Reddit reviews Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

This post is misleading.

Ehrman recently wrote a book called "Did Jesus Exist?" where he argues that Jesus most definitely did exist--an opinion that almost all classicists share.

In the talk you took this from-- I believe this is it--he is questioning the idea that the gospels have been accurately preserved down through the centuries.

It's not a misquote, but this excerpt takes Ehrman's actual point totally out of context, and transforms it into one suggesting that he is contradicting another of his arguments. Perhaps this was not your intent-- but if you weren't trying to do this, I don't know why you'd feel the need to quote Ehrman about a simple fact.

Bart Erhman wrote a great book on the subject: Did Jesus Exist:The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

Tl;dr - Maybe/probably

He never makes an absolute proclamation either way, but presents evidence from both sides. There are several secular sources that mention his existence. Jesus existing as a person is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. But we can be sure, if he did exist, he wasn't a god.

What Astrokiwi says. Also, Paul's letters come first, and they don't have a hint of making something up. Take a look at Galatians where we find off the cuff remarks about James the Brother of Jesus and Cephas. This means he expects whoever he's writing to to know these people. If it was a concerted effort to make up some dude, it wouldn't be written that way.

Bart Erhman, no friend to orthodoxy, just wrote a book Did Jesus Exist? where he goes over all the evidence with a fine toothed comb. I recommend that if you want to have a taste of what historical studies say about Jesus.

Just because the Gospels say Jesus walked on water, doesn't mean we can't believe them when they said he existed.

Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman.

Also Ehrman responds to Richard Carrier here

The story of Jesus? Water into wine, resurrection, walking on water? Nope.

Do I think it's silly and frankly stupid to pin a historical theory of nonexistence purely on the lack of primary sources? Yep. Do I get into a tiff with people here on /r/exmormon about this every couple months or so? Yep. Is Zeitgeist a terrible movie because it sounds smart and well-founded but is nothing better than the crap usually found on the "History" Channel? Yep. Is the Jesus Myth Hypothesis (no historical individual known as Jesus of Nazareth existed and the Christ mythos that built up was fully imported from traditions outside of Christianity) a real historical theory with serious historians behind it? Yes. Is it currently a minority theory? Yes.

For those who want to talk about this realistically, please get your information from more than YouTube videos or popular documentaries. The issue of where the Christ mythos came from has been debated for centuries and is still unresolved, but there are accepted ways of doing historical research that have arisen in the past few hundred years because they work. Simply parroting somebody who says "There's no mention of Jesus in contemporary records, ergo no historical existence" isn't going to get you very far when talking to real historians of any stripe.

This book is a collection of essays by some of the current leading experts on this issue and includes an essay from one of the few respected historians who promotes the Jesus Myth Hypothesis, Dr. Robert Price, and defends it far more ably than what you usually find floating around on the Internet.

Also, Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is pretty much the biblical studies equivalent of Grant Palmer (ie, while he's a respected researcher and authority, his best skill is in distilling existing research for popular consumption) has recently released his own rebuttal to much of the Jesus Myth arguments.

For me personally, the reason I feel that Jesus of Nazareth was a real individual comes from a careful analysis of early Christian works (the Gospels and the genuine Epistles of Paul, especially Galatians) using them against each other to discern where they have overlap that they would probably have rather not had (usually called the Criterion of Embarrassment). There are many such tools used by historians in biblical and other non-religious historical studies to try and determine facts from biased historical sources through contextual analysis and such secondary research.

Let me put it another way: how many of us feel that every single prophet in the Old Testament, including the folk heroes of Elijah and Elisha, were similarly non-existent? David? Solomon? Do you think that a real box was carried around by ancient Jews and was placed in their temple at Jerusalem? Do you think there was a temple at Jerusalem before some Jews returned from Babylon? A tent that it was patterned on located at Shiloh? Could you describe it's size and layout? Because there's no proof for any of these items at all (well, the Babylonians prided themselves on destroying Jerusalem with its temple, but that's the only external mention of it), and I think most of us would probably be very comfortable with the idea that some actual historical figures and things existed (probably vastly different in real life from how they were remembered). Why should Jesus (a figure with far less time from when his own followers felt he lived and when they started writing their own stories about him) be any different?

The Christ Myth is a book from 1910 that argues that the Jesus of the gospels is just a made-up character based on other mythical gods and heroes, and that there is no historical person behind it. This hypothesis is really out of date, and not defended by anyone in academia today. A good book debunking this by a respected mainstream historian, who isn't even a Christian (and therefore can't be accused of a religious bias), is Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman.

The End of Faith and The God Delusion are basically empty rhetoric. The Last Superstition is a book by a Christian philosopher rebutting their arguments with the same harsh and satirical tone they take towards religion, but with rather more intellectual substance.

