Did anyone watch the Bart Ehrman and Robert Price debate on “did jesus exist” last night?
The debate consisted of three parts of nearly an hour apiece. Two opening statments for 30 min. There was and back and forth between both questioning each other in ten min segments. The last hour was answering questions from the audience.
From my point of view Bart made a very strong case for the historcial jesus, especially in the back and forth segment. Robert is a very smart guy but I think most of his responses to Barts questions were not very convincing. I like Robert and enjoy his works but I do not think a case can be made for Jesus being a myth made out of whole cloth. A case can be made that most of what we know about Jesus is made up but not his existence. What are your thoughts on the debate ?
The debate was a pay per view for $10 through mythicist Milwaukee website. In the past their debates were eventually released on youtube and hopefully this one will be also.
On the debate itself, Bart is a very skilled debater and speaker and he was on his game for this debate. The back and forth questioning between the two really brought this out. Bart got the better of him. At the beginning of his 30 min talk Bart said he felt strange because this was the first time he was the fundamentalist in the debate!
Underlying Roberts Prices arguments are that the new testament was written in the 2nd century and Paul did not write any of the letters attributed to him. Even the writings themselves have interpolations. At one point Bart looked shocked and asked Price ” you really think Paul did not write Galatians ? . Bart told him they would have to talk about that over a beer.
I respect Bart and Robert because they are not afraid to say what they really think. The first question from the audience was Frank Zindler and he asked Bart if he read his book “BART EHRMAN AND THE QUEST OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS OF NAZARETH” . Bart responded ” yes, I have read it and have read it twice. I do not agree with anything in it” or something along those lines ( if I did not misremember it 🙂 )
Jimmy said
Did anyone watch the Bart Ehrman and Robert Price debate on “did jesus exist” last night?The debate consisted of three parts of nearly an hour apiece. Two opening statments for 30 min. There was and back and forth between both questioning each other in ten min segments. The last hour was answering questions from the audience.
From my point of view Bart made a very strong case for the historcial jesus, especially in the back and forth segment. Robert is a very smart guy but I think most of his responses to Barts questions were not very convincing. I like Robert and enjoy his works but I do not think a case can be made for Jesus being a myth made out of whole cloth. A case can be made that most of what we know about Jesus is made up but not his existence. What are your thoughts on the debate ?
I watched the ‘debate’ on youtube – for free, before it was removed…
Neither Bart nor Robert Price won the ‘debate’. Bart set out his historicist position and Price did likewise with his mythicist position. Bart talked about ‘apples’ and Price talked about ‘oranges’. In other words, they talked past one another.
The inherent problem of the Jesus historicist position is that it cannot be historically verified i.e. claiming historicity for Jesus is just that – a claim. Being a plausible hypothesis does not confer historicity. The problem with the mythicist position is that the Pauline writings do not, cannot, trump the gospel story. The gospels make a historical claim regarding a Roman execution/crucifixion. Such a claim cannot be overruled, denied, by appeals to Paul’s theological/spiritual/philosophizing ideas. An historical claim requires an historical rebuttal. Thus, in order to challenge the claim, that Jesus existed, it is necessary to appeal to what did exist within the political and social environment. Jewish and Roman history has to be put on the table. As of now I don’t see either side in this Jesus debate being prepared to let history have it’s say in the debate….thus the continual bickering between the Jesus historicists and the Jesus mythicists…
@maryhelena, I agree these debates can be comparing apples to oranges. The problem is Bart takes the gospels and Pauls writings as historical documents with some historical facts written 35-65 years after the fact. Robert Price thinks that they were written way to late to be used as historical sources. This problem needs to be addressed before any meaningful discussion can take place. This problem cannot be addressed properly in a three hours especially when discussing ten different subjects in that time. For me personally it does not matter if Jesus existed or not. What matters to me is what is the truth as far as we can tell about historical events.
I lean closer to the position that a historical Jesus did exist as a person but 90% of what is said of him is a myth, distorted or made up. The gospels and Pauls letters should be should be treated just like and other historical document (whatever our historical methodology is it needs to be consistent ). We need to take into account the social, political, secular, philosophical, religious writings of that time period coupled with archeology. I think when everything is taken in consideration the position that a historical Jesus existed is the most plausible one (although what he was like is a different debate).
