(20 votes, average: 4.85 out of 5)
Loading...Ever since I started publishing books for non-scholars, I’ve been attacked by evangelical Christians for my views of the Bible. Then, somewhat ironically, about nine years ago I came under attack by the nemeses of evangelical Christians, the “mythicists,” who claim that Jesus never existed. And why did they attack me? For my views of the Bible. Isn’t life marvelous?
In 2012 published a book arguing that whatever else you say about him, Jesus certainly existed. It drove some of the mythicists to distraction. What was I thinking? I didn’t agree with them! Traitor!
Oh boy I didn’t agree with them. And on this point, at least, some evangelicals came to love me. One of the leading New Testament scholars in the evangelical community is Ben Witherington, with whom I’ve been on friendly terms for a very long time. Ben also has a blog, quite different from mine. Soon after the book was published, Ben asked if he could do a multi-part series with me on the book that both of us could post on our blogs. We did it. Now, nine years later, it seems like it might be interesting to repost it. Here’s the first set of questions.
******************************
Ben Witherington, a conservative evangelical Christian New Testament scholar, has asked me to respond to a number of questions about my book Did Jesus Exist, especially in light of criticism I have received for it (not, for the most part, from committed Christians!). His blog is widely read by conservative evangelicals, and he has agreed to post the questions and my answers without editing, to give his readers a sense of why I wrote the book, what I hoped to accomplish by it, and what I would like them to know about it. He has graciously agreed to allow me to post my responses here on my blog, which, if I’m not mistaken, has a very different readership (although there is undoubtedly some overlap). It’s a rather long set of questions and answers – over 10,000 words. So I will post them in bits and pieces so as not to overwhelm anyone. The Q’s are obviously his, the A’s mine.
Some of Ben Witherington’s most popular books are The Jesus Quest, and The Problem with Evangelical Theology, among others.
–
Q. What prompted you to not merely write Did Jesus Exist? but prioritize it?
A. I had wanted to write the book for some time, for a simple reason. A few years ago I started getting emails from people asking me whether or not I thought Jesus existed. Some of these people indicated that they had heard that I thought Jesus did not exist, and they wanted to know if it was true. In fact, it was nowhere close to being true: I had already written a book showing what I thought we could say with reasonable certainly about the things Jesus said and did (Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium). And my idea has always been that for Jesus to say and do these things, he had to exist!
In any event, it struck me as important that there was no book-length treatment of the question of Jesus’ existence by someone who was trained in NT and early Christianity, since we NT scholars tend simply to assume that he existed, without feeling any real compulsion to “prove” it. But as I looked into it, I found there was a lot of literature on the other side of the question, mythicists arguing, with an increasing following (especially on the Internet), that Jesus did not in fact exist. And so I wanted to write a book that showed that whatever else one might want to say about Jesus, he certainly existed.
As to why I prioritized it…well, I try
We get into some interesting issues here. If you want to keep reading, join the blog! It doesn’t cost much, it gives a lot, and every thin dime goes to charity! Click here for membership options
The last question in this post for me was the most fascinating – why do mythicists want to claim that Jesus never existed? I am sure that Dr Ehrman’s answer is true for many mythicists but I wonder whether there is also the thrill one gets from shocking Joe and Jill Q Public. The da Vinci code ‘thesis’ of a married Jesus with descendants also sought to shock, I feel. And, as someone once said, books about Jesus usually sell well and the more sensationalist they are the better they sell.
Yup, I think you’re absolutely right. THe shock factor is a big part of it. And hey, it might sell some books!
I think the conspiracy factor is important as well. Once you get into mysticism, you start seeing patterns and threads and it’s very satisfying to piece together the new paradigm.
The conspiracy is the Gospel and Acts authors hiding James. Where is he? He was historically more important than Jesus.
Hint: Read what Dr. Robert Eisenman has to say about Judas in Acts 1.
This is one of my favorites of your books. It’s also the one I suggest to people who know nothing about the historical Jesus, as it kind of gives a broad overview of the whole subject in easy to understand chapters. And so far all that have read it, based on my recommendation, have loved it. So I think it’s a good starting point for people before they try to tackle Didymus the Blind!
Ha! And I was so hopeful for Didymus….
While Paul and the gospels may provide us historical information about Jesus, do you think that all of this was massaged and filtered to fit within the prevailing conception of divine men found in the first century? Or do you think that Jesus’ portrayal in first century Christian writings was unique for its time?
Yes! And it depends on what we mean by “unique.” There certainly were other accounts of people being born to the union of a god and a mortal, who could heal the sick, control the weather, and raise the dead, and who ascended to heaven at the end. But there are lots of differences in the Xn story too.
Mr. Ehrman, if you were to publish a book “Jesus did not exist”, which particular mythicist argument would you be more inclined to emphasize? In other words, what’s -in your opinion- their best argument?
