Loading...If you have only thirty minutes to build a case that Jesus of Nazareth really existed, how do you do it?
That was the problem I was confronted with this past Friday at the Mythicist Milwaukee conference, in my debate with Robert Price. Rather than mount a lot of arguments and say very little about each one of them (what we used to call “the shotgun approach” when I was in high school), I thought it would be better just to make a few points and pack them up with evidence and reasoning.
The first and most obvious point, to me, is this. Jesus is one of the two best attested Jews living in Palestine in the entire first century. There were hundreds of thousands of Jews in some way connected with Palestine at the time Only one is better attested than Jesus (with a proviso, which I’ll explain). That one is the Jewish historian Josephus. The reason he is better known than Jesus is because he has left us a large number of writings – a twenty-volume history of the Jewish people, for example, a six-volume discussion of the Jewish War against Rome, and an autobiography. Now *that’s* a lot of documentation for a person! Jesus, so far as we know, didn’t write a thing, and so we have nothing like that from him. Or for any other Jew at the time and place.
But if you look simply at external documentation – that is, references to and discussions about a person by other sources – Jesus in fact is much better documented than Josephus. By an enormous margin.
We have four biographies of Jesus written by different people from the next generation. Four biographies?!? About how many people in all of antiquity do we have four biographies???
I’m not – I am decidedly not – saying that the four Gospels are unproblematic, that they are free from error, contradiction, and bias. As I pointed out during the debate, I have more or less made a career out of evaluating their errors, contradictions, and biases. But we cannot overlook the fact that we have four narrative accounts of the things Jesus said and did. Four lengthy narratives. Written by different people at different times and in different places.
How many (non-self-authored) narratives do we have about the words and deeds of Josephus? None. How many narratives do we have of Caiaphus, the most highly placed Jew of Jesus’ day? None. How many narratives do we have of the words and deeds of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, the most powerful man in all of Palestine in Jesus’ day? None. How many narratives do we have of any of the hundreds of thousands of people living or even visiting in Palestine from the first century, apart from Jesus? None.
And so for Jesus, we have a wealth of material…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. To join costs less than a Starbuck’s a month. And it will keep you SO much more alert and happy. So JOIN!!! Every dime goes to charity (instead of to Starbucks).
Dr. Bart , what is a good book for a common man to read about the Gospel of John and its sources?
I like Robert Kysar, John the Maverick Gospel.
Thank you!
Are you familiar with Mark Goodacre’s arguments against John not know the Synoptics, Dr. Ehrman? If so, where do you think he is in error?
No, he argues the opposite, that John *did* know the Synoptics. My view is that there is not enough evidence of that.
“on the assumption, that has good reasons for it, that Matthew was not simply inventing these stories himself”
I know that this is not of great importance to this thread, but I am seriously interested in knowing why this is the case.
Mainly because the form and structure of the stories found only in Matthew are the same structure and form of stories found in other sources, only some of which he had access to, so it *looks* like all these stories had been formed through similar processes as circulating in the oral tradition.
Dr. Ehrman, many Mythicists have subsequently pointed out in their blogs that Paul is as comparably well-attested if not more well-attested than Jesus. I can see their point. Between the book of Acts and the actual, physically written letters, Paul seems like a pretty well-attested 1st century Jew. Would you be willing to amend or qualify your statement in that regard?
Yes he is. I was speaking of Palestinian Jews. Philo is also better attested, of course.
Ah, okay.
I have a question on the passion narratives specifically. Years ago, some of the members of the Secular Outpost told me that there may be reason to think that M, L, and Q had no passion narrative, i.e., the Matthew and Luke passions narratives were all theological modifications of Mark. Can you comment on this?
That is often thought of for Q (though I’m not sure it is right or not); but M and L definitely have Passion narratives.
I am discovering as I read your blog this is the most important remaining question for me regarding Christ. Did he exist? If he did exist did his life in any way resemble the stories written about him?
I find two arguments against the latter question to be compelling in significant opposition to your positions. That’s rare. I’m usually struck by the degree to which I agree with you.
