Did Jesus Even Exist?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 เม.ย. 2023
- Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
The (considerable) vitriol directed against Bart by theologically conservative Christians is (easily) matched by what he gets from critics on the opposite end of the spectrum --"mythicists" who insist not only that the New Testament is filled with legendary material but that Jesus himself was, literally, a myth: he never existed. In this episode Bart will explain why -- whatever else you might want to say about Jesus of Nazareth -- historians of all stripes do not doubt that at the least Jesus was a first-century Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. Are the mythicists -- intent on disproving Christianity -- simply shooting themselves in the foot by taking their skepticism too far?
-When we’re trying to determine whether a person actually existed, we have to rely on historical data - what data do we have from the ancient world concerning Jesus?
-How much of a problem is it that we don’t have contemporary sources?
-How far can we trust the gospels as historical sources? For example, Matthew and Luke give two conflicting reports of Jesus’ birth, so how do we decide which is closest to historical fact?
-One of the things historians look for when trying to understand an historical event, is multiple sources that talk about it. Do we have that for Jesus’ existence?
-Given that we have such few sources, which date to several decades after Jesus’ death, don’t always agree with each other, and are a little light on details…what can we actually say with certainty about the life of Jesus?
-Is it odd that we don’t have any contemporary references to Jesus? Even if most people were illiterate, if there was an itinerant preacher wandering around and causing unrest, would we not expect the Roman authorities to write about him?
Just started watching and the first thing I noticed is how much I am slacking in the cool eye glasses game.
Her glasses are awesome, aren’t they? And they go so well with the shape of her face.
You both have the rare skill of being able to say “let’s talk about Jesus” without me recoiling in dread. That you for that.
You put that perfectly!
I think it’s because it’s not immediately followed by trying to convince you into (or out of!) belief in Christianity.
Weird. I like having my beliefs challenged. Seems to me we'd be better off as a species if we didn't all want to just sit comfortably in our bubbles.
@@a5cent I agree completely, but there are also only so many times I can hear the same claims, most of which I’m already familiar with and find unconvincing, before l start to anticipate that no new information will likely come from it. From my experience, those who tend to proselytize often don’t have a nuanced view of their own faith. There are exceptions, obviously, but I’m at the point where I think that my attention can be better served elsewhere.
@@nasonguy I think you might be right.
I don't think Mark was writing scripture but I think Mathew and Luke were intending to write scripture based on Mark.
It would be great to have a peer-reviewed scholarly book arguing for the historicity of Jesus, instead of assuming that's just the case. We have, to my knowledge, two peer-reviewed works presenting solid theories for minimal mythicism, but none for historicity. Logically, a theory for minimal historicity should address the arguments for mythicism and be developed by unbiased historians (most "experts in the field" of Biblical and NT studies are undoubtedly biased and are not historians).
_["We have, to my knowledge, two peer-reviewed works presenting solid theories for minimal mythicism, but none for historicity."]_
There's not a theory needed for historicity. "Jesus was a person who was born, named Yeshua ben Yosuf, did things, then died" isn't really a theory. We have authentic first-hand records, in the form of the undisputed letters of Paul, that claim that a person met with Jesus's brother James. It's very hard for a fake person to have a real brother.
_["Logically, a theory for minimal historicity should address the arguments for mythicism"]_
Only after mythicism can supply evidence for its position. As of right now, mythicism can explain the same documents, but it doesn't have evidence contradicting historicity. This is equivalent to saying astronomers should have to address the arguments for the flat earth model.
@@Kyeudo Just tell me one thing Jesus did or say on earth that Paul (the first Christian source) mentions in his epistles.
@@maatjusticia3954 I don't have to. Jesus's existence isn't dependent on what Paul recorded Jesus said or did.
@@Kyeudo Neat way to sidestep the issue that Paul never writes anything that indicates Jesus had an earthly history. He appears not to know or care about anything whatever in the life of Jesus other than the ritual significance of the sacrifice of a cosmic son of God. Paul's only interest in Jesus is as a divine figure who makes the incantatory requirement that people recognize his divinity and affirm his blood sacrifice.
Paul has no interest even in Jesus as an ethical teacher. He never quotes any of his sayings or even alludes to any moral requirement that Jesus would make of followers. He doesn't care one whit about, or even mention, Jesus healing the sick or his exhortations to help the poor. Paul's Christianity is the original iteration of Christianity, and it is strictly a voodoo cult. It doesn't have a moral dimension, but only the requirement of doxastic recognition of Jesus as the divine avatar of God. If any person meets this requirement, makes obeisance to this divinity, explicitly begs its forgiveness, then one is good to go. Of course tithing is expected as a continued affirmation of belief.
The argument that Jesus refers to "James the brother of the Lord" is pathetic at this point, as everyone who puts it forward has been told a hundred times that Paul repeatedly refers to any Christian as a brother or sister of the "Lord." I know why you people keep doing it, though. It's literally the best argument you've got. When you're evidence is that thin, you have no choice but to use desperate arguments.
And what if Paul really did mean to say that James was the biological brother of the Lord. Wow! Now you have evidence that there was some cult leader who claimed that his brother was the son of God. Killer evidence that Jesus was real.
Paul had a fat gig going. His continuous travel around his wide circuit of faith farms makes it clear that he had ample resources. There are many references to the business aspect of the setup in the Bible. Maybe you should read more carefully.
It seems that time and experience showed the church daddies that a more morally and humanistically substantial avatar was needed to appeal to potential converts and keep the faithful on board, so after a couple of decades the Gospels came out to give the supernatural Jesus figure a relatable life story. There were perhaps earlier iterations of these, but they are lost to time or suppression in favor of the ones that market tested better.
I don't actually expect you to absorb what I wrote here. You are one of the faithful. But more nimble and less obsessional minds may be reading.
@@donnievance1942
_["Neat way to sidestep the issue that Paul never writes anything that indicates Jesus had an earthly history. "]_
It's not a sidestep. The lack of details about Jesus's life history in Paul's works isn't relevant. Given that Paul only cared about Jesus after his hallucination on the road to Damascus, I doubt he knew much about his mortal life. Paul certainly didn't care about the teachings propagated by Peter and company. He focused on proclaiming his theology about Jesus, so it is not surprising at all that he doesn't bother with life details.
_["Paul has no interest even in Jesus as an ethical teacher."]_
Not surprising. Paul thinks he got all the knowledge he needed about Jesus directly from Jesus.
_["Paul's Christianity is the original iteration of Christianity, and it is strictly a voodoo cult."]_
Nope. Even Paul's letters make it clear that Christianity pre-existed Paul.
_["The argument that Jesus refers to "James the brother of the Lord" is pathetic at this point, as everyone who puts it forward has been told a hundred times that Paul repeatedly refers to any Christian as a brother or sister of the "Lord.""]_
Not as an identifier. We are dealing with a time before surnames and with letters to groups who do not have knowledge of which James Paul is referring to. Paul may metaphorically say that all Christians are brothers and sisters to Jesus, but that isn't used to identify them to others.
_["It's literally the best argument you've got."]_
It's more evidence than you can produce for Hercules or Thor or Gilgamesh or even the vast majority of all humans that have ever lived.
_["When you're evidence is that thin, you have no choice but to use desperate arguments."]_
Yes, that is a good description of what mythicists try to do.
_["And what if Paul really did mean to say that James was the biological brother of the Lord. Wow! Now you have evidence that there was some cult leader who claimed that his brother was the son of God. Killer evidence that Jesus was real."]_
So, rather than present any evidence for your position, all you can do is speculate that Paul fell for a lie put forward by James?
_["Paul had a fat gig going."]_
And this matters how?
_["It seems that time and experience showed the church daddies that a more morally and humanistically substantial avatar was needed to appeal to potential converts and keep the faithful on board, so after a couple of decades the Gospels came out to give the supernatural Jesus figure a relatable life story."]_
Sorry, but the theological schisms among the early Christians make this position untenable. The four canonical gospels were developed by diverse communities, with Luke appealing more to Romans and Matthew to Jewish Christians. They weren't part of some coordinated project.
