Loading...As I’ve been reading in preparation for my course on July 19, “Did Jesus Really Exist” (a freebie! Check it out at https://courses.bartehrman.com/did-jesus-really-exist. ) another thought occurred to me, about the similarities between “mythicist” writers (those supporting the idea that Jesus of Nazareth never did exist) and conservative Christian apologists. They seem to have a lot in common, even though they take virtually the opposite views of things.
I suppose I noticed that long ago but never delved much into it. But it was probably 15-20 years ago when I was struck by the fact that the mathematical principle, “Bayes’ Theorem” – which works to work out the probability of a cause based on the known effects, and which sure seems highly scientific (in the general sense), and in fact has been used to reach remarkable conclusions in a number of fields – has been applied by two scholars with respect to the historical Jesus: by Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne, a deeply committed Christian, to demonstrate (on statistical probability) that Jesus was probably raised from the dead, and by independent scholar Richard Carrier, a deeply committed atheist, to demonstrate (using the very same method of establishing probability) that
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I enjoy a good debate—especially when both sides dig deep and present strong arguments. That said, I agree using Bayes isn’t the best move. It feels overly complicated, contrived, and ultimately distracts from more meaningful dialogue. Christians use it to sidestep Hume’s objections to miracles, but I think those objections can be addressed more clearly without it.
At the heart of it, if God really raised Jesus from the dead, that’s a historical event and should be open to historical analysis. If natural explanations are more plausible, fine—but the claim itself shouldn’t be dismissed just because it involves the supernatural.
Imagine an astronaut on the iss being seen at a restaurant moments after the space station exploded, claiming God teleported her. Most people would at least consider a supernatural explanation in a case like that. This shows that the question isn’t if a supernatural explanation should be considered, but when it becomes reasonable to do so.
Of course, this means being open to non-Christian supernatural claims too. But many scientists already entertain supernatural causes in biology (origins of life) or cosmology (origins of universe/fine tuning). I don’t see why historians should rule them out a priori when evaluating something like the resurrection.
Sorry for the lateness. I agree with your position regarding historical analysis. Perhaps this can help with supernatural explanations: Supernature does not exist. In reality all that is in the universe is part of nature. Perhaps people mean events or matter that they don’t expect. At a subatomic level time does not exist. I would argue even at the atomic and larger level. Time is an attribute, i.e. process duration. Try measuring height or length; all are attributes of existing ‘stuff’.
Bosons, fermions, muons, gluons, positrons, neutrinos. Elementary particles with mass. Elementary particles without mass. Strong nuclear force. Weak nuclear force. Gravitational waves. You get the idea. In particle physics the ONLY way something can be detected and measured is if that thing interacts with something else. Which is why Higgs Boson discovery was problematic for so long. Physicists postulate the existence of ‘dark matter’ because it interacts via gravity, but not in another way that can be measured then described. That is why it is called ‘dark’. Same regarding ‘dark’ energy. Even these are not supernatural.
All the best.
Excellent overview of the common tactics and strategies! The paradox is that their paths to objective truths via logic almost always collapse under subjective interpretations and linguistic gymnastics.
The many times and ways I have detected that various key words are getting redefined or narrowed/expanded in meaning (temple, death, love, disciple, then, clean, faith, etc.) to fit ‘shotgun’ tactics jumps out at me.
Q: Is there a particular word that you find is most often abused/confused in your debates?
What is your definition of a “crazily liberal Christian”?
Someone like I used to be. (Believed there probably was some kind of divine power in the universe who would ultimately rectify the horrible nature of existence for most people; thought that Jesus revealed the true nature of this divine being in his teachings, but did not think he was divine or that his death was an atonement for sins, and only for those who believed in him; did not believe in a virgin birth, literal physical resurrection, or second coming; tried to model my life on what I took to be the core of his teachings)
Dear Bart,
Apologies in advance for this technical question. I’m trying to figure out if there is any significance in the selection of Greek words for “body/flesh” in 1 Peter and Romans:
“He himself bore our sins in His body (σώματι) on the tree” 1Peter2:24
“[God] condemned sin in the flesh (σαρκί)” Romans8:3
I understand Soma and Sarx can both be translated as ‘body’, but only Sarx can be alternatively translated as ‘flesh’. Do you think there is any theological significance behind Paul’s choice of Sarx, instead of Soma?
