(25 votes, average: 4.84 out of 5)
Loading...I continue here with the conversation I had some years ago with evangelical New Testament scholar Ben Witherington, based on my book Did Jesus Exist. In this post, we start getting into some of the key evidence we have for Jesus, not only to show that he actually existed (uh, yes he did…) but also to help us know what we can say about him, about what he really said and did.
Q (Witherington). In the middle portion of your book, you place a great deal of emphasis on what is usually called the criteria of multiple attestation to demonstrate that Jesus surely existed. Would you explain briefly why historians place so much stock in this criteria, and why it is especially important when dealing with the question of the existence of Jesus.
A. Multiple attestation is one of the most important historical criteria for establishing what happened in the past – not just for historical Jesus research, but for any serious historical research. If the sources to a historical person or event are biased, then it is impossible to know if one of them has just “made something up,” if it is our only witness. But if there are several sources available that independently indicate that an event happened (or that a person lived, etc.), then no one of them could have made it up – since they all report it without having conferred with one another. Some scholars see this criterion as the most important one available for establishing what happened in the past.
This is one of the key criteria scholars use for showing what Jesus really said and did, but unfortunately it is commonly misunderstood. To get a handle on it, keep reading. If you’re not a member of the blog, now’s a good time to join! Click here for membership options
“…we have our first Gospel, Mark, itself based on numerous earlier sources, some of them demonstrably circulating at one point in Aramaic…” Interesting! I am aware of a couple of verses in Mark where Jesus speaks Aramaic. Is that the demonstrable evidence? Or is there additional evidence that I am unaware of?
There’s additional evidence: some of the sayings in Mark (Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath) make much better sense if translated into Aramaic than when found in Greek. If you look up Aramaic on the blog you’ll probably find a post where I discuss that.
Dr. Ehrman.
You are absolutely right that the Jews most likely assumed that Christ was meant to be a warrior king just like David.
But does not Paul give us a perfect answer that contradicts the argument you make?
1 Corinthians 1:23 “But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block”
Paul seems to be fully aware of the position of the Jews, but argues against it anyway.
The Jews preached a warlike king, while the Christians preached a suffering servant.
It was through studies of the Tanakh that the Jews came to their conclusion, just as the Christians through their own studies came to a different conclusion.
It is quite common for religious sects to come to diametrically different interpretations, even when reading the same texts. It also happens today.
“In short, we not only have lots of sources, but we also have lots of independent sources”
Having read your book and posts,
the independence of the several sources is not at all clear to me.
I see two independent sources: Paul and Mark.
But how do we know, for instance, that Q, M and L are independent from Paul and Mark?
Without even having their original text?
You may want to read up on discussions of the Synoptic Problem. Even today, if you want to say that one author is relying on another, you need to be able to find evidence of it. There is nothing at all in, say, Q or M that would make anyone think the author knew the writings of Paul. But, of course, it takes sustained analysis in order to make the case. But for almost everyone, the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
Thank you for your reply.
If there is an accessible discussion of this anywhere, please let me know.
I would also ask you to clarify a little the concept of “independence”.
For instance, if an author had read or heard a letter of Paul
but does not use it in any discernible way, does this count as independent?
It would not be independent if he got his information from it, no. I have a chapter on the Synoptic Problem in my book The New Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction. I include bibliography of book-length treatments at the end of the chapter.
Mr. Ehrman, you have quite adamantly deployed this “argument of embarrassment”, that Jews would never invent a humiliated Messiah. But, to my knowledge, mythicists discard this assertion in the grounds of a)there were many Jewish sects, most of who we don’t know anything about – and it might be the case that some or just one of them realized at some point that the military type of Messiah was just impossible, and a spiritual one was the only way out (and so, they invented one), and b)maybe Jesus wasn’t a Jewish invention but a gentile one.
I understand that, even if we allow the possibility that some Jews did imagine a spiritual Messiah, they would never put him on the cross – is that fair to guess as an answer to the first point?