The first you covered in describing Price’s position that the parallels between the Christ story and prior mythologies justifies a belief in mythicism. I am not sure that phenomenon proves Jesus was not an historical human but I can tell you that after reading tale after tale after tale from India, China, Japan, Egypt and all the rest (mostly India) you can’t not be slammed by the perfect alignment of the elements of the Jesus tale that have come before. After a while it becomes oppressive.
The second you describe above. Yes, we have a set of documents about Jesus to the exclusion of all others and all else but we know very well that there were multiple Jewish prophets running around in Israel within a couple hundred years of the time of Christ and what later became the Christian church orthodoxy destroyed written evidence of them to the best of their ability. Had we a library full of the writings of all of them I wonder how Jesus would hold up in comparison.
Christ did not exist, but Jesus did…if that makes sense.
“But we cannot overlook the fact that we have four narrative accounts of the things Jesus said and did. Four lengthy narratives. Written by different people at different times and in different places.”
I’m confused. Do we believe and know that any of the four biographers were original? That they actually wrote of the things which they seen and heard? This is the only way a biography would be valid. As I understand it, most critical scholars believe that Mark is a secondary source at best. The other two synoptics are tertiary at best and most do not believe John was written by the man assigned to it by tradition.
So what we have are four accounts of sayings and teachings of varying levels of authenticity. They at best represent a shell of what the historical Jesus really was. Is that correct? We have no primary sources, as far as critical scholars are concerned, documenting Jesus’ life and teachings.
Okay, so I didn’t read the whole article. Sorry.. ?
I don’t understand what you mean. Do you mean a biography written today about Thomas Jefferson is not valid?
No, I understand the imortance of secondary sources, but no one today knew Jefferson. A biography relies on primary sources does it not? And the question is do we have any primary sources? I think you helped me see more clearly in today’s post that we do or at least we have sources that are very close. Close enough to give convincing evidence that there was a man named Jesus walking around Israel at the time claiming to be a prophet.
Yes it does. But primary sources can be oral or written. For the Gospels they were ultimately based on oral traditions.
Most of our biographies that come from this time period were written by authors who never met the individual in question. Suetonius and Plutarch both wrote biographies for individuals that they never met – both never met Julius Caesar but wrote a biography of him, Plutarch wrote biographies of Alexander the Great, Crassus, Pompey, Mark Antony, Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, but never met any of them. Suetonius wrote biographies of Caesar Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula and Nero and never met any of them. Philostratus wrote a biography of Apollonius of Tyana but never met him.
This isn’t in any way rare for biographies from that time and doesn’t invalidate as evidence that the figure central to the biographies at the very least existed.
Yes, Jesus certainly did exist. I presume many (laymen) people confuse any legends about him, and overall uncertainty about him, divinity and sayings etc, with his actual existance…now that doesn’t mean there aren’t some serious questions we all wished we knew (factual) answers to.
Dr. Ehrman; what is the general scholarship consensus on Jesus’s brother James- was he Jesus’s actual full brother? Half or cousin? I can certainly see why scribes may have changed Gospel text (very early on) so that it appears he did not have true blood brothers or distance themselves from that view/fact- but what was the actual case in your view?
Why do we not get more documentation or referrals perhaps from James himself that he was a blood relative of Jesus? You would expect that James himself would be “proud” of this, and would spearhead his branch of the church on this fact?
I am looking forward to reading your new book, Jesus before the Gospels.
Regards,
Virtual consensus these days (except among some Roman Catholics): he was a full brother.
Do those Catholics have any good arguments? Or is it all based on the doctrine of perpetual virginity?
They don’t seem to have much textual evidence. The only thing to make you think that the word “brother” doesn’t mean “brother” is if you have a prior assumption that it can’t mean that. That’s true of devout Roman Catholics and devout Mythicists.
It’s very unlikely Mary remained a virgin after marriage.
Love this!
I don’t discount the possibility of a historical Jesus at all. But I do find Paul’s lack of reference to him in his letters very intriguing, even if he did write them to address particular issues in the churches. It does seem to me that Paul’s Jesus was very different to the one told about in the gospels. The idea of a merging of traditions held by different communities seems to me entirely possible and would offer an explanation for Paul’s silence regarding Jesus’ earthly ministry. I rather suspect we will never know exactly what happened, but I still find the topic extremely interesting. Looking forward to your “even more important considerations”. Thanks Bart! Loving these posts!