That’s a tough one, kind of like which argument do I think is best that there never was a lunar landing…. For me it’s more that there are some arguments that are just blindingly awful as opposed to completely unconvincing. Among the merely completely unconvincing I”d put that the James Paul knew was not his real brother.
I would love to read a similar exchange with Ben Witherington regarding “How Jesus Became God” or “Heaven and Hell”? Have you already done that with Ben or would you be interested in doing it?
Ah, right, that would be a lot more, uh, sparky… I”ve never thought of it or had him suggest it.
Please can you explain the difference between ‘exegesis’ and ‘hermeneutics’ perhaps with examples?
Exegesis these days usually refers to a detail exploration of a literary text to determine what the author was saying or, alternatively, how what s/he wrote would have been understood by what were, probably, the intended audiences. It is a kind of philological exercise. Hermeneutics is more commonly used to refer to the broader question of how language means (or works to communicate meaning, or is taken to be meaningful); it explores the meaning of meaning and the processes by which meaning can be communicated or constructed. It is a kind of philosophical exercise. I hope that makes sense!
Congratulations, you’ve accomplished the feat of simultaneously being considered a great scholar and a terrible scholar, by the same people, depending on the issue raised! I have no idea what kind of feedback you’ve received but I can say that you have had an impact in the skeptical/atheist community since you wrote DJE? and had your debate with Bob Price. Before then many of these folks thought mythicism was the only game in town. Now they are aware of a more nuanced and historically sophisticated approach. I’m sure there have been times when you felt like you had disturbed a hornet’s nest for little return but I appreciate your willingness to take this issue on.
My question – in the past you’ve expressed some ambivalence about live debates. Now that things seem to be opening back up as the pandemic comes under control, do you think that will remain an important activity for you moving forward, or will it become an occasional internet only thing?
Now that you mention it, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a single mythicist say I’ve had any effect on their views! As to future debates, I don’t have any plans one way or the other. If something interesting comes along I’ll think about it. But I have no interest in debating about mythicism. There are too many far more interesting things…
I’m a mythicist, and definitely not agnostic or atheist. Maybe you never asked why they are so exercised at historicists. You nailed it musing about Christian prejudice, if not a long history of genocide. To your position, all you seem to have is a letter or two from Paul, who right after declaring he saw “the brother of the Lord,” James, says, “I do not lie!” Never trust anyone who has to immediately declare they are not a liar after lying.
Whether Paul lied about seeing James or not, he was called “the Spouter of Lying” by James’s followers at Qumran (Eisenman). I wouldn’t think he was above lying about seeing him. Who knows what Paul really was up to?
This guy Paul isn’t much to hang your historicist hat on. Josephus was interpolated by Christians, and the other ‘historical’ accounts of Jesus – “Chrestians” – were hearsay. The Gospels and Acts were NOT history. So, you have… nothing.
Mr. Ehrman, I have been spending quite a bit of time listening to your debates on Trinity and you have provided plenty of evidence to prove that there are contradictions between the Gospels. Hence, it can’t be the word of God.
But if we were to claim that, how do we reconcile that there are faith healers which use the Gospel as word of God to cast out demons and perform healing in the name of Jesus?
I know of pastors in Christ Churches across the country who do these “works” of Jesus. To quote John,
John 14:12
“I say unto you, anyone who believes in me, the works that I do; he shall do also; and greater works than these shall he do because I go to the Father.”
And it’s the Gospel of John that comes right out and claims the divinity of Jesus.
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”
Because we see it in action, we ought to believe that this is the word from God? If not, how else do we reconcile?
Thank you!
I don’t believe there are actual faith healers. You probably know that none has been verified using scientific methods of verification. Sometimes it’s tricks, sometimes it’s misperceptions, sometimes it’s rumor, sometimes it’s other things. But it’s not actual healing.
Bart, I think you may be confusing ‘healing’ – that is recovery from illness; with ‘cure’ – that is the elimination of a disease condition. The two processes are commonly associated; but they are not at all the same. It is very common for a clinical cure to be achieved well in advance of anything approaching effective recovery. And equally, for almost all chronic conditions, healing aspirations (defined as full recovery from limiting illness) can be accessed even while the condition itself remains present.
Once this is recognised, it is apparent too that the basic currency of recovery is *trust*; a social discourse closely related to the religious discourse of *faith*.
– trust of the recovered patient in their long-term physical and mental capacities to sustain activities of daily life;
– trust of the recovered patient that they will be able to access all the social, clinical and care assets needed to support those sustained activities;
– reciprocal trust from those associated with the recovered patient that. with appropriate support, the patient will undertake sustained activities.
Those who trust, and are trusted, generally recover *much* faster from chronic illnesses.
Yes, that’s all true. But I don’t believe there are faith healers who can restore the sight to someone who is blind or who can make an amputated limb grow back.
I am sure you are right there; though the evidence is fairly strong that substantial benefits can be achieved for chronic pain, fatigue and depression.
