Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

Blimey Phat! That's pretty heavy.But aside from the rather intensely expressed nature of your post you don't seem to be saying anything that isn't an expression of the "human condition" that plagues us all.You want certainty. You want a reliable and present father figure. You want friends who want you as much as you want them. You want a perfect companion.All of us no doubt think we want similar, albeit not identical, things. Perfect love. Material comfort. Those we love to live healthy happy lives. Etc. etc. Yet these are in many ways the concerns of those who are basically OK already.There are many of us who are the victims of outrageous fortune in ways that we wouldn't wish on our worst enemies. Some of us have incurable and debilitating illnesses or have lost children or have suffered horrible experiences that we will never be able to reconcile ourselves to. We all have concerns and problems that at times seem all consuming to us personally no matter how objectively trivial they may be.I think it is part of human nature to never be satisfied. I think that is partly what drives us. So even in the absence of devastations that we would all recognise as traumatic we create our own traumas by hankering for impossible perfections.It is in our nature to be eternally disappointed..... But what you maybe need to accept is that the truth is innately uncertain and that human reason is the closest to "god" you are ever actually going to get.I suppose you can embrace some notion of god in order to meet your otherwise unfulfilled needs and justify it on that basis.But does that really work when you know that the basis of that acceptance is wishful thinking based on need rather than anything more demanding?

Pose this question to 17 year old you regarding your father.I cannot wrap my head around the pathetic nature of believers. You see all the bad in reality around you because you compare it to the fairy tales told to you about some mystical place with mystical beings. Go. Go out and look at nature. Look up at a clear night sky. See the wonder in the world and universe with your own eyes that is right before you. Make this life count, the only one you can be 100% certain you have. Stop contemplating what could happen when you're dead and gone. Then existence is vapid and hollow because science describes our existence in reality. Science isn't there to make you feel good: it's not supposed to and doesn't even try. If you hate your life so much (and it sounds like you do): make it better. But only YOU can do that with things in reality, not wishful thinking. If wishful thinking worked, there would be no sorrow, pain, suffering or wanting.

You don't have certainty though, Phat. You have the illusion of certainty, granted through the false confidence of faith. Just because someone promises you something, even if you truly believe them, doesn't mean it's actually going to happen.We are all plagued with uncertainty. Nobody knows, though many think and many more believe. The ones who say they're certain are fools, insane, or liars - certainty is a logical impossibility.Remember, what's true is already true. If God exists, then he exists; if he doesn't exist, then he doesn't exist. Your belief is irrelevant; you're either right or wrong, simply believing doesn't make it so, and acknowledging the truth doesn't make anything disappear.Why is clinging to false certainty more important than finding out if your belief is actually likely to be true at all? If it's true, then you don't have to give up the belief, and if it's false, then all you've given up is a lie, because what the lie promised wasn't going to happen anyway.

Carrier wrote that 'review' before actually reading the book; and he should have been much more cautious in his attack against Ehrman for apparently 'forgetting (or not knowing?) about Philo (or even Josephus) mentioning Pilate'. Let's turn to the book to see what's really on Ehrman's mind.Ehrman's discussion of Roman records is precisely that: a discussion of Roman records. Writings by historians are not government records; Ehrman had no reason to include them in his discussion of Roman records for Pilate's existence. After addressing the issue of Roman records, Ehrman addresses the attestations to Pilate in the writings of Josephus and Philo. Here is a more complete quote of Ehrman's work:

quote:

---

Ehrman in Did Jesus Exist? (2012):

​

In that connection, I should reiterate that it is a complete "myth" (in the mythicist sense) that Romans kept detailed records of everything and that as a result we are inordinately well informed about the world of Roman Palestine and should expect then to hear about Jesus if he really lived. If Romans kept such records, where are they? We certainly don't have any. Think of everything we do not know about the reign of Pontius Pilate as governor of Judea. We know from the Jewish historian Josephus that Pilate ruled for ten years, between 26 and 36 ce. It would be easy to argue that he was the single most important figure for Roman Palestine for the entire length of his rule. And what records from that decade do we have from his reignwhat Roman records of his major accomplishments, his daily itinerary, the decrees he passed, the laws he issued, the prisoners he put on trial, the death warrants he signed, his scandals, his interviews, his judicial proceedings? We have none. Nothing at all.

