Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman

LamarkNewAge writes: ringo writes: Pick a point. State it simply. My point is people were not even discussing the relevant issues in the debate.

Pick a point in the debate

LamarkNewAge writes: The issue of Jesus being divine from the start is a requirement for the "Jesus never existed" crowd.

The question is, "Did Jesus Exist?" Whether or not He was "divine" doesn't enter into it.

quote:

---

The question is, "Did Jesus Exist?" Whether or not He was "divine" doesn't enter into it.

---

The "Jesus Did Not Exit" crowd, have their entire case riding on the idea that Jesus started out as a God/Titan (or some sort of cosmic creature), as represented by (essentially) the Letters of Paul.

If the crowd can't make that case, then they should do the honorable thing and admit that they have no evidence.

(Just call the "Jesus did not exist" claim a NULL HYPOTHESIS and call it a day)

(There are lots of other problems the "Jesus did not exist" crowd is REQUIRED to address, but the first big requirement is to demonstrate that Paul did not imagine an "earthly" human Jesus)..

You don't understand the issue at all (you aren't alone, so don't feel bad).

LNA writes: You don't understand the issue at all (you aren't alone, so don't feel bad).

Perhaps it's you? Long shot I know.

It seems to me that the believers have to establish that this Jesus guy actually existed at all before they attempt the harder job of proving him to be supernatural.

If he can't even pass the human test of existing in fact not just fiction, there's no point progressing further.

Lamarknew Age writes: The "Jesus Did Not Exit" crowd, have their entire case riding on the idea that Jesus started out as a God/Titan (or some sort of cosmic creature), as represented by (essentially) the Letters of Paul.

I'm part of that "crowd". I don't believe that Jesus, the human, existed - because there is no solid evidence that he existed. I think the stories about him are most likely based on an amalgamation of preachers who wandered Palestine in the 1st century - like Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry was based on real-life evangelists.

It has NOTHING to do with any gods.

LamarkNewAge writes: ... the first big requirement is to demonstrate that Paul did not imagine an "earthly" human Jesus).

You have the cart before the horse. You can't consider Paul's ideas about Jesus until you establish that Paul existed and that the writings attributed to him accurately reflect his views.

ringo writes: I don't believe that Jesus, the human, existed - because there is no solid evidence that he existed. I think the stories about him are most likely based on an amalgamation of preachers who wandered Palestine in the 1st century - like Sinclair Lewis' Elmer Gantry was based on real-life evangelists. It has NOTHING to do with any gods.

And yet it does.

Conceptions Of God

This wiki article, though far from conclusive, brings up some valid points.

Wiki writes: Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and also the Bahá'í Faith) see God as a being who created the world and who rules over the universe. God is usually held to have the following properties: holiness, justice, sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence and omnipresence. It is also believed to be transcendent, meaning that God is outside space and time. Therefore, God is eternal, unchangeable and unaffected by earthly forces or anything else within its creation.

Thus, the idea that such a Being must be composed of chemicals limits the being by definition. I can see why you prefer building a case for origins that is based in what we can prove and understand. I can also see why such an approach limits the understanding and conceptualization of a Deity.

ringo writes: The default would naturally be something that actually exists, like chemicals.

In other words, if we can't understand it, it likely need not exist for all intents and purposes. The problem with your approach is that it is similar to some philosophies of God.

Wiki writes: According to The Kybalion, The All is more complicated than simply being the sum total of the universe. Rather than The All being simply the physical universe, it is said that everything in the universe is within the mind of The All, since The All can be looked at as Mind itself.[3] The All's mind is thought to be infinitely more powerful and vast than humans can possibly achieve,[4] and possibly capable of keeping track of every particle in the Universe. The Kybalion states that nothing can be outside of The All or The All would not be The All. The All may also be a metaphor alluding to the godhead potentiality of every individual. "[God]... That invisible power which all know does exist, but understood by many different names, such as God, Spirit, Supreme Being, Intelligence, Mind, Energy, Nature and so forth."[5] the Hermetic Tradition, each and every person has the potential to become God, this idea or concept of God is perceived as internal rather than external. The All is also an allusion to the observer created universe. We create our own reality; hence we are the architect, The All. Another way would to be to say that the mind is the builder. Freemasonry often includes concepts of God as an external entity, however, esoteric masonic teachings[citation needed] clearly identify God as the individual himself: the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality.