And if I talk nonsense by guessing an answer, does any of that mythicist stuff, at least, hold water in your judgement?
a) All we can say historically is what we have evidence for: we have numerous discussions of the messiah in antiquity and all of them embrace a messiah who is a powerful figure. Never ever do we have a suffering messiah or one who was not a physical being. So if mythicists want to argue that such sources once did exist even though they don’t now, there needs to be evidence or reason for their view. Otherwise you could argue that there were Jewish sects who believed the Messiah would arrive from China in the year 1000. Hey, why not? b. If the idea of the messiah was a gentile creation, why was Paul persecuting Jews who believed Jesus was the messiah even before he became a follower himself? The earliest followers who came to believe in Jesus thought he was the messiah. That was the offense.
“That is why Paul talks about the crucifixion as the greatest “stumbling block” for Jews. Most Jews thought it was ludicrous to say a crucified man was the messiah. This is the reason they rejected the Christian message.”
If I am reading and understanding Paula Fredriksen correctly, she writes in Paul, The Pagan’s Apostle that most Jews would think that a crucified Jew was a hero or a victim due to the number of innocent Jews that were crucified by the Romans. Again if I am understanding correctly, she said that Jews in the Diaspora rejected the idea of Gentiles accepting the Jewish god and rejecting the pagan god’s unless they converted to Judaism. The Jews in the Diaspora were ok with the god fearing gentiles. But Paul and others told the gentiles that they had to stop honoring the pagan gods and should not convert to Judaism. But this way could upset the community and upset the gods and cause issues.
Am I understanding this correctly?
Were the Jews that rejected the idea of a crucified messiah in Palestine?
James, Peter, John, etc did not seem to have problems with the other Jews, right?
I don’t remember the precise details of her exposition. But yes, the first Jews to object to this idea were in Palestine; but Jews in the diaspora who heard of a crucified messiah would also reject it. I’d say James, Peter, and John did have problems with Jews who didn’t believe Jesus was the messiah, since they were probably persecuted by them and thought that they were flat out wrong in their views.
“ …since they were probably persecuted by them…”
Persecuted in what way, flogging?
Paul doesn’t say. He himself was inflicted with the Jewish punishment of 39 lashes on five occasions.
Where does it say that James, Peter, John, etc. were persecuted by the Jews who did not believe in Jesus?
The book of Acts.
How reliable do you think Acts is on James, Peter, John, etc. being persecuted by other Jews? It seems like James was considered a leader within the Jerusalem Jewish community.
I think it’s completely plausible. They were saying a crucified man was the messiah and most other Jews thought this was a crazy idea, and reacted accordingly. That seems to be the uniform understanding of our texts, and there’s little reason to think those who said such things were exempt from the abuse. I think that is borne out probably by 1 Thess. 2:14-15.
I of several posts to follow) IoZeus was the original name for “Jesus”, (the J having been invented in 1524). It was borrowed from Greek mythology, in a time of common belief that a mythological son of the mythological Zeus would come, to appeal to pagans across the Greek Mediterranean world, and not at all to Jews, which was why the New Testament was written in Greek and not in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Io (son of) Zeus (the Yahweh of the Greeks) was not a name any parent would bequeath to a child. It was more of a titular honorific. “Jesus” is a multi-century corruption of IoZeus, evolved in the same way the Spanish city of Zaragoza evolved from the original Latin “Caesar Augustus” some 2030 years ago, when the latter appeared to cut the ribbon of the city named after him.
Self-hating Jew Saul’s bloody spree rounding up followers of the late self-professed Jewish Messiah Yeshua to throw them to the Roman wolves occupying that city, played the role in real life Judas was to play in the tales of IoZeus Saul invented, just as he reinvented himself “Paul” to differentiate himself from his hated Jewish persona as Saul. (cont’d)
If I were a mythicist Bart;
.. I would question your ‘multiple independent attestation’. All the literary sources you claim as ‘historical’ were either written by claimed ‘religious believers’ (all of whom were engaged in systematic dishonesty, and must be assumed to be lying), or have been copied by claimed ‘religious believers’ (and so must necessarily be selectively preserved in favour of religious dishonesty; or to have been so interpolated). The only texts on religion that can be accepted as ‘evidence’ are those proposed by bona fide mythicists in their own peer-reviewed literature; or those that would otherwise have been found plentifully in the epigraphic and archaeological record, had these disciplines not been censored by the religionists.