_["I don't actually expect you to absorb what I wrote here."]_
That's your problem. You don't expect other people to be as smart as you are. Your arrogance is clear, but you reek of Dunning-Kruger.
_["You are one of the faithful."]_
Lol. You are arguing with an atheist.
_["But more nimble and less obsessional minds may be reading."]_
Such minds will notice that you have no evidence, only an explanation for the evidence that then invites more questions, like "Why didn't everyone in Jerusalem remember that they hadn't ever heard of this preacher guy?".
Great as always Bart, have been soaking up info for over 10 years now and I’m still obsessed! Keep it up.
I never thought of this until now but the fact that Matthew and Luke not only used Mark as a source but literally copied large portions word for word essentially guarantees without doubt that Matthew and Luke are definitively not based on eye witness accounts of Jesus or coming from any of his apostles. If they were themselves eyewitnesses or apostles, or even scribes taking doctation from them, they wouldn't need to use Mark whatsoever. If you're a first-hand participant in an event, you don't need to copy someone else in order to retell the story. Personally I doubt any of the gospels come from Jesus' apostles or eyewitnesses, but I think we can definitively conclude without a shadow of a doubt that at the very least Matthew and Luke are at best fairly distantly separated from the events and are just trying to piece the events together way after the fact using stories they've heard and using Mark and including their own theologically motivated insertions in order to write their gospels
Great stuff. Thank you both for another great presentation.
Idea, start doing shorts (can just be clips) for TH-cam and Instagram. I think it could work as a solid lead to the channel and Bart’s material overall. Particularly viral are debate moments, but I understand that sometimes people can get the wrong adversarial perception.
The thing that I liked about teaching at a university is that twice a year I was officially caught up.
Another great episode! Would personally love to see one on the cosmology of Paul!
Just want to thank you so much. I LOVE these sessions. You guys together are such a fantastic team. I always get so excited when I see there's another one of your videos in my inbox. So much gratitude for this gift.
I agree 💯%
Are you an apostate ?
If the Lord didn’t exist then none of us would be here.
Just because you don’t believe that doesn’t mean that it’s false.
You got to admit there’s lots and lots and lots that you don’t know about.
@@gherieg.1091 What does this comment have to do with the original post??????
Are you a troll?
You could *say* that.
@@mustachemac5229
I’m responding to the title of the video. If you support Bart in his drive against God and His children, then the comment applies to you too.
We know, time and time again, that historical figures who were popular eventually turned into legendary myths. Caesar is one example (the Roman senate recognized him as god and people would set up temples to him). Jesus was almost certainly a historical figure but because of key moments (Such as his death) myths and legends naturally evolved surrounding him. This is not unique, its not rare, it happened all the time.
I would say the difference is that we have evidence of caesar existing and then legends/myths raised out of his existence, jesus' is almost backwards because most of the evidence of his existence is ropped into the legends/myths that were told of him.
Im not mythicist, and i agree that an historical jesus likely existed (due to little evidence, like the contradiction on the bible of where/when he was born, a myth likely wouldnt have fumbled it like that). But i find interesting that the evidence for an historical jesus is way lower than most apologists like to sell it as (for example when comparing him to other historical figures like the caesar, for which we have a lot more evidence than jesus)
It also happened quite frequently in the other direction where a fictional character was given a "history" - Zeus had a tomb on Crete (or at least such a tomb was written about). Romulus and Moses didn't exist, yet they were given histories and were often thought of as historical figures.
It also seems strange the if Jesus was the son of god and god was in the process of using him to wash away all the sins of believers and non-believers around the world and forever more, that God wouldn't have made sure that the historical record of the person Jesus and his miracles and his all important death and resurrection would have been preserver for posterity. Particularly with his "all knowing" nature, he should have foreseen the difficulty that the absence of preserved historical would have had around the world. Makes one believe that the whole thing might have been just made up as they went along.
You’re certainly correct that a figure can be both historical and mythic, but you need to go further and recognize that “mythic” is not a synonym for “fictitious”. A myth can describe something that actually happened. Many of the stories about Jesus found in the Bible clearly could not really have occurred, but those that did really occur (or that we may assume to have occurred) are no less mythic.
- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story.
It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.
I'm so grateful to have found Bart here on TH-cam. Being a closeted agnostic, he's been like a beacon for me, reassuring me that I'm not alone
You are not alone my friend, I am now an uncloseted one, (although I use the word atheist since I lack a belief in god, but am open to the possibility).
Eventually coming out to my highly christian family caused problems but it was worth it. However do not do it, do not even consider it if you are still financially dependent on them.
@@brockgeorge6437 999⁹999998999⁹⁹⁹99999999⁹99⁹99⁹⁹⁹⁹99⁹⁹⁹99
@@brockgeorge6437 I consider myself both agnostic *and* atheist: I firmly believe that there is no god, but I don't presume to know that for sure. "Lack of belief ... open to the possibility" suggests that you're in the same camp.
No claim of originality here: I got that line of thinking directly from Ehrman. See, for example, his "On Being an Agnostic Atheist" blog post. TL;DR: He says they're not weaker and stronger forms of the same thing, but rather two different things: one is about what one knows, while the other is about what one believes.
@@brockgeorge6437
"Eventually coming out to my highly christian family caused problems but it was worth it."_
There the one who worship ritual human sacrifice based solely on nonsense.
@FoodTheMood We don't yet understand the mechanism through which abiogenesis occurred, although we have a very clear understanding of how that life form eventually gave rise to us.
I think it is better to admit that we don't yet understand something rather than claim it happened by magic, which is essentially what the explanation of what god is.
Every time we thought it was god in the past, wind, lightning, the rising sun, the tides, the diversty of species, it always turned out to have a natural explanation in the end.
Thanks for this. Can you do a show on the unpardonable sin? I'm sure many would enjoy the information.
do you really want to know?
Question: Although this was uploaded on April 18, 2023, what was the date of this interview? That is not stated in the description. TIA.
Dear Megan, would you please write the source/s of intro music of these video series? Thank you
I've read and listened to Dr Ehrman for a couple decades now. I never get bored.
But do you get enlightened?
@@musicmasterplayer4532yes
I'm quite confused: how are two stories that were widely circulating for decades in the same religious group considered "independent"? Also why interpret the unique material in Mt or Lc as yet another independent tradition rather than legendary development on top of Mc and Q?
Yeah, I'm also confused about this. He says that because the gospels were independently written, but all talk about Jesus, that's evidence he exists, but then says that two of the gospels clearly copy a previous one.
@@JorWat25 it's because Matthew and Luke have content not found in Mark, but also have content that is separate from each other
Great to hear from you every week. When do you come to Sweden?
Min. 23:34
Josephus is mentioned by Suetonius in "Divus Vespasianus" 5:
"Et unus ex nobilibus captivis Iosephus, cum coiceretur in vincula, constantissime asseveravit fore ut ab eodem brevi solveretur, verum iam imperatore."
"And when Josephus, one of the noble prisoners, was put in chains, he confidently affirmed that he should be released in a very short time by the same man (Vespasian), but he would be emperor first".
So glad to have found this - I just read "Lost Christianities"..... It was excellent. Congrats to you Bart. Keep up your great work, and, Who knows what other exciting finds will emerge from the sands of what was the Ancient world. ?
Well done, Bart, for getting a proper mic 👍
I am one of the rare breed of what might be called "minimal mythicists" - people who are totally open to the idea of Jesus beginning as a literal myth, AND/or to the idea that he was a first-century Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. Either is fine and totally plausible - although I lean towards the idea that the myths (indeed we must admit 99% of what we have is literally myth) are likely based upon a real person. 30% mythicist, 70% historicist.