That is my biased opinion and I believe that Bart had the better argument 🙂
I was highly dubious at the prospect of this debate. I questioned whether it was really possible to have any kind of really constructive discussion in the constricted format these things usually take on. But just judging from some of the reactions I’ve seen on the internet Prof Ehrman made quite an impression. I think this might have been the first time many people in the atheist/skeptical community had ever heard the historicist position argued competently. Many of these folks had seen a few Robert Price and Richard Carrier videos and let their presuppositions fill in the rest for the them.
It is a mistake to think of these debates as being about winning and losing. It’s really about articulating a position and hoping someone out there in the audience will listen and think it through. I know there were people in the audience who were genuinely interested in a real discussion about the issues. Those are the people this debate was for. The hardcore mythicists have made up their minds and this won’t change them.
It’s somewhat paradoxical but on the surface the historicist position does sound shaky and suspect, but the more you explicate the concept the more sense it makes. On the other hand at first blush the mythicist position sounds provocative and reasonable but the further you get into it the more and more incoherent it becomes. I can’t think of another argument quite like that. Strange.
maryhelena, I accept the historicist position primarily because of two factors; parsimony and explanatory power. A historical Jesus is the simplest and best explanation that accounts for what we do know about the origins of Christianity. A historical Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet, enters seamlessly into the milieu of first century Palestine and second temple Judaism. On the other hand the mythicist theories I’ve seen drown in ad hoc explanations, question begging and circular reasoning. But I’m always willing to be convinced by a good argument. But it will take a good argument.
Stephen said
maryhelena, I accept the historicist position primarily because of two factors; parsimony and explanatory power. A historical Jesus is the simplest and best explanation that accounts for what we do know about the origins of Christianity. A historical Jesus, an apocalyptic prophet, enters seamlessly into the milieu of first century Palestine and second temple Judaism. On the other hand the mythicist theories I’ve seen drown in ad hoc explanations, question begging and circular reasoning. But I’m always willing to be convinced by a good argument. But it will take a good argument.
An historical core is the ‘simplest and best explanation that accounts for what we know about the origins of Christianity’. That’s a slightly different wording than you used – but, methinks, a more accurate expression given the available evidence. The question for the Jesus historicists is to identify that historical core. Failure to do so allows the Jesus mythicists a window for their alternative interpretations. Relying on arguments re parsimony and explanatory power don’t close that open window. I personally find such arguments inadequate because they do nothing to further debate. In fact they could very easily stifle debate.
Yes, it’s possible that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. It’s also possible he was a wisdom sage, prophet of social change, a revolutionary etc….
** you do not have permission to see this link **
So, a take your pick Jesus….
One man and many views of what sort of man he was – and many men looking for their own version of who or what he was. Thus, the historical question becomes one of letting go of ones chosen identity for this searched for figure – and allow history, rather than gospel interpretations, to put forth, as it were, historical figures that, in some way, reflect the figure within the pages of the gospel story.
The mythicists, so it seems, are unwilling to do this. They are not seeking a historical core to the gospel story. They seek to demonstrate an alternative interpretation devoid of any historical core that relates to the gospel figure of Jesus. (the apple and oranges example I used above.)
So…..are the Jesus historicists prepared to put aside their pre-conceived ideas about who and what Jesus was and allow history to declare it’s hand? For really, the bottom-line being held by the Jesus historicists is that the gospel story contains a historical core. What that historical core is is what is important not that it goes by the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 
Well by “historicist position” I simply meant the part on which all historicists agree, that Jesus actually existed in space/time. I agree that leaves the question of exactly who he was. And I also agree, who he “was” gets to the historical “core” of his existence.
Many things are possible. Fewer things are probable. And that’s what we’re dealing with here; probabilities, not just possibilities. The situation is not nearly so dire as you seem to think. Schweitzer pointed out a hundred years ago why most of these interpretations of Jesus are improbable if not actually impossible.
