Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Nick227]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist, but I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus." - Bart D. Ehrman, December 2007. (http://infidelguy.libsyn.com/)

I heard Bart make the above statement on a recorded radio show and wondered what people thought of it. It seemed to me pretty strong.

Nick

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

My position is that, if I had to bet, then I would say there was a person off of whom the Gospels were written. But it is impossible to be sure what he actually taught and what was added on afterwards, and what he actually did and what was added on afterwards. Especially when some of the stories contradict known history or even themselves.

Also, every researcher who looks for the REAL Jesus always make some biased conclusion. Like some come away saying he was a Jewish reformer, and others say he was a hippie, and others say he was etc. etc. They always take whichever quotes they like and use those as evidence and overlook other ones that go against their view.

I mean, I am pretty sure that there was a Jesus dude, I just think that he was lost in the mythology.

 

[leon_heller]

'Jesus' was a very common name in the Aramaic community, there would have been thousands of young men with the same name. It's quite likely that several Jesus's were crucified at around the same time.

Leon

 

[Olowkow]

He was on the Infidel Guy podcast and claimed he had never heard of Bob Price. Price, the Bible Geek, has made an interesting case that Jesus is a compilation of many characters. There really is no good contemporary evidence of this person. I was not impressed by Ehrman's arguments. Just the same old historians 70 years later etc.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus.

The idea there was no historical Jesus requires a paradigm shift. As such, the idea his existence is not commonly doubted among serious historians is not necessarily a good defense of the position.

I think the biggest argument against an historical Jesus is the fact the source of information about Jesus is almost entirely from the Bible and at least one of the only two alternative historical references is suspected of being a forgery. The other uses the name Jesus but the reference could easily be someone other than the Biblical Jesus.

If in addition to the Bible, there was overwhelming positive evidence for the existence of Jesus, then the fact most historians agreed, would hold more weight.

 

[Nick227]

The idea there was no historical Jesus requires a paradigm shift. As such, the idea his existence is not commonly doubted among serious historians is not necessarily a good defense of the position.

I think the biggest argument against an historical Jesus is the fact the source of information about Jesus is almost entirely from the Bible and at least one of the only two alternative historical references is suspected of being a forgery. The other uses the name Jesus but the reference could easily be someone other than the Biblical Jesus.

If in addition to the Bible, there was overwhelming positive evidence for the existence of Jesus, then the fact most historians agreed, would hold more weight.

Well, Ehrman categorically stated "no doubts" which is a lot stronger than "not commonly doubted." I was struck by the force of his conviction. I hear your point about historians, thanks.

What personally puts me more in the camp of believing there was a Jesus is not so much the Bible but the mystical depth of many of the Nag Hammadi texts, and particularly the presence of so many direct teachings - the sayings of Jesus. I can't understand why so much original teaching would be credited to one individual if there was no one to whom it refers. It seems to me that there is a great deal of very deep and original "smoke" for there not to have been "fire." Of course, in academic circles, this might not be such a great argument, what with the time separation, but I haven't heard an alternative explanation that much resonates for me yet.

Nick

 

[JoeEllison]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus."

Yeah, and no serious historian doubts the existence of 17th Century France, Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu, and a Musketeer named D'Artagnan.

Does that mean that this is a historical documentary?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've read a good bit of Ehrman myself and I'm sure he is not saying that the Jesus of the gospels literally existed. He's written in his books that he's almost certain that there was a person, most likely an apocalyptic rabbi, upon whom the original, lost tale of Jesus was loosely based. What we don't know is who he was, what he really said, or what he really did. The Jesus of the Bible is certainly a fictional character like Arthur Pendragon. But sometimes even fictional characters can be modeled on real people, even very loosely, as Arthur may have been. But that doesn't mean that elements from other stories weren't added into the Jesus legend. And it doesn't mean that the actions of other persons and fictional characters weren't attributed to Jesus as the early cult developed.

 

[Olowkow]

particularly the presence of so many direct teachings - the sayings of Jesus. I can't understand why so much original teaching would be credited to one individual if there was no one to whom it refers. ...

Nick

The problem is that much of these teachings and sayings are either not original or can be shown by analysis to have to have been added centuries later, because of stylistic and contextual considerations. Dr. Robert Price has written several very interesting books on this topic. "Deconstructing Jesus", and more, I can't recall the titles just now.
As for "why", probably for the same reasons that hundreds of sayings have been attributed to Mohammed after the fact by guys who want to seem important.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus."

If any historian expresses doubts, then he is not a "serious historian". QED.

