Did Jesus Exist or Not?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- A MythVision Patron member asked Dr. Joshua Bowen if Jesus existed as a historical person.
Grab Dr. Joshua Bowen's books amzn.to/3JJaCPX
Subscribe to @DigitalHammurabi
Subscribe to our second channel
@mythvisionTV
==============================
*SIGN UP FOR RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE*
Dr. James Tabor's "Jesus and The Dead Sea Scrolls" mythvisionpodcast.com/dss
Historical problems with The Bible & Quran (Bart Ehrman and Javad Hashmi)
mythvisionpodcast.com/bible&q...
Dr. Jodi Magness "Archaeology in the Time of Jesus"
mythvisionpodcast.com/timeofj...
Dr. James Tabor's "Creating Jesus: Why Mark’s Gospel Was Forgotten?"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/fir...
Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course "Paul's Legacy"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/paulslegacy
Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course "The Gospels Masterclass"
mythvisionpodcast.com/gospels
Sign up here for Dennis MacDonald's course "Reading The Gospels With One Eye on Greek Poetry - www.mythvisionpodcast.com/hom...
Dr. Kipp Davis Course "The Real Ancient Israelite Religions"
mythvisionpodcast.com/israeli...
Dr. Richard Carrier's Course "New Testament Studies For Everyone."
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/nt-...
Dr. M. David Litwa's course - "The Ancient Greek Mysteries & Christianity"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/mys...
Dr. Dale C. Allison Jr's course - "The Quest For The Historical Jesus" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/jes...
SIGN UP FOR BART EHRMAN COURSES BELOW:
"The Genius of The Gospel of Matthew"
mythvisionpodcast.com/matthew
Dr. Jodi Magness "Archaeology in the Time of Jesus"
mythvisionpodcast.com/timeofj...
Scribal Corruption of Scripture -
mythvisionpodcast.com/corruption
Mark course "The Unknown Jesus"
mythvisionpodcast.com/unknown...
"Finding Moses"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/moses
"Other Virgin Births In Antiquity"
www.mythvisionpodcast.com/vir...
7 hour resurrection debate Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona "Resurrection" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/res...
Genesis "In The Beginning" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/gen...
"Christmas" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/chr...
"Did Jesus call himself God" www.mythvisionpodcast.com/bart
======================================
RECOMMENDED ONLINE COURSES HERE 👉 linktr.ee/mythvision
**GET RECOMMENDED BOOKS HERE: 👉 amzn.to/35FqNYf
Please consider helping support MythVision's work by joining the Patreon or contributing a one-time donation through my links below:
MythVision Website: 🔥 mythvisionpodcast.com/
MythVision Patreon: 👉 / mythvision
MythVision Paypal: 👉 www.paypal.me/dereklambert7
Cashapp: 👉 $rewiredaddiction
Venmo: 👉 @Derek-Lambert-9
Email MythVision: 👉 mythvisionpodcast@gmail.com
👉👉 Checkout MVP Courses to find new and upcoming online courses:
mvp-courses.com/
===========================
Chapters:
00:00:00 - Historical Jesus or Mythicist Argument?
00:02:41 - Gaining Mastery of a Topic
00:05:26 - The Dangers of Dismissing Expertise
00:08:12 - Recognizing Consensus and Expertise
00:10:42 - The importance of subject matter expertise in data analysis
00:13:15 - The Muddy Waters of Conspiracy Theories
00:15:44 - Considering the impact on brand and value
00:18:18 - Can I still be a Christian if Jesus didn't rise from the dead?
00:20:43 - Being a Contrarian in Theology
00:23:17 - The Importance of Belief
#mythvision #Jesus #Bible
It is just one big, long, appeal to authority fallacy. If I ask a biologist why evolution is true, they respond with evidence. Heck, even asking a historian, "how do we know Julius Caesar existed?" will get you a bunch of facts and evidence. But ask about Jesus and apparently you need advanced degrees to even think about it.
This.
Did the letter J exist in ancient Hebrew?