I am fine with that, and do not need to be drawn into the polarised belief system.
This scholarly process is quite difficult for me to follow. Based upon my understanding of this it seems to me that the same process could lead us to conclude King Arthur and Robin Hood were also real people.
Thousands of years from now, can the writing of "Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and "Amazing Fantasy #15" be considered 'Independent Attestation' of the existence of a historical Spider-Man? Each set of writing agrees about details of a radioactive spider bite empowering an adolescent with the proportionate strength of a spider. All tell the story of "Peter", through anger and pride, failing to prevent the death of his uncle. Since this part of his story portrays Peter in a poor light, can we conclude that no one would make that up because it makes the main character look bad?
Wow get a life
None of those you mentioned divided the world calendar of civilization in half (before, during and after) just as none of those you mentioned promoted forgiveness of enemies. As none of these built Western civilization for millennia or centuries
I’ve been thinking about this question all week, I’m excited to hear this episode today! Thank you for all the hard time and work put into these informative episodes!
Hey, I think you should check out scholars like Michael Heiser, N.T. Wright & James White. As a theology student I learned a lot from them. They can be found here on TH-cam and they offer some academic work on creating a harmony between scientific history and the Christian faith. You should check them out!
@@michael.1517 why should there be "harmony" between science and faith? just stick to facts when doing history. Fact 1: dead guys don't come back to life. ever.
@@michael.1517 Sorry. We’re not interested in apologetics but serious scholarship on the Bible.
@@Pseudo-Jonathan And yet, you sound like you made your research about these guys on TikTok ;)
"I believe a snake/serpent talked, yes I do." - James White.
It is shocking how religions can completely destroy our most basic mechanisms for distinguishing reality from fantasy.
Some Muslims believe that Muhammad split the Moon, and they do so with the same level of conviction with which James White believes in Genesis 3:1, but that's just another example of the exact same phenomena.
There are some studies on this subject.
*Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds*
_In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children’s upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories._
I am waiting for Godless Engineer and Dr.Richard Carrier's response to this.. there is a lot to get into... I personally am with Dr.Carrier... there's 1 in 3 chances that jesus was a real person.. i would say one more thing.. we don't really know if Paul refers to a biological brother of Jesus.. all the baptized christians were considered brothers amongst themselves... Nonetheless, much respect to you Dr.Ehrman.
Well said
Josephus speaks of a man with these characteristics. It was "The Egyptian". The difference is he was at a later date and around the time of Felix who was the governor. Historically there was no crucifixion around the time of Tiberius in Pilots governorship.
OMG. I love this! I really like, admire and respect Bart. He has helped me so much on my faith journey. It has been a delight to get to know Megan better. She is awesome. She asks wonderful questions, not easy questions, but probing questions that lead us deeper into whatever they are talking that day. And they are both from different generations and it is so much fun to see them interact and that they have professional respect for one another but you can see a friendship develop among them. I appreciate the seriousness of the subjects they are discussing but I also realize we are witnessing a conversation among friends. Thank you both for allowing us to witness these conversations. My best to both of you.
Yes, Megan's questions are what this podcast makes so good (and Bart's answers, of course ;) )
Would we be able to see a Bart Ehrman vs Richard Carrier debate in our lifetime?
Yes
Great content
Debate with Carrier soon?
Debates are fruitless for ancient history. I doubt Bart will ever debate Carrier because Carrier isn’t interested in academic discussion. He’s a polemicist who wants everyone to be wrong and him to be right. When I was a younger teen I used to think “maybe Carrier is right” but then I started reading all of these sources Carrier uses to make his case. It’s actually mind blowing how contrived and convoluted his arguments are, but Carrier knows most of his readers will not check the sources.
Ya know, we DO seem to have record of a person called "The Teacher of Righteousness" in the DSS at the time and it DOES shed light on what folks were thinkin' at the time. I highly recommend "The First Messiah, " by Michael Wise. Btw, thanks for another great show!
there were more than 300 self proclaimed messiahs who were crucified by the Romans in that era.there is no reason to suggest that Jesus knew any more or was a better person than any of the others.
@@clarkelaidlaw1678
_"...there were more than 300 self proclaimed messiahs who were crucified by the Romans in that era."_
That's because of the Daniel 9:25 prophesy that expired unfulfilled.
Then Paul created Christianity in 48 AD to garner support for the insurrection against the Romans which began in 46 AD led by two brothers, Jacob and Simon, in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency until it climaxed in 48 AD when it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah. He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' rebellion against the Romans.
Biggest shock here is Megan saying she has a 16 year old daughter. She looks like she is in her early 30’s. She must’ve hit the genetic lottery
i mean look at her hair and pronouns, she got knocked up young 😂
Great podcast, I truely love your initiative (and Digital Hammurabi!)
As an amateur-jesus historian, I think that the mythicism pov is not as far-fetched as many christians and historians want us to believe. And even if the historical pov is stronger: the mythicism pov throws up some very interesting questions regarding methodology. Nevertheless, some mythicism arguments tend to apophenia.
Also, see the great series "Fishers of evidence", which deserves many more views than it currently has.
The problem with being an ‘amateur historian’ is you really have no frame of reference for what might be an interesting question and what might not. All you have is the feeling of the way something rubs you up. Sorry if this seems a little rude but people need to realise there’s a lot more to scholarship than ‘looking it up’ and making up your own mind.
@@HkFinn83 Oh no, you're completely right. I don't pretend otherwise. I have a PhD in Quantum Gravity/String Theory/Cosmology related stuff, and encounter "amateur physicists" all the time selling their "theories". I recognize what you're saying. I'm just doing it for the fun of it.
That doesn't mean my views are completely uninformed (I do read published work an popular books), but as an "amateur" you tend to have a narrow and limited view of the subject, and not a robuste methodology. I'm just sharing my hunch. And that's why I love these podcasts ;)
@@HkFinn83 When the majority of people studying the subject are already preachers, doesn't it make for a pretty biased set of observations.
Remember the story of Simon of Cyrene? The man who helped Jesus carry the cross. I once heard professor Dale Martin say that he thinks that the story of Simon of Cyrene might go back to some kind of actual memory. There might be a historical reality behind it.
@Never repeats MacDonald's work is often quite speculative though, whereas one can show that nearly everything in the gospels is merely rewritten material from the Hebrew bible, or born of obscurantist readings of it. Scholars will universally (or near-universally) acknowledge this is true of the passion narrative but they've been far more reluctant to acknowledge that everything else is as well.
@Never repeats But the story of Simon of Cyrene doesn't have any theological or supernatural about it. Why would somebody invent it?
@@arnulfo267
Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross may be a symbolic illustration of Jesus' teaching in Mark 8:34 that "whoever wants to be my follower must deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me". Simon of Cyrene does exactly that, in contrast to Simon Peter (to whom Jesus' teaching was directed: Mark 8:33, 34).
Indeed, Mark creates literary irony here: Simon Peter (Jesus' closest disciple) was told he must deny himself and follow Jesus with the cross, but instead he denies _Christ_ (three times: Mark 14:30) and is replaced by a _different_ Simon (a foreigner from Cyrene) who follows Jesus with the cross. Simon Peter resists Jesus' path to the cross; Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus on his path to the cross. This is very plausibly symbolic.
Yet true IMHO, read The Book.
Was Pontius Pilate not written about as being removed from office for being too antagonistic? It is my understanding that the gospels present him as caving to demands, which contradicts other writings.
@Mike JJJ you said "in a good mood" and I just imagined this being how that went: th-cam.com/video/Mi-YLIwkfJs/w-d-xo.html
He was recalled to Rome because even by Roman standards, he was brutal. In some of the gospels, he is portrayed as not wanting to execute Jesus but being forced to do so to appease the Jewish leaders. Since the gospels were written at least 40-60 years after Jesus’ execution, it seems (to me) that the narrative of the Jews having killed Jesus had evolved and Pilate was portrayed as less vicious. I suspect that Pilate executed any non Roman who created any disturbance (as Jesus did the week prior to his execution).