I’ll be arguing that Paul is not silent about Jesus’ earthly life and ministry.
Very interesting DR Ehrman! Thank you!
On the Gospel of John, isn’t there discussion that John had at least some of the Gospels in front of him? Aren’t many of his passages considered as reaction to them? How secure are you that John is really independent of any of the previous Gospels? He definitely had a much higher Christology and a very different style and some other sources but I have heard some valid arguments from critical scholars that John did use one or some of the Synoptics.
Yes, it’s debated. My view is that John did not have any of the others before him. If he did, he refused to reproduce any of their accounts (there are no word for word agreements to any extent)
Another thing the Mythicists never made clear, at least to me during the conference, is why and exactly who created the myth. They spoke vaguely about the myth being created by early Christians. But if someone (or a group of people) goes through the lengthy work of creating a myth, I would imagine these people must have had a purpose. What is it? Price didn’t explain. If he did, maybe I was looking at the ceiling – which I did a few times when he was speaking. But, anyway, I think that if he wants to establish that Jesus was a myth, he should say that the *Romans* created it. After all, Jesus said to give stuff to Caesar, Pilate was not the bad guy, and, wait for the best: in case you get crucified, don’t worry, don’t complain, don’t make a scene. Go happy to the cross because you get to ressucitate and become God in 3 days!
I may be able to shed a little light on this question. From what I have read, Carrier, Price and Dougherty all theorize an evolutionary process of different cults “reading” through scriptures for guidance as to when and what type of messiah would come. Daniel gave them the time frame of early 1st century so expectations were high. Some read scripture as predicting a revealer type messiah, some a savior type and some a priestly type as well as the usually thought military type. There is evidence that each of these cults existed during this time. Philo had the revealer Logos, etc. The evolution eventually led to a merger within at least one cult and it was also very missionary and apocalyptic. They concluded that a intermediary being (archangel) had revealed himself through scripture to James and Peter and later Paul. It was all by revelation and visions that He was known and his name was Savior (Joshua /Jesus). Later, Mark seemed to be in a community that had both a missionary teacher type Q belief but also knew or was incorporating the cult of Paul and wrote a Gospel that both merged the beliefs and was a training manual for the higher members of the church. This Gospel was ALL allegorical and showed the higher level members how to be missionaries. The simple story (the straight reading) was for recruitment. The mystery that Mark talks about is the real but allegorical story of the intermediary being. With the chaos of the post temple destruction, the allegorical meaning was lost and the literal story took over.
Yeah, is is complex and nuanced but some of it has some evidence. Some, I think, is very overstated.
Just to clarify gabilaranjeira, I’m the Patty that went to Milwaukee, not Pattylt who replied to your comment…different Patty!
Hello Dr. Ehrman. You might find this article from LiveScience timely, “Jesus Tomb Opened for the First Time In Centuries. A Dr. Robert Cargill is featured and some mention of mythicists as well: http://www.livescience.com/56672-jesus-tomb-opened-first-time-in-centuries.html
I just bought “Jesus Before the Gospels” (Kindle version on Amazon for $14.99 [good deal]). But I’m curious about the subtitle “HOW THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS REMEMBERED, CHANGED, & INVENTED THEIR STORIES OF THE SAVIOR”
Based on what you’ve said before, I’m guessing your publisher had something to do with writing this to make it more, I don’t know, edgy and marketable maybe? But do you think the “INVENTED THEIR STORIES” line might give the wrong impression to some Christians who NEED to read books like yours (even if they remain Christians like I have)?
I get the point that some stories *are* invented… but if I didn’t know any better (luckily I do, but most Christians do not)… I would assume you were promoting some kind of mythicist idea (rather than a solid historical perspective based on the evidence)… IDK… just wondering if you think sometimes your work is packaged (maybe by others) in a way that makes it seem hostile to historical Christianity (when in reality it is not)…
I suppose it might not matter too much because *most* fundies will never read your books no matter what it’s called… but I think *some* of them might if they knew your book was actually against the mythicist (and fundie) view… IDK… you and your publishers obviously know what you’re doing and I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t use subtitles like this (it probably does ultimately sell more books)… I’m just wondering if you have any thoughts on this… thanks.