Surgeon; “Well Ms XXX; I am very pleased to tell you that your latest test came back negative. I suggest we arrange a follow-up in six months time.”
Ms XXX; “Thanks Mr YYYY , I am really grateful. But why do I still fell knackered all the time; and why are there now whole days when I feel unable to get out of bed; and why do I still feel pain all down my back, which seems to be spreading and not going away?”
Surgeon; “Well your GP may be able to offer you prescriptions for these; all I can do is assure you that your disease appears to be completely gone”.
Repeated again and again and again. As you may gather; this is my day-job (no; not faith-healing, but statistical analyses of differential access to reported recovery across a range of sub-national populations).
Recovering health is always a reciprocal social discourse; and as such’ works better amongst those who are skilled in sharing trust; who are very often persons of ‘faith’.
I would think that a god as described in the Bible could totally cure instantly. Well at least if trying to prove he has some real power a god would have the ability.
But god appears to be very limited. Have you ever noticed that claimed faith healers never have the power to restore amputations? We have many veterans that could use their help.. I have relatives working in a children’s hospital with children and babies dying every day. Many of the parents are religious. We haven’t heard of any miraculous faith healing yet, except claims of those with the same treatment and chemo that atheists get. God appears to work through doctors and medical treatment,
which doesn’t appear too miraculous in a religious sense. After the prayers fail, it is just claimed to be God’s plan, so it doesn’t really appear to matter either way.
Faith healing – at least in my particular experience – has nothing to do with miracles; it is simply a particularly effective way (in some people’s experience) to access recovery. Access to doctors and medical treatment are certainly necessary too in most healing; but they can only take you so far. All too often; fatigue, pain or depression is still there once the doctors have done their thing.
And while the loss of an eye or arm can be a serious inhibition to healing; most of us would find it easier to face the rest of our lives with only one eye, than with continual recurrent depression.
You obviously did not grow up in my grandfather’s Pentecostal church….
‘Son’ is not a physical offspring, and ‘Word’ is not a written or spoken communication. Son was “given,” John 3.16 — past tense — so can’t be the man, but is rather, the Holy Spirit, and Word is ‘apophasis’ or said without saying, as in gnostic lore, so it is ethereal. All this stuff is explained and expounded thoroughly by recent Indian masters of Word (‘Shabd’ in Sikhism). Why people don’t go to Them is beyond me, or my pay grade. http://Www.rssb.org and for their writings, http://www.ScienceoftheSoul.org
Saviors walk the earth ALWAYS. That is what THEY say. Jesus said “AS LONG AS I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” Would he say that if he was so after he DIED? Oh, I guess maybe he didn’t really die.
Give me a break …
http://Www.Judaswasjames.com
Prof Ehrman,
Timing of this post couldn’t have been better. I am watching the debate you had with Robert Price on this very question. He made an assertion at a point. One which you didn’t specifically react to (I guess it was probably not germane to your response, I guess). But something I would appreciate a little expansion on.
He asserted that Judaism (post exilic period) had been influenced by Zoroastrianism and possibly other Persian influence.
Q1. What would be your reaction to this specific statement?
Q2. Please, can you cite any of such if indeed there were some cross cultural influences?
1. I’m not opposed to the idea at all, and I used to think so as well. But after doing the research, I concluded that the answer is probably not. I talk about it a bit in my book on Heaven and Hell. 2. If there were influence, it would have affected that apocalyptic sense of dualism between the forces of good and evil.
I recently heard someone comment that there is no 1st Century “archeological evidence” for Jesus, which seems like an empty argument to me. But when would you say is the first “hard” evidence? The earliest papyrus scraps from the Gospels? Some early Christian relics? It’s not like the Caesars, where they had statues and coins and such.
Papyrus scraps are evidence for writings ABOUT Jesus, maybe. They are NOT evidence for his existence. Might as well be Bilbo Baggins, or Harry Potter.
New member here, wanting to drag you back to old questions! (I’m reading through the historical blog entries in order)
With regard to your thoughts on the disciples post-crucifixion Jesus ‘experiences’:
Is there any strong evidence that some of them actually did *think* that they had experienced an ‘Earthly’ risen Jesus in some way shortly after his death as opposed to perhaps much later?
I’m wondering if you think it’s feasible that most of them did not (think that) initially.
– Rather they made sense of his death in the context that they still thought his expectation of the Coming Kingdom was correct, and that since he had died God’s favoured martyr, that it would be he that would soon return to see it through anyway?
In this idea, The Resurection is not necessary for their initial processing of the event or even the rally to ‘going back out there’ with the message.
Of course, in order for us to have resurection stories, these ideas crept in later, either via some of the disciples themsleves or those who came after. A walkin’ talkin’ risen Jesus would have been a better ‘sell’. (Not fabricated, so much as later believed)
Thank you!
