Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist"

[jpholding]

I've got an email noting my copy is on the way, and given that is should be relatively important in the debate (since Ehrman is an atheist), and that it is touching on the subject I specialize in, I've started this thread for commentary on it, and for anyone else reviewing it.


Our own Benson Shays has already written a review:

http://thepassivehabit.blogspot.com/...sus-exist.html

Notable points IMO:

After a brief overview of the history of mythicism and its currents proponents (of which only two are trained scholars, Price and Carrier), Ehrman begins the bulk of his case with a defense of the non-Christian sources for the life of Jesus. I found this chapter lacking in a lot of ways. It provides a brief overview of all the standard references (Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Tacitus and Josephus), but Ehrman could have done better. There's no defense of Tacitus' abilities as a historian (which were impressive), for example, or the significance of the references. From Tacitus alone we can establish that Christianity came out of Judea, which creates trouble for advocates of the pagan copycat thesis, who say Christianity was crafted by combining elements from pagan religions.

Ehrman argues that these extra-biblical references are relatively unimportant in this debate; they don't provide any information we can't get from earlier sources. (p 97) While true, that argument ignores the fact that the Christ-myth crowd easily and often dismisses any Christian source for the life of Jesus as biased. So the more references we have from different writers, the better.

**

I have to applaud Ehrman for his treatment of the Gospels as historical sources. Obviously, I take a higher view of them being a Christian, but Ehrman rightly bashes the skeptics (e.g. David Fitzgerald) who would discount the four biographies because they contain errors and inconsistencies. "The fact that [the gospel writers'] books later became documents of faith has no bearing on...whether the books can still be used for historical purposes. To dismiss the Gospels from the historical record is neither fair nor scholary." (p 73)

***

Of course, the mythicists don't accept these as references to a historical person, but Ehrman carefully untangles their flawed logic on every point, giving special attention to G.A. Wells, Earl Doherty and Robert Price. After spending several chapters building his case, Ehrman goes after these major proponents rather forcefully.

Someone also brought to my attention this promo item by Ehrman:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...tml?ref=topbar

In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world -- the Christian church -- was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today -- is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?

That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published ) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.

Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. There are a couple of exceptions: of the hundreds -- thousands? -- of mythicists, two (to my knowledge) actually have Ph.D. credentials in relevant fields of study. But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

Ouch.

It is true that Jesus is not mentioned in any Roman sources of his day. That should hardly count against his existence, however, since these same sources mention scarcely anyone from his time and place. Not even the famous Jewish historian, Josephus, or even more notably, the most powerful and important figure of his day, Pontius Pilate.

It is also true that our best sources about Jesus, the early Gospels, are riddled with problems. These were written decades after Jesus' life by biased authors who are at odds with one another on details up and down the line. But historians can never dismiss sources simply because they are biased. You may not trust Rush Limbaugh's views of Sandra Fluke, but he certainly provides evidence that she exists.

***
Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah.

Oh boy...hey Benson...see if you can arrange a debate between Carrier and Ehrman....that last point ought to have them squabbling but good.

Got to love some of the comments...

If early 20th-century Americans were a small population of illiterate nomads, would it be terribly surprising if just a couple generations later, Paul Bunyan became a flesh-and-blood person rather than a folk myth? After all, there are many records of his deeds and even a host of carved likenesses in his honor.

Growing up, I was taught that Jesus was a real person, and never questioned it until I read Earl Doherty, who raises a lot of compelling reasons for doubt. To someone who has no vested interest one way or the other, the only logical conclusion would be that the Jesus story MAY be a highly embellished account of actual person's life, but the evidence is pretty weak and we'll probably never know for certain. One thing's for sure, though: the argument presented in this article is wholly unconvincing.

The author may want to go back and check a whole bunch of his facts, in the unbiased way an actual historian might.

***

hoooey. my history professor in college was religious and readily acknowledged that there were no verifiable reports of jesus' life (a phd associate professor). i don't think evidence is important in theology, that isn't an important aspect in faith. i'm unsure of theists feeling the necessity to argue that jesus was an historical figure. that's a pretty weak representation of faith

***

IF you read Archaya S. book, the christ conspiracy, the evidence that such a figure existed is incredibly unlikely. SHe presents overwhelming evidence that no such person existed and as another commentator pointed out, even if he did, his divinity is a complete and utter non starter as there's no such thing.

***

Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithra all were born of virgins, all were killed, and all were resurrected from the dead. The Jesus narrative of birth, death, and rebirth is one of the oldest religious motifs of the ancient world, and is nothing unique to Christianity.

***

Oh, Mr. Ehrman, the HuffPo faithful will not like this.

***

Whether Jezzus is real or not isn't the point. Keeping your absolutist beliefs in a Bronze Age hippie to yourself is.
I can't say enough how SICK I am of christians proselytizing that they have a monopoly on the 'TRUTH.'

**

There are numerous mythologies of a redemptive born of a virgin. Scholars have identified many parallels, for example, between Jesus and Osiris. If Jesus did exist, he could still have been a magnet for such mythic material: within a few decades of Alexander the Great's demise he was worshiped as a god throughout the ancient world.