P.s. Disregard my comment… even though I do think you get a bad rap from Christians who’ve never actually listened to you… I thought I was buying your book about the historical evidence for Jesus’ existence (the subject of this post)… so that’s why I thought the subtitle about “invented stories” seemed out of place… but I now see I got your latest book about memory… so the invented comment makes way more sense now… so I just bought “DID JESUS EXIST?:
THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR JESUS OF NAZARETH” (only $10.49 on Amazon/Kindle [even better deal])… that subtitle is perfectly reasonable and attractive to anyone wanting to know about this issue… call it serendipity… now I’ve got two new books to read instead of one…
This is sorta-kinda-not-really on topic (authorship of the gospels) However:
I know and agree with your arguments that the names attached to the gospels are later traditions and these are not eyewitness accounts. Of course, the main reason you point out is because the gospels are written by highly literate, Greek speaking authors; not uneducated Aramaic speaking peasants from Galilee.
I was just thinking the other day…and I don’t believe I have heard you or anyone really speak on this; wouldn’t the age of the disciples be a good point to speak about in pointing out the slim chance they were eye witness accounts? I would assume that the disciples were close in age to Jesus (25-35h?) . I have read studies stating 40-45 year old was a typical life span for an adult in the 1st century…this would put Mark at 65-75 years old and John at 85-95 years old at the time “they” wrote their respective gospels! Is there some merit in this line of thinking or is it a stance you take that I just haven’t read yet?
Those who think such people did write the Gospels date their accounts much earlier.
This question/answer brought to mind a question I have pondered for some time. We know that sometime in the early years of Christianity – certainly by the time Matthew’s gospel was written – enterprising followers of Jesus spent considerable time and effort sifting through scripture to find references validating their belief that Jesus was the Messiah. This confirmation then was accepted by later followers of Jesus and made its way into the oral history and into New Testament writings. But, all indications are that Jesus’ original disciples were illiterate and could probably not “read” scripture, and it appears that early converts (except for Paul) were peasants who also probably couldn’t read. So, when is it thought that the movement started to acquire literate converts who would have the skills to pursue this endeavor of “validating” the fulfillment of prophecy?
Well, even those who couldn’t read would know what the Scriptures said, based on having heard it read. So the idea that Jesus fulfilled Scripture is very early — long before the NT was written.
I think an interesting post or two could be dedicated to explaining how scholars attempt to date the gospels. Also, other than strong theological motives to do so, what is their evidence for dating them two or three decades earlier than critical scholars?
I’ve talked about it on the blog before. Maybe I’ll repost it.
Also, if I’m not mistaken there are accounts of people at that time living into their 70s, 80s and 90s. And hey, God could have just kept them alive long enough to do it and doesn’t Jesus that when the Holy Spirit comes He would bring back to remembrance all that He taught them? could have just brought So I don’t know what all the fuss is about. God can anything he wants…
Were there others in ancient history who May have influenced Jesus’ teachings concerning love acceptance, humility, compassion, and mercy?
Given the harsh living conditions at this time, they are in sharp contrast and the legalistic religious teachings , they appear to be inspired .
Yes, these are common teachings, for example in Judaism.
Thank you. Millions of people believe that Jesus created a new compassionate ethic to supersede the old harsh, legalistic and impossible to perform Jewish ethic. As you have said many times, the Jews of the 2d Temple era didn’t conceive of the rules as burdensome, but rather as a welcome and productive (and even beautiful) part of life. Jesus’s ethics are Jewish ethics, with the possible exception of the “turn the other cheek” material. However, in the gospels, these teachings seem to suddenly appear out of the blue. But I believe there was a purpose for these teachings. Jesus isn’t suddenly telling poor, suffering peasants, “Show love to that vicious landlord who repeatedly beats the crap out of you.”
1-Have the mythicists ever put forth any positive evidence for the manufacture of the person of Jesus? It would seem to me that if you accuse history of such a fabrication, the burden of proof falls to you to provide.