For mythicists – as I understand it – the prime criterion of evidence is *similarity*. All religions misrepresent their beliefs to some degree; but what they actually believe is essentially the same. So where we observe religious similarity and co-incidence, these are hard evidence. When we observe religious differences, these are necessarily lies. Modern mythicisist tend to see this core *similarity* as the conflict between angels of light and demons of darkness.
Right — if you discount everything a democrat says about Barack Obama since s/he is biased and “interested” then you could not use any democratic sources to establish what he actually said and did. One might consider the implications….
In the case of Jesus folowers what Q-Shaman says about Trump would be a better example …
Examples are boundless!
Slightly OT question, but as long as we’re talking about Jesus and the evangelists:
When John 12:25 says that those who hate (μισῶν) their life will have eternal life, is he using “hate” the same way Matthew 5:43 does – “hate (μισήσεις) your enemies” – ie, that this life should be treated as an enemy? I’m trying to understand the degree of John’s antagonism to life in this world.
II) Saul/Paul, the greatest salesman who ever lived, created a religion unlikely to have appealed to the billions it claims as adherents if left to the relatively minute number of Jews its originator, revolutionary Jewish messiah Yeshua, solely and expressly directed his appeal to.
Saul of Tarsus of today’s Turkey, born into a Greek world he preferred to his Jewish identity he clearly despised by the actions he self-documented, knew his Greek culture as well as he did his Jewish religion. We know more than enough about his life to calibrate the extent of his evil deeds and pacifistic accomplishments.
Supposedly knocked off his donkey by a revelatory Zeusian lightning bolt on a sabbatical from his avocation of persecuting Jewish followers of the late Yeshua—who, inasmuch as his life’s record was subsumed by that of the mythological character gifted Yeshua’s identity by Saul/Paul, not knowing if he died as SaulPaul said his character IoZeus did, (rather than argue opinion, which is all we have of the actual circumstances of Yeshua’s death, presuming crucifixion, though not necessarily resurrection, is granted nolo contendere)—SaulPaul realized Yeshua’s attempts to uplift Jews from Roman tyranny could be used to turn the Mediterranean Roman world against them. (cont’d)
So if we are to grant the crucifixion as a criterion of embarrassment, why doesn’t Paul mention anything about the Trial and why are the Gospel accounts so anachronistic to Judaic jurisprudence? Jesus was said to have been arrested due to a charge of blasphemy (or healing the withered man, cleansing the Temple or raising Lazarus). The evidence for this is highly suspect. It would seem they are trying to smooth over a failed political mission. It was not blasphemous to declare oneself a “Messiah” or a “Son of God” any more than it would have been to claim to be an angel. If John is to be our authority, Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition, not blasphemy. Clearly, “John” is not as ignorant of Jewish Law. If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary. (Indeed Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious. In the trial of Peter as reported in Acts, the Pharisees sided against the High Priest and voted to release the accused.) Are we seeing a Christological bulls-eye being painted around the Cross here with at least a dash of syncretism?
1. The criterion does not indicate what any given author is likely to have said. 2. We know almost nothing about Jewish jurisprudence in the 20s CE in Isrlae. 3. Jesus is not arrested for blasphemy.
Once we establish that Jesus exists, how sure can we be about what he said and did once we get past the basics, e.g. he preached out of Galilee, came to Jerusalem and got crucified? Can we presume that Paul’s limited details about Jesus and the earlier gospels tell us a lot more about Jesus than John and other later gospels?
Look up “criteria” on the blog and you’ll see how historians proceed once they know that Jesus did exist.
Is it not possible to consider some if not many of the unique stories in various gospels as the author’s own fabrications. Eg luke having jesus read out his own mission from isaiah and expand hugely on the simple skepticism about his powers found in mark matthew to an actual attempt on his life which he miraculously evades?
Yes, I think that’s entirely possible. And probably impossible to establish either way.
