|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
There only has to be one argument. There is no evidence. Maybe you should find some evidence. Being a dick isn't working for you.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
Present evidence. The gospels are less of evidence for a historical Jesus than the writings of Mark Twain are for Tom Sawyer. At least we know about Mark Twain. We know his real name and we know of his other writings.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
That is the evidence for the existence every fictional character.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9489 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined:
|
no because your beliefs have no evidence. Why do you feel people should accept things with absolutely no evidence?
Edited by Theodoric, : Missed a no What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 354 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
For the existence of Jesus as "an obscure religious mystic?" Why would such a person even be necessary? I'm not sure what you mean by necessary. Christianity has to have come from somewhere and having it's origins in a real person is a highly parsimonious explanation.
If that's who Jesus really was then 95% of the gospels are fiction, and if there never was a Jesus then 100% of the gospels are fiction. That 5% hardly seems worth finagling over. Well I wouldn't like to put a figure on it, even loosely. Certainly I would not encourage amateurs and laymen to uncritically view the Gospels as reliable history, far from it. Historians though, textual critics and other scholars of antiquity approach their sources with far greater caution and detailed analysis than laymen. "What you call "finagling over the 5%" is what such people do! I also think that the question of whether one of the most influential individuals of all time existed or not is a bigger deal than just part of that "5%".
Concerning evidence, no one is questioning the existence of the gospels or the NT, but the exact same gospel passages have been interpreted as saying a variety of different things, and you described them as "dodgy evidence." My problem with this is that lots of evidence from antiquity is "dodgy". It's patchy, fragmentary, only known form much later manuscripts and littered with bias and superstition. Historians are used to this and largely take it in their stride. Laymen tend to be shocked when you say something like "there are no contemporaneous sources", but in reality, that's far from unusual.
Agreeing on what they're evidence of seems challenging. Yes, extremely challenging. That's why textual critics get paid those big, big bucks! Seriously though, it's a very challenging field, requiring a greater familiarity with the texts than a lowly internet malcontent such as myself will ever possess. As I said above, a lot of this is above my pay grade.
You argue that the gospel writers would not have introduced fictions like the census if they were just making Jesus up, but Paul's epistles were written long before Luke Well Paul doesn't mention the Nativity. I would agree that if Jesus was wholly concocted, then it must have been before any of the Gospels were written, if that's what you're getting at. I also think that if it was all concocted, then it must have been before Paul's Epistles as well. His various claims don't make sense unless there was some sort of pre-existing Christian movement.
Separate Christian communities would have had a long time to develop and evolve and create and abandon ideas that later required reconciliation. I think that's pretty good description of what I'm suggesting. I'm further suggesting that the Nativity story is an example of this. They had a theological problem and came up with a solution. Luke and Matthew (whoever they were) give differing version of the story, but I don't think either of them invented it. They both might have got it from Q or Luke from Matthew, or somewhere else, but to me this seems like a good example of exactly the kind of evolution of ideas that you describe.
Sorry, didn't mean for it to come across that way. I only meant that the Jesus that I believe did not exist is the one from the gospels. Okay, cool. I still think it's a funny way of putting it. I mean, we don't hear anyone asking "Was there a George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree?". That would be weird phrasing. Semantics I guess.
I don't have any particularly strong opinion about the possibility that Jesus is based upon a real person who didn't live the life described in the gospels. Maybe, maybe not. Why does it matter? It doesn't. I don't think any question about distant history really matters much. Did king Arthur exist? Or Robin Hood? Probably not. Does it matter? Not in the least. Where was Alexander the Great buried? It would be nice to know, but not knowing won't keep me up at night. It's interesting though and I find this topic interesting. To be fair, it clearly matters a great deal to Christians, but it doesn't matter to me in the same way. The existence or non-existence of Jesus was never a foundation of my atheism in the first place.
I wasn't aware of the Jesus Mythicists. The idea started in the Nineteenth Century but gradually fell out of favour. It has had a renaissance of sorts in the internet age, but there are almost no professionals who take it seriously today. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9626 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
ICANT writes: Yes, and if I did I couldn't read it as it was written in Latin I can't see how your personal inability to read latin is relevant. We have plenty of people who can read latin.
Are you telling me that a man that was writing the History of the Roman Empire who was in a government position equal to our senators was going around talking to people the government was killing because they would not worship the Roman Gods. I really don't think they would even let him know they were a follower of Christ as they would have ended up dead. I'm telling you that if it was him at all - and not some Christian scribe in the 900 years where the manuscripts are missing - he wrote down what someone told him. HE IS NOT A PRIME SOURCE.
Being a Historian and a government official why would he need hearsay information when he would have had total access to the official government documents?
He was writing 80 years after the supposed events, what documents do you think he had? When would Christians have had access to these Annals? EVIDENCE that such happened please. The evidence is from the textual analysis of the document. Being a Historian and a government official why would he need hearsay information when he would have had total access to the official government documents? Where does he reference any official documents? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10385 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Rahvin writes: But a man living in that region during Roman occupation forming a messianic cult following that expressed ideals that overlap with ideals already known in the region, who perhaps became too much of a disruption and was executed by the Romans...that doesn't sound like it would take much evidence to be plausible. That's how I view it as well. For me, the existence of Jesus is really a minor question which I am more than happy to agree to just for the sake of argument. The real questions surround the supernatural claims made by the New Testament authors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18706 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Percy writes: I would assert (as a believer) that the gospels are true *because* I accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. Keep in mind that a majority of Christians have acknowledged Jesus as Lord and Savior but far fewer have accepted it as fact from the depths of their soul. Critics would argue that I simply bought into a story. I would argue that I had an encounter with Jesus. Not the Pastor. Not the school board Christians. Not politics. And much to your collective points, not because of objective evidence. The only evidence that I had and have is internal, personal, and very much subjective. But those arguing both for and against a real person behind the Jesus myth are light years away from those who believe we should accept Jesus as Lord and Savior because everything in the gospels is true. A minority of "Christians" are light years away from the majority. IMHO a majority of todays Christians are driven by attitudes and behaviors. A minority is driven by belief. (Not YouTube videos, in this case! ![]() Percy writes: More to the point, you have found no one convincing. Hence your search continues. As a matter of history I can't help but be curious about whether there was a real person behind the Jesus myth. I wish there were evidence one way or the other, but as far as I can tell there isn't. I'll listen to arguments that this or that is evidence of something about the real Jesus, but I've listened to these arguments for a long time and found nothing convincing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 354 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
I think there's a few problems with this.