To be fair, you don't actually say that we create our own reality, but that we merely define it through the scientific method.

Phat writes: And yet it does.

Read what you quote. I said that MY reasons for not believing Jesus existed have nothing to do with Gods.

Now we have somebody saying Paul was some late fictional paper man? (Ringo)

The linguistics alone have lone proven Paul dates earlier than other New Testament writings and Clement of Rome (who wrote around 95 A.D.)

See this work:

The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles, P. N. Harrison. (1921)

Just the vocabulary alone proved Paul was before the Church Father 1 Clement.

(all agree on 1 Clement being early, even a "Jesus Myth" poster Theodoric linked to in another thread)

Paul (which, according to the Harrison also wrote II Thes, Col, and Ephesians in addition to the 7 authentic letters) has a vocabulary of over 2000 words. But 600 were not used by any Church Father (or Apologist). I doubt 1 Clement even used half of the words from Paul's vocabulary.

Paul has a unique vocabulary and particles, prepositions, etc.

The Pastorial Epistles are I Timothy, Titus, and II Timothy, and are the basis for the 1921 work.

quote:

---

p.68-69

We proceed therefore to supplement our comparison of the two vocabularies, Pauline and Pastoral, by a comparison of both with the tertium quid - the vocabulary of the Apostoli Fathers and Apologists. We take primarily the former, as covering approximately the period of fifty years A.D. 95-145; in the second place the latter group as showing the trend of Christian diction during the next thirty years, say A.D. 140-170.

It will be useful to bear in mind from the outset the relative bulk of the documents in question. The text of the Apostolic Fathers occupies some 200 pages in Lightfoot's smaller edition. The text of the N.T. fills 516, the ten Paulines 105, the Pastoral's 13 2/3, and the other books of the N.T. say 395 pages ... So the length of the Apostolic Fathers is rather less than twice that of the Paulines, and just two-fifths that of the entire N.T. The vocabulary of the Apostolic Fathers comprises some 4,020 words other than proper names, as compared with 2177 in Paul and 848 in the Pastorals. The length of the Apologists is rather more than three-fifths of the N.T., and their vocabulary still larger than that of the Apostolic Fathers.

1. Of the 175 Hapax Legomena in the Pastorals no less than 61 occur in the Apostolic Fathers, and 61 in the Apologists, including 32 which are not in the Apostolic Fathers, amking a total of 93. See Appendix I,A I, p. 137 f. In the great majority of cases thes appear not in any sense as possible quotations from the Pastorals, but ina distinct context of their own, proving that they did in fact belong to the current speech of the Church and to the working vocabulary of Christian writers and thinkers in this period.

The Pastorals share with the Apostolic Fathers from 4.4 words per page ( I Tim.) to 7.1 (Titus) which are foreign to the rest of the N. TT. ; the Paulines, from 1 (Rom.) to 2.4 (Philem.), the majority having less than 1.5 per page. See Diagram IX, B.

With the Apostolic Fathers or Apologists, or both, the Pastorals share from 7.5 ( 2 Tim.) to 8.6 per page (Titus); the Paulines, from 1.6 (Eph.) to 3.2 (Phil.), with the rest under 2.5 per page. See Diagram IX, A.

These words are distributed over the whole body of writings before us without exception; even the brief fragments of Papias, Melito, and Dionysius of Corinth adding their small quota to the general mass of evidence. Clement of Rome has 21, 2 Clem. 7, Ignatius 13, Polycarp 6, the Martyrdom of Polycarp 4, the Didache 3, Barnabas 4, Hermas 21, the Ep. ad Diognetum 7, Papias 1, Aristeides 1, Tatian 19, Justin 40, Athenagoras 22, Melito 2, and Dionysius o Corinth 2. The Lists are given in our Appendix i, e, PP.150 ff. Twenty-nine occur in both groups.