Bart wrote: ” another thought occurred to me, about the similarities between “mythicist” writers … and conservative Christian apologists”
It seems to me there is also a similarity between those who claim to prove that Jesus never existed and those who claim to prove that God(s) do(es) not exist, in that they seldom, if ever, define exactly what they mean by Jesus or God(s). Are the mythicists claiming that, in first century Roman Galilee there was not a single Jewish man named Jesus? (Or Yeshua?) Probably not. Not a single Jewish man named Jesus who was a teacher? Again, probably not. Not a single Jewish man named Jesus who was a teacher and who was killed by the Romans? Or, at the other extreme, are the mythicists claiming there was not a man named Jesus who performed all the miracles attributed to him? Or some of the miracles? Or any of the miracles? There is quite a range between these extremes, and I have never been sure what exactly the mythicists are claiming.
Bart, I am a new subscriber. First blog question
What can you tell me about the Essenes? Specifically, Edmond Bordeaux Szekely’s work. If his work is a made up as some claim, it rang true to me. What can you tell me about Jesus’s “lost years”?
Looking forward to your reply.
WB
My comment on yesterday’s post is still “awaiting moderation”, but you’ve covered the bulk of my question in today’s post. Just for clarity, are you arguing that there was a human man, possibly named “Jesus” who was an itinerant preacher at one time, whom all these myths were tacked onto, but this man was not divine? I honestly may have gotten a bit mixed up, as I’m not familiar with the “Mythicits” that you are directing these posts towards. Are they arguing that not only is Jesus a Myth, but one made up of whole cloth with zero basis in a real person?
Yes, that’s what they argue. Virtually everyone else thinks there was a man Jesus and we can know a good bit about what he said and did, but there are lots of legends and myths about him as well.
A mythicist and an apologist walk into a bar. The bartender (Dr. Bart Ehrman) says, “If I hear one silly or illogical argument from either one of you, both of you are going to be eighty-sixed for a year. I’m just not in the mood tonight fellas.”
I swear to god using Bayes’ theorem on the historicity of Jesus is something I would expect from a freshman way out over their skis who just learned what it is over in stat10 at Carroll (or Venable; it’s been a long time; I dunno).
What part of “new information” do they not understand? What “new information”
do they have?
You’re much nicer than me. I’m not a historian. I’m not a biblical scholar. It took a LOT of work to get to differential equations. I can run circles around anybody who isn’t a doctorate in stats. Miss me with that you know what.
Do they understand how silly this is, as non STEM people? Cuz it’s impossibly silly.
First day of University level Statistics course, the Prof said “Understand this: there are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics.”
Even with my meager minor in math, I can see how mythicists use Bayes to… well, if you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance then baffle them with your bull****.
I honestly think that’s what they’re doing in hopes of recruiting followers who are baffled by the BS. That’s because Bayes is pretty darn helpful in certain domains, but just a flexible statistical tool to say whatever you want when used in other domains.
Bart, how historical is the great commission as found in Matthew 28 18-20. Is it likely Jesus said this especially in light of his soon-to-arrive second coming and the good kingdom he was to rule thereafter.
Just a thought from an accountant/auditor/investigator… but… Could setting ones self up as an authority on the unlikely far fetched, offensive to some and appealing to few (mythecist, Ancient Alien proponents, etc.) be more financially lucrative than say working your way through long years as an adjunct to get to a little gravy right before you retire? After all, if offensive enough to the largest faith in the richest country in the world, book deals and speaking engagements are sure to… well, you get the point.
Good question. I don’t think any of these people is rolling in the dough. But I don’t know how they’d be situated had they gone in another direction either. My sense from the ones I know is that their initial drive, at least (and for most of them, their drive ever), was not financial.
