undeniable neutrality, so I'm not sure what you're expecting of me. I have clearly answered the question for debate: How unbiased is Ehrman? Without further information, "We generally don't know if or in what way one scholar or another is biased." Obviously you disagree with that assessment, you're just not making any kind of case for your views.

Surely the thread was not merely intended as a platform for insinuation and innuendo against these 'apologists' of yours? You're the one who apparently thinks that this is a substantial point of discussion, and you have already stated your contention on the matter... but you're apparently either unwilling or unable to back it up