Megan, I don't mean to be creepy old guy and all, but hand on heart, I thought you were mid-late 20s, just out of grad school. In another episode where you mention your eldest, I did actually rewind because I thought, "surely I misheard and she said six year old . . ."
On a not creepy old guy note, thanks for the great podcast. I look forward to every new one hitting my notifications.
Imagine the 33AD newspaper kid riding around the streets on his disciple, throwing solid tablets through people's windows.
Doing a newspaper round in that era would have been a challenging job.
Housewives were so relieved that window glass wasn’t due to be invented for hundreds of years!
What about the printer that had to chisel those thousands upon thousands of tablets every night
@@siddified Should have invented Quipu. Then you could hang the Decalogue in your tent as macrame art-to-admonish-children-with
@@siddified
Good point. Like much of today's media- a bunch of chiselers.
If the apprentice made a spelling error, the poor kid would have to start over or place tiny stones into the gap with chewing gum.
@@oldpossum57
Shame on you. You are not taking this thread seriously. Like all biblical mythology, we don't want facts to get in the way of the narrative.
If looking through a glass darkly isn't a euphemism for one hell of a cranky housewife's face. 1 Cor 13;12.
My week doesn’t twirl around fun at the weekend; I look forward to Tuesday; I adore these podcasts and there isn’t a single other I check in on every week. A missing week = moping. So much respect for Bart and just getting to know Digital Hammurabi 🥰
I am also looking forward to the next episode; I thought the the black nonbelievers blog had a good article on the question about if Jesus predict his soon return.
Wasn't this uploaded a couple of months ago? Maybe on Digital Hammurabi? Or Gnostic Informant or somewhere?
{:o:O:}
Thankyou for the thoughtful questions and clear and expansive answers. Really helpful.
I am relatively new to this area of study. So I have no horse in this race of historicity vs. mythicism. I love listening to interviews and lectures on both avenues of thought. I learn so much from just absorbing as much as I can. However there is one thing I have noticed that is frustrating to me. I have watched Dr. Carrier discuss his views and even spend entire 2 hour live streams allowing for the possibility of Jesus being a real historical person. He's looked at and discussed the probability of how Jesus could be a historic figure and what are the most likely ways Christianity developed from that position . Even though he disagrees ultimately on this line of thought. Basicially he actually looks at it from multiple angles. With Dr. Ehrman I do not see that kind of flexibility of consideration. He seems to have his view and only sticks to it while just dismissing any other views. He reminds me very much of christian apologists who don't actually stop and consider a position or wrestle with it to see if they can actually make it work or not. I keep getting an impression of arrogance from him in that any theory that does not agree with his is not worth the time to anylize or consider. This video would have been so much more interesting if he anylized the question from an honest mythicist POV. That's not to say he has to believe it or can't make counter points. But for a video titled "Did Jesus even exist?" an actual look at mythicist views would have been nice. Not just him by-passing the idea and just discusssing his own take that has already been expounded on everywhere. That's not me trashing talking. I have great respect and admiration for his study and ability to communicate his ideas. He's a brilliant man. I just wish he showed more flexibility in approaching contrasting ideas. I find researchers who can wrestle with opposing ideas and actually try to make sense of them way more interesting than a scholar who takes a dogmatic view of something that no one can actually know for sure. I find dogmatic positions off putting whether it be in religion or secular academic work. I think for me it just starts to feel like someone selling a product instead of a real honest exploration ideas and possibilities in the ultimate search for truth and understanding.
Does Dr. Carrier have a yt channel?
It’s a fringe internet conspiracy theory. Should scholars give equal time to the ramblings of anybody able to operate a webcam and open a TH-cam account?
That's interesting. I have the opposite impression. Carrier seems very narcissistic to me, obviously and obnoxiously so. Ehrman does not strike me as narcissistic or arrogant. I would describe him as confident but (usually) respectful. I can't read Carrier because the narcissism just seeps off the page, and I don't trust anyone who sounds like that.
You give the example of Carrier "allowing for the possibility of Jesus being a real historical person." That's really not much of an allowance. Almost the entirety of biblical scholarship believes that Jesus was a historical figure. To "allow for the possibility" of what 99% of serious scholars believe is not a sign of intellectual humility. It is just admitting the obvious. When 99% of the experts say you're wrong, you either admit the possibility you're wrong or you look like a delusional fanatic.
I'm puzzled why you think Bart is dogmatic and inflexible. I've read and listened to a lot of his stuff, and I've never found him to be such. He is very confident in his position, and he is clear about his disagreements, but that isn't the same thing as being dogmatic and inflexible.
@@Arven8 "I'm puzzled why you think Bart is dogmatic and inflexible. I've read and listened to a lot of his stuff, and I've never found him to be such."
You sound as if you've never heard Ehrman address this question at all. Ehrman has, in fact, compared mythicist views to Holocaust denial. His book on this subject was torn to pieces by critics shortly after it was published, shown to be full of errors, dishonest interpretations, idiotic comments, unsupportable assertions and ignoring much of the actual mythicist case. Before this became a dispute, I'd really admired Ehrman. Obviously, he doesn't need an internet nobody like me to sing the praises of his previous academic work, the stuff on which his reputation was built, but it was formidable. On this question though, he's been terrible.
As for your appeal-to-authority fallacy regarding the "experts" on this matter, Ehrman himself has pointed out that most New Testament "scholars" are bible-believing Christians who argue it's an historical fact that Jesus straight-up rose from the dead.
@@JeannieSoko No, but he does plenty of interviews.
You can check out one of his most recent ones over at Godless Engineer.
the reason i’m convinced that there is an historical person, or maybe two or three people, at the base of the gospel depictions, is occam’s razor: somebody wrote the sermon on the mount, somebody who people expected to be anointed had a very unkingly death that required an extraordinary explanation, and to think that some genius or small group of them came up with the entire enterprise by themselves sounds way less likely than an accumulation of myths growing up around one or two famous faith healers, miracle workers, and eloquent poet of selfless compassion
Ah, but you omit other existing deities like dionysus. One parent a God the other a mortal, had magical powers over wine, mother ascended to heaven, dionysus dies and is reborn each year, etc.
A nice template to build on
Much easier to take an existing person that already has the right reputation and attach more stories to him. People are more interested.
They are interested in new stories about Jesus. Not new stories about some unknown person.
The real question is how far did the Jesus from the stories drift away from the original one.
The sermon on the mount was demonstrably written after 70 AD, after Rome had obliterated Jerusalem. Nobody before expected it, everybody after had to come to terms with it.
@@user-om2os5yr6i Ah but that secular logic. According to Christian logic this is exactly what Jesus said and it proves he was a true prophet and so he was god. QED
“Christian logic”. I guess whatever a christian wants to believe is what he will believe. You cannot reason with them. Like trying to reason with Marxist-Leninists, MAGA, QAnon.@@arjan2777
What text of the Jesus story is from Azazel(Leviticus 16) ?
Are the gospels really independent of one another? Not all of them, because it has been shown that Luke borrowed heavily from Mark and Matthew did as well, meaning the authors of those gospels copied (plaigerised) the other. Are they really not meant to be scripture and meant to be historical accounts? No, they were part of the writings of an existing religious branch of Judaism that became Christianity, not at all meant to be merely an account of Jesus, making them suspect as a source.
I suspect Jesus existed, but I think it's possible, since none of the authors of the New Testament ever met Jesus, that version of Jesus that is in the New Testament is so unlike the real Jesus, that he might as well have been mythological.
I heard a funny thing once. I don't know if it's true. But apparently the creator of the Donald Duck cartoon character had a neighbor who had a pet duck named Donald.
So, does that make Donald Duck a historical ... person? ... duck?