Hi Bart…there’s one more thing that I think could be added to your bullet list (and doesn’t necessarily just apply to the more extreme folks). That I think a lot of those arguments are made to gain or maintain status in people’s social networks. I think the true seekers are few and far between. I remember when I first started chewing on this it was realizing that when you’re arguing with a fundamentalist that evolution actually happened, you’re also *at the same time* arguing that his or her mommy and daddy and everyone in their family and friend group are wrong. Of course, it can cut the other way with atheists too. No wonder things escalate so quickly! (Hope you’ve been well…Jason)
Good point.
Dogmatics be dogmatic. I’ve been ever so slightly dogmatic in my time (shu’ up, good friends!), but now that I’ve matured – 1955 – I am, of course, sweet reasonableness personified (shu’ up, good friends!).
AH, good year.
Hello Bart,
My question is off topic however it is something I have often pondered. In the Hebrew bible, some of the prophecies that are expected of the coming Messiah seem to have been fulfilled by David, such as being born in Bethlehem and the humble ride into Jerusalem on a colt. There may even be others if I were more knowledgeable. Are the prophecies of the Messiah originated after David’s time? If not it seems he checked some boxes. I apologize if this is a dumb question.
Also if Jews are still expecting a Messiah that will fulfill the prophecies, even to this day, how do they think that will work in today’s time with democracy and elected positions. Is the Prime Minister at that time going to step aside for this guy.
Not a dumb questoin at all. David would have lived around 1000 BCE. The oldest Hebrew prophets (Isaiah, Amos, etc.) are 8th century, so 200-250 years later.
I have always been bothered by the way in which apologists feel they have to fabricate stories or accounts in which to harmonize the various discrepancies in the gospels so that none of them are incorrect, and some the these attempts are quite ridiculous. When you were an apologists, what was your take on Matthews accounts that depart from the other 3, such as the unopened tomb being opened by an angel or the double donkey ride of Jesus.
I’ve had similar thoughts regarding mythicists. One factor behind it might be that there are many atheists who were former fundamentalists, and some (but by no means all!) of them seem to take an all-or-nothing attitude towards the Bible–either it’s literally all true, or it’s all just myth and fantasy. It’s good to be skeptical of Bible stories, but not to the point you find a reason to doubt every single claim!
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think is the motivation behind the mythicists’ assertions? I am thinking that as long as Jesus existed there was the possibility for many people that what the Bible said about him was true. But if Jesus did not exist at all, that possibility was nipped in the bud. Your thoughts?
Yes, in my book Did Jesus Exist I raised that as a serious option. If someone hates Christianity, one of the best ways to attack it is to say that it is based completely on a mythical figure who not only did not die for sins but did not die because he did not live. It’s all a complete myth from beginning to end.
In my view, that is an example of some atheists shooting themselves in the foot, since it makes them seem a bit ridiculous to honest seekers who are willing to listen to clear and compelling arguments about the historicity of the Bible, etc., but less likely to jump aboard a wagon that seems to them to be more conspiracy theory than reasoned reflection.
If Je
sus is dead of course it doesn’t matter.If He was resurrected and a real human in time and place then according to all the exponential things we,’re learning about in brain science ,Jesus is a totally different person who now knows Ai and doesn’t beelive the things attributed to him in the first century.Brain science changes theology totally.I love Inner Cosmos podcasts by David Eagleman on the web and new every Monday.Mind blowing.realities.that Jesus would be learning if he were alive.Who would he be now and moving forward now that he knows hell doesn’t exist ,or Moses etc.I think he’s dead but if alive first century Jesus is obsolete.
Since I was a young man people have been going in search of the Ark on Mount Ararat. They come back with pieces of wood which is supposed to prove something. I guess it proves there’s old wood on Mt Ararat. If they go to Estes Park, Colorado, there’s an Ark there. So the Bible story must be true.
I’ve always held that the existence of a supernatural supreme being(s) is not subject to proof or disproof, because it is based on a belief that is not falsifiable – that is, not based on evidence and not subject to evidentiary tests. However, the evidence offered for a specific supreme being is subject to examination and proof/disproof. In this case, that’s the Bible, and the internal contradictions and external conflicts with evidence of known provenance all make the convincing argument that the Bible does not provide sufficient evidence, much proof, of the existence of the god(s) it offers. (I put “god(s) this way because the Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament each offer evidence for a different sort of god.)