2-Can you think of any other pseudo-intellectual fads throughout history that you’d compare to mythicism?
1. They think that the mystery religions with their dying and rising gods were the basis for the invention of the Christ, which wsa then historicized; 2. Most conspiracy theories?
If so much weight is given for Josephus, because he was a writer, then why not Paul as even more attested, historically, than Jesus. In addition to the 7 undisputed Pauline letters, we have the disputed letters that mention him, Acts, and many non canonical writings as well. Is Paul the 3rd most attested Jew? Why not 1st or 2nd?
I was speaking of Jews from Palestine. Philo is also better attested (if you pay attention to their own writings)
Bart: ”We have four biographies of Jesus written by different people from the next generation. Four biographies?!? About how many people in all of antiquity do we have four biographies???”
The gospels as four independent biographies of a historical Jesus or four copies of an original master-copy of the Jesus story?
Jesus and Anacreon: The Gospels as Copy Exercises
R. Joseph Hoffmann
” The elongation of a source by adding a birth legend or resurrection appearances is completely appropriate to the anacreonic tradition as beautification, as “outdoing” the model.
…..
I find it more probable that we possess four of the exercises, and that these exercises have to be submitted to an analysis based not on “redaction” and tendency—fidelity to or departure from a long-gone plumb-line–as much as on the more or less purely artistic intention of the writer in terms of the story he is telling.
……
For all we know one such copyist may have been named Mark and another Luke. But if that is so, it is only accidentally so and they were men of no significant personal distinction. They were men who took it upon themselves to imitate, “restore” or amend the lost (or nearly lost) prototype, the master-copy of the Jesus story.”
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/anac357927.shtml
We have how many sources for Socrates?
Plato (who is clearly taking enormous liberties with history, and often describing events and conversations he did not witness).
Xenophon (ditto).
Aristophanes (who wrote The Clouds while Socrates was presumably still alive, is sending him up in the manner of a Saturday Night Live skit or a South Park episode, and if you wanted, you could claim that Plato and Xenophon were just riffing on a fictional character in their works on Socrates, though I don’t know why you would).
Three sources, the earliest of them entirely fictional and satirical. No writings from Socrates himself (who was supposed to be the smartest man in highly literate Athens). No mention of Socrates in the early histories of Thucydides, even though he’s writing about the very era in which Socrates supposedly lived and Socrates is supposed to have played a role in encouraging certain key political events in that time period. No surviving records of his birth, his marriage, his military service, or his trial (because seriously, how could there be?).
Wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to try and prove Socrates did not exist? That he was a philosophical myth, a character from teaching stories, used to make a variety of points?
And of course that’s what he became. But he started out as a man, and just by talking to people, questioning their assumptions, probing into the nature of reality, he changed the course of human history.
So did Jesus.
It’s hard to dispute the existence of Socrates, given especially the Aristophanes passage….
I don’t want to dispute it. I don’t doubt this existence. I just want to point out there’s fewer sources, and the earliest is a play where Socrates can fly, and Clouds can talk. And if he was so important in the politics of that period, a teacher of Alcibiades, why didn’t Thucydides mention him?
His existence has been questioned by scholars, but never seriously, because there’s never been any group with a vested interest in denying it. Though honestly, the teachings of Socrates, filtered through Plato, may have often been much more dangerous than those of Jesus, since Socrates’ contempt for Athenian Democracy has led to many an authoritarian or downright totalitarian system of thought since then.
Self-evidently, if Jesus appeared in a work of pure fiction that was written before the gospels, Robert Price would say that was proof Jesus was entirely fictional.
Anyway, since Socrates said the one thing you can know is that you know nothing…..
😉
Who are some figures from “outside” 1st century Palestine (or anywhere in the ancient world from, say, Alexander the Great forward) for whom we have a similar quantity and quality of evidence? Do mythicists deny that these people existed?
Similarly, are there figures who are comparable to Jesus in terms of evidence about whom the consensus of historians is that they did not exist, perhaps for reasons comparable to those of mythicists?
What additional evidence, if we had it, would persuade mythicists that Jesus probably existed?