@@neverepeatsbutrhymes Honestly, and this is probably terrible, when I read Paul, his arrogance and pride shows through so much, that I view him as the spiritual ancestor of most of the modern day televangelists. To me, it seems like he cares more about being in charge than it does Jesus' message or the original Apostles and their message. It seems to me Paul was preaching his own message, and just co-opting the Jesus Myth to sell it.
Do some research before you comment, john new him ,I'm fact was one of his disciplines, wrote a few gospels revelation as wll, it it that hard to do a quick search before come to conclusions, I really don't understand people sometimes
@@tasmarkou5681 You should probably research the Bible yourself. The consensus of academics is that the named Disciples didn't actually write the Gospels attributed to them. The attribution was added in the 2nd Century, when the Church wanted to tell a good story. The Gospels were written by literate Greek speakers, not the illiterate Aramaic disciples. John was long dead at the time the Book of John was written.
@@dancahill9585 send me your sources, this is the most redicoulous thing I've ever heard
The way Dr. Ehrman describes the various gospels makes me think of how all the various canonical and, now, non-canonical Star Wars books have been written. In those books, you'll find references to the same or similar source material while each of them also had their own spin, is writing their own story, and is certainly done by many different authors.
You need a follow-up on the extra-Biblical writings: Josephus, Taticus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata.
Why, they already have!
None of those shore up a historical Jesus to any degree. The Josephus reference is painfully obvious forgery, and the latter only demonstrate there were Christians in their time, a fact not in question. But that's the only evidence there is.
“Statement against interest” is a hearsay exception, since it changes the balance of credibility to probative value.
I'm loving these Podcast. Thank you for doing them!
I mean, they said satan is god of confusion. The bible itself is really confusing that we even question if the people there even existed. Who created satan and confusions anyway and the best question is: why would you do that to your children? Unless you see them as lab rats or test subjects
According to Christians they say, "god created the devil and gave him and everyone else free will. Satan disobeyed. God did not destroy him but allowed him to tempt and harm others as this is a way to test our faith and glorify god as his strength is found in our weakness. Confusion and everything bad comes from the devil and ourselves. Our sin is the reason for disease and misery. God allows it because of free will." 😂😂😂
I find it curious that even a great mind like Bart accepts the existence of Jesus despite the contradictions, and the time frame between the supposed life of Jesus, and when the writings occurred.
I understand that "99% of all historians accept his existence" to quote Bart, but I guess my own biases get in the way
If I look at a written account of a world event from the 1940s (WW2) how can I be confident in its accuracy today, 75 years later, especially if it wasnt written on tne day of the event. There are studies about the fallibility of memory. There are TH-cam videos of people saying they saw X event occurring, and then shown that they did not, even though it occurred only 10 minutes earlier.
Megan is a great interviewer, and I don't think it's possible to get tired of listening to Bart Ehrman, it's a rare quality and along with his vast knowledge, has almost certainly contributed to his success.
I've never found Tacitus and Josephus to be particularly informative when it comes to the Jesus question. Tacitus never tells us that Jesus existed. He tells us that nearly a century later there was a group of Christians who BELIEVED that Jesus existed. Similarly with Josephus. Josephus isn't a source for the life of Jesus. He's a source for later Christian beliefs.
All academic historians disagree with you, because for them, the passages from Tacitus and Josephus mention the HISTORICAL existence of Jesus (not the divine, but the historical). Tacitus mentions the name of Jesus and this is already considered proof of the person's physical existence for historians (I'm talking about the person, not his divine). Therefore, your argument is easily REFUTED BY THE history academy :)
No you are clearly wrong and are making bogus claims that fit neatly with your second hand belief system. The interpolations in Josephus, who was a member of the Flavian Caesars is largely held to be a Christian forgery. Academic Historians? Give us a break. @@kraftmorrison
You are absolutely correct. Tacitus and Josephus do not in any way provide solid evidence that Jesus existed.
@@Magik1369 You are wrong. Tacitus and Josephus are solid evidence of the existence of Jesus, as they in fact narrate what archaeological evidence shows us: the ossuary of James, Jesus' brother, exhibited in the Jerusalem museum and confirmed by Flavius Josephus, and also the crucifixion by Pontius Pilate , confirmed by OTHER sources outside the Bible such as Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Talmud, among other independent sources. The difficult thing for the militant neo atheist, who absolutely NOBODY RESPECTS and who SUFFERS PREJUDICE and PERSECUTION, is to REFUTE Middle Eastern archeology and refute historians from around the world. This is an extremely difficult task for the militant neo-atheist from the USA, the type of person that absolutely NO ONE respects!
Are you a LIAR or pretending to be a liar? OBVIOUSLY you have ABSOLUTELY NOT READ EITHER of the two authors, who mention Jesus AND his life: "At that time Jesus appeared, a wise man, if indeed we can call him a man. For he was the author of amazing deeds, a master of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained followers both among many Jews, and among many of Greek origin. He was [the] Christ [Messiah], And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by our most prominent men , condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him before did not fail to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, alive again, exactly as the divine prophets had spoken of this and countless other amazing facts about him. And even Today the tribe of Christians, which owes its name to him, has not disappeared"
And Tacitus mentions the crucifixion And also the name of the person who crucified Jesus: "To silence the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected the most refined tortures to those whom the people called "Christians", hated for their abominable crimes. HIS NAME DRIVEN FROM CHRIST (CHRISTUS), which, during the government of Tiberius, had been EXECUTED by the Procurator PONTIUS PILATES. Suppressed for some time, deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land where evil originated, but also in the city Rome, where all kinds of horrible and infamous practices from all parts of the world are concentrated and are fervently worshipped."
EASILY REFUTED and I CHALLENGE you to counter me so I can launch the rejoinder
I'm impressed with the mental health practice in the beginning. And the wellness days at uni idea... It's about time society remembered people need more humanity. We are definitely seeing the affect of too much disconnection.
Is Bart going on tour anytime soon?
Another wonderful video. Even as an atheist who has spent years arguing with YECs and Calvinists, I must say I find the story of Jesus fascinating.
Lunch is on me if you're ever in town. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
As a Christian, I can hardly think of a doctrine I find more abhorrent than Calvinism. Hell is already bad enough, but the idea that God has chosen from the beginning of time who goes there and who doesn't (and most people do, btw), and there's nothing anyone can do about it, is just wrong.
@@montagdp Darby is worse.
Hmm... For someone who is claimed to have committed incredible miracles, it seems very odd that nothing was written about Jesus by his contemporaries.
It just seems like an incredibly small amount of "evidence" to merit the claim "Jesus definitely existed".
Wrong! All the scholars accept the fact that independents source came to exists years after your death. The sources speaking The historical Jesus, not your miracles. Even not Josephus or Tacitus speaking about miracles of Jesus. However, are sources historical, and not divines
@@kraftmorrison Sorry. I suspect English is not your native language and you used an online translator. Unfortunately I couldn't figure out what you are trying to say.
I'm glad someone asked about John P Meier's books - I have several volumes and I was wondering what Ehrman made of them. I'd say that they are at an equal calibre of knowledge and balanced, honest assessment for sure, even if they come out to slightly different conclusions in particular details (that's to be expected anyway). Bart Ehrman fans could do worse than reading these too! Always better to read from multiple authors.
What do you mean by Jesus?
Could "end of times" actually have meant the end of an era? The end of worldliness and a worldly way of thinking instead of the literal, physical end of the world/earth?
Could then various people and Christians have mistaken this and gotten it switched around to mean something else and this apocalyptic thing that we see in Revelation?
Could the Second Coming, like the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, be with in us?
Thanks for reading
Shouldn't the real question be "How many Jesuses were there?"?
Oral transmission often creates compound characters where reports of several historical people are fused. King Arthur would be a good example.
Mythicists often don't believe the number of real Jesuses to have been 0, they don't think it's 1 either.