As for the mere existence of a man named Jesus who preached in first century Judaea (as did numerous other itinerant preachers), I think the evidence is convincing that such a man did live, did preach, and was almost certainly crucified by the Romans, most likely for being a nuisance (and yes, that was a capital crime in Roman law). But that’s all I think the evidence supports.
My problem with Mythicists is that they always insist that there can be no such thing as a spiritual experience. That it’s ALL “imagination.” Never mind that there are some prominent people who state that one of the important ways that God communicates to people is through emotion and imagination.
All through the New Testament, people are having spiritual experiences. They didn’t have the book, the NT, and they didn’t have set creeds or liturgy, or a fixed church hierarchy, so what they did have must have been some kind of emotional or spiritual experiences.
In a somewhat similar way, fundamentalists tend to harp on things like the empty tomb and the sightings of Jesus after his resurrection, described in the NT, to prove his eternity. There’s no sense of people experiencing his presence, his grace, his light, and his love, whether today or down through the centuries. This, for many believers, indicates his eternity, that is, if we can experience his presence and his light and love today, 2000 years after his earthly life, then he must or may well be eternal.
Sorry, but I’m a believer. One of the “Christians for Bart Ehrman”. Hope this is okay. 🙂
Is there any way a person can take your courses without any Zoom or similar attachment on our end? That is no visual or verbal representation on our end, but still be able to type in a question or two?
Also, if we can’t make the day or dates of a course, can we still take the course and still, maybe, ask a question or two that gets looked at at sometime in the future?
Another question: Is there any way to participate in the online community that is connected to your online Biblical Academy without a Zoom-type audio-visual connection?
The courses are recorded on video, so it you have no computer or other electronic devices you wouldn’t be able to access them. Since they are recorded, purchasing a course means you don’t have to come but can watch it at any time. Zoom is easily available though and is not complicated once you get going with it. The BSA does not require video access, simply Internet, just like the blog. Check it out.
In terms of questions, for those who don’t come to my courses and their Q&A’s, questoins here are the best. Also, for Gold level members (and Platinum) I do a monthly Q&A live, also recorded, for all members.
I know you have nothing but free time to spend answering people’s questions (< just kidding), but have you considered the possibility of offering 1 or 2 questions for people who take the BSA courses, whether they take them live or as a recording?
Possibly even offer people the option of submitting their question even a year or two after the course is run? Often, a person doesn't come up with a real question until like 6 months after they have taken a course. – – – The questions could then be compiled and offered as part of the course or in a different program.
This means that people could ask questions that pertain to the topic(s) in the particular course, instead of sticking them in somewhere else where they might be off topic and not what people are communicating about.
Just a thought. Don't mean to be running your programs or anything.
Thanks for reading.
Blog members at the Gold level have a free one-hour Q&A with me every month, done live but video recorded for everyone at that level. If you’re not at that level, check it out!
And we regularly have AMA’s with the BSA members over on the side of things; they are normally with other scholars though.
I’m a Gold member. I have been for about 3 years.
I haven’t been participating much because it made me realize how little I use the bible to balance and work out my ideas and my Christology. I guess I’d say that I’m more faith-based or spiritually based than bible-based or church hierarchy-based, or even congergation-based for that matter. Lately, I’ve been thinking that maybe there’s a bit more to it, to the bible that is.
I’ve kept my membership because I figured it was a good way of giving to charity.
It only takes a little bit of poison to ruin the whole batch. There’s more than just a bit of poison in the bible. How to eat the bread without also taking in the poison – maybe that’s what I’m looking for or trying to figure out.
I am certainly no mathematician and Bayes Formula in its mathematical form is beyond me. However, we all use Bayes logic (weighing factuals and counter-factuals) in many conclusions we reach–did it rain last night? Was there a lone shooter in the JFK assassination–or multiple? And so on. Juries at courthouses use a crude form of Bayes logic when deciding who should win a case–looking at the evidence for–and the evidence against, then deciding who wins based on a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt or the applicable burden of proof.
I look forward to your lecture weighing both reasons to believe–and not to believe-that Jesus existed! What probably happened in the past?