I really can’t see how the “Multiple attestation” criteria works in the case of the gospel or other christian sources. Even if all these letters (M,Q, L, etc etc) really means something (not all scholars agree in the Q hypothesis, for instance) all these tradition eventually come from a tiny cult from rural Galilee , take whatever letter you want , make a trip backward in space and time and you ended up with the report of one of those fisherman, peasants and so on that made up the cult that Paul the pharisee “intensely persecuted and tried to destroy it”(Gal 1.13).
That’s “Multiple attestation”??
Do we have to trust them???
Do we trust what the followers of any cult in our times said about its leaders,origins etc?
If they are *independent* of one another then the probability that they are attesting something that happened is increased. Do we HAVE to trust them? No. We have to do what historians do: establish what most probably happened.
“If they are *independent* of one another then the probability that they are attesting something that happened is increased” as a rule sounds great but in this case all this “independent” sources come undoubtly from jesus followers because nobody else noticed the cult when originated , without any other record outside christians sources Jesus would be like Moses . One thing is to speak about “independence” between Tacitus and Josephus and anoter very different thing is to speak about independence between the synoptics , John or any christian writting becuase we know at last all come from what jesus followers said it happened.
The fact that sources are Christian does not mean they automatically are unhistorical. Like every other source, they have to be examined to see if their biases are getting in the way of their reporting. That’s why “independent attestation” always has to go hand in hand with the criterion of “dissimilarity”
I agree, it no means that automatically are unihistorical.
But the tales of a man that was born from a virgin and fathered by a spirit,that could walk on water, heal blindness spitting on the blind’s eyes and all that kind of stuff , that died on a friday but rise from death on sunday make me some suspicious about it reliability.
Maybe all is imagination, maybe only some part.
Without other witnesses the mythcist lawyers would won the case with little effort.
Without Tacitus and Josephus we would have only a “maybe” as maybe as that of Moses.
Yes, that’s right — the biases have to be taken into *serious* account, and a lot can be discounted. But they can still provide historical information. I don’t agree that Mythcists would win without other witnesses. The others actually don’t give us much. But you wouldn’t automatically discount evidence about FDR because it was written by Democrats.
I DO believe there was an historical Jesus ,not because of what Paul said or beleived or whatever you could read in the NT or the apocryphal gospels. I believe because of what Tacitus (“Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius.. clarito!!!”) or Josephus said.
To think that these were “interpolations” by christians copyist have no sense because even the worst oponents of christians never said that Jesus was a total invention, maybe they colud change some parts (like in Jospehus) if the didnt like what they were reading but not to make it all up.
But on to “stumbling block” for Jews. Wouldn’t a suffering, executed God resonate especially with those Jews who expected a humiliated messiah? Jewish scripture said that “The Redeemer of Israel” or “The Holy One of God” shall be “despised” by men, and nations will be “disgusted” with him, yet he shall triumph; the people will “bury him with the wicked” even though he was innocent, and he shall be “numbered with the transgressors” just as the Gospel of Mark says. The idea that a Chosen One of God must suffer total humiliation and execution at the hands of the wicked is a major theme in Isaiah. Even Mark’s borrowed Psalm 22, which set up a Jewish model for a crucified Davidic savior. (Or Daniel 9:26) This Jewish prophecy was widely known in the Jewish and Roman world. Many had been prepared by the scriptures to expect that someone would suffer a most humiliating execution at the hands of the wicked elite, despite his complete innocence, and that this person would be the Chosen One of God who would receive the ultimate elevation in heavenly honor, soon to return and impose his revenge on the wicked and bring salvation to the faithful.
That’s my point. We don’t know of any Jews at the time who expected a humiliated messiah. The very concept of a humiliated messiah didn’t exist until Christians said that’s what Jesus was.
I have no doubt that Jesus existed, so I’m not questioning the larger conclusion, but I am confused about one of your arguments: How can hypothetical sources like Q, M, and L serve as independent evidence for Jesus’ existence? Let’s say there was no Q, which seems at least possible. Where does that leave us?