Bart Ehrman's newest book might be another to add to the list. Obviously, the historical existence of Jesus is a matter of legitimate historical debate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/did-jesus-exist-bart-ehrman_n_1400465.html

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602

This CNN article?

More reading on the subject at Wikipedia

Also, Ehrman's book that the CNN article mentions.

He's a scholar, and you probably find his arguments in detail in his book about the topic.

>Please describe the evidence.

Let me be clear about one thing off the bat. While I studied religion, Christianity, and the Bible in college (a very, very liberal one), I am not a historian or archaeologist by trade.

That said, you seem to be implying that I personally must produce expert-level evidence on the spot, or that somehow the widely accepted historical consensus on Jesus' existence is bullshit. That's not an intellectually honest way to try to win an argument.

Also, your tone is extremely aggressive. You have no idea who I am. I am not a Biblical fundamentalist, which seems to be what you're implying here:

>... and dont just say "the bible is the evidence, because othewise nobody would make up the gospel stories."

First, if you did even the smallest amount of research on your own (LMGTFY), you'd know the "Christ myth" theory is robustly rejected by scholars in the fields of history, archaeology, and (yes) religious studies. It is a fringe theory supported by fringe thinkers. It doesn't stand up to the intellectual scrutiny of the scholarly historical community, nor that which /r/atheism purports to apply to all other topics.

Second, you could fill a book with an answer to your question. Someone has.

In case you're wondering, Bart Ehrman is an agnostic and does not identify as a Christian.

He's also at odds with the Jesus Seminar over elements of the historical Jesus' teachings. While the Seminar believes the historical Jesus never made any Messianic or eschatological claims (being a later addition to his teachings), Ehrman believes Jesus was much more eccentric and believed the end of the world was imminent, and that he would play a key role in it.

Point is: Ehrman's not soft on this stuff. You can hear more about it from him in this recent NPR interview.

Thanks, just checking whether there was something new.

Carrier talks about this in his "On the Historicity of Jesus". His claim about Tacitus is that he was probably quoting the Gospels indirectly through Pliny, so Carrier claims it might not be an independent source.

He reviews a bunch more, including Josephus, in his chapter 8 "Extrabiblical Evidence".

If I wanted to fact-check Carrier, I would start by reading both his and Ehrman's blogs when they argue with each other, and both Carrier's and Ehrman's books on the topic.

I don't have a personal opinion on the existence of Jesus either. I asked only because it would be interesting if there were an easy way to poke holes in Carrier's work, since Carrier is so thorough.

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602

>Du greifst nur die Talpioth Särge heraus.

Du kannst also nicht bestreiten das in deiner Liste Mist steht. Was sagt das über die Verlässlichkeit der Endaussage?
>Wieso sollten die anderen Argumente nur schlecht und nicht belastend sein?

Weil sie dem Schluss, der daraus gezogen wird, nicht entsprechen.

>Hast du belastende Argumente für diese Sichtweise oder ist es mehr ein Glaube?

Die Historisierung von mythischen Gestalten kommen in der Antike andauernd vor, siehe Äneis oder Gilgamesh. Zudem ist es aus der historischen Abfolge der NT Schriften ersichtlich das eine Historisierung erst im Verlauf der Ausbildung des Christentums zustande kam. Zudem fehlen Hinweise, die man bei einer tatsächlichen historischen Existenz Jesus erwarten würde, vollständig, währen die Hinweise, die wir haben, bestens durch die Existenz einer Gottesgestalt die historisiert wurde erklären lassen ( "Argument der besten Erklärung")
Ich würde dir ja Richard Carrier und als Gegenposition Bart Ehrmann zum Lesen empfehlen, allerdings scheint es mir dass du nichtmal das kritisch gelesen und beurteilt hast was du selbst postest.

> Und eine Abhandlung über die Augenzeugenfrage.

Was als Augenzuegenbreichte in deinen Quellen gelten, wird unter historischen Methoden als "Gerüchte" abgetan.

>Auf Wikipedia heißt es:

Ein Konsens von Forschermeinungen dient dem wissenschaftlichen Prozess, nicht als endgültige Wahrheit. Der Konsens ist in diesem Falle geprägt von nicht belastbaren Argumenten.

>There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity

Wenn man da die Bedeutung hineinliest du du wahrscheinlich darin siehst, versteht man den Kontext von Religionen der Antike nicht. Das ist kein üblicher Kritikpunkt und ist daher auch nicht zu erwarten.

Read Bart Ehrman's book.

no

I thought that the evidence that Jesus of Nazareth's life was at least similar to the Gospels was overwhelming. Still don't know if I buy the whole Jesus Myth hypothesis, but I do know the Gospels aren't as accurate as I thought they were.