What are the most plausible explanations for the evidence in addition to the explanation that Jesus did in fact exist? Why is Jesus’s existence superior to these other explanations?
(I’d be content with a response to any of these questions.)
There are some about whom we’re exceedingly well informed — but mainly rulers (e.g., emperors) and generals. Almost no one from the lower classes. I don’t know of others well attested who never existed, and I don’t think there is much of *any* evidnece that will persuade someone who is determined not to be persuaded.
I recently persuaded my brother (Catholic schooled, like me), who is now a strong atheist and a mythicist, to try reading “Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.” (I suggested he start at Chapter 8, so as not to be “put off” by the preceding methodological discussion-even though I agree that methodology is extremely important.)
After starting, my brother’s almost immediate question was whether the gospels were the only evidence for Jesus’s existence. If so, that was very weak. Being unprepared for such strong and immediate skepticism, my response was very sketchy. He read a little more and and then moved onto something else.
Maybe I should suggest he try reading “Did Jesus Exist?” And/or I should offer to try reading one of Price’s books.
Anyway, it seems like mythicists only see how similar the gospels are and their tendentious theologizing and never get to how the gospels might serve as multiple independent sources for historical facts.
Ah, well, keep reading my posts on the matter. Or yes, Did Jesus Exist explores the evidence.
If most NT scholars, even the critical ones, have been Christians, maybe most have always just assumed that Jesus existed. There have been a great many things about the gospels that they have not accepted as historical. However, maybe, as Christians, they’ve usually wanted to preserve something about the gospels as historically true. If the ultimate audience of critical scholars (in addition to their fellow scholars) has been the larger Christian community, maybe they’ve felt like they were being radical and skeptical and rational enough to challenge so many other things that they didn’t need to question Jesus’s existence in order to demonstrate their own objectivity. Neither did their audience question Jesus’s existence so maybe it just hasn’t been an issue for them. At least I can see myself feeling like this.
You’ve written a book about it (and most if not all of your other books have addressed it) but have many other critical NT scholars seriously considered the possibility that Jesus didn’t exist?
In the end we have to look at the evidence and arguments and try to be as objective as we can about the existence of Jesus. Arguments that Jesus didn’t exist that are based primarily on the supposed prejudices of scholars are weak. But maybe this is one of the concerns of mythicists that needs to be addressed in order to move the conversation forward.
I don’t know of any others who are definitely mythicists.
Bart, did Price use any arguments you were not expecting based on your preparation for the debate? Other than his claiming that Paul did not exist?
No, his comments were pretty much along the lines he’s laid out beforel
Prof Ehrman
Here are comments from Matt Dillahunty, the moderator of the debate with yourself and Robert Price, about the debate. You won’t agree with everything he says ; I didn’t; but he’s a good guy, a thoughtful guy; exactly the sort of person you need to reach in the Atheist community (such as it is). And judging from his comments you did reach him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gPlZviMHvc
I think the issue about credentials and expertise is an important one. You’ve touched on it already but I would love to hear you expand on it.
thanks
I did not know about the four sources of “John.” That is very interesting. Thanks.
Readers of this blog should find “Jesus Before the Gospels” to be a very readable and helpful book since it outlines how stories about Jesus got changed and embellished as they were passed along orally before being written down in the Gospels. I strongly recommend it.
You indicate that John is not dependent on the Synoptics, but what about Joseph of Arimathea and the burial narratives? Granted, all four of the evangelists add their own unique details (or omissions) to the story, but there is obviously commonality as well. For example, they all agree that it was Joseph who went before Pilate and requested the body; John agrees with Matthew that Joseph was a disciple; Matthew, Luke, and John all agree that Joseph laid the body in a *new* tomb (unlike Mark), etc. I seem to recall you affirming on the blog (perhaps I’ve got that wrong?) your position that the Joseph of Arimathea character is not historical. I assume that is your position anyway, since you aren’t truly convinced Jesus was actually buried in the first place. But if John is not dependent on the synoptics in this case, don’t we then have multiple attestation that supports the idea that Joseph might in fact have been historical after all? Or is this, in fact, an example of John’s dependence on the Synoptics (or their sources), at least in this one instance (especially considering how the story seems to grow in embellishment each time it is retold by a later evangelist until it reaches its fantastic and quite absurd form in John)? In other words, isn’t it possible that John is simply taking the synoptic versions and adding to them?