There was nothing written about King Arthur until like 700 years after his death while the first texts concerning Jesus were written within living memory 😂
@@JeffPenaify That’s not actually a good argument, because human memory is highly unreliable. A lot of research has quite clearly shown that our memories change over time and what we think what happened decades earlier (or who said something) is often just wrong.
Take the sermon on the mount, for example. Most people would probably say that those teachings are definitely what they think of, when they imagine “Jesus”. But this narrative appears exclusively in Matthew, written decades after the crucifixion. Now, it’s possible that Matthew just made this story up, but that is unlikely because Luke has a somewhat similar store. So, he probably wrote down a highly permutated account of something which occurred. But there is no reason to assume a priori that this sermon was given by the same guy who (supposedly) banned some demons into pigs. It’s not like there was a shortage of apocalyptic Jewish preachers back then.
You can’t even Occam’s Razor your way out of this because OR only applies to explanations of comparable explanatory power. E. g. the Standard Model of particle physics is much more complicated than Newtonian mechanics, but it pays for those complications by explaining more observations. And the many different accounts of Jesus’s acts in the Bible (at least to me) seems much better explained if we are looking at a compound figure.
@@lars-hendrikschilling3531 only a bad argument if you apply it towards a defacto interpretation of early christian writings. Peoples memory isnt reliable, but not to the point where they recall someone who didnt exist and was figment of imagination across multiple people who wrote about him within living memory of his life lmao
@@lars-hendrikschilling3531 whether or not stories of Jesus was compounded from other jewish preachers of his era over the years, is not foundation to say a Jesus of Nazareth didnt exist. in fact that lends more credence to another actual Jesus of the period who was so well known that supposed feats of his forgotten contemporaries were retroactively contributed to him. Maybe cause he was the one who got crucified.
I mean, given how many different and contradictory ideas about Jesus were bouncing around in early Christianity, I'm not entirely sure how much stock I'd put in the idea of "this must have been true cuz it's counter to this person's understanding/teachings about Jesus." It could be they thought it was true, but it was made up by or heard from a different group of Christians. See the debates about whether Jesus was divine or human.
After all, we just discussed a few weeks ago about how controversial it was to include Revelation in the Bible because it was so contrary to the portrayal of Jesus and Christianity. Does that mean we should accept Revelation as "true" because it's a theological outlier but managed to stay attached to the biblical canon anyway?
All Revelation really depicts is an alternate version of Christianity (and wishful thinking) where Rome is destroyed by God and the Christians inherit everything. It's basically a precursor to the Prosperity Gospel in a way.
I don't know. That rationale seems flimsy to me. Especially as someone who grew up Baptist. Ask 5 Baptists to describe Jesus and you'll get 10 contradictory descriptions - several of which have absolutely nothing to do with any Biblical passage or teaching. I mean, look at modern evangelicals - they will tell you all about how Jesus is love and he's all "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and he's also coming with an AR-15 and going to go all Rambo on the unbelievers. And they see absolutely no contradiction in there. If modern evangelicals can preach such contradictory things, why can't early Christians?
You are asking excellent questions. I encourage you to discover why Moslems and Jews today DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS DIVINE OR THE MESSIAH. I'm not suggesting they are correct in their analysis and conclusions, but at least you'll know what billions of other people think. 😇
@@andrewmays3988 I'm not sure how you got that I'm still a Christian out of my reply.
Early Christians don't say contradictory things, the first church is,the orthodox church it pre dates the catholic church by 1000 years, the bishop of Rome left the other bishops and started the catholic church , then all the other protestants and watered down Christianity started , watch jay dyer ,who'd was baptist then catholic for ten years now Orthodox
@@tasmarkou5681 Thank you for demonstrating you don't know anything about early Christianity. I'm talking about the period between Jesus' death and Christianity becoming the majority religion of Rome.
There were a ton of different versions of Christianity during that period (and after, but they started being repressed due to efforts to unify the religion in theology). In fact there were more differences in belief between Christians in that time period than there are now.
Gnostics in particular were a very popular group which believed that everything of the flesh was evil and sinful. As such, they completely rejected the idea that Jesus was human at all.
@@SadisticSenpai61 I know that what's your point
Bart is the mann! I love your work cowboy ty so much
Paul knew Peter but did he know James? In Galatians 1:19 Paul says but other of the apostles saw I none.
Contemporary’s of the Jesus lived decades after his death. There were dozens of intellectuals who lived in a radius to whom newsworthy details would have drifted. Writers such as Philo, whose writings are read even today never mentioned this guy. What does this totally ignoring of such interesting miracles seem odd. I think it’s a valid question. Cheers Mike
Don't straw-man the professional historians, thank you. "Casual" misdirections like yours are pathetically transparent. "Miracles" have nothing to do with the conclusions generated by professional historians today on the rabbi Jesus. Reliable anti-Christian non-apologetic a-hagiographic non-scriptural sources like Tacitus and at least one or two others all confirm an historical ordinary rabbi who was nailed by the imperialist Roman occupation as a simple human troublemaker. The real history of this rabbi, duly analyzed by modern professional academic secular researchers, circles around civil disturbances and not "miracles" at all. In fact, those civil disturbances are perfectly clear without even bothering to read any scripture, thank you -- something of which you're probably well aware, even though you "fail" to mention that.
Because there were many supposed miracle workers, Jesus wasn't special and Romans hardly troubled themselves with the superstitions of the provinces. Until they became to big to ignore.
Just amazing hair Megan... reminds me of my Hill Billy High School Chemistry class in 1962 in Viriginia. My lab partner's brother changed her hair color every weekend. Thanks for reminding me of how futuristic we were way back then. You should suggest something for Bart to do with his but I can't imagine what. I was an atheist even then. Hi to Bart.
I’m a Greek Orthodox and a church going… can someone tell me… how can someone believe thr historical books written by various historians… and believe what they had written centuries ago before Jesus Christ was born??? Or even after he died….?
34:34 - was this prediction about these things happening within their lifetime/generation only said before the crucifixion?
Perhaps what they were predicting, was NOT a welcome thing and that, amongst other things, Jesus ‘Bought us Some Time’, as it were, on the cross?
Thank you Bart and Megan for the ever interesting episode. Absolutely love each and every of them❤
I suspect people who watched this video hoping to see Ehrman address mythicism are disappointed. I was. I also suspect not discussing mythicism was a precondition of the interview, which the interviewer more or less acknowledged at the intro. Well, OK -- Ehrman’s channel, Ehrman’s rules. I’m not a historian, just a bloke who’s read about the historical Jesus (including Bart Ehrman’s books) and watched a lot of videos about the topic. Am I a mythicist? No, I believe it’s more likely than not that there was a historical figure who’s been mythicized. But I don’t think mythicists are crazy, as Ehrman does, though he doesn’t say so in this video. His vehemence about the issue has a ‘whistling past the graveyard’ quality about it. He also stakes his position too much on academic credentials for my taste, which allows easy dismissal of people like Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price. Mythicists are probably wrong, but they're not crazy. Around 1905 a nobody working in the patent office in Switzerland who was fond of thought experiments published some articles that seemed crazy to many in the scientific community about light, gravity, and something that came to be called ‘relativity’ and, well, the rest is history. Ehrman is too quick to dismiss people who lack what he thinks are requisite academic credentials. It’s a bad look, professor.
There's a common assumption that "Jesus" refers to a single person. Could it be that there was a multiplicity of figures who were, in some sense, candidates for messiah? Bart has picked out one of these: one who preached immanent establishment of an exterior kingdom, neglecting what points to a "kingdom within".
The question is do we have evidence to support this thesis? Is there any evidence that these figures were in any way connected to the Jesus movement? What do the earliest sources say, and how do they understand the Jesus figure? Etc.
There could very well be a synthesis of historicism and mythicism. I would speculate that there may have been historical would-be messiahs who were incorporated to the Christ myth story.
