10-minute Cross Examination of Bart asking Questions of Robert Price
Bart
Celsus and Trypho
Robert
I’m reading it as they are running along with the assumption.
Bart
The Christian interpretation is wrong, not the history
Next Question: How often is Caiaphas or Josephus mentioned, not different from Jesus being a no-mention?
Robert – no defense
Bart – I do not use the method of stripping away the miracles. You do not take the feeding of the 5,000 and just make it a picnic. And Schweitzer proved that methodology is incorrect.
Bart – Paul’s understanding of Jesus, in the Gnostic sense, so I ask you about this.
When do you date the Gnostic myths.
Gnosticism is not a predecessor of Paul. You cannot use 2nd Century…
You cannot use 1950s scholarship anymore.
= = =
Robert – about the tomb
Bart – I do agree Jesus appeared to them, via visions because people have visions of deceased people
Romans left the bodies on the cross. That was part of the point of crucifixion. Did they make an exception for Jesus.
Robert – asked a question about Burton Mack who put forward abandoning the resurrection
Bart – it was the resurrection that really mattered
= = =
Bart’s Question – probabilities, since there are more stories about Jesus than about a cosmic Jesus, isn’t it more probable that Jesus is more real than a cosmic Jesus?
We have more stories of Jews being crucified than there are stories of Jews being crucified in outer space by demons?
Bart: People really think Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Your view, Bob, this is not based on history but Zoroastrian.
Zoroastian is part of 1st century Judaism
Bart: If Jesus is not historical, what about all the other characters in the Jesus story?
Robert: even Peter is a Prof. Watson character to Jesus as Sherlock.
Bart: Paul knows Peter.
= = =
pick up at 1: 35: 40
The problem is that Mythicists and Fundamentalists both feel exactly the same way about Jesus. EITHER he was God OR he didn’t exist. You can’t separate Jesus from Christ. Neither is really interested in historical fact. They both are interested solely in mythology, but one wants to uphold it, and the other wants to discredit it. So they look at somebody like Bart–who used to believe in the myth, and now actively disbelieves–with a certain measure of shared incomprehension. “Pick a side, man!” His side is history. And they don’t think that is a side.
godspell said
The problem is that Mythicists and Fundamentalists both feel exactly the same way about Jesus. EITHER he was God OR he didn’t exist. You can’t separate Jesus from Christ. Neither is really interested in historical fact. They both are interested solely in mythology, but one wants to uphold it, and the other wants to discredit it. So they look at somebody like Bart–who used to believe in the myth, and now actively disbelieves–with a certain measure of shared incomprehension. “Pick a side, man!” His side is history. And they don’t think that is a side.
I am not sure I understand your point.A myth is a legend as you know and fundamentalists need to assert Jesus was divine to reinforce their beliefs/faith,agree?What I am suggesting though is why can’t Jesus have existed without assuming he was divine or a God?The deity of Jesus is the difficulty in my view,but the person as a human being could very well fit both groups.It is only when you bring in his divinity or deity that people debate on his existence.
The question you’re asking is, in essence, my point. But again, both groups Bart is in conflict with here are solely interested in Jesus as a religious figure, not as a historical figure. History is a problem for both of them–because it says Jesus did exist, but not precisely as the gospels describe him. The onlly substantive difference between the two groups is that one wants all of the gospel story to be true, and the other wants none of it to be true. Opposite sides, same coin.
The historical Jesus is not a problem for all atheists, or all Christians, or at least not such a problem that they’d dispense with him altogether. But Fundamentalists and Mythicists (in effect, Fundamentalist Atheists, believing in the literal truth of pseudo-scholarship produced by unqualified people for a very narrow audience) don’t want to understand history–they want to rewrite it for their own purposes, to match what they’ve already decided must be true.
I think for Mythicists, the feeling is that if they could prove the historical Jesus never existed (which they never will do), Christianity would disappear in a puff of smoke. They want to erase him from the historical record, and therefore say that all the incalculable influence the records of his words and deeds have had on our history is invalid. (Never mind that Luke Skywalker, James Tiberius Kirk, Frodo Baggins and Harry Potter influence us all the time, and nobody thinks they’re real, except maybe at ComicCon).
Robert Price and Richard Carrier would never make any kind of a splash in serious scholarship. They lack the qualifications and the ability. Neither is even a good writer. But they get held up as somehow equivalent to someone like Bart–and are far better known than most scholars of early Christianity, every last one of whom is more qualified–because they represent a particular clique. This means they get a certain notoriety they never could by doing conventional scholarship, which is a lot of work anyway. It’s an enjoyable lifestyle. That comes with zero persecution and lots of perks. (Not least of which is getting to debate Bart Ehrman as if they’re somehow his equal).