​

I might press the issue further. What archaeological evidence do we have about Pilate's rule in Palestine? We have some coins that were issued during his reign (one would not expect coins about Jesus since he didn't issue any), and oneonly onefragmentary inscription discovered in Caesarea Maritima in 1961 that indicates that he was the Roman prefect. Nothing else. And what writings do we have from him? Not a single word. Does that mean he didn't exist? No, he is mentioned in several passages in Josephus and in the writings of the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo and in the Gospels. He certainly existed even though, like Jesus, we have no records [referring to official Roman records, remember] from his day or writings from his hand. And what is striking is that we have far more information about Pontius Pilate than about any other governor of Judea in Roman times. And so it is a modern "myth" to say that we have extensive Roman records from antiquity that surely would have mentioned someone like Jesus had he existed. (pp. 44—45)

---

Ehrman is addressing the Mythicist claim that there should be official records for Jesus (e.g., birth certificate, execution order, etc.) by pointing out that even for someone like Pontius Pilatewho clearly existed as attested in the archaeological and historical recordwe have no such records.Carrier's review was premature. He should have waited to actually read the book before trying to write a review on the arguments Ehrman uses in it.Jon

Phat's post about his family history, and all the replies to it, are completely off-topic in this thread.Please; keep this to a discussion about Ehrman's book, or at least Jesus in general.Edited by Jon, : oofta

Bullshit. The blog post was clearly stated as a response to the attack piece Ehrman posted on Huffpost. Lets read Carrier's first two paragraphs.

quote:

---

Yesterday Bart Ehrman posted a brief article at the Huffington Post (Did Jesus Exist?) that essentially trashtalks all mythicists (those who argue Jesus Christ never actually existed but was a mythical person, as opposed to historicists, who argue the contrary), indiscriminately, with a litany of blatant factual errors and logical fallacies. This is either the worst writing he has ever done, or there are far more serious flaws in his book than I imagined (Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth). Amazon just reported that it shipped my copy of his book yesterday as well, so I will be able to review it soon.

​

I am puzzled especially because this HuffPo article as written makes several glaring errors and rhetorical howlers that I cannot believe any competent scholar would have written. Surely he is more careful and qualified in the book? I really hope so. Because I was expecting it to be the best case for historicism in print. But if it’s going to be like this article, it’s going to be the worst piece of scholarship ever written. So stay tuned for my future review of his book. For now, I will address this brief article, not knowing how his book might yet rescue him from an epic fail.

---

Strawman much?This whole argument is specious and logically flawed. First of all the mythicist argument is not based upon lack of birth certificate or execution order. Those are pieces to the puzzle but are not at all a central pillar.The point is there is contemporary evidence for Pilate. neither you or Ehrman can hand wave that away and say that the lack of evidence is evidence for a historical Jesus. The whole thing reminds of the creo/evo debate. The creos think if they can disprove the evo arguments then it makes creationism true. Attacking the Mythicists arguments will not make a historical jesus a reality. Positive evidence will make HJ a reality.Try reading what carrier wrote instead of assuming what he wrote. Lying doesn't help your position. Have you even read what carrier wrote? It is not a review of the book. It was a response to the attack in the HuffPost.

This thread is about Bart Ehrman's latest book, Did Jesus Exist?. Let's stick to that.I'm not suggesting you (Rahvin) are the only person to diverge from the topic, or even the first.

Yet Carrier doesn't stick to what Ehrman says on Huffington Post; he doesn't accuse Ehrman of forgetting to mention something, but instead accuses him of not knowing something. It's Carrier's mistake to make the assumption that Ehrman only knows what he has written in this one blog. Carrier even admits that his knowledge of Ehrman's position is incomplete; he attacks it unwittingly nonetheless:

quote:

---

Richard Carrier:

​

Perhaps these aren’t mistakes, and just very, very, very badly worded sentences. When I receive his book in a few days I’ll be able to check.

---

He's fully aware that what he's responding to does not represent Ehrman's entire argument, yet chooses to accuse Ehrman of not knowing things simply because he left them out of his blog. Hell, you yourself admit that Ehrman's blog was an outline of the arguments in his book. How can anyone who responds to an outline of an argument instead of the argument itself expect to be taken seriously?That's like writing a book report from Sparknotes. That's nonsense; our very own Crashfrog made a huge deal out of the lack of official records back when the historical Jesus thread was still open. What Ehrman describes may not be a popular Mythicist argument, but it is certainly an argument used by Mythicists and it requires some addressing. Good thing Ehrman and I have attempted to do no such thing. Carrier is writing as though the blog represents the entirety of Ehrman's position even though he admits that it does not and admits to having an incomplete knowledge of Ehrman's argument.That's dishonest.Question for you: Have you read Ehrman's book?Jon