....
p.70

The author of the Pastorals does speak the language of the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists, while diverging from that of other N.T. writers, to a degree wholly without parallel in the genuine Paulines.

2. But we have seen that, in addition to these Hapax Legomena, he uses a large number of words which, while they occur in other books of the N.T. (i.e. in Christian writings of the forty years or so following the death of Paul), are foreign to the working vocabulary of the Apostle, in so far as this is known to us from teh surviving epistles.

Out of 131 such words, 100 occur in the Apostolic Fathers, 95 inthe Apologists, 118 in one or the other, and 77 in both. See appendix I, A 2, p. 138 f.

I Clem has 42 of these, 2 Clem. 21, Ignatius 26, Polycarp 14, the Martyrdom of Polycarp 18, the Didache 18, Barnabas 24, Hermas 54, the Ep. as Diognetum 20, the fragment from Papias 3.

Aristeides has 6, Tatians 42, Justin 76, Athenagoras 37, and Melito (fragments in Eusebius) 3. See Appendix I, E, pp.150 ff.

Combining these results with those in the last paragraph, we see that the Pastorals share with the Apostolic Fathers 161 words which do not appear in the Pauline epistles, with the Apologists 156, with both groups 106, and with one or the other no fewer than 211.

Each of the Pauline epistles has also naturally a certain number of words which do not appear elsewehere in the ten epistles, bu do appear in one or both of the second-century groups. But whereas the Pastorals share with the Apostolic Fathers from 13.6 to 18.7 such words per page, the Paulines share from 4 to 7. See Diagram X, B, p. 71.

....

p.72-73

We have shown 9Appendix I, E, pp. 150 ff.) that Clement of Rome uses in common with the Pastorals 63 words never so far as we know employed by Paul, 2 Clem. 28, Ignatius 39, Polycarp 20, the Martyrdom of Polycarp 22, the Didache 21, Barnabas 28, Hermas 75, the Ep. ad Diognetum 27, and the fragments from Papias 4; while Ariisteides has 7, Tatian 61, Justin 116, Athenagoras 59, and the fragments from Melito 5.

The corresponding lists and numbers for the books of the N.T. are given in Appendix I, D, P.148 f., as follows: -- Matt. has in common with the Pastorals 34 non-Pauline words, Mark 32, Luke 56, John 25, Acts 60 (including 32 which are also in Luke), Heb. 39, I Pet. 17, 2 Pet 18 (that is more than any other N.T. book, in proportion to its length), Jas. 15, the Johannine epistles 8, Jude 8, and Rev. 16.

Thus I Clement, Hermas, and Justin have each a larger number of such words than any N. T. book; Tatian and Athenagoras have as many as Acts and Luke, which have much the largest number in the N. T., and the total in the Apostolic Fathers exceeds that in the whole body of non-Pauline N.T. books by 80 (or 61.1 per cent.). Yet the entire bulk of the Apostolic Fathers (200 pages in Lightfoot) is rather more than half of these non-Pauline books of the N. T. (say, 395 pages). In proportion to their length, the Apostolic Fathers have more than twice as many non-Pauline words in common with the Pastorals as have other books of the N. T. (The ratio is as 127 to 52)

But the outstanding fact here is that one word in every four throughout the Pastorials, 211 out of 848, while foreign so far as we know to the vocabulary of Paul, is now proved to form part of the working vocabulary of Christian writers between the years A. D. 95 and 170 - including many words which recur with some frequency

....

But now what of the converse relation? In what numbers and in what proportions do the Pastorals share with the other Pauline words foreign to the vocabulary of these second-century writers? The total number is 18, of which 7 are to be found elsewhere in the N.T.

....

p.74

Of Paul's 2,177 words, 1,543 or 70.9 per cent. are in the Apostolic Fathers. Of the Pastoral's 848 words, 664 or 78.3% are in the Apostolic Fathers.