 

[articulett]

Exactly. It's circular. Robert Price is a former evangelical and a great historian. He doubts the historicity of Jesus.

I think Bart Ehrman can't stand to consider that he might have built his life around a myth cut from whole cloth. It takes a long time to want to really understand what is true when it means considering that we may have been very mislead by our own intuitions.

 

[Bikewer]

I've read a number of Ehrman's books, and it's my impression that he thinks all the furor must have been over somebody...
His view of the historical Jesus is pretty limited; an Apocalyptic preacher who made the mistake of announcing his notions of becoming "king of the Jews" in Jerusalem itself. Not something that played well with the Roman authorities...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly. It's circular. Robert Price is a former evangelical and a great historian. He doubts the historicity of Jesus.

I think Bart Ehrman can't stand to consider that he might have built his life around a myth cut from whole cloth. It takes a long time to want to really understand what is true when it means considering that we may have been very mislead by our own intuitions.

Bart Ehrman gave up the myth of Jesus many years ago. Again, he is saying that in his professional opinion there was a person that the myth was based on, not that the Gospels are accurate depictions of who he was.

 

[articulett]

Bart Ehrman gave up the myth of Jesus many years ago. Again, he is saying that in his professional opinion there was a person that the myth was based on, not that the Gospels are accurate depictions of who he was.

I know... I had heard his interview on infidel guy and I had the same reaction as in the OP... so did reggie (the infidel guy)-- Bart does not want any one to even intimate that Jesus may not have been an actual historical figure.

Btw, I like Bart Ehrman a lot. I was surprised at his insistence that Jesus must be a real historical figure as the evidence for such a claim is just not there. Most atheists and agnostics don't have quite such an emotional investment in regards to whether there was a real preacher man named Jesus or if he was an amalgam of characters based on myth, schizophrenia and/or something else.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Of course there's a Jesus... he's the guy who cuts my neighbor's lawn.

<Ducks to avoid the inevitable retribution for such an off-color remark>

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Was there a historic keelboatman the Mike Fink legends were based on? Maybe so, but that real person's resemblance to the legend is probably pretty thin.

When people ask whether there was a historic Jesus, they're usually willing to accept that all the false claims (miracles and such) probably weren't actual events. At least some of his teachings predated the time period, and other bits were certainly added later. Some parts of the Gospel are obviously fiction (and not eyewitness accounts--as for example the prayers of Jesus during the agony in the garden and the Nativity stories). So what's left isn't much.

 

[articulett]

Was there a historic keelboatman the Mike Fink legends were based on? Maybe so, but that real person's resemblance to the legend is probably pretty thin.

When people ask whether there was a historic Jesus, they're usually willing to accept that all the false claims (miracles and such) probably weren't actual events. At least some of his teachings predated the time period, and other bits were certainly added later. Some parts of the Gospel are obviously fiction (and not eyewitness accounts--as for example the prayers of Jesus during the agony in the garden and the Nativity stories). So what's left isn't much.

But did whatever is left go by the name "Jesus"? It's such a Latin sounding name.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
When people ask whether there was a historic Jesus, they're usually willing to accept that all the false claims (miracles and such) probably weren't actual events. At least some of his teachings predated the time period, and other bits were certainly added later. Some parts of the Gospel are obviously fiction (and not eyewitness accounts--as for example the prayers of Jesus during the agony in the garden and the Nativity stories). So what's left isn't much.

So where besides in the Bible is there a record of even a specific preacher who resembles the Jesus character? Surely the claim he performed all those miracles and had followers should be noted in some kind of historical record besides the Bible. There were other historical records during that time in that part of the country wasn't there?

 

[lionking]

What interests me is that if it could be categorically proven that there was no biblical Jesus who performed miracles and arose from the dead, the whole basis for christianity would collapse, which is why any evidence of his non-existence (or non-evidence of his existence) will be discredited.

On the other hand, if Buddha was proven not to exist, buddhists would say "so what". I do not subscribe to buddhist philosophies, but it seems to me that they are constructed on firmer foundations than christianity.

 

[articulett]

If it turns out the evidence for a historical Jesus is on par with evidence for there actually being real live angelic delivered gold plates on which the book of Mormon was written-- you are going to have a lot of peeved believers.

And so far, the evidence seems about equally compelling for both... which is considerably less compelling then the evidence of an actual "Mohummed" on which the Quo'ran is based.

I can see why this might really bother some people including Bart Ehrman. I find the whole thing amusing, myself.