Sorry to have ran your topic off of the road, Jon. Let me attempt to steer it back on the road.... We cant very well discuss Jesus...at least with believers....without asking you to tell us your preconceptions about a historical Jesus. Was He just a he? (a mere human) Do you believe that Ehrman seeks to walk a middle road so as not to offend his believer friends? Of all of the evidence (or lack of) that you have read so far, what are your personal tentative conclusions regarding Jesus? Finally, what is your current opinion on Jesus Mythicism In most cases, yes. In regards to whether Jesus existed or not, I dont see enough evidence that he did'nt...and I admit to a bias in favor of him actually existing. I wonder what Ehrman thinks regarding admitting any bias. I think that Dougherty has a clear bias against, but I could change my mind.

Wow, Jon. All those pages and you didn't understand the argument?The problem isn't that there's no birth certificate or execution order. The problem is that there's no anything, and Carrier is entirely right to point out that Ehrman is being disingenuous - you can't respond to that argument by saying "well, there's no Roman documentation of Pilate, either, by a hair-splitting narrow definition of 'Roman documentation.'" Mythicists aren't asking for documentation of Jesus Christ via an incredibly narrow definition of "Roman documentation." We're asking for the exact sort of evidence that exists for Pilate, which includes a large number of contemporary mentions, an inscription that Pilate himself most likely commissioned, and a myriad of other sources.Ehrman wants to argue that if we don't count all the evidence we do have, we have as little evidence for Pilate as we do for Jesus. But that's stupid - we do count the evidence we have for Pilate and that's why historians believe Pilate existed. And it's precisely the sort of evidence we have for Pilate that we're asking Ehrman, and historicists, to present for the existence of Jesus Christ. Instead we get the incredibly logically-perverse argument that since we don't have certain kinds of evidence for Pilate, we shouldn't demand any kind of evidence for Jesus. These can't both be true. You can't "write as though the blog represents the entirety of Ehrman's argument" at the same time you're affirming that the blog is not the entirety of Ehrman's argument. All Carrier is doing is refusing to do Ehrman's homework for him. You know, like a good historian.

Do you feel that you have no bias for/or against? Do you feel that evidence is required for belief?

Evidently comprehension is difficult for you. Carrier explicitly states(and you quote it) that this is not a response to the book.It doesnt matter if he clarifies arguments in the book. His arguments in the article are what Carrier addresses. Kind of hard to address arguments that have not been presented yet. If you read Carriers posts you will see he addresses the same issues you bring up. No it is not. He never represents it as addressing all of Ehrman's arguments because he had not read the book.
Maybe capitals will help.CARRIER IS ADDRESSING THE HUFFPOST ARTICLE NOT THE BOOK.Dishonesty is misrepresenting the arguments of the Carrier, Price and Doherty. There has been plenty of evidence showing that Ehrman completely misrepresents arguments of Earl Doherty.That's dishonest. Why would after the crap he posted in the Huffpost? If this is the level he has sunk to I will not waste my time.

But you don't have to use a 'hair-splitting narrow definition'. If you want to make the conversation about any possible source, then that's perfectly fine. But you must then also admit that Ehrman is fully aware of and cites those other sources. Carrier is wrong to claim Ehrman doesn't know about these things; Ehrman clearly does. No. That's not what Ehrman is arguing. Ehrman's statement about official records is meant to address a very specific Mythicist claim. Maybe not all Mythicists make that claim, but Ehrman addresses it anyway. For the sake of being round, Ehrman also mentions all the other historical sources on the life of Pilate. Not what Ehrman says. Ehrman says that since we don't have certain kinds of evidence for Pilate, it is silly to expect that same kind of evidence for a man like Jesus. As to the other evidence relating to Jesus and Pilate, that is a different matter, and Ehrman addresses it elsewhere in his book. Carrier admits that the blog he is replying to is not likely to be a full and accurate pic of Ehrman's position. Yet he responds to that blog by claiming that anything Ehrman didn't mention in it is clearly something Ehrman did not know.Carrier has written a reply to an outline of the arguments Ehrman uses in his book. But you wouldn't know that by reading Carrier's review, which reads as though he is arguing against everything Ehrman has ever said.And this is really the unfortunate thing of this all: there are far too many people talking about Ehrman's arguments without ever having actually read them.Jon

I think it's pretty clear that you are '[f]orgetting (not knowing?)' that Barack Obama is the president of the United States, because you failed to mention as much in your post.Pooh on you. Why not get your facts straight?

Is your next argument going to be nana nana boo boo?If you don't have a response probably best if you don't say anything.