I read the slides for the free lecture and I’m not sure it represents Carrier correctly on James the Brother of the Lord. Carrier’s claim is not that every baptized Christian is a Brother of the Lord, but that every non-apostle baptized Christian is a Brother of the Lord.
Question; If Jesus was the illiterate son of a handyman, yet he taught with the wisdom and insight recorded in the gospels, what was the source of that wisdom and insight? Is there any indication that his parents followed the old practice of offering the firstborn for temple service and receiving an education there as well as shaping his opinions of the scribes and Pharisees?
After typing in many books of G Campbell Morgan & ANDREW MURRAY into the computers for my memory, I rejoiced riding in Shanghai that the Apostles received training to be fluent in Greek
Answer: son of omniscient Divine Creator!
2) So, John 1:1 tells us that Jesus, the eternal Logos, existed from the beginning, was in perfect relationship with the Father, and is Himself God. This sets the stage for the rest of the chapter, where we learn that “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) Jesus entered the world to reveal God and bring salvation.Dec11,2024 reddit
Amplified Bible
The Deity of Jesus Christ
1In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God,& the Word was God Himself. 2He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. 3All things were made &came into existence through Him; &without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. 4In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], &the life was the Light of men. 5The Light shines on in the [c]darkness, & thedarkness did not understand it or overpower it or appropriate it or absorb it [& is unreceptive to it].
> Many of the Church Fathers’ quotations of the Bible are not suitable as evidence for the biblical text, because the time gap between the earliest manuscripts of those quotations and the time of the Fathers themselves may exceed two centuries or more. Therefore, the possibility of forgery, addition, or alteration is plausible.
Yet, in these same manuscripts, we find the very words of the Fathers regarding their beliefs about the Trinity and the deification of Christ. At the same time, we cite these statements of the Fathers from those later manuscripts.
So why do we accept, then, the words of the Fathers found in those late manuscripts that affirm their doctrinal beliefs? Isn’t it possible that forgery, addition, or alteration occurred in their doctrinal statements just as it may have occurred in their biblical quotations?
Either we accept everything or reject everything — so why, then, do we accept only their doctrinal statements from these later manuscripts?
.
We actually can’t completely trust later manuscripts for what the authors from centuries earlier allegedly wrote, even about their own beliefs. We treat all transmission issues equally, because writiners were sometimes doctored, or example, to make them sound more “orthodox” according to later standards.
But there’s a special problem wiht Scripture quotations that can easily be documented: unlike *most* of what an older author wrote, the Scripture quotatoins were deeply familiar to the scribes who were copying them, and often in different forms from what the author originally wrote (think, for example, if you are reading someone quote the Lord’s Prayer as “forgive us our debts” but you grew up saying “forgive us our trespasses: it just sounds wronbg. This is just an analogy to explain the situatoin). If you are used to hearing John 3:16 in one way but the text your copying gives it a different way, you may be incline to “correct” it. That can be shown to have happened in the later manuscripts of church fathers (e.g., when an earlier manuscript shows up that allows you to confirm your suspicion about it).
Lol, I just love apologysts, aparently CP (Christian Prince) and Sam Shammoun refused debate the bible with me 😀
IS THIS CORRECT:
chatGPT: So, while historians like Bart Ehrman emphasize the human side — the setting, the Jewish schooling, the oral culture — the believer’s answer is deeper:
Jesus didn’t learn truth; He is truth (John 14:6).
Are you asking if Jesus really is truth? I’m afraid that’s a theological questoin that everyone needs to decide for themselves, whatever their view of the historical quesitons is.
May I ask the professor, if the PWJ school becomes mainstream in Paul’s research, will mythologists rise with it? The PWJ school seems to believe that a large number of metaphors and stories in the Gospels serve Paul’s framework for the revival of Israel.
PWJ is not ringing a bell just now, except for Pro Wrestling Japan federatoin and PianowithJoni….. But I don’t see how anyone can date the Gospels before Paul….
Um…What I mean is that the Gospel was created for Paul’s letters, which is called ‘service’. In the PWJ faction, this seems to be a factional consensus.
Sorry, I was telling a joke, meaning to say that I don’t know what PWJ means. And I don’t know what “created for Paul’s letters” means.