I think you’re asking me (Bart) instead of “fishician”? My view is that if too much time had elapsed (a) the visions would not have been as likely to occur (visions of deceased people are more commonly of those *recently* deceased) and (b) it would have been harder to sustain the idea later that they occurred right away (say, if other disciples knew that all that happened years ago and no one said anything about seeing jesus in the meantime). So my hunch is that the experiences happened pretty soon after the even. I don’t think there’s anyway to show they happened exactly on the third day though.
Thanks for your reply!
I see your points about the timing of the visions and the disciples later reflections. That makes sense.
What if:
the disciples preaching was limited to an exalted (taken up by God) Jesus and his imminent return as opposed to his physical resurection
AND
parallel to this the literal interpretations of a physically raised (and then taken up) Jesus naturally formed amongst the oral traditions that began to spread out. ?
I don’t imagine the disciples had much control over their message in the early days once they had covered the basics with people.
“God raised him up and he’s coming back!”
“What, he walked out of his tomb?”
“Er, yeah I guess. Yeah, that’s what happend and then he went off to heaven!”
So I guess my suggestion is that the physical resurection stories developed separately and were eventually included along with other miraculous versions of events by the gospel writers quite a while later.
Would anything of Paul’s contradict this hypothesis, i.e his early authorship and references to things he ‘received’?
I guess I’m asking here if he got the physical resurection direct from Peter – or – from Christian hearsay or his own ‘vision’.
Yes, I think the initial preaching was about being taken up to heaven. But as Jews from Galilee (not to mention apocalypticists) that would have certainly meant “taken up in the body.”
Larry Hurtado’s book “The Earliest Christian Artefacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins” makes exactly the case that these are the earliest surviving ‘hard’ evidence; albeit that the palaeographic dates proposed for early papyri in some confessional discussions tend to err on the hopeful side. Larry’s book can readily be previewed through Google.
I believe that the most recent – widely recognised – datings undertaken for these papyrus scraps are those offered by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse
https://www.academia.edu/35794381/Christian_Manuscripts_from_Egypt_to_the_Times_of_Constantine
From their analysis of all Christian papyri up to the time of Constantine;
“There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century”.
“The only text that we date to the first half of the second century is PS 11200 bis (TM63460), a fragmentary theological treatise containing two nomina sacra. It is written on a roll (not on a codex as is usual for Christian texts) and deals with eschatological problems.”
The presence of distinctive Christian “nomina sacra” (abbreviations of specific ‘holy’ names and terms) commonly allow us to distinguish Christian texts from pagan or Jewish ones – e.g in manuscripts of the Psalms.
Yeah, it’s a lousy argument. How much archaeological evidence is there for Josephus? Zero. For 99.99% of the Roman population? Zero. The person saying this wouldn’t count papyri fragments anyway, since that would be literary evidence and I think they mean stuff besides “written texts” (though they would probably count inscriptions). Off hand I can’t think of much of anything (in terms of archaeology) prior to the church from Dura Europas around 250 CE. Since Christians didn’t make statues of their God or have buildings dedicated to worship, and were small in number anyway, all that is completely expected, not odd….
if you are allowing inscriptions; then perhaps the Alexamenos graffito?
Most commonly dated around 200 CE.
Though with lots of points that a determined mythicist could object to:
– does it actually present a crucifixion?
– is it Jesus on the cross, or some other deity?
– possible dates range widely.
Even so; I think the theory that Alexamenos is being mocked for Christian beliefs is much the most plausible explanation.
And it is hard evidence that is definitely *not* Christian in origin or transmission.
Yes, I’d probably allow that. It’s obviously not conclusive because of the dates and the lack of a clear i.d. (it’s a crucifixion I’m pretty sure); but I think it probably is Jesus on the cross being mocked. Off hand I don’t recall the evidence for the date though.
I am a member and yet I am not able to find the entire post. Why is that?
I don’t know. When you have problems like this, please send a query to Support (click on Help).
According to the 2020 statistic, there were 2.38 billion Christians who believe Jesus exist. In addition, there were 1.2 billion Muslims who also believe Jesus exist. Judaism also believes that Jesus exists but they rejected him, giving a total more than 50 % of world population.
May I know, in you field of specialization especially NT and early Christianity, is it true that many believe that it was Paul who started a new region which later they called themselves as Christians? This new religion is different to that of the religion of Jesus. There are many examples like Jesus upheld the Law while Paul preached in Romans 6:14 that Christians are not under the Law. Jesus circumcised while Paul preached in Galatians 5:2, “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”
On the other hand, Muslims insist that the religion of Jesus and all the prophets of God is Islam as revealed by God in Quran 2: 136. Kindly furnish just one evidence that Jesus founded Christianity?