And no, the Jesus myth belief is not universal even among non-theists. I still need to read up more on it, but school and work both hate me right now. I can't really state an intelligent opinion either way.

Funny you should ask, since that is the subject of his latest book.

In short, yes, Ehrman believes that there was a first-century Jewish man named "Yeshua" (the proper English transliteration of the Aramaic ישוע, which we incorrectly call "Jesus") who made messianic claims, garnered a sizable following among his fellow Jews, and was probably crucified.

However, Ehrman has made a career out of demonstrating exactly how the New Testament is unreliable as a source of historical information (see for example, Misquoting Jesus or Jesus Interrupted).

If you're interested to learn more about his new book, here is a brief reading he did for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

For more on Ehrman's opinion on the reliability of the Gospels, see his debate with fellow New Testament scholar Craig Evans.

Hope that helps!

did jesus exist?

No, I meant like this:

https://www.amazon.ca/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602

Nothing in that article makes me think Ehrman doesn’t believe what he’s saying.

At this point there are a ton of books on the subject. I'd recommend Erham's new book, as he's an atheist and a humanist so reddit won't dismiss him out-of-hand. More important than that though, is that he's a respected scholar presenting well founded material.

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602

> You’ve asserted that three times now and still won’t back it up with anything more than an online encyclopedia where the whole of epistemology can change at the click of a mouse.

I recommend Forged by Bart Ehrman. If you don't want to spend money and would like a quick version, here's a lecture he gives at Cambridge on the subject. Ehrman's not only a distinguished scholar in the field, but he's just a great character -- he was a fundamentalist Christian (like I was!) who became an agnostic atheist through intense, obsessive study of the Bible, while still retaining an incredible enthusiasm for and appreciation of Christianity and its history.

I honestly get into just as many debates with atheists who subscribe to the Jesus Myth hypothesis, a fringe concept that Ehrman vehemently opposes. He even wrote a book defending the historicity of Jesus. The state of Bible scholarship is really interesting, and Ehrman does a great job of relating it to casual readers, e.g. people who don't speak ancient Hebrew.

> I think some guy did die to start a movement

If you want to challenge your opinion on that diffuse gut feeling, read something from the opposing side, for example Jesus, Neither God no man by Earl Doherty. This is basically the most comprehensive overview of the mythicist argument to date. Its an page turner and eye opener.

To compare the quality of the arguments, read Did Jesus exist? by Bart Ehrman, which is basically the opposite, a comprehensive rebuttal of mythicism and overview of the historicity case.

After you've read both, make up your own mind, dont let the "scholarly consensus" impress you. But do read both.

Bible scholar Bart Ehrman has written a book about this. I haven't read it yet, but I've found his other works fascinating and very well researched. Seems to me that the historicity of Jesus as an actual person is well-documented, and not just in religious texts.

Bart Ehrman recently published a book named "Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth".

I haven't read it myself, perhaps there's some new information in it? He also gave an interview about it on NPR the other day.

The Bible never claims that slaves built the pyramids, no Nazareth != no Jesus, and have you read Bart Ehrman's book on the subject?

Yes, I suppose everything is a matter of opinion. This just happens to be the matter of opinion by almost everyone within the field of historical-critical textual analysis, including atheist/agnostic scholars.

>I have read much to support the contrary,

If you have something compelling, I'd love to read it. The stuff by Price, Hitchens, Thompson, etc. is not compelling in the least. The mythicist argument takes so much supposition and relies on some very .. questionable assumptions. For example, arguments for textual variants without compelling reason other than it contradicts the mythicist claim, dying-rising gods cited to someone who doesn't cite any ancient texts or information, etc. The argument for historicity is simply a better explanation, fits the facts better and requires far less supposition. Bart Ehrman does a fantastic job of addressing these arguments in his most recent book Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

As far as I know, no mythicist has published anything of any sort in any peer-reviewed journal or scholarly body. Until they do, their opinions remain a fringe minority and for good reason. So far, none of it has been able to stand up to professional scrutiny.

I can see why the position is enticing, especially to atheists with an axe to grind against religion, which seems to be exactly what is going on with these bloggers and atheists involved in the modern mythicist movement. In the end, there are many things about mainstream Christianity of almost any denomination that can take a flogging from historical-critical analysis. The historicity of Jesus is not one of them.

As for Jesus being an Essene (I think that is what you meant by Asceen?), that does not fit the profile we have. For example, the Essenes were radical in many ways, most importantly for this, they lived in seclusion (that is, avoided the impure world) whereas Jesus did the exact opposite, directly associating with those the Essenes avoided and saw as corrupt. Also, the Essenes, while radical, weren't very violent. Perhaps you're thinking of what Josephus called simply "The Fourth Philosophy?" I don't really know much about that, but as far as I know, they were in favor of violent rebellion.