Later J did not exist in Hebrew then or now
A number of figures similar to Jesus including several Neo-Platonic Greco-Romans, Jewish Zealots (violent) and Jewish Ghandi equivalent peace ✌ nicks. A Jesus existed names Yashua most likely not Jesus.
💯
My level of skepticism is so over the top, I don't think religion exists
Lol!😅😂
That wouldn’t be skepticism.
@@seanluzdeluna8153 😄
I don’t even think the human race exists.
@@moonshoes11 Skepticism? Nah that's probably not real either.
😁
Yeah, there was a Saint Nick... But the mythological version of Santa Claus is not real just because people believe it.
If Santa Claus isn't real, why do we both know what He looks like?
@@afwalker1921 Thomas Nast, the political cartoonist.
@@ji8044 Snicker! I believe the nice people at Coca-Cola share in the blame...
A very nearly perfect analogy I think.
@@ji8044 We'll call Nast "N." But we also have other sources, like C (Coka-Cola), and M (Macy's), so the appearance of Santa Claus is one of the better-attested facts of history!
the problem with relying on consensus is 60 years ago the consensus was the patriarchs and Moses existed if we just relied on the consensus then that would still be the consensus
No, it wouldn’t.
Expert consensus was that the world was flat. Expert consensus was against plate tectonics. Expert consensus would not have even imagined evolution by Darwinian means…….but someone publicly submitted their ideas for their peers to review.
Whatever the academic subject, there is the system of publishing research and arguments in peer reviewed academic journals.
Human beings are very bad judges of their own work and their own opinions. The best judges of our work and opinions is that of other experts in the field. Experts that have a vested interest in proving their peers wrong. This goes for all academic branches. NT scholarship is no different.
The mythicist conclusions are deemed more improbable by historians, by using consistent historical methods.
I rely on consensus for all subjects that I am a non expert in (which is 99.999999% of all subjects). When expert consensus changes, so do my opinions.
@@secretgoldfish931 so that's advocating challenging consensus not relying on it. Change happens when ppl challenge it n push against it not just accept it n move on. "experts" can make up all sorts of crap about Jesus n get it published but don't dare say he didn't exist nope cant challenge that 1
NT scholarship has been notoriously biased historically and even continues today with faith statements required by certain organizations and schools.
@@secretgoldfish931 u just described challenging and pushing back against consensus not relying on it.
Can we stop pretending that biblical studies especially NT aren't biased as hell. "experts" can write all sorts of crap about their version of the historical Jesus n get it published but u better not challenge historicity or be ostracized
@@manbearpig3507you’re missing the point.
Consensus is consensus for a reason - because the challenging ideas need to stand up to scrutiny - by other experts in the field that are duly motivated to disconfirm the challenging ideas. Not the challenges of uneducated arm chair experts on the internet, who have ‘done their own research’ and can’t follow the supporting arguments in the field.
And when the challenging idea is better, consensus changes. There’s very often the reward of a Nobel Prize and the small matter of being remembered for centuries in future history books to motivate people. Everyone wants to be the person that proved consensus wrong and now humanity is better because of your contribution.
Of course change happens when ideas are challenged. But it’s the reasons and arguments that result in the change. Not just that an idea is being challenged, but the quality of the challenge.
Otherwise we give credence to every idea that challenges consensus, however bonkers, particularly when the flaws with those challenges are quite clear to experts.
This is the issue with mythicism - it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny by historians who use consistently applied techniques to try to work out what probably happened. Not what definitely happened, but probably happened.
And, yes ManBearPig, I get your reference, these principles apply to anthropogenic climate change too. Global warming as a result of human activity is a thing and we know because of the published work of experts all over the educated world. 😉
@@secretgoldfish931I would be really curious to see a study of how many commonly cited NT scholars have signed faith agreements. I think Dr.Josh's mistake here is history isn't like science, or math. It's incredibly subjective. I am fairly shocked that a lot of NT scholars make statements of facts just because they think something is true. Dale Allison's argument that the author of Matthew knew Hebrew in a recent stream was basically it seems to him he does. NT scholarship is frequently criticized for lacking data driven arguments. I think it's also nearly impossible in most situations for a lay person to determine what the consensus is in any field of study. Let alone a very niche field like NT study.