5. We have seen that 634 words used by Paul in his ten epistles have disappeared entirely from the current speech of second-century Christendom, as represented by the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. If we ask how many of these same words are conspicuous by there absence from the Pastorals, the answer is no less than 595 or 92.3 per cent.

....

Among These are included seventy-three words all found in more than one Pauline epistle, but never once in the Apostolic Fathers nor in the Apologists. Seventy-two of these are wanting in the Pastorals also.

....

---

This below does not support (or disprove the Harrison thesis), but I am including it just for the sake of being complete.

quote:

---

The entire vocabulary of the Pastorals has 542 words in common with Paul, 623 with the other books of the N.T., 664 with the Apostolic Fathers, 641 with the Apologists, 673 with the entire N.T. including Paul, and 735 with the Apostolic Fathers and Apologists combined.

---

Paul never quoted the Gospels so he is earlier than them.

1 Clement is admitted by all (even the hyper critic Helmut Koester) to show awareness of the Gospel of Matthew, so Matthew could not have been written after 90, and probably is a bit earlier.

(Greek) Matthew clearly used Mark, so Mark can't date much later than 80.

(This does not mean major changes were not added to Mark or Matthew later).

Paul did not show much (very probably no awareness though Galatians 1-2 might have hints of several Hebrew Gospels, with text he disagreed with) awareness of any of the written Gospels, so he clearly can't be dated after the 70s.

There is an unmistakable writing style and vocabulary present in I Thes, Romans, I Cor, II Cor, Galatians, and Phil.

Paul died in the 60s according to the tradition.

Nobody can shoot down any of this, if they have all the facts.

(It is true that the individual dating of his Epistles is based on Acts, but take away Acts, and you still have solid evidence that Paul most likely died in the 60s, and that is without having to use the non-Pauline epistles)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I can see why you prefer building a case for origins that is based in what we can prove and understand. I can also see why such an approach limits the understanding and conceptualization of a Deity.

We don't need to go that far. Just a cursory glance at human history/psychology shows quite sufficiently that any such conceptions are fictitious.

In other words, if we can't understand it, it likely need not exist for all intents and purposes.

Not that we "can't understand it". We can't understand Dark Energy but we know it exists. Efficaciousness does not require understanding.

With this god thing it is more of a "no discernible effect on anything in this universe" which means no evidence whatsoever. That alone creates the case of "not exist for all intents and purposes."

quote:

---

Read what you quote. I said that MY reasons for not believing Jesus existed have nothing to do with Gods.

---

You also said Paul did not exist?

But some single author wrote seven of his 13 letters (that can't be argued by anybody)

Why not just call him "Paul"?

quote:

---

THREE PAULS

Mainstream scholarship as it has developed over the last two centuries has concluded that some of the thirteen letters attributed to Paul were not written by him. Rather, they fall into three categories.

First, a massive scholarly consensus: at least seven letters are “genuine” – that is, written by Paul himself. These seven include three longer ones (Romans, I and II Corinthians), and four shorter ones (I Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, and Philemon). Written in the 50s of the first century, plus or minus a year or two, they are the earliest documents in the New Testament, earlier than the gospels (recall that Mark, the first gospel, was written around 70). Thus the genuine letters of Paul are the oldest witness we have to what was to become Christianity.

Second, an almost equally strong consensus: three letters were not written by Paul. These are I and II Timothy and Titus, commonly known as “the pastoral epistles” or simply “the pastorals.” Scholars estimate that they were written around the year 100, possibly a decade or two later. The reasons these are seen as “non-Pauline” include what looks like a later historical setting as well as a style of writing quite unlike the Paul of the seven genuine letters.

Thus the letters to Timothy and Titus were written in the name of Paul several decades after his death. In case some readers may think that writing in somebody else’s name was dishonest or fraudulent, we note that it was a common practice in the ancient world. It was a literary convention of the time, including within Judaism.