That’s why it is so important to determine a solution to the Synoptic problem WITHOUT considering why it might matter for historical reconstruction. You look hard at the evidence for sources behind the Synoptics on *literary* grounds and if you come up with a solution that appears highly probable, then you build on that probability. History is all about probability.
So why the hey do you pillory Carrier for Bayes’s Theorem? Just wondered. What the heck?
I’m not against the theorem. I’m against the crazy way Carrier uses it. The other person who most famously uses it for understanding Jesus is Richard Swinburne, who uses it to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead. Compare the two uses. Something’s wrong here….
Bart, you do a great job in discussing the proof of Jesus’ existence and crucifixion, and how his followers were able to transform that reality into the belief that he had been resurrected. There is another aspect of christology that has always puzzled me; the “body and blood”. How do you get from a tradition of burnt offering sacrifices to believing that you are and should consume the flesh of the sacrificed Messiah?
I’m not sure there’s one or one easy answer. But it is worth considering that in the ancient world sacrifices were normally eaten after the sacrifice was performed.
Still wrestling with this. Paul, in 1st Corinthians, quotes Jesus directing that the bread and wine be a “remembrance” of his body and blood, “which will be given up for you “. In 2015 I think, you had a post discussing Doceists and their critics; with the critics arguing that the body and blood could only have come from a fully human Jesus (who was also fully divine, but that’s another thread). So I can see how the metaphor morphed into a supernatural transfiguration. But it doesn’t explain how Jews got over the prohibition against drinking blood.
Totally unrelated is the inference from the quote that Jesus foresaw his pending execution. Have you posted on that?
Both of my answers will be the same, as it turns out. I don’t think this saying goes back to Jesus but appeared only later when his followers were developing their understanding of the theological significance of his final meal. In any event, they were drinking wine that represented his blood; they weren’t drinking blood. It’d be interesting to look into what Jews may have imagined they were doing when drinking the cups of wine at the Passover meal. Off hand I don’t think I know….
Do you believe Jesus spoke of himself as being the Son of David? The idea that he was the Son of David/of the lineage of David seems to be early (the Roman’s 1 pre-Pauline creed you’ve identified) but none of the Gospels have Jesus saying this himself (I believe), but rather have him making what seems to me to be an early apologetic on why the messiah need not be from David’s lineage- “Lord said to my Lord”.
I don’t really know. (Just in terms of genealogical relationships, I suppose every Jew of his day was a descendant of David.)
Hey Bart, just curious, you mention John as an independent source for reconstructing Jesus. Have you had a chance to read _John’s Transformation of Mark_ recently edited and published by Eve-Marie Becker, Helen Bond, and Catrin Williams? There is a growing shift in thought towards John’s dependence on Mark, John’s transformation of Mark. Would be fun to see that discussed on your blog, maybe guest posts by some of the leading contributors…
Yes, it’s still a debated issue. Blog member and prominent NT scholar Mark Goodacre is finishing a book now arguing for John’s dependence on the Synoptics as well. I don’t buy it, but when I read his book I might! I haven’t read the other one yet.
Yep, I’m looking forward to that. He’s really good on this subject and has a chapter in this book too. I used to favor the independence of John, but I really like his “plagiarism argument” regarding differences. In other words, if a teacher finds a student had copied another student’s paper, we would never accept the plagiarist’s defense, “I didn’t copy that paper, look at all the differences!” 🙂 It’s the similarities that are so striking and demand explanation. And with John, it’s got to be more than just oral tradition. The simple fact that John is a gospel book that follows the same basic structure of origins, public ministry, passion narrative betrays awareness of prior gospel books. Well, I hope you invite him or others on this subject. Such an important current discussion.
What you describe, Bart, is one view of the Jesus myth, but not the only, or the best. There is a much better explanation for his life story that takes in multiple souces of support, both modern and period specific. The best explanation, and I wrote two books on it to try to elicit scholarly interest in it, draws on the gnostic Apocalypses of James and Peter, the Gospel of Judas and the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Habbakuk Pesher. Modern sources add even greater supporting weight because they flow from an ages-old tradition of mystic Teachings, still actively taught in India.
