Bart Ehrman on the existence of Christ

I think the simplest and most convincing argument for the existence of Jesus is the old saying of 'there's no smoke without fire'. The vast majority of myths and legends are based on historical events and persons; there's no reason to believe the myth of Jesus is any different.I don't think there's strong historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, like Ehrman says, but I agree with him that Josephus et al are very weak evidence ( the Josephus passage is so obviously a fake) and that Paul's references count towards the existence of a historical Jesus, although Paul appears to be unaware of the actual life and works of Jesus himself.Of course, that doesn't mean that the historical Yeshua ben Nazareth bears any similarities to Jesus of the gospels, though I believe that you can catch glimpses of the real Jesus in the synoptics if you discard any theological bias.

quote:

---

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 argument doesn't hold any water. The founder of Christianity, Paul, was targeting Gentiles and particularly, Hellenized gentiles.Not only the average citizen of Asia Minor and Greece- where Paul mostly preached- wouldn't feel alienated by the crucifixion, they would feel comfortably reminded of the Prometheus myth (semi-divine benefactor crucified to cliff-face as punishment for his generosity towards mankind)Edited by Legend, : to add last paragraph

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

The earliest Christian writings make no mention of Jesus being executed for the sake of all mankind.

---

Like Chiroptera pointed out, the earliest Christian writings are pretty much Paul's letters. I think you may mean that the concept of Jesus as an atonement sacrifice, the way Paul presents it, is alien to Jewish theology and also doesn't really feature in the only canonical account we have of Jesus's life, i.e. the synoptic gospels.With which I agree, BTW.

quote:

---

The theology only crops up as Paul tries, tirelessly, to explain away the questions and problems of the various Christian communities to which he is writing.

---

Yes, Paul introduces the concept of Jesus as atonement for our sins. I don't think he made it up as he went along, like you imply, but rather that this was his interpretation/reaction to the death of the alleged messiah. When the messiah had so obviously failed in his physical role, Paul assigned him a a new, spiritual role in which he could succeed. Just thought I'd mention this incidentally. It's just some evidence that Paul -though aware of the existence and main life-events of Jesus- mythified and spiritualised him. The real Jesus would probably laugh his head off if he'd known how he'd come to be portrayed.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

I don't think he made it up as he went along, like you imply, but rather that this was his interpretation/reaction to the death of the alleged messiah.

​

Jon writes:

​

But Paul didn't become a Christian till well after Jesus was executed. Not all Paul's letters present the same notion of Jesus.

---

Paul's ideas about the atonement sacrifice and the need for faith in Jesus's redemptive sacrifice are pretty consistent throughout his letter, IMO.The fact that he didn't accept Jesus until after Jesus's death is neither here nor there. I can now mull over JFK's career and, in my own mind, make justifications for his actions and declare myself a follower. Paul obviously had a need to regard Jesus as something special and when he couldn't justify this need on the traditional, Jewish messianic view of Jesus he evolved it, spiritualized it and mythified it. Is this a trick question? Start with Rom 4:25, 5:8-10, Eph 5:2, 2 Cor 5:21, 1 Cor. 5:7, and we'll take it from there. Oops, should have phrased my sentence as "the most extensive canonical account we have of Jesus's life, i.e. the synoptic gospels." I'm actually agreeing with you: Ehrman's contention that a crucified Jesus would be unpalatable to potential converts is ludicrous. I think we're just disagreeing on the why it's ludicrous, maybe not even that, come to think of it.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I think Ehrman's using a false dichotomy in that he's trying to show that if the birth of the Jesus myth is demonstrably unsound the opposite must be true, i.e. Jesus's historicity is confirmed.However, there are many other explanations as to why the crucifixion could be a cleverly manufactured event which he doesn't even consider. I've already suggested one, that is the Prometheus myth which would make the crucified Jesus strike a familiar chord with the Hellenized audience.Me, I'll stick to my original assertion: there's usually some historical figure behind most myths and legends.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

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.