I mean, all of these are compelling in their own way. Namely, that they go against established conventions. The modern understanding of Jesus, the actual person, also does that, but does it without the need for conspiracy theories, tin foil hats and information from people who can't seem to produce real scholarship on the matter.

> Right now, I'm trying to understand, was there ever a God, a Jesus? And is anything true, what about old religions?

It is almost certain there was a man named Jesus and some of the physical events took place. Most of the events are either very embellished or completely manufactured in the centuries after. There is a very interesting book, Did Jesus Exist?, written by Bart Ehrman, the book is a fantastic exploration and investigation into the historicity of Jesus, Ehrman is agnostic and dismisses the spiritual aspect and focuses on the actual real historical question.

If you're trying to figure out the real histories of what is taught around christianity Bart Ehrman's books are an excellent place to start reading and understanding the truth behind the myths.

Nah, your skepticism just doesn't have wide support from any reputed academic community. Atheism and denying Jesus' divinity doesn't necessitate denying there was a human being named Yeshua. Your belief is more like a conspiracy theory. If you actually want to find why he was likely a real person you won't have to look far:


http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8265.html#evendors


https://books.google.com/books?id=c2Tu1Yp3n0EC&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://books.google.com/books?id=c2Tu1Yp3n0EC&pg=PA285#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://books.google.com/books?id=3ZU97DQMH6UC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false


https://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602

See clydem's suggestion, Bart Ehrman, who wrote the book, "Did Jesus Exist" attempting to answer this question. While this is not a consensus, it's a fairly solid case.

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602

From the Wikipedia entry Historical Jesus:

The term "historical Jesus" refers to attempts to "reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth by critical historical methods", in "contrast to Christological definitions ('the dogmatic Christ') and other Christian accounts of Jesus ('the Christ of faith')".[3] It also considers the historical and cultural context in which Jesus lived.[4][5][6]
Virtually all scholars who write on the subject accept that Jesus existed,[7][8][9][10] although scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the accounts of his life, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[11][12][13][14]

Thanks for your work on this. Bart Ehrman argues that he existed.

> Neither can theism it just makes a claim. The difference is naturalism doesn't assume an answer that has no rational justification.

Theism doesn't assume an answer. It is based on the evidence outlined above. The is no rational justification for naturalism.

>Yes, we don't have the answer yet.

Ah, the "yet defense!" We haven't figured it out yet but we will so naturalism is true!

But that defense can be used for anything. Hollow-earthers haven't figured it out yet but that doesn't mean they are wrong. Lizard-men conspiracy theorists are not wrong they just haven't figured it out yet. And I could go on and on.

But how is naturalism [or any belief] ever falsified if the "we haven't figured it out yet" defense is valid? The "yet" defense seems to be the last bastion of hope for those who realize that the evidence is against them.

>As I just said there is no reason to even suggest a god in the first place. You have failed to demonstrate that a god is necessary, you just asserted it.

Read it again. A metaphysically necessary being with the cited attributes is what we would call "God".

>Sure if you forget about Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Atenism, Mohism, Tengriism

Some of those are offshoots of the big 3, some are polytheistic, but if you think any of those are a more likely candidate then state your case.

>Then Christianity does not fit this description as it has the concept of the trinity

If you think the Trinity mean something other than monotheism then you badly misunderstand the doctrine.

>We have several claims about the life, death, and alleged resurrection of Jesus that have no rational justification for being considered historically reliable

You should read Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist he is a Christian critic and agnostic but he think the evidence for the historical Jesus is overwhelming. Blaiklock's quote is based on his examination of the evidence.

I'm pretty sure there are like 500+ accounts of seeing Jesus after his crucifixion. And he died at the crucifixion. The Romans were good at making sure the punishment wasn't over until you were dead.

Just throwing that out there. If Christianity wasn't pretty full proof then it would've died out long ago and we wouldn't have dedicated some of the smartest minds available to trying to debunk it. Just let it be man. If it's wrong, it's wrong. But it's elaborate enough to where it would've taken the minds of several geniuses to come up with something as flawless as this religion. Just saying

EDIT: alright I'm at work and I see that nothing at all will be accomplished from doing this. I'm posting what little I've found so far. There's possibly more but I haven't had enough time to really look at any sites and confirm them the be credible. I'm not getting any deeper into this than I already am.

http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/did-jesus-exist/

http://www.amazon.com/Did-Jesus-Exist-Historical-Argument/dp/0062204602