Some people might say Paul started an entirely new religion; my sense is that not too many do. Whatever Paul preached is based on the death and resurrection of Jesus, so he wasn’t just making something up himself. Moreover, other followers of Jesus were saying that he brought salvation before Paul. But yes, even though Paul’s views are similar in many ways to those of Jesus, they differed on veyr important matters (such as how to be right with God!)
Bart,
“Differ on such as how to be right with God” is for sure. Does anyone not notice Jesus’s John 6:40, “SEE and believe” to be saved, contrasted with Paul’s Romans 10:9, “CONFESS and believe” to be saved? This is hardly a trivial difference. Paul’s master need not be PRESENT, opening up the lie of a Pauline universal savior. Jesus himself condemns this in several places. Read Douglas Del Tondo, Jesus Words Only, at JesusWordsOnly.com
I met Del Tondo. He is a very bright guy, a corporate lawyer in southern CA.
Actually, the numbers registered under those religions do not equate with the numbers who ‘believe Jesus exists.’ I get what you’re saying, but you have conflated two related, but not identical, numbers. It’s a common practice and needs to be pointed out when it happens.
Richard Carrier estimates, I think, that the best arguments for Jesus’s existence are something on the order of 3-to-1 against, and the least likely ones put it at 1200-to-1 against–I’m going on memory here (I heard Carrier speak once) but it was something like this. In other words, he wasn’t claiming that he knew Jesus never existed but that the likelihood ranged from pretty unlikely to very unlikely. Could you quantify your view in such a numerical way? Given all the evidence would you say, for example, that it’s a 90% chance that Jesus existed? Higher? Lower? Or is it impossible to put a number on it? Or a range of numbers? If “it’s impossible to estimate” is your answer, would you mind explaining why that is? It would certainly be interesting to see your estimate.
No, I can’t quantify it. That’s one of the very big problems with Carrier’s work, his reliance on statistical formulae that he appears not to understand and (statisticians tell me) simply misues (Bayes Theorem). Historians don’t do that kind of statistical thing. Read a history of the Civil War, or of the 1960s, or of the Italian Renaissance: how many say “There is a 4 out of 7 chance that Robert E. Lee….”?
I don’t know how many historians use numbers like that (very few, I imagine) but what you’re describing is exactly what they say in words, things like “Robert E. Lee more likely than not believed Negroes to be inferior forms of humanity” rather than saying that he definitely did (or did not) believe so. Sometimes historians will go so far as to claim “It is almost impossible to believe that Robert E. Lee thought…” or “It is nearly certainly true that Robert E. Lee believed…”, which is quantitative thinking without the numerical element. I don’t think it’s your view that Jesus positively, certainly, absolutely walked this earth, is it? I’m just trying to figure out if you think it was 99.99% certain or more like 75% or 90% certain, even if you’re more comfortable expressing that concept in adjectives rather than percentages. Maybe you do express this idea clearly in one of your books that I have not read yet.
Yes, they say “more likely than not” and “almost certainly.” What they don’t say is that it is 93% likely that…. You’ll notice that I explain things as historians do. The problem with statistical calculations is that they provide some kind of false sense of objectivity, which we simply don’t have.
Dr ehrman do you think ITS possible that THe discovery of new bible manuscript or Copies Will make bible perfect again or tahts it, what wE have now is final revelation of god and if there is imperfection tahts mean bible is not innerant and No future discovery Will add up anything , because somehow i have thought that jesus Will bring perfect bible in secind coming and Said hE bring THe perfect bible in THe end intentionally , or whatever discovery. In thefuture Will have
No, I don’t see how that could happen. The problem is not the manuscripts and their differences; the problem is with what just about everyone agrees was originally written by the original authors.
I tend to think of mythicists as more *anti-theist* and anti-religion rather than just atheist or agnostic, as their disregard of the entire historical discipline in order to completely erase a human beings’ whole existence strikes me as purely ideological.
They don’t demonstrate the same lack of respect for experts in fields such as evolutionary theory, possibly because it goes over their heads that the hard sciences and history weigh up evidence in different ways and contexts.
I used to work in an organisation where establishing someone’s identity was a critical part of the work. The experts used to say: “yes, I see that there is a birth registration and a passport and a bank account and a husband, but how do I know that this bag of meat and bones in front of me is actually the person named in the documents?”. The same identity can be claimed by multiple people over time. Is there any possibility that the identity of Jesus was assumed by another person, say, before the cruxifixction or after the ‘resurrection’? It always seemed to me that the easiest way to account for the belief that people had seen a dead man walking around was that someone assumed his identity. A relative? A twin? Someone good at disguises? In this scenario, yes, Jesus existed but as an identity adopted by more than one person.
I would say that in order to establish one of those options as the most likely occurrence one would have to determine how often that sort of thing typically happened. Can you think of, say, a handful of examples? And why in Jesus’ instance they simply nailed the wrong guy? (That does happen, of course, in the ancient Gnostic of Basilides and in the Life of Brian!)