The only reason concern i have with saying the synoptic gospels are not distinct accounts from another unfound source, is that when Greeks learned to write in ancient history, thye would take source material and put their spin on the material. Since most people believe that Matthew was targeting more Jewish minded christians and Mark and Luke were written for a Gentile audience, it would make sense there would be differences in the accounts even if Mark was the original source for the other two.
Additionally, there are decades between the gospels from what most historians account and the gospels may have had to adjust their messages to target those audiences.
Bart (he/him) is right as usual...
Of course! He's El-hrman!
😂🤦🏻♂️
We really appreciate the effort but you don’t have to randomly provide someone else’s pronouns
Even though I no longer identify as a Christian, I still enjoy these sessions.
I have only recently (X-mas) discovered Bart just scanning around YT. Since then I’ve been binge watching his podcasts. I have gained a new appreciation and respect for what biblical scholars do; methodology and reasoning, it makes sense to me now. Great work Bart you have a new fan.
Regarding the comments on John were Jesus makes claims that he and father are one, or that before Abraham was, I am.
Is it feasible that the gospel of John is a turning point, where there is further re-definition of who God is (from the Old Testament and even the earlier gospels) So, rather than a willful entity up in the sky acting upon us, God is ALL of creation and that the essence of God is purely SPIRITUAL.
In that sense, being we are all part of creation (smack in the middle of it) and that spirit is “eternal”, can then Jesus (with this advanced understanding) claim those things about himself?
Is the gospel of John a more “metaphysical” aproach to the gospel message compared to the other gospels?
I know all this sounds very “new agey” but is there any other evidence that this kind of thinking is not new at all and may have originated as far back as the first century?
It would be great if Bart could supply more information on the sources he said were being written throughout the world at the same time the gospels were written. I have not heard anyone else state this and internet searches come up with nothing. Perhaps these are new discoveries?
Bart should just make his own Bible ✝ translation *at this* point 📌. 🤷
Perhaps there is no solitary chronical of the classic era that mentions Jesus and very few mention Christians.
@@russellmiles2861Bart already mentioned the fonts in your book. Josephus, Tacitus, Mara Bara serapion, etc
I attended a Lutheran Seminary in the mid to late 1970's. The favorite course for me was "The Jesus of History Christ of Faith debate" and we did comparative Greek Synoptic Gospel comparisons. It was and still is interesting to me. We also looked at scholars like Albert Schweitzer and his "Quest for the Historical Jesus" dating from early 2oth Century if my memory serves. Thanks Bart and Megan for these.
So did Jesus really say he would be back and some people who were alive would still be alive when he returned?
Well, sort of, but not the part about "I'll be back, and you'll still be alive." It's more like "God is going to cleanse the Earth before this generation ends (or before some of the people in the audience die)."
The first relevant statement is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus says, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The "things" he's referring to are the coming apocalypse -- God coming to destroy the powers of evil and establish his kingdom on Earth. That did not happen within that generation. So he was wrong about that.
There is also the statement in Matthew, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." He's talking about that same apocalyptic vision of God coming down, destroying evil, and establishing his Kingdom on Earth. Again, that did not happen -- everyone who was standing there died, and we've still got lots of evil in the world. So he was wrong about that, too.
Bart will explain this better than I can. It sounds like they will address this in an upcoming episode.
There's no way of knowing.
Even if you do think he was a real dude, there's no way to verify that anything said about or by him is accurate. Even the mundane stuff is not evidenced anywhere.
Remember, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence. All we have in the gospels are people writing decades later claiming he did things. Paul only ever talks about his visions of Jesus. Jesus and most of his pals are shadows to history.
@@rainbowkrampus So you can't use the Bible as evidence? That's stupid.
@@Arven8 Uh, no?
You can definitely use it as evidence that claims were made by people about certain subjects.
What you cannot do is take those claims and declare them as evidence.
Otherwise you'd have to accept that me saying, "I have a unicorn." is evidence that I have a unicorn. Which, in case there is any confusion, it is not and I do not.
@@rainbowkrampusI believe you do. Only a true unicorn owner would deny it's existence
It's a well-known phenomenon that most police, interrogators, etc. are aware of, namely that when witnesses' stories are identical, or the details match too closely, the story is very likely a lie. This is because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable in the details of their reports: Witness 1: "I remember it clearly: the guy was wearing black socks." Witness 2: "I remember it clearly: the guy wasn't wearing any socks." It's not even uncommon for the same witness to remember the details of their account differently if they're questioned at a later time.
The writers of the NT knew this well, which is why they included four different versions in their "scripture." This alleviates many problems at once, including the above mentioned issue. In addition, if you have only one account and any of it it is proved false, then the whole story collapses. Using this multiple reporting technique, the writers not only played into the basic phenomenon of human nature (i.e., the tendency of eyewitness claims to diverge) to attempt to lend credibility to their tale, but also had an easy out to circumvent potential errors that might arise in any one of the fictional accounts.
Another purpose this technique serves is to deflect attention from the absurdities themselves to arguments *about* the absurdities. For example, one account could be: "JC went to the 7/11 at 9pm." Another might be, "Yes, he went to the 7/11, but it was at midnight." The third says, "you're both wrong. It wasn't the 7/11, it was the Stop and Go." The fourth is "No, he walked past the Stop and Go at 9pm and past the 7/11 at midnight, but didn't actually go in." Now the debate shifts from the complete unlikelihood that JC was ever at a 7/11 (or "risen from the dead," or whatever the absurd claim might be), and onto the the specifics of the claims.
The inventors of the jesus tale got a h3ll of a lot wrong in their attempts to take from the Hebrew Bible, but they were very clever in manipulation tactics and techniques, which are pervasive all through the NT.
Another important question on this topic is: if the NT is allegedly the "word of God," how could there in fact be ANY conflicting accounts? That would obviously be nonsensical and inconsistent with the generally understood nature of God as being truthful, all-knowing, etc.
In discussing accounts of "visits to the afterlife" are you familiar with Flann O'Brien's vision of Hell in "The Third Policeman"?
nope
Bart should be. Isn't that one of the books behind him?
mysticism is seriously being debated in the field, there are multiple peer reviewed PhD historians who are arguing the case and what I find really disheartening from a very accomplished scholar like dr. Ehrman is his complete unwillingness to actually address their position. I'm personally pretty agnostic about the situation, but I just think it's really strange that's so many scholars seem afraid to address the actual position of the mythicists....
Because they know there's a serious lack of evidence, and their historicist view is their job security.
Dr. Ehrman thinks the holocaust is real too.
Really lack if evidence?i suppose every ancient document that writes BC and A D is based on a Myth, or you could tell me why the Jewish Talmud recorded his crucifixion, his accusers, also called him a sorcerer ,which is evidence that he had some supernatural ability, and many other historians also Flavious Josephus
Thalus
Tactus
Pliny the younger
Suetonius..
@@tasmarkou5681 @Tas Markou perhaps if you actually knew anything about these sources that you have provided you wouldn't make such glaring mistakes.... The Talmud for example put this Jesus character over 100 years earlier in history and has a completely different story... the other people you mentioned are simply repeating what is being said by Christians and/or what can be found in the gospels (which are definitively fiction).. this is not good evidence
@@tasmarkou5681 Right, well no one ever actually SAW Jesus. Saul/Paul is a good example. Christians "see" things and have an invisible friend they imagine. They have "visions" and hear voices talking to them. Josephus is another good example, because the Flavianum has long been considered a forged phrase that Josephus never wrote. It was inserted by ANOTHER lying Christian. And don't get me started on the MILLIONS of people Christians have killed for failing to become Christian. Murderers. Lunatics. Monsters.