Of course, there’s also quite a bit of crankishness about it–the notion that “We and we alone have the real truth” which is of course a religious viewpoint, or rather a cultish one. The very unpopularity of such views–flat earth, Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare, Jesus didn’t exist–make them attractive to certain personality types who just enjoy contradiction for its own sake.
So to answer your question, not only is there no reason to think Jesus couldn’t have existed without being a supernatural being, that is precisely what any rational person not motivated by strong religious beliefs would aver. Because we have no evidence supernatural beings exist. But we do know for a fact that figures like Jesus did exist, and not just in First Century Palestine. We can produce endless examples. We know for a fact that charismatic figures who were relatively unknown in their own time can later come to be seen as tremendously important, and (to a greater or lesser extent) godlike. So nobody is making an extraordinary claim by saying that there are real historical facts behind the gospel stories. There’s more than adequate evidence to back that up, and it’s the simplest explanation for the stories existing. Whereas all the Mythicist explanations are impossibly baroque and damned near incomprehensible at times.
We do not know of ONE proven instance in all of history where anything like what the Mythicists talk about ever happened. They end up cobbling together ridiculous conspiracy theories that no opponent of Christianity in its early phase ever remotely hinted at, because Jesus was known to have been an actual living man who was nailed to a cross and died.
veritas said
I am not sure I understand your point.A myth is a legend as you know and fundamentalists need to assert Jesus was divine to reinforce their beliefs/faith,agree?What I am suggesting though is why can’t Jesus have existed without assuming he was divine or a God?The deity of Jesus is the difficulty in my view,but the person as a human being could very well fit both groups.It is only when you bring in his divinity or deity that people debate on his existence.
It sounds like we are agreeing somewhat as to Mythicists being over zealous in their philosophy..Fine you have given me a detailed reputation for that group.The point were we might,or at least myself,not be in agreement is that I think Bart,clearly recognizes Jesus existing as an historical figure and clearly rejects he was God or performed miracles,because history cannot substantiate or presuppose they happened because of written accounts.I don’t think anything with his leaving the faith may have anything to do with his research,or it may,I don’t believe so.Can we come to a consensus on this?Is your position the same as I have outlined above?Want to make sure we are understanding each other.
No, you misunderstood, though I can see how you might have been confused. Bart remained a practicing Christian for some time after he came to believe the gospels were not literally true–and he is not saying you can only be a good scholar in this field if you cease to be a believing Christian. However, because he was once a fundamentalist Christian, and now describes himself as an agnostic leaning towards atheism, both groups might have questions about where his loyalties are, and again, his loyalties in this area are towards serious historical scholarship–trying to determine the facts, whether they tell you what you want to hear or not. Everybody has prejudices, but a good scholar at least tries to allow for his/hers. Pseudo-scholars do not. For them, bias is a feature, not a bug.
godspell said
No, you misunderstood, though I can see how you might have been confused. Bart remained a practicing Christian for some time after he came to believe the gospels were not literally true–and he is not saying you can only be a good scholar in this field if you cease to be a believing Christian. However, because he was once a fundamentalist Christian, and now describes himself as an agnostic leaning towards atheism, both groups might have questions about where his loyalties are, and again, his loyalties in this area are towards serious historical scholarship–trying to determine the facts, whether they tell you what you want to hear or not. Everybody has prejudices, but a good scholar at least tries to allow for his/hers. Pseudo-scholars do not. For them, bias is a feature, not a bug.
Sure ok, but would you not want someone who is serious about determining facts rather than one who basis history on faith or pretentious statements? Philosophy is opinion and nothing more.Scholars disagree within themselves,even believers,have different views on religion as well as atheists.Listen to Dan Barker and you may come away with the same feeling as we are discussing now.I remain though,I believe that a person named Jesus or Christ or whatever others may call him,did exist based on evidence most scholars and researchers found.As far whether this Jesus was divine and God in a religious matter is a matter of faith and I cannot come to the same conclusion.Do you concur with this?If not,what is your belief on Jesus?I might add,having listened to Bart a few times,he is leaning towards atheism now as you mentioned and I think he has made this move because declaring yourself an Agnostic leaves the door open still for belief.Saying I don’t know,does not work well in my view.You could go either way.That is what agnostics is,nothing is known or can be known on the existence or nature of God,and claims neither belief or disbelief in God.
veritas, I’ve posted a lot on this subject, and I realize nobody could read all the posts here, but I fail to see how you could think I was making a religious argument. You are basically restating things I’ve said here as if I myself never said them. It’s irritating. I’m actually going to request that you apologize for that. While recognizing that you are in fact showing how easily the historical record can be mangled by people who misunderstand and misquote what somebody else said. Even when they can read it out for themselves on a message board.