I don’t disagree with you. But I’ve always found it interesting that even in the NT accounts those that knew Jesus well didn’t seem to recognize him after the resurrection. So that leads to those theories.
Yes, that’s a very interesting point. I talk about it in my book How Jesus Became God. I give a lengthier explanation for it, but the gist is that the “not recognizing him” motif may derive from the fact that early on some (a lot?) of his followers did not accept the claim that he had been raised. This led to a later idea that, well, he wasn’t recognizable.
Also in “Judas My Brother” a 1968 historical novel by Frank Yerby which appeared well researched for its time and was a step in my journey into skepticism.
I am not a mythicist, BUT…..
If you can get your head out of the Christian tunnel and keep backing up, and up, and up, and up, you reach a point where you encounter one too many stories across one too many siloed cultures of a man born of God, dead, then arisen again to buy the Christ narrative. Your head kind of explodes and it all becomes surreal. A lifetime of belief gone in a flash. Ouch.
In that morass the notion Jesus is a creation, not a reality, floats large.
Further, one of Bart’s primary arguments – that all the smart people agree Jesus was real, becomes a major sticking point. If that is not a logical fallacy, it should be. All the best theories happened when all the experts were proven wrong. 400 years ago western medicine knew the brain was useless. 50 years ago they knew it was fixed after birth and change was impossible. 100 years ago they excommunicated anyone who thought washing hands prevented disease. Etc, etc, etc. The thing in the interview about “doth protest too much” applies in spades to the apologists for the existence of Jesus. I smell a rat.
I’m afraid you misunderstand me. I have never used that as an argument, let alone a Primary one. I have never said that something is right because groups of people, even experts, say so (at least I haven’t said that since my sophomore year in high school debate!)
What I DO say is that if you disagree with the almost unanimous view of trained experts (on history, physics, medicine, evolutionary biology, climate, or anything else) you should realize what you’re doing and have some pretty compelling reasons for it. You should also (I’m not speaking to you yourself, of course) think long and hard about why virtually everyone who has spent their lives studying a topic and have incredible knowledge at enormous depths about it take one position and you have chosen to take the other. And so for me the issue of massive consensus is not at all *evidence* but something more like “exhortation.” That’s why I bring it up sometimes.
I’ve got three words for you: DR. ROBERT EISENMAN.
He concludes “who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.” Not exactly mainstream. His work is the most impressive I have read — in ANY discipline — including yours, and “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” is one of my go-to favorites. Until people realize Eisenman knows what he’s talking about it isn’t likely that biblical studies will progress much, if at all. James was central. Jesus probably was little more than Paul’s heavenly redeemer, the Holy Ghost. And, yes, ‘Judas’ was James (inverted tendentiously). His work inspired mine on the gnostic texts that prove the fictitiousness of the New Testament. “Even when all the experts agree, they may well be wrong.” Bertrand Russell
And, btw, Carrier has much more than Bayes’s Theorem, which is merely a statistical exercise.
rblouch, as a Jewish agnostic who enjoyed Bart’s book on this topic, I’d like to politely suggest that you’re making a logical error. Of course there are, as you say, many unrelated cultures that offer us tales of a man “born of God, dead, then arisen again.” But that fact is only relevant to the similar stories told about, and the faith subsequently built upon, the man Jesus. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether that man actually lived or was invented.
Personally, I’m fairly confident he did exist.
First, because the success of Christianity was so unlikely (as Bart explains in The Triumph of Christianity) that adding the nonexistence of Jesus to its history just strains credulity.
Second, because I think the core of the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, even if some Christian scribes along the way couldn’t resist gilding the lily. [Continued…]
A number of my United Methodist friends do not believe in a theistic God, strongly influenced by John Shelby Spong. We value many things about our church, but wonder if we can sustain our membership relying on the historic Jesus as our foundation. That’s why your findings about the historic Jesus become important to us. As I understand it, you have suggested three major factors in the growth of the Christian religion: the human Kingdom is at hand, Jesus was raised from the dead, and Jesus taught profound truths about about human relationships. History shows that the Kingdom was not imminent and science has made it impossible for many people to believe that Jesus was physically resuscitated from death. Have you ever explored the third foundation — the historic accuracy of Jesus’s views of human relationship, and whether they did, or could be expected to, deal with political freedom, ecological concerns, social welfare, racial and sexual equality and other modern concerns?
Yes I have. I do not think these views significantly led to conversions in the early centuries of the church, despite how incredibly valuable they are for us today. (I explain why in my book Triumph of Christianity)
They can’t be incredibly valuable to us today if they are not authentic. We are trying to take the Christ out of Christianity but preserve the Jesus. Isn’t skilled textual criticism the proper tool for that? Isn’t its role to explore both the negative and positive when we ponder what has been preserved in the Gospels and Paul’s letters?