Of course there are historical problems. No one denies this. (The ironic aspect of this debate is that many of the mythicsts got their first taste of these problems by reading Prof Ehrman’s books.) Our thought must be disciplined by what we have and what we can know. That’s why we must talk about probabilities not certainties.
I think the central question here is not really “Did Jesus exist?” but “What is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity given what we have and what we know?” I think the apocalyptic Jesus is that best explanation. (And that’s after I’ve looked at the arguments not before.)
Jimmy said
@maryhelena, I agree these debates can be comparing apples to oranges. The problem is Bart takes the gospels and Pauls writings as historical documents with some historical facts written 35-65 years after the fact. Robert Price thinks that they were written way to late to be used as historical sources. This problem needs to be addressed before any meaningful discussion can take place. This problem cannot be addressed properly in a three hours especially when discussing ten different subjects in that time. For me personally it does not matter if Jesus existed or not. What matters to me is what is the truth as far as we can tell about historical events.
I think everyone in the Did Jesus Exist debate is interested in ‘truth’ i.e. in what really is at ground zero regarding the origins of Christianity.
I lean closer to the position that a historical Jesus did exist as a person but 90% of what is said of him is a myth, distorted or made up. The gospels and Pauls letters should be should be treated just like and other historical document (whatever our historical methodology is it needs to be consistent ). We need to take into account the social, political, secular, philosophical, religious writings of that time period coupled with archeology. I think when everything is taken in consideration the position that a historical Jesus existed is the most plausible one (although what he was like is a different debate).
That is my biased opinion and I believe that Bart had the better argument
The Jesus historicist argument, on face value, is the easy argument. It’s a simple, plausible and reassuring argument that has been held for around two thousand years. It’s part of our cultural heritage. A culture, that of course, has had it’s ups and downs re triumphalism and inquisitions. However, history has a habit of not being kind to entrenched views. Sometimes it happens that an idea has to give way to new insights.
Plausible that a nobody itinerant carpenter preacher was deemed a danger to the mighty Roman Empire that they wanted to see him hanging on a stake/pole/cross??? Don’t think so….
Plausible that the Jews wanted this nobody itinerant carpenter preacher killed and needed the might of Rome to do the dirty work for them?? Don’t think so….after all Stephen met his fate via the stones….
Plausible that a nobody itinerant carpenter preacher, possibly illiterate or at least writing illiterate, was able to offer the world a better way of living, a philosophy for living. Don’t think so….
(Must admit to finding the argument, of some scholars, that understanding the gospel Jesus story requires a handful of academic degrees, to be fanciful wishful thinking; a nobody itinerant carpenter preacher, probably illiterate, and with illiterate followers, can only be understood by those living in academic ivory towers ???……
..methinks such scholars have more in common with the gospel Jewish priests than with those illiterate followers of the historical Jesus they claim to believe in…..)
Stephen said
I think the central question here is not really “Did Jesus exist?” but “What is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity given what we have and what we know?” I think the apocalyptic Jesus is that best explanation. (And that’s after I’ve looked at the arguments not before.)
Indeed, the real question, the real debate, relates to how best to understand the origins of Christianity. I happen to think that a one size fits all approach to be lacking. Yes, cults often have a founder figure – but can a charismatic founder figure really explain Christian origins? Of course, that’s the gospel story. A gospel origin story. An Adam and Eve type story. Science has got ‘behind’ the Adam and Eve story and we now recognize it for what it is – not history but an origin story. If, as I think, the gospel story is an origin story – then, likewise with the Adam and Eve story, we have to get ‘behind’ the story to identify the historical origins of Christianity. We have to deal with Jewish history. Especially Jewish history from the time of the Roman occupation of Judea. That’s history from 63 b.c.e. – and that means there can be no one man fits all approach to the gospel story and hence to early Christian origins. A wider historical canvas would suggest plausible historical scenarios for the origins of early Christianity.
maryhelena said
Indeed, the real question, the real debate, relates to how best to understand the origins of Christianity. I happen to think that a one size fits all approach to be lacking. Yes, cults often have a founder figure – but can a charismatic founder figure really explain Christian origins? Of course, that’s the gospel story. A gospel origin story. An Adam and Eve type story. Science has got ‘behind’ the Adam and Eve story and we now recognize it for what it is – not history but an origin story. If, as I think, the gospel story is an origin story – then, likewise with the Adam and Eve story, we have to get ‘behind’ the story to identify the historical origins of Christianity. We have to deal with Jewish history. Especially Jewish history from the time of the Roman occupation of Judea. That’s history from 63 b.c.e. – and that means there can be no one man fits all approach to the gospel story and hence to early Christian origins. A wider historical canvas would suggest plausible historical scenarios for the origins of early Christianity.