***

This is a faith over facts, nonsense over sense argument. Even if you could actually "prove" that Jesus didn't exist, there would be people that would ignore it and continue the idiocy. That being said, there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that he ever existed. You would have thought with all the miracles going on,someone should have noticed. Using the bible as reference material,is of course useless, as it was basically a system to enforce Hebrew tribalism and is full of dubious scientific impossibilities.

The storm beginneth...

[JimboJSR]

One thing in the HuffPo article that caught my eye:

Moreover, aspects of the Jesus story simply would not have been invented by anyone wanting to make up a new Savior. The earliest followers of Jesus declared that he was a crucified messiah. But prior to Christianity, there were no Jews at all, of any kind whatsoever, who thought that there would be a future crucified messiah. The messiah was to be a figure of grandeur and power who overthrew the enemy. Anyone who wanted to make up a messiah would make him like that. Why did the Christians not do so? Because they believed specifically that Jesus was the Messiah. And they knew full well that he was crucified.

Is it just me, or has Ehrman been reading The Impossible Faith?

[Hamster]

Someone also brought to my attention this promo item by Ehrman:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d...tml?ref=topbar

This belongs in a museum

[jpholding]

One thing in the HuffPo article that caught my eye:
Is it just me, or has Ehrman been reading The Impossible Faith?

He hasn't. As Benson once noted, and as I saw in one of his books, though, he's had thoughts on this line, but he's never connected the dots.

[Benson Shays]

He hasn't. As Benson once noted, and as I saw in one of his books, though, he's had thoughts on this line, but he's never connected the dots.

I didn't mention it in the review, it's already 830 word, but Ehrman took Carrier to task for his despised Messiah argument in Not The Impossible Faith. He includes several references to OT scholars on the point, which was very helpful. You're right that he didn't connect the dots, though. There's no discussion of why any Jew in Palestine would have followed Jesus despite his crucifixion.

[jpholding]

Here's commentary from Rene Salm, Nazareth-myth nut and President of the Crybaby Club for Mythcists:

In anticipation of the imminent publication of Bart D. Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” (March 20, 2012) I’ve added to my website a book review (well, it’s really a chapter review) of his “Misquoting Jesus” (2005). It’s at http://www.renesalm.com/mp/ehrman_mj.html

Ehrman’s style is pretty uniform across his two dozen or so books which seek to reach the educated layperson. In quest of this goal (which sells books) Ehrman dumbs down the argument so much that I argue he loses his compass–categories overlap and a dangerous imprecision takes over which permits that the most immodest claims of the tradition hold the floor. Ehrman happens to be a scholar who is good at detail and terrible at generalities. He needs to be called out. Mythicists need to show that the context of Ehrman’s thought is totally bogus.

At bottom Ehrman’s a defender of the tradition. He’ll lean on assumption, speculation, and illogic–the very antitheses of good historical method–when the chips are down and when it comes to placing his (sometimes carefully researched) specifics in context.

As far as I’m concerned Ehrman has sold out. He’s now primarily a seller of books. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, because he has/had all the equipment to be a fine historian. But the origins of Christianity are complex. One can simplify only so much before the argument becomes very wrong. And Ehrman is very wrong.

Oh dear...

[JB]

Behold, the time for throwing Ehrman under the bus is nigh at hand, yea verily, is now come upon us.

[Chrawnus]

Here's commentary from Rene Salm, Nazareth-myth nut and President of the Crybaby Club for Mythcists:



Oh dear...

So it's basically: "Ehrman disagrees with me, therefore he's wrong."

[Hamster]

Carrier strikes back - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/

[Raphael]

Whether Jezzus is real or not isn't the point. Keeping your absolutist beliefs in a Bronze Age hippie to yourself is.
I can't say enough how SICK I am of christians proselytizing that they have a monopoly on the 'TRUTH.'

So merely saying that a historical Jesus existed means Ehrman, an atheist/agnostic, is a Christian proselytizing a monopoly on the truth?


People really should look before they leap.

[Hamster]

as far as I can tell "Monopoly on Truth" is just another freethunk catchphrase that doesn't really mean anything, like their use of "bronze age"

I just googled both phrases (at the same time) and got like a thousand atheist websites

also:

[Benson Shays]

Carrier strikes back - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667/

How interesting. All of a sudden Ehrman is a hack scholar and lousy writer. Also entertaining: Josephus's mention of Pilate is legit, but his mention of Jesus probably isn't, because it's interpolated and lifted directly from Christian sources.

Carrier does make a few good points, though, especially about contemporary sources for Pilate.

[Rayado]

Behold, the time for throwing Ehrman under the bus is nigh at hand, yea verily, is now come upon us.

And it came to pass...

[Manwë Súlimo]

ROFL, Carrier actually used the phrase "epic fail".

[Benson Shays]

ROFL, Carrier actually used the phrase "epic fail".

As utterly shocking as it is, Carrier is jumping the shark by blasting Ehrman based on his HuffPo article. I just reread Carrier's post and the relevant sections in Did Jesus Exist? The arguments in the book are far more nuanced.