This episode was so eye opening for me. The idea that the gospels need to be looked at as, writings that were not written with the intent of them being included in the new testament. (Head slap…duh. I never considered that important!) Just as a non-sequitur, my mind never focuses well: did Bart and Megan coordinate their glasses so they could look cohesive side by side?? Sorry Bart, Megan wins!
lol
Please make the mythicist video. Too many are sharing quotes from the Robert Price debate saying, "even Ehrman says there is no evidence for Jesus". They always ignore the next sentence in that debate, assuming they even bothered to watch it.
I hate that. I see it all the time and from atheists who claim to do more research then Christians.
I hate that. I see it all the time and from atheists who claim to do more research than Christians.
What would you make of someone writing a biography of acdc in the year 2000 and it's accuracy given its is over 3 decades since the Banda inception. Unreliable?
It is weird how worked up about this the Jesus Myth mythers can get about this stuff. After all, Ehrman really agrees with them for the most part, i.e., most of the stuff you read about Jesus is myth but that's not good enough for the myth mythers. To them, it must be 100% myth or else.
It's Just about being intellectually honest. We have no proofs for Jesus, so this is most likely he was invented to serve a narrative. We say this about Buddha, we can't say this about Jesus even though common sense would tell you he is just a myth.
The thing is, how can we tell what is historical form fiction works? I'm still waiting for a valid methodology.
@@maatjusticia3954 that's precisely historians job : try to find what is historical and what is not using historical method.
Jesus was either a real person or he wasn't. He was either 100% a real man or 100% a myth. Having the opinion that he was 100% a myth is one of only two available options. So your comment is nonsense.
@@donnievance1942 nope, like many historical figures he is also the subject of unprovable legends. He's mostly, but not entirely, myth. And your silly all-or-nothing dichotomy, in addition to proving my original point, is 100% nonsense.
This has become a weekly highlight for me. Bart and Meghan make a fantastic team
It's Megan (she/her) OKAY?
@@maximuspike NO
13:40 🤣🤣 This sounds like a fun class.
Using these standards, I could also say that someone like Luke Skywalker existed. Lots of people wrote about Luke and his dad, lots of different people. Maybe in another 1,000 years we could say that Harry Potter existed. It’s called fan fiction.
Quite a lot was written about the Greek gods, but we don’t automatically assume they exist. Another issue I have is dismissing mythicism by saying it isn’t seriously debated among scholars today… That is just flatly untrue. Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and many others have reached different conclusions based on the evidence or lack of it they’ve uncovered. And while not a “scholar”, David Fitzgerald’s book, Nailed - 10 Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All lays them out quite well.
Well by your reasoning we can dismiss that anyone in history existed. Become all we have are stories.
@@ceceroxy2227 Except that's not the case. There is actual empirical evidence for many historical figures. Nice try.
@@Ergeniz that is all fake evidence to support the story.
@@Ergeniz Except Christians and historians from 1 century agreed Jesus exsisted and basic facts about him while today historians and people know spiderman is not real. Guys pls learn some archeology and history before saying something stupid.
We lost him under the layers of legend
When we peal the onion there's nothing of substancial in historical terms
Finally, getting to the historical realities and probabilities of Jesus. I didn't know there was nothing written about the great figures of his day ... Makes me wonder how we know about Pontius Pilate and a long etc. So, thanks for this (maybe one "thanks" is enough ... not one for every question answered!?!)
00:02 Exploring the historicity of Jesus
02:15 Examining the historical sources of Jesus.
06:25 Jesus is believed to have existed based on multiple independent sources.
08:36 Historical value of the Gospels
12:46 Similarities in synoptic gospels indicate copying.
14:34 Matthew, Mark, and Luke used Mark as one source but also had access to other material.
18:12 Scholars use rigorous methods to study and evaluate historical sources about Jesus.
20:05 Jesus' historical existence and basic life events
23:57 Limited written sources about Pontius Pilate in the first century
25:52 Need independent sources for Jesus' existence
29:35 Discussion on the webinar 'Will He Be Left Behind' about the Rapture
31:25 Having one lengthy biographical source for Jesus makes him unlikely to be a mythical figure.
35:23 Historians focus on if a prediction was made, not if it came true.
37:12 Jesus believed in an imminent apocalyptic intervention
40:54 Gospels were attributed to Jesus' followers, not written by Jesus.
42:50 Apocalyptic texts emphasize forces of evil punishing people
46:46 Jesus predicting the end of the world
The only evidence we have for the existence of Jesus are primarily the Gospels which Bart Ehrman has proven to be unreliable and not the original copies. There are no contemporary writings describing Jesus by the people of his time.
Bart literally said there is evidence he existed. But don’t have much details about what he was like. Just as we have no details about anyone in the ancient world
Actually there is far more archeaological evidence of other ancient people like Caesar for example than with Jesus. There are no coins with Jesus picture. There are no statues from the contemporary time period etc. etc. I think Jesus is a myth just like other characters out of the Bible. @aaraar7929
I have a hard time not being distracted by the lady’s strange glasses and pink hair. 😂
She/her!
The PRONOUNS were more than enough.
Those suggestions are great, but where should a lay person start with Bart's works?
"Forged"
There exists no method by which we can determine Jesus said the words attributed to him. It’s that simple.
Jesus may have actually existed, but from what I hear, the case isn't a strong one
Jesus not existing is not strong hypothesis either...
@@chefchaudard3580 positing that he didn't exist is like saying Hercules didn't exist.
There's probably guys named that, even guys who were strong there might be guys who did some amount of the things attributed to Hercules. But that doesn't mean the son of zeus actually existed.
@@chefchaudard3580 so yeah you could say a guy named Jesus probably existed, he might have done a fraction of things they say. But that's not the son of God story people think of as Jesus.
@@chefchaudard3580 even ehrman has admitted the whole brother of Jesus thing could be referring to the belief that brothers of christ would be any Christian as they are the sons of God and thus Jesus is their brother. We cannot know if the Jesus brother thing was a blood brother or even a misunderstanding.
I don't have any issue saying any person in Jesus time that is said to have existed might be a myth 🤷♂️
@@madgodloki there are many people cited in books we have no reason to doubt they actually existed. Even if they are cited in passing in only one book. So, no wonder there.
James, jesus brother, is also cited in Josephus. Not being a christian, for him, "brother" means blood brother.
I have accepted that Dr. Ehemain’s view of the existence of the historical Jesus is far more informed and non-biased a view as I will ever have. That said, if Jesus could be shown to be a mythical figure, pretty much all of New Testament historians would be out of a job. Also, I think we shouldn’t compare Jesus to all personalities in the ancient world, but only to those to whom miracles are attributed. It is very difficult to believe that people in the time of Jesus were so convinced of things that cannot be historically accurate, even though he never said, and did most of the things the gospels in the epistles describe.
_["That said, if Jesus could be shown to be a mythical figure, pretty much all of New Testament historians would be out of a job."]_
No, they wouldn't. Their job would change. It would now be about sorting out how the New Testament developed despite no historical core.
@@Kyeudo perhaps. But it would be about as popular a job as polishing basketballs.
And as I said, I accept Dr Ehrmans views as the best we can know.
@@tadmorrison New Testament historical scholarship isn't that popular now anyway, but it would remain the ideological basis for much of western history. Understanding those roots would still make for useful scholarship.
@@Kyeudo to scholars, yes
Carl von Clausewitz wrote a lengthy tome on war.
Somehow he managed to make only one passing reference to the navy.
That much for the was not written about ergo did not exist argument.
There should be a place where all those historical texts are compiled
7:28 Ehrman claims that Paul knew Jesus's disciples but this is not true. Paul knew some men who after his death were portrayed as disciples of Jesus by Mark. Paul never refers to anyone being a disciple, never even uses the word. He only knows Apostles, and to him, that is some one who has had a revelation of the risen Jesus. Ehrman here is implying that Paul confirms he knows of people who followed Jesus around & were installed in leadership positions by him. This information is conspicuously what Paul does not say, he has nothing at all to say about anyone knowing or doing anything with Jesus before his resurrection. Ehrman here is working with an unevidenced assumption.