Yes, it’s certainly possible. But since there are not extensive verbal similarities, it may as well be possible that each source heard similar stories from oral traditions.
Thanks, Dr. Ehrman. Wow! That’s some pretty impressive accuracy coming from various oral traditions (and I guess it would count as multiple attestation for Joseph in the canonical gospels (and of course that doesn’t make Joseph of Arimathea historical necessarily)). Also, the anointing of Jesus at Bethany comes to mind. Again, there are obviously differences between the gospels in the retelling of the story, but there are also similarities: John agrees with Mark and Matthew that the anointing took place in Bethany; John and Mark both agree that the perfumed ointment used in the anointing was made of nard; John, Matthew, and Mark all describe at least one disciple as objecting to the anointing and complaining that the “costly” ointment should have instead been sold for a large sum with the proceeds going to the poor; John agrees with Mark that the *very specific* amount for which the ointment could have been sold is three hundred denarii (perhaps that was simply the going rate for a jar of nard?); John, Mark, and Matthew all describe Jesus as admonishing his disciples to leave the woman alone; John, Mark, and Matthew all describe the perfumed ointment as intended for preparing Jesus’ body for burial; John 12:8 and Matthew 26:11 are almost verbatim: “You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.” vs. “For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me.” So again, it just seems (to me anyway) like John is taking from all three of the synoptics the best parts of this story and conflating them into one before adding his own touches. For even though Luke’s version is virtually unrecognizable in comparison to the other synoptics, it appears as though John still finds a way to use Luke in his narrative (anointing of the feet and using the woman’s hair to wipe them).
I guess I just don’t understand why John couldn’t also be using the synoptics as a source in certain (perhaps very limited?) instances. In my mind, it seems completely plausible that John could appreciate and use the synoptic material, but that he would incorporate and alter the material in such a way as to suit his own theological agenda without repeating everything word-for-word. Of course, there’s no way to prove any of this unless he does repeat the material word-for-word (which was your very good point to begin with)!
Yes, it’s possible that John used the Synoptics, and some scholars think so. But there is very little hard evidence for it, in my judgment.
In “Did Jesus Exist?”—based on Tacitus calling Pilate “procurator” instead of “prefect”—you say “This must show that Tacitus did not look up any official record of what happened to Jesus.” But I think you’ve stated after you wrote this book (in response to Carrier) that either title could be acceptable (that they’re almost interchangeable). Does this means Tacitus’ statement was possibly based on better research than you thought when you wrote “Did Jesus Exist?” (maybe it was based on official records after all)?
No, my view is that they are not interchangeable, as I indicate in my response to Carrier.
You left out the Gospel of Thomas, which, with about 40% of its verses paralleled in the Synoptics, like the Gospel of John, does not evidence redaction from these other known sources. So it would be one more independent attestation of Jesus to add to the list (and importantly it mentions Jesus’s brother, James, and that the disciples are to look to James as their leader – which Acts and Paul attest to James and a leadership role for James as well).
Paul vouches for James (mentioned in Mark and Gospel of Thomas) and Cephus (Peter, mentioned in pretty much all the gospels). So to some extent Paul is yet another independent source that attest to the reality of people that were in the immediate circle of Jesus – according to sources other than Pauline epistles.
And perhaps count the Gospel of Peter as well (a passion account of Jesus that doesn’t redact from other known sources)?
If that reckoning is accepted then there are 3 other sources, so a total of 11 independent sources (though two of them are probable 2nd century).
Ah, and there is the Josephus mention of James and Jesus. So that brings the count to 12 independent sources.
Naturally am basing all this own things you’ve written so you already know this but am just trying to get your count up.
Right indeed!