For the record, I do not believe Jesus was a supernatural being, or that any literal miracles took place. But I revere him all the same, with the understanding that even the gospel accounts of his words and non supernatural deeds can and should be questioned, if only because we can’t understand the historical Jesus if we focus too much on the mythological Christ. And I believe understanding him is important, completely apart from scholarly curiosity. I believe this is someone who mattered very much, still does, and always will.
I agree with Bart that there is a great deal of factual content in the gospels, mingled with myth, and a historian’s job is to distinguish the two as much as possible.
Capish?
god misspelled
Jesus was known to have been an actual living man who was nailed to a cross and died.
Steefen
Jesus was “known” by propaganda to have been an actual living man who was nailed to a cross and died.
None of the historical Jesuses were nailed to a cross and died in 30 CE or 33 CE. That was the Samaritan.
Josephus describes two historical Jesuses. Neither one was nailed to a cross and died.
1) The woe-saying Jesus was not crucified.
2) Jesus of Galilee/Gamala seems to have survived the Battle of Galilee and was killed by Idumeans at the Temple of Jerusalem.
Jesus is a composite character of historical fiction: part myth, part Samaritan put to death by Pilate, part woe-saying Jesus, part Jesus of Galilee/Gamala, part Em-Manu-El (the Manu/Mono-bazus bloodline that was help from beyond the Euphrates who supported the Jewish Revolt).
One can also get into how the Homeric epic characters are part of the Jesus creation.
Long story short, as explained in my opening paragraph, Jesus is not 100% myth. Second, when one combines two or more historical people into one biography, you still DO NOT HAVE A HISTORICAL person. Jesus is not one historical person. That is the criteria for historicity of whether or not a person existed.
If we must dismiss as unhistorical any person who has had mythological elements attached to his or her life story, then we must assume that Socrates, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Cleopatra are not historical figures. Hell, we might as well put all of ancient history into the myth column. Leonidas of Sparta is mostly myth–there is no direct evidence any such person existed (the Spartans didn’t leave much behind), and we only have one relatively contemporary Greek source for him in Thucydides–nothing from the Persians whose asses he supposedly kicked. I believe he existed, but it’s much easier to substantiate the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, most of whose followers were not ‘mariners’.
There are a lot of gaps in the record, and into these gaps come pseudo scholars, making up new myths to replace the old ones. But with far less excuse because they, unlike past myth makers, have real history to read, and they just don’t like what it tells them.
You can believe whatever you like, but just understand, that’s precisely what you are doing. You have no evidence–and I do mean NONE–for anything you assert. Your explanations are themselves myths, and not even original to you. I would have more respect for you if you’d just make up your own damn stories instead of reciting some fraud’s theses to us.
godspell said
veritas, I’ve posted a lot on this subject, and I realize nobody could read all the posts here, but I fail to see how you could think I was making a religious argument. You are basically restating things I’ve said here as if I myself never said them. It’s irritating. I’m actually going to request that you apologize for that. While recognizing that you are in fact showing how easily the historical record can be mangled by people who misunderstand and misquote what somebody else said. Even when they can read it out for themselves on a message board.For the record, I do not believe Jesus was a supernatural being, or that any literal miracles took place. But I revere him all the same, with the understanding that even the gospel accounts of his words and non supernatural deeds can and should be questioned, if only because we can’t understand the historical Jesus if we focus too much on the mythological Christ. And I believe understanding him is important, completely apart from scholarly curiosity. I believe this is someone who mattered very much, still does, and always will.
I agree with Bart that there is a great deal of factual content in the gospels, mingled with myth, and a historian’s job is to distinguish the two as much as possible.
Capish?