All the best critical Jesus scholars have a much broader historical canvas than that. Have you read any of them?
Stephen said
Anybody heard anything lately about the availability of the debate in some format?
I think one still has to rent it, although for some small money:
youtube.com/watch?v=NF6Ua-G5Htw
Follow the advises given in the discussion below, paying a few bucks, and not the illegal, piratebay download.
I think the general impression now is that Price was trashed.
Bart Ehrman
Two reasons people say Jesus did not exist and my counter-arguments against them
1) Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus because of archaeological evidence.
2) Myths do not prove Jesus did not exist. Historical figures can have myths attributed to them without taking away their existence.
Coming up: the positive arguments for the existence of Jesus pick up at 14:19 of 2:46:17
Bart has changed his opinons multiple times in reaction to careful study of the evidence.
Price just keeps doubling down on what he wants to believe–he decides what is true and then fits the evidence to his beliefs.
Proving only one thing–atheists can be just as faith-based as the most bigoted theists. “This is what I want to believe is true, so I will keep looking for reasons to believe it, and try to convert everyone to my beliefs, because deep down inside I’m afraid I might be wrong.”
Two sides, same coin.
Bart
Jesus is very much attested by four different gospels.
We have no narrative accounts of Caiaphas or Pilate.
Mark is based on Oral Tradition.
The four gospels have independent sources, so there are more than four sources for the attestation of Jesus.
Certain content is better in Aramaic.
We also have 13 letters attributed to Paul, 7 of which are his.
Paul wrote before the gospels and Paul persecuted Christians shortly after Jesus’s death.
Paul does not talk about a mythical Jesus as mythicists do.
Paul thought Jesus was a human being.
Paul does not say enough about the historical Jesus.
A believer like Paul can write letters without writing about many aspects of Jesus’ biography.
Galatians 1:19 After three years I saw Cephas and James the brother of Jesus.
Brother does not mean one who stands in solidarity: James is not that type of brother but the traditional meaning of brother.
Paul spoke of Jesus as the crucified Messiah. So, we cannot mean a mythical crucifixion.
Christ was crucified and buried. Burial leads us more to a physical human being as opposed to a cosmic Messiah as mythicists hold.
That Jesus was a crucified Messiah was/is preposterous for Jews then and now.
Why did they say it? Because they knew he was crucified.
Steefen
I disagree with this warrant/line of reasoning.
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit.
= = =
Pick up at 35:37, Dr. Price’s 30-minute opening statement
Robert Price
There is no man behind the curtain.
Steefen
I disagree.
Robert Price
Bart has said that in Early Christianity, no critic of Christians claimed Jesus did not exist; but, I do not agree.
Trypho: you have received a futile rumor
Celsus, according to Origen: Christianity is a monstrous fiction.
2nd Peter – we did not fabricate counter-claim
Invoking Watson to a historical Sherlock
What are the historical sources for the miracles?
Jesus was a mythical demagogue.
Tacitus and Pliny speak of Christ/Chrest, not Jesus.
Tacitus and Pliny got hearsay, Oral Tradition.
Best attested means a lot of people heard about it not existence.
Papias is a worthless source.
Paul’s Jesus:
Corinthians and Thessalonians may have known about the miracles but not the historical Jesus.
Gnostics and their Light Man who became historiciized/incarnated.
It is not certain that Paul got his two teachings of Jesus from accounts about Jesus.
Certain things did not exist for Paul to write about them.
– End of Robert’s opening statement –
Pick up at 1:06: 43
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)