Third, letters about which there is no scholarly consensus, though a majority see them as not coming from Paul. Often called the “disputed” epistles, they include Ephesians, Colossians, and II Thessalonians. We are among those who see these as “post-Paul,” written a generation or so after his death, midway between the genuine letters and the later pastoral letters.

https://www.johndominiccrossan.com/The%20First%20Paul.htm

---

And the 1 Clement evidence (that even the EVC Mythers presented as a 100 A.D. document) proves that the Greek Gospel of Matthew was written by 90 A.D. at the latest.

Mark must be no later than 80 A.D.

Paul clearly had not read any Gospel of Mark, nor does he seem to be aware of the pericopes that would be formed and included in it (then later in Matthew).

You might deny Paul existed, so you can argue that he did not die during the mid-late 60s.

You can deny his letters actually were written during the dates the scholars assign to him. (based on Acts chronology)

You can NOT deny that a Christian (called "Paul" in his/her own hand) wrote 7 of the letters commonly called the "authentic letters of Paul", no later than 65-75.

Let us say all 7 were written 75.

What is your excuse for the existence of a "James the Just" or "James the brother of the Lord" (Galatians says the latter)?

LamarkNewAge writes: Now we have somebody saying Paul was some late fictional paper man? (Ringo)

I'm saying that Paul is not relevant to this discussion.

quote:

---

I'm saying that Paul is not relevant to this discussion.

---

So you don't care if he wrote 1 Cor, II Cor, and Galatians around 55 A.D.?

Well, then can I say Paul said Jesus was "born of a woman" and had a "mother"?

It does not matter, the interpretation?

LamarkNewAge writes: So you don't care if he wrote 1 Cor, II Cor, and Galatians around 55 A.D.? Well, then can I say Paul said Jesus was "born of a woman" and had a "mother"? It does not matter, the interpretation?

I'm trying not to stutter:

Nothing about Paul has anything to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

Why would it? Does it matter what Santa Claus thinks about Bigfoot?

If you think Jesus existed, you need to produce evidence that Jesus existed. Somebody else's opinion on whether or not Jesus existed is not evidence.

Still waiting for someone to provide us with independent, contemporary historical evidence for the Jesus of the Bible. Instead of that evidence we get the kitchen sink of crap that does not have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus. It doesn't matter if a few dozen people in 100 CE thought he was a historic figure. Even if everything Josephus supposedly wrote about Jesus was actually written by Josephus(we know it could not have because an observant Jew would never refer to anyone being the Messiah) it is not evidence of a historical Jesus. Just evidence that 70 years after the supposed death of the dude people thought he was a historical character.
None of what LMN has thrown against the wall, and it is a lot, is historical evidence for existence of Jesus.
There is no mention of Jesus in the historical record. None. We have some anonymous writings that are post 70CE that present fantastical stories, but there is nothing to corroborate them. The earliest writer in Christianity, Paul, presents a nonhistorical Jesus. He tells us nothing about the historical Jesus, he talks about the mystical Jesus.
We know very little about this Paul. He is a shadow in the historical record. No other writers of that time period mention him. Then again why would an itinerant preacher of a minor mystery cult be mentioned by anyone of substance. We do not know where he was born, when he died or anyone else in the historical record that actually knew him or wrote about him. We do not even know his name. All we have is the book of Acts, which is not a historical document. Nothing in it can be corroborated by outside sources.

Christians do not seem to understand that they cannot use the bible itself to corroborate passages from the bible. Also, someone writing 100's of years later cannot be considered a primary source and evidence.

There is no contemporary, independent historical source that is evidence for the historicity of the Jesus Christ character.

LamarkNewAge writes: You also said Paul did not exist? But some single author wrote seven of his 13 letters (that can't be argued by anybody) Why not just call him "Paul"?

You're shooting yourself in the foot.

If "somebody" can be established as the genuine dyed-in-the-wool author of 7 out of 13 letters, that does not establish him as "the" Paul.

And it still has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus existed.

From what I've seen, both the Jesus-myth side and the anti-myth side are basing all of their arguments on similarities to other myths - i.e. they're really only arguing the plausbility of the Jesus character having been made up out of whole cloth. They don't seem to grasp the concept of actual evidence.