My view is that lots of views that people find valuable today are not rooted in historical realities. (I’m not speaking just of religion) But in any event, I’m not saying these values were not present in the early church; I’m saying they do not appear to be the reason people converted from their pagan practices to Christian.
Extended social media arguments are seldom constructive, but it is not my intention to argue with you. I agree that we can never have historical certainty about what Jesus said and did. I agree that the claim of resurrection was a (the?) major factor in the growth of Christianity. I agree that the image of Jesus in the New Testament was shaped by the emerging church. My challenge is that the value of textual criticism for modern Christians is broader than the history of the church — it is discerning the message of Jesus as accurately as possible. You disagree with the Jesus Seminar, but at least it assigned probabilities to what the Gospels say about what Jesus said and did. I wish you would do the same because I have great respect for your skill as a researcher.
I completely agree that it’s important to get back to what Jesus really said. I must have misunderstood your question/point. ANd I am a firm believer in assigning probabilities, and think that is precisely where the Seminar went astray (in how they did it). My book Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium is entirely about how to establish what Jesus actually said and did, and unlike the seminar’s Five Gospels, I explain how I get there using historical criteria.
Hi Bart. I came across this website by Daniel T. Unterbrink. https://judasthegalilean.weebly.com/
He argues that Jesus of Nazareth IS really the historical Judas the Galilean, shrouded in a universal, theological and non-violent narrative so as not to distance him from Judaism and downplay and his his anti-roman stance. I have to admit, I’ve never heard that argument before, and it’s an intriguing twist on the mythic theme. It would be a truly ironic reversal if that were the case – that Judas’ violent resistance went underground in the guise of the non-violent Jesus and not only outlasted the Romans, but conquered the world. But what do the facts say?
Judas the Galilean would have been actively engaged in his anti-Roman activities when Jesus was just a boy. THis is one of those attempts to connected all the pieces of the puzzle of history when in fact pieces come from different parts of the puzzle. Some people just can’t stand that and insist that it all has to fit together. The reality is we are missing 99.99% of the pieces.
[Previous comment concluded.]
Lastly, because of references to Jesus in the Talmud.
While those were written a few centuries later, there’s good reason to think they must have been based on independent Jewish tradition. The rabbis never claim that the Christians invented him; they take his reality for granted before proceeding to disagree with or disparage him. That the by then dominant religion was a warped offshoot of Judaism based on the life of one Jew and promoted (if not invented) by another (Paul) was an embarrassment to them. They would have been delighted to condemn it as based on a fraud. They didn’t because they took it for granted that everyone knew that wasn’t the case and they’d look foolish.
To me, it’s just disappointing that they didn’t realize that Jesus was a faithful Jew with no intention of converting pagans or starting a new religion. They should have absolved him of blame for what was done in his name.
Well, the argument is a little more nuanced than that. He argues, like the mythicists, that Jesus is a purely literary creation that is deliberately removed from direct references to the life and time of Judas. The idea of Jesus starts with Judas’ followers of Judas vision that Judas’s message survived his death. It was clothed in jewish messianic and pagan mythological garb and transported in time to the time preceeding the death of Herod. Elements of Judas’ life and teaching are then ascribed to Jesus. I’m personally not really convinced, but his argument does make sense of some problems in the interpretation of Josephus and the Christian interpolations, as well as some aporia in the Gospels. It actually does make some sense. I just don’t have the technical knowledge of the texts to be able to evaluate his arguments. Was wondering if you had any technical arguments against this, admittedly fantastic but also novel idea.
Dr. Ehrman. I’m sure you’re aware of all the similarities between Christ and the story of Joseph in Egypt. Joseph’s story is a typifiaxon of Christ.
Christ was baptized when He was 30 years old, as a hint to Joseph as a type of Christ.
Well then, when was Jacob “baptized”?
Joseph was exalted from the time he began as a prophet for the “cup-bearer” and the “baker”, when he was still in prison.
From then on, Joseph “grew”, while the baker “declined”. The baker was beheaded by Pharaoh (Herod) at his birthday party.
The baker’s dream was that birds (a dove?) ate of the “bread” in the top basket.
But Krisus was certainly not baptized in a prison, but by the Jordan River?
Well then, read Luke 3:20-22
«So Herod put John in prison, adding this sin to his many others. Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. ”
Who was the baker in the story of Joseph
It is known through many midrash’es that Egypt’s Pharaoh had Job, Jethro and Balaam as his counsellors.
It seems that the baker in this story, by theological assumptions, was assumed to be none other than Job.
Was Job then a Baptist?
According to the Book of Job, Job eventually baptized his three friends at the command of God. Job 42:7-8
This was a baptism worthy only of Job. This was the baptism of John. This was a baptism for the remission of sins.
In many ways, the story of Job facilitated Christ. Job had to fight against Satan, Job had to suffer mentally and physically, even against worms (you brood of vipers) in his own body. But Job was loved by God.