Two hundred words would only be sufficient to throughly confuse everyone. All I will say now is that this Jesus himself taught that whether he lived or not, he wasn’t a universal savior. John 6:40 is clear: the Father’s will (‘very important’) is that every one SEEING the Son (the Son is the Holy Spirit, NOT JESUS), and believing, will be saved. Paul is profoundly off here: CONFESS and believe to be saved, Romans 10:9. Paul’s savior can be anytime. Jesus’s savior has to be contemporary — alive with the disciple. That harmonizes with modern Sant Mat, not Paul.
I’m still waiting for something or someone to challenge Richard Carrier’s position effectively, and thus far, I haven’t seen it.
It’s mainly because NT scholars don’t see the need to bother, since it’s not a position that has made any impact among experts.
jpklien; one recent treatment was in Larry Hurtado’s blog.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-scholars/
Larry picks up on Carrier’s three summary claims:
“that Christianity may have been started by a revealed [i.e., “mythical”] Jesus rather than a historical Jesus is corroborated by at least three things: the sequence of evidence shows precisely that development (from celestial, revealed Jesus in the Epistles, to a historical ministry in the Gospels decades later), all similar savior cults from the period have the same backstory (a cosmic savior, later historicized), and the original Christian Jesus (in the Epistles of Paul) sounds exactly like the Jewish archangel Jesus, who certainly did not exist. So when it comes to a historical Jesus, maybe we no longer need that hypothesis.”
Larry responds:
– that the New Testament source trajectory, if anything, shows the opposite (as Bart has also shown). Underlying traditions (as in Acts) in which an ‘earthly’ Jesus becomes more ‘celestial’ – e.g. at baptism – look early, not late. No traditions develop the other way round.
– there are no counterpart Roman cults in which a cosmic saviour becomes historicised.
– there is no second-temple Jewish tradition of an ‘archangel Jesus’ (Carrier is misreading Philo).
Hurtado also attacked Carrier’s use of Bayes Theorem, if I remember correctly, but maybe he did that somewhere else.
I recall that Larry linked to critiques of Carrier’s statistical use of Bayes Theorem from a number of experts – as indeed have you in previous posts in this blog.
In terms of Bayesian stats; I have a certain amount of (nearly) first hand experience; indeed friends were working on reporting the 1970 UK general election, in which the BBC network’s set of computers and stats experts (programmed to apply ‘swing’ percentages from early results to later results) were ‘calling’ the election for Labour in the early hours; at the same time as the ITV network’s set of computers and stats experts (programmed to apply Bayesian conditional probabilities from prior local election results) were ‘calling’ the election for the Tories.
But of course, the whole basis of the method is to assess the likelihood of a future observed outcome happening; not to assess the likelihood of a past claimed observed outcome not having ‘really’ happened. To pursue our election parallel, that would be equivalent to a counterfactual in which Labour had been returned with a narrow majority in 1970, but the Tories asserted on the basis of Bayes probabilities, that the claimed outcome must be a fraud.
1 Corinthians 9:5
“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the BROTHERS of the Lord and Cephas?”
The Lord had brothers, Cephas was not one of them.
Galatians 1:19
“But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s BROTHER. ”
One of those brothers was James and Paul met him (or at least he said he met but surely he knew about him)
Isn’t enough to settle down that Paul speaks OBVIOUSLY about a human being?
If this is part of “Richard Carrier’s position” I understand why his position “has made any impact among experts”.
Seems pretty obvious, yes. But since mythicists try to explain away the obvious, arguments have to be made to show that their views are completely implausible….
As a 40 year old, after 36 years as a Christian, and 20 years as a pastor, I have recently decided to stop pushing my logical thoughts about Christianity out of my mind. I embrace my doubts about the facts, and appreciate your courage to be honest about the facts. I can no longer believe something that has no basis in reality. This is brand new for me. I am trying to figure out how to cope after living with this ideology so long. I am angry, hurt, bitter, and overwhelmed. Trying to figure out my purpose is a bit confusing. But I feel free and have begun to tell family. Thanks again for your courage, it isn’t an easy road.