A masterclass in dodging the question with a direct answer.
He knows what would happen to him if he said out loud what the evidence indicates; it is far from an idle worry, in his position. Whenever I hear anybody credible defend historicity, invariably they cite something _even I_ recognize as bogus. Robin Walsh, for example, explains that she can't accept that Paul and Peter were lying, apparently all unaware that no mythicist suggests any such thing. It is the same for everybody else: every single time, they explain that something they have _made up_ (or, being more charitable, _heard about_ ) mythicism doesn't sit well. And they are right, that thing they made up isn't right. But it is a non-sequitur. Literally everybody who writes against it demonstrates _over and over_ that they have not even read what they claim to be criticizing.
Hey Derek, big fan of you man. Wanted to tell you that I’m over 3 years drug and alcohol free and some of your earlier videos helped me get through the withdrawals. Had no idea you had this channel, thanks man!
I think the channel name still works whether there was a historical Jesus or not. The definition of myth works either way.
Mythology doesn't even mean something is necessarily fictional. It's just the stories around something. George Washington's mythology includes the crossing of the Delaware and the chopping down of a cherry tree.
I think it would be more accurate to call stories made up about George Washington as "legends" rather than "myths". "Myth" sounds more religious, like explaining a world view or tradition or natural phenomenon like Greek Mythology, rather than non-religious heroic stories inspired by a historic person.
The difference between Washington's mythology and New Testament mythology is Washington's mythology was not constructed by pesher from the Tanakh.
Spot on.
If someone thinks the bible doesn't have mythology, they probably don't understand what the word means.
If Jesus was real because “people couldn’t have made him up completely”, then so were all the earlier personal saviour gods.
Challenging the consensus is the heart of the scientific method.
Not by spouting unwarranted absolute claims you're not changing it sweetie
@@notanemoprog You say that, but disproving bogus claims leads to more research and advancements all the time
@@abelbabel8484 Can you read? "Disproving" is a term with a well-defined meaning, and this meaning does not include "spouting unwarranted absolute claims"
@@dirkjensen969 I'll allow it.
@name_christian Challenging the consensus only once you’ve followed the evidence to that point.
Challenging the consensus without evidence is the heart of conspiracy theories
I appreciate the fact that Bowen admits that he doesn't have the expertise to completely debunk mythicism.
And if more of the "consensus" scholars were as honest, we would probably see a lot more people taking a more reasonable position which is being skeptical of the historicity of Jesus.
But it is so easy ... Point out just one lie - discredits everything else
But the difference is that Bowen admits it because he's not a New Testament scholar. It's not his field. That doesn't imply that actual NT scholars should also admit they don't have the expertise. It is their field. They do have it.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 "NT scholars" _ought to_ have the expertise, but they very strangely don't. Every last comment by an "NT scholar" on the question seriously misrepresents the arguments and the evidence. They all clearly recognize the need to prevaricate to maintain their case, which should tell us all we need to know. 2nd, 3rd, and 4th-century Christians also clearly recognized their problem, and set about producing absolutely prodigious piles of forgery -- dozens of gospels, dozens of actses, dozens of epistles, inserting bogus paragraphs into authentic documents -- to try to plug the gaping hole. They, anyway, understood what thin ice they were on.
In the "fundamentalist view " Adam and Eve actually existed and started humanity. In the less fundamentalist view, they are a metaphorical beginning of the Israelite people. Jesus has a "geneology" to non-existent or metaphorical people. There may have been a person who inspired him and even of the same name, but it's impossible to tell anymore. That's my current opinion.
When people claim there's a "historical Jesus" who inspired the gospels, my question is, "which one?" I have yet to receive an answer.
If Jesus died and rose again millions of people would’ve gathered around for this event and the whole world wouldn’t have to guess ❤
Just before I deconverted, that was one of the things that didn't make sense to me. Jesus rose from the