Bart Ehrman on the existence of Christ

My university has lately been attracting some provocative lecturers.After the Dembski debacle last month, Bart Ehrman, reknowned biblical scholar and the author of Misquoting Jesus, came to give a lecture and to sign some autographs. During the Q&A session - which, by the way, was far more civil than the Dembski session - a student asked Ehrman for his thoughts on the existence of Christ. I'm sorry that I can't offer a source, but I'll try to give my most accurate memory.Ehrman said that he thought the historical evidence of Christ was quite strong. He acknowledged the existence of the Josephus sources and some other documentation, but he said that those sources were "not great evidence". Rather, he proposed that the letters of Paul provided stronger evidence; not because they referenced Christ, but because they passingly referenced Christ's brother, James. These matter-of-fact, easy-to-forget passages are, in Ehrman's words, "exactly what the historian looks for in these things".In addition, Ehrman suggests that if Christ were a fictional legend, then certainly the early Christians wouldn't have made him die on a cross. This aspect, more than any other, drove away Jews from Christianity. Before Christ, there was not a single Jew who thought that the Messiah would be crucified; so when Christians tried to convert Jews, they initially, right out of the gate, faced an uphill theological battle. Ehrman made a provocative analogy: Imagine if someone came up to you and proclaimed that David Koresh, the crazy Waco terrorist, is the Supreme Lord and Savior of the Universe. My initial reaction would be, of course, a gut reaction: "What the f---?" That is exactly how the Jews felt when Christians told them about Jesus. Why would Christians have put themselves in that predicament?Ehrman said that he might write a book on this subject, and I hope that he does. He is a funny guy and a brilliant scholar, and he also has an amazing life story (from Moody and fundamentalist to Princeton and agnostic - quite a change, in more ways than one). I've never really thought about the existence of Christ that much, but he gave me some great ideas to mull over. Any of his books I would definitely recommend.

I'm not following you.I was under the impression that Christianity started as a Jewish cult. If that's true, then I don't see why Ehrman's point is refuted: a crucified Messiah was preposterous to every single Jew before the time of Christ. So I don't understand how a group of Jews got that idea without it being based around a real event and person. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here.

Yes, I think that was what he was saying. I think this makes sense; thanks for explaining it for me. What is your personal opinion of the crucifixion story? Where did it come from, and why was it used?I've decided that I'm going to reserve my opinion on the existence of Christ until I take some religious studies classes, and also until I have a chance to talk to some professors. You shouldn't dismiss Ehrman, however, based solely on what I've written; he didn't go into many details, and it was an off-the-cuff answer anyway. (And besides, I'm relaying the information, which is not a terribly direct source. ) I've heard that he is an eminent scholar on the origins of Christianity, so I hope that you check out some of his works. In fact, judging by your knowledge of this area, you might know more about him than I do.