---

Ehrman's assuming that if the Jews fabricated the whole thing then the crucified Jesus would be a bad idea, therefore the Jews couldn't have fabricated the story, therefore Jesus did exist.However, he ignores -among other things- the fact that Christianity wasn't spread by the Jerusalem church, it was spread by Paul. Paul preached to greco-roman audiences and they wouldn't have any problem with a divine crucified saviour (re: Prometheus myth) . So, even if Paul had made the whole Jesus thing up out of thin air the crucifixion wouldn't be a bad idea at all, it would be a rather good one. So the Jesus tale could still have been fabricated without offending the intended audience, Ergo Ehrman's argument is flaky.I agree with his conclusion, but disagree with his reasoning.Hope that makes it a bit clearer.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Jar's already answered that. Why do Christians' insist on presenting people with false dilemmas? "Jesus was either a liar or the son of God", they say. Erm, NO, there are dozens of other things he could be in-between, so think again.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

Fair point. That's why I said that: "Ehrman ignores - among other things..". There are dozens of reasons why a fabricated crucifixion wouldn't pose a problem.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

..errr.....ok......if you say so. which are......? Is today "Unsupported Assertion Day" in the States??You've ignored most other posts here, particularly Message 19. Do tell us why you think Ehrman's contention is well-founded, go on, don't be shy.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

so..you're suggesting that an audience immersed in greek culture would find the story about a divine man who's crucified as a result of his desire to benefit mankind with a unique gift, somehow unappealing ?!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

quote:

---

cough::: Prometheus:::cough

---

you'll have to cough louder, Jon's still not getting it! Edited by Legend, : spelling

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

I don't think it was a made-up story, after all crucifixion was quite common at the time.You have to bear in mind that the Jesus thing started as a Jewish messianic cult. Throughout the gospels Jesus talks about the imminent establishment of the kingdom of god, he even tells his disciples to prepare for its arrival (Matt 24).The Romans didn't take kindly to the establishment of new kingdoms in their provinces and had him crucified. Paul, years later, decided that he could still apply the messianic concept, albeit in a more indirect, spiritual sense targeted to his Gentile flock. The crucified Jesus wouldn't pose any problems at all to Paul's audience -after all he was still the (spiritual) Messiah- and, on the contrary, it would be a familiar figure (see Prometheus) to a hellenized audience.Yeshua ben Nazareth died realizing that his kingdom would never be established (Matt 27:46), little did he know that Paul would later think otherwise. I appreciate that the quote might have been given out of context. I'm only familiar with Ehrman's work in passing, I've never read any of his books in its entirety. I'd whole-heartedly recommend you also have a look at Geza Vermes's books in order to get a cultural and historical perspective on the Bible, the "Passion" and "Jesus the Jew" in particular.Happy searching

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."

First, Paul and his followers WERE the early Christians.
Second, how the Jewish followers of Jesus (that's what I think you mean by 'early Christians') explain Jesus's crucifixion is irrelevant in the context of this thread. It wasn't they who spread and preached Christianity to the gentiles, it was Paul. If Paul wanted to fabricate the whole thing from scratch, the crucifixion would be a good idea, not a bad one. I think you may be referring to his differences with James and Peter. Again, that's irrelevant here. It doesn't matter what James and Peter thought, Paul wasn't preaching to them. What matters is what his target audience would have thought! so what does that mean, other than that the crucifixion was probably a historical event, which bears no weight on Ehrman's argument anyway?Let's focus on what this topic is about: You (and Ehrman) are making the assumption that *only* the Jews could have manufactured the Jesus story and *only* for a Jewish audience, in which case it might arguably not make much sense to have the main hero crucified.What I'm saying is that this is a false assumption. If the Jesus story was manufactured it's much more likely to have been done by Paul and his followers, in which case a fabricated crucifixion would be a nice twist. You (and Ehrman) are discarding this possibility. I'm still eagerly awaiting for you to tell me which ones they are! As far as I'm concerned his earliest letter is 1 Thess. Are you aware of earliest ones ? If so, please share them with the rest of the world

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the bug and some days you'll be the windscreen."