Ha,I love your Italian word.As I continue to read your post,I can see you revere him and still matters very much today.Sure I can understand that.I feel the same.I am not making a religious argument as you perceive,as stated previously,we are in agreement in a circular conversation.You do not believe in a supernatural Jesus,great neither do I.So for me,the historical Jesus existed in person form and not a divine biblical sense.I can separate myth or history to decide for myself what kind of Jesus existed.For example,I can say Caesar Augustus was a roman emperor that existed as a person but I do not believe he was god as people in his time believed.They thought he was but just because a group thinks that,it does not make him one.It is a myth.Personal belief.I don’t subscribe to myth and it sounds like you don’t either.I am not 100 % sure it’s true but I hold to my view, unless some extraordinary evidence surfaces to convince me otherwise..Very few critical scholars focus,in my opinion,in the mythological Christ as a non existent figure.I have not read all the books on the subject,but what I have come across conclude a Jesus or Christ did exist.I can live with that.Can you?Can we both agree without asking for an apology.I am not sure if I’m making my point clear to you in our conversation or you are not reading it like my intent.Look back at our posts,I said we agree,but you went on a intellectual verbiage and you lost me.Keep it simple and don’t get angry with anyone who writes different than you,it may be the same points of view being expressed.That is the difference in us.Bart in all his debates,speaking forums and books he has written may feel frustrated at times when his opponents are not in agreement with his thoughts or research,even when he thinks he is right.Oddly,the others also feel right about their position.So we live on.Cheers amico!
godspell said
If we must dismiss as unhistorical any person who has had mythological elements attached to his or her life story, then we must assume that Socrates, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Cleopatra are not historical figures. Hell, we might as well put all of ancient history into the myth column. Leonidas of Sparta is mostly myth–there is no direct evidence any such person existed (the Spartans didn’t leave much behind), and we only have one relatively contemporary Greek source for him in Thucydides–nothing from the Persians whose asses he supposedly kicked. I believe he existed, but it’s much easier to substantiate the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, most of whose followers were not ‘mariners’.There are a lot of gaps in the record, and into these gaps come pseudo scholars, making up new myths to replace the old ones. But with far less excuse because they, unlike past myth makers, have real history to read, and they just don’t like what it tells them.
You can believe whatever you like, but just understand, that’s precisely what you are doing. You have no evidence–and I do mean NONE–for anything you assert. Your explanations are themselves myths, and not even original to you. I would have more respect for you if you’d just make up your own damn stories instead of reciting some fraud’s theses to us.
god misspelled,
The case before us is NOT dismissing as unhistorical any person who has only mythological elements attached to his or her life story.
The case before us is dismissing as unhistorical any person who is a composite of multiple historical people with multiple life spans and multiple myths.
Know when you deflect or go off topic, you ARE going to MISS.
godspell said
Stiffen,The case before us is nonexistent, so no further comment is needed.
😀
In your error-proned line of reasoning, it is closed.
The students I will teach and other audiences of mine already know that Josephus wrote about the woe-saying Jesus.
The students I will teach and other audiences of mine already know that Josephus wrote about Jesus Shaphat, Jesus of Gamala/Galilee was the key opposition against General Vespasian and General Titus at the Battle of Galilee.
You are right. You have capitulated when your defense was insufficient and you lost your case. There is no we because I won my case and you lost your case. We do not share a case.
You want to talk scholars? Join me and the scholars who affirm the Battle of Galilee. Teach real history. Teach there was a historical Jesus of Galilee/Gamala, not crucified by Pilate decades earlier. His disciples were killed on the waters of the Lake of Galilee.
You waste your time bringing up individuals made heroes by myth when the biblical Jesus was manufactured from a number of individuals within his century with some biographical narratives from the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible): Moses, David, Elisha.
Paul’s Letters alleged to date before the Jewish Revolt and the Oral Tradition before the Revolt left no impression on Gamala and Galilee. James the brother of a non-existent individual, the biblical Jesus did not spread Jesus’ message in Gamala/Gallee. The Jerusalem Church cannot have existed with a non-existent individual, the biblical Jesus.
They did not evangelize in Gamala/Galilee to mitigate the risks of being anti-Roman, the realized risks of being slaughtered battling Rome. A non-existent biblical Jesus, through a non-existent Oral Tradition, could not serve as an example or warning to the historical Jesus of Gamala/Galilee.
Robert
Once again, this is where your theory falls apart. You must claim that the authentic letters of Paul were considerably later. In the past, you have not been willing to answer this question, but I will try again for your sake: When do you think 1 Corinthians was written and who do you think wrote it?
Steefen
Your theory of Jesus’ existence fell apart.
Second, without a Jesus existing in the early 30s, not only is there no Oral Tradition, there is no Paul to have seen him crucified by order of Pilate.
Not only is there no Paul, there are no 12 disciples either, none of these non-existent disciples had anything to do with the four gospels.
The only Deliverer put to death by Pilate was the Samaritan Deliverer in the late 30s.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)