Your point about using one or two strong arguments to support your position rather than trying to bury your adversary with a large number of points is a good one — and one of those lessons from high school and college competitive debate of a habit that I had to un-learn once I got into the business world. Simple is better. You might be interested in some research done on behaviours of successful negotiators that supports the point. Negotiators who use 1 or 2 strong arguments, rather than many strong and weak arguments are much more successful. The more education that a negotiator has had, the more the tendency is to load up on the number of arguments rather than keep it simple. There’s a famous research study on this topic by Neil Rackley which has been reproduced multiple times in books and journals on negotiations — many of them available on the Net. One reference is to this PDF which calls the problem “argument dilution” (see page 10).
https://system.netsuite.com/core/media/media.nl?id=9041&c=1035604&h=47e32ba37e2a3295bec0&_xt=.pdf
Interesting! I’ve always thought that if you make three very good arguments that are very hard to refute, it’s much better than making thirteen arguments, ten of which could be trashed — since then it appears the opposition has trashed most of your arguments.
Experienced rhetoricians will say that you should always avoid padding out your position with weak arguments, because your opponent will often proceed to make a Straw Man out of your weak arguments and only argue against the Straw Man. In other words, those weak arguments that you add in with the intention of adding strength to your position can, in fact, become a liability. That’s why rhetoricians will often tell you to use only your three most impervious arguments.
This is one of the reasons why it’s foolhardy to challenge a Mythicist by using relatively weak arguments that could support the existence of an historical Jesus, when you’re best bet is to focus solely on those arguments that make the mythicist position look absurd. For instance, trying to prove that Jesus existed by pointing out that Nazareth existed isn’t a wise move, because the actual existence of Nazareth is in no way a necessary condition for Jesus to have existed. In other words, one isn’t logically tied to the other. It is totally within the realm of possibility that Nazareth existed and Jesus didn’t; or that Jesus existed but Nazareth didn’t; that both existed, or neither existed. It’s a very, very weak argument that Mythicists can, and often do, exploit.
On the other hand, any argument that is essentially bulletproof is not only impossible for your opponent to caricature, any attempt by a Mythicist to actively straw man the argument will only force him to dig himself deeper into a hole. A great example of such a bulletproof argument against Mythicists is to simply ask them if it’s POSSIBLE that the Gospels are merely legendary stories that were attributed after-the-fact to an actual historical figure. If the Mythicists say no, then they will look like unreasonable nitwits. If they say yes, then you’ve basically won the debate. Done.
Dr Ehrman –
I realize this thread is a bit old, but, I’m just asking if you can shed a little light on this for me:
You have mentioned that Jesus was a somewhat ordinary, apocalyptic preacher with just a small following (if I’m not mis-characterizing your view), and you have told me in another thread that you “had a hunch” that most likely nobody even noticed Jesus at his crucifixion.
My question: If Jesus – being essentially a “nobody” that nobody else even noticed at his crucificion – then that would put John the Baptist and James on an even lesser tier (in my estimation). So, why do you think Josephus even writes about Jesus, John the Baptist or James?
(I’m just interested in your view)
I think if you had Josephus only but not the Christian tradition, you would not put John the Baptist on a lesser tier at all. And I’m not completely sure what htat means — that he had fewer followers? Made less of a splash in his own day? I’m not sure either is true.
Well, lets drop my “lesser tier” comment in regards to John. I suppose I was figuring that Jesus would have been the most “known”, but, that’s not based on anything…
But, if you have a moment, I’d like to know why you think *any* of them got mention by Josephus….
Josephus mentions lots and lots (and lots) of people from Palestine who had some kind of historical significance (often very slight)
Apart from the Christian interpolation, what does Josephus really say about Jesus of Nazareth?
He says he was known to be a wise man, who did spectacular deeds, who had both Greek and Jewish followers, who was turned over to the Jewish authorities, and crucified by the Romans; and that afterward his followers still contintued to believe in him, since they said he was th emessiah.
Dr. Ehrman,
I really enjoyed this blog and love reading your works. Forgive me for asking a question on an older article, but I’m curious. If the gospels are not reliable with regards to what Jesus said, did, how he died, and his resurrection, what makes you think that they are reliable with regards to the existence of Jesus?
Thank you!
-David
Yup, it’s a good question. I answer it at length in my book, Did Jesus Exist? (I think the evidence is unassailable, as I try to explain there)