The lesson of the Book of Job was to point out the enormous distance between God and man. The distance was so immeasurably great that Job was not even worthy to loosen the “strap on the sandal” to God.
It is worth noting that while the baker was beheaded, the cupbearer and Pharaoh became friends, just like Herod and Pilate. The cup bearer was to squeeze the juice from the vine into Pharaoh’s cup.
Who could the cupbearer have been?
Well again, he should be one of Pharaoh’s counselors.
When Joseph was rescued from the well, his brothers had first handed him over to some Midianites.
We know that Jethro was a Midianite.
From the Book of Exodus we read that Jethro was the first to acknowledge that Yahweh was God over all Gods – King over all kings. «Are you a king? You said it!»
Exodus 18:11 «Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods»
The Jews had handed Yahweh over to Jethro, just as the brothers had handed Joseph over to the Midianites. Just as the priests had handed Jesus over to Pilate.
Jethro made a burnt offering, the purpose of which was to atone for his own sins – «to wash his own hands». Leviticus 1:1-5
Dr. Ehrman. I have a question.
We know that the Jews used midrash to explore, deepen and colorize the personalities of various biblical figures.
We know that the Jews used pesher techniques to see connections in the various stories in Tanakh.
We know that stories in the NT are often linked to the fulfillment of prophecies.
The question is: Why are so few scholars researching the possibility that this may have played an important role in the shaping of the story of Jesus?
The Left Behind movement is based on a specific interpretation of the Bible. This is a religious interpretation from the 20th century. The Left Behind movement is an invented man-made faith, based on carefully selected scriptures.
Why should it be inconceivable that this phenomenon was also widespread over 2000 years ago?
It’s actually a major theme of scholarly activity.
Genesis 40: 8 “Do not interpretations belong to God?”
These were the words of Joseph when asked about the interpretation of dreams. For the first time, Joseph made it clear that he could only interpret dreams through God’s help, not by himself. Joseph needed God’s involvement. Joseph needed to be enlightened.
How was this involvement from God? Through the Holy Spirit most likely.
Joseph had been a dreamer only concerned with emphasizing himself, which led to his downfall. But now, for the first time, here in prison, Joseph is establishing a close relationship with God. Joseph underwent a significant change that eventually led him to become king of Egypt.
The meeting with Pharaoh’s servants was a turning point for Joseph. He was at a low point in his life, but his fortune was now turning.
For theologians who dived deep into the story of Joseph, this had to appear as a significant event.
Joseph was about to step out of the prison (Jordan) as a new man blessed by God.
No wonder John the Baptist could say: «He will clear His threshing floor and will gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.»
“The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Wesleyanism, and Pentecostalism, Revised and Expanded Edition”
Can you imagine the look on Jesus’ face when he reads this title? Wonder what his WTF face looks like? (meaning What The For-Crying-Out-Loud face, of course)
This is totally off topic! I got all interested in Ben Witherington and started to read his book about the problem with Evangelical theology but couldn’t understand it! Then I saw his book about the loss of his daughter and started to read that. I put it away in tears – it is just so much NOT my experience of losing a daughter. How do these people find God so close and communicative with them personally when for others of us he is distant, silent and, well, just not there?
How do you cope with the fact that his god is so real, personal, loving and benevolent even in the face of the tragedies of reality?
Yes, it was very sad indeed when he lost his daughter. His faith did in deed give him solace in the face of tragedy. Everyone must find their own way…
That’s true, but I resent their implication that their way is the only way and others are just bitter. We lost our daughter and are struggling to find any way through, but the idea that a benevolent God watched her take her own life and didn’t intervene in any way then offers comfort to the bereaved is to me bizzare. Anyway, I don’t feel any comfort. I guess those who can make sense of it all in terms of their faith are lucky. Unfortunately many of them take credit for choosing the faith way, as if it makes them better people. Sorry for going on about it. Maybe I am bitter….
I’m so sorry to hear about your daughter. And yes, I very much resent that view too. I don’t know if Ben projects it or not. Some do, and I think that’s very distressing.
Please accept my sincere condolences. You have every right to be bitter. I do hope you’re finding support in your family and among your friends. All best wishes.
Thanks Bart. Appreciate your condolences and taking time to reply.
Jac, suas palavras se aplicam a mim porque passei o mesmo com minha filha e não consigo encontrar conforto nas Igrejas. Meus pêsames.
There is simply no good reason to think that Jesus never existed. Claiming him to be a mythical character creates more historical problems that it solves.
From the perspective of discussions with Christian believers, I have long that that mythicists shoot themselves in the foot because they make fundamentalist preachers look like the reasonable ones. To the average believer, “Jesus never existed” simply seems absurd. In Sunday school, preachers can plausibly say, “See? These nutty atheists just don’t want that Jesus ever existed!”
Rationalists and skeptics should not look nutty, should not marginalize themselves into fringe scholarship and conspiracy thinking.