Wow! Good luck with your journey!
best wishes and you are far from alone. reading different sites i have read many, many stories similar to yours. i believe recovering from religion was a significant one. good luck. more and more people are de-converting. not sure this is all good but is happening
Bhoward, my feelings and experience exactly. I gave up on the discussion with family, and pretty much everyone else, except like-minded people. After all, it took us both 40 years to reach our conclusion, and the seperation was not easy or quick. I did also have conflicts with purpose, and I guess it is whatever we make it to be.
This actually goes some way towards answering my previous question about quantifying (a la Carrier, but opposite) your assertion that Jesus definitely existed. Perhaps instead of putting a number on it (a 90% chance that he existed, etc.) you could express it in terms of a comparison, i.e., you might say that you’re far much less certain that Jesus existed than you are that John F. Kennedy existed, and less certain than you are that Thomas Paine existed, and a tiny bit less certain than Shakespeare existed, but more certain than you are that King Arthur existed and a lot more certain that Homer existed. (Those estimates are, btw, about what I take from your interview above.) Would this scale of certainty be a fair reading of your views? Or would you put Jesus’s existence on an approximately equal scale with that of, say, Thomas Paine or Charlemagne?
Yes, I’m more certain that JFK existed than Jesus did. And I’m much more certain that Jesus existed than that Homer; and much more than King Arthur.
“it is worth considering that in the ancient world sacrifices were normally eaten after the sacrifice was performed.”
How is this, then, a sacrifice? Sounds more like a “cook-out” to me. (This sounds flip, but I’m kind of serious. Isn’t the entire concept of sacrifice is that you’re giving something to someone–in this example, to your god–and NOT getting to eat it?) Could you elaborate on this early idea of “sacrificing” something if you intend to consume it?
Yes, in a sense it was a cook-out. The animal is sacrificed to a god. The bones and fat are burned on the altar to provide the god with the portions he wants and to honor him. They everyone goes to the dining room for a nice meal of good meat and hopefully good wine.
Thanks. All these years, I’ve given religious folks some grudging support for at least being willing to suffer materially for their beliefs, in the sense that believers were foregoing some choice cuts of meat to satisfy their god. Now I find they were sacrificing only the parts they’d throw away, the bones and the fat, and that sacrificing is more like “garbage disposal” so they’re restored to “hypocrites” in my atheistic book.
Yeah, I get it. On the other hand, they aren’t claiming to be doing one thing and then doing another. They are honoring the gods and thanking them for the provisions they have given, and enjoying them in style. Good for everyone, except the sacrificial beasts. But they’re gonna be eaten anyway….
Bart, have you ever posted on the Ascension of Isaiah? Do you agree with the reconstruction of it after the removal of obvious Christian interpolations? When do you date it’s earliest form? Do you think Paul read an early version of it? I’d love for you to post on this or, if you have, point me the way! My search brought up nothing….
I don’t think I have, but I’ve written about it, especially in my book Forgery and Counterforgery. I think it cannot be dated prior to the second century, maybe first half but not terribly early. Others date it to the first century but I think that’s impossible. The passwords of the Beloved are a key: you don’t get that till second century “heterodox” texts. I also agree with the scholars who have come to see that you can’t simply remove the Christian bits and end up with an “original.” The composition is more complicated than that.
Thank you…I have that book and it’s been awhile since I read it. Will rectify that immediately! Well, soonish…I have to make dinner first!😂
I see in a recent comment that you accept that Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. Is there any historical evidence for the existence of John outside of holy books?
Yes, he’s discussed by Josephus (at greater length than he discusses Jesus!). You might want to check out the book on JB by Joel Marcus (a guest post on the blog!)
I doubt a serious non christian historian would consider the issue of Jesus historicity as settled down only based on christian sources.
I don’t see “multiple independent attestation” in the fact that the prolific christan writers let us so many gospels, they invented a lot of stories and yes, some tales come directly from Jesus followers.
Is this remanence, the reports of fishermans/peasants of rural Galilee about the origins of their brand new cult, enough to conclude based on the criterion of “dissimilarity” that his messiah was a real men ?
Sorry, but not for me.