Roughly 80 years after the alleged events Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" Well yes, history is usually written after it happens. That's how time works. It would be nice if it had been written closer to the events, but it wasn't. That doesn't make it worthless and I don't think that a gap of 80 years is particularly exceptional for an ancient source.
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used. So for starters, you haven't provided a source for this. Also, I did a bit of digging and found the term to be in use before Tacitus' time and after. Notably Suetonius uses it and he was writing at about the same time. Also, is this supposed to be a problem just for this passage? Because Tacitus uses the word "procurator" multiple times in Annals, in English translation at least. Is this supposed to be a substantial enough objection to throw out the whole of Tacitus? Given that he is one of our most valuable sources on 1st Century Rome I think that's a bit of an overreaction.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.) These aren't "records". The Annals aren't part of some official record or something, they are histories, so I don't really know what you mean by that. Tacitus most certainly used official records as sources, but that doesn't mean that he had to follow their naming conventions. I also just don't buy this generally. If early Christians commonly referred to Jesus as "Christ" or "Christus" or "Chrestus", then I see no reason why Tacitus would not have done the same. Tacitus may not even have known the given name of this "Christ". It is clear from the context that he is using "Christ" to show the derivation of the term "Christian", which makes sense. You cite no backing for this claim. Overall, I am sceptical.
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.) What do you mean he accepts it? He's not accepting anything, just reporting events. Far from being accepting, it is clear from the passage that Tacitus despises Christians and Christianity;
quote: That doesn't come across as accepting to me. That comes across as extremely hostile. He clearly regards Christians as dangerous wackaloons, which... yeah that checks out. Clearly this is a man who knows Christianity well!
No-one refers to this passage for a millenium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages. This is the worst argument you bring. The reason no-one cited Tacitus is because no-one had access to Tacitus. We're damn lucky we have as much of Tacitus as we do. He wrote around thirty books of which we have about half. Annals 11-16 survived through a single manuscript. We think of Tacitus as a big deal, but that's presentism; he was not well known in the latter part of the first millennium. The Wikipedia article on Tacitean Studies reads;
quote: Doesn't sound like a source that Christians would be queuing up to read and cite. The article continues;
quote: and;
quote: and;
quote: So the reason Christians didn't quote Tacitus is simply because they didn't have it. You cannot make an argument from silence in such circumstances, it's nonsensical.
Thus, even if the Tacitus passage is not a later interpolation, If you can name a single non-mythicist scholar who regards this passage as an interpolation, I would be very surprised.
details which Tacitus gathered from Christian stories circulating in his time But there are no "Christian stories" in there. There's nothing beyond Christ being executed. There's no resurrection, no miracles, nothing that would suggest a Christian input. Not that Tacitus would have taken such stories seriously, but he might have enjoyed mocking them. They're not there though. Indeed, he makes no attempt to describe the beliefs or practices of Christians beyond dismissive scorn. I don't think these accounts came to Tacitus directly from Christians. In general, I'm not convinced by anything here that the Tacitus passage is fraudulent or particularly problematic. I can see how it's extremely inconvenient for mythicists though. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18706 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Taq writes: I would agree. And we won't find objective answers. The real questions surround the supernatural claims made by the New Testament authors. What we *will* find are numerous arguments both for and against a supernatural Jesus (or *any Jesus*) for that matter which are highly emotional and driven by a need to be right. There is no objective evidence. If that's all that one needs to be convinced, that explains why many of you are already convinced.(or *not* convinced). Bart Ehrman is no more important to me than Peter Zeihan was to Theodoric. Neither is Carrier. Being a mythicist pays well on the lecture circuit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 354 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined:
|
Hi Taq,
I think that's a sensible approach. I think there is rhetorical value in granting the existence of a historical Jesus whether you believe it or not, at least in conversation with Christians. If you suggest that Jesus was wholly fictional they're going to get defensive. They're going to tell you, correctly, that most scholars regard mythicism as bunk, they're going to think you're an idiot and they're going to stop listening. It is perhaps more productive to grant the existence of Jesus and focus on critiquing the more outlandish elements of the story. Mutate and SurviveOn two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8708 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
The real questions surround the supernatural claims made by the New Testament authors. Oooo, can 'o worms. What questions surround the supernatural claims made by the New Testament authors?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18043 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
quote: Just for the record AZPaul agrees with my original point. Message 236 Maybe you should tell him off for not waiting for you to weigh in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18706 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
A lot depends on their motives and your motives. Perhaps a good question to rhetorically ask is"Why Is This Argument Important In The Grand Scheme Of Things?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 18043 Joined: Member Rating: 5.0
|
quote: And that is a falsehood. Christianity exists. We have the writings of Paul. We have the Gospels. They are not as good evidence as we would like but they are evidence.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025