Followers of Castaneda’s cult also beleived Don Juan was a real Yaqui shaman. He was as real as superman.
On the contrary, I”m a non-Christian historian and that’s what I think! It’s also what every non-Christian expert on the NT that I know thinks. I’d suggest you look carefully at the full array of evidence, just as you would for anything else in antiquity. (Surely Roman accounts of the emperor can’t to be discounted out of hand because they are written by Romans who admired him?)
Wow, sorry, I tought yuo were an NT scholar not an historian but i knew you are not a chrsitian. I,m just a newcomer in this Mythicist vs Historicist debate and none side convince me.
In the historicity side, for instance,time and again i read “that’s not a proof he didn’t exist” .
The burden of the proof is on the side of those who claim Jesus did exist.
To say that we always take for granted his existence so it is the mythicist that have to demonstrate he didn’t exist is like to begin a trial saying that since everybody thinks the accused is guilty we have to demonstrate that he is not. I do not “discount” christians claims about christ, i just only say they are not enough to conclude his existence.
Yes, I’m a New Testament scholar who engages in historical research, rather than theological or religious. As to burden of proof, it really is not a difficult matter. The proof is so abundant that it is not even a debated issue among my colleagues in the field. Think of an analogy: How much time do ancient historians take to prove that Marcus Tullius Tiro actually existed?
Well , i,m not a scholar but i,m a professional, many times i listen things like ´the proof is so abundant ´ then i ask, well, choose three of the most importants and show me …
As I said , i´m a newcomer in this debate but what i´ve learned so far is that proof about jesus historicity is much less than i thought before. I really think that the origins of the christian myth (son of god) are much better understood as a process that created a god from a man (Jesus) that the other way around, but i can see the mythicist point and is not as weak as it seems.
OK, you’re certainly welcome to make the judgment that seems best to you. It’s not clear to me what you’ve read about the topic, but you might want to start with my book.
Another point , ´the idea of a crucified, suffering messiah would be rejected by Palestine or Diaspora Jews so it has to be based on a true story´ (more or less , my own reconstruction of what i read here)
But it turns out to be a very succesful idea !
Just by 64 A.D. there were “vast numbers” (as Tacitus reported) of christians in Rome itself, so much that the emperor choose them as “scapegoats”,that means they were well known by the romans .
So the “idea” not only wasn’t rejected,it was widely accepted and in a very short time !!!
On a humiliated Jesus:
Isaiah is a twist on the name Jesus, meaning “God saves” ( according to Google). His whole message is how because Judah behaves poorly they will be humiliated.
Hosea is a twist on the name Jesus. He marries a prostitute to show how God tries to remain faithful to Judah, which has prostitutes itself to other nations.
Jesus Ben Jehozadak (Jesus the son of Yahweh the righteuous) is made to wear filthy rags when facing the Accuser, Satan.
So we do have examples of Judean writers putting their Jesuses in humble circumstances long before Paul’s crucified Jesus was crucified.
Sorry, I’m not sure I’m following your points. And we don’t have any Judean writers talking about Jesus before Paul.
Professor Ehrman,
First let me thank you for what you are doing with your time in this forum. This is amazing to me that we have an opportunity to actually ask questions and get responses from a person with such expertise on this vast subject.
Also I concede without hesitation that my knowledge on these various subjects is miniscule.
Yet… as I have been introduced to your writings and videos it has made me aware of how illiterate I am about the Bible itself from the historical perspective.
As I have become aware of this flaw in my understanding of Biblical history and context it has become apparent to me the core concepts of what I had been taught to believe are as inaccurate as believing the world is flat.
What I have found is that the “historical” Jesus had nothing to do with my “born again” experience but it was a belief in those tenets developed by human beings over these nearly 2000 years from the fictitious virgin birth to the resurrection.
The Jesus of my youth… walking on water, raising the dead… never existed. Yet isn’t that idea of Jesus (miracle-worker) the one most are attracted too and believe in?
I’d say: absolutely yes! Most people wouldn’t recognize Jesus as he really was, and in my judgment would not be particularly drawn to him. For me, that makes the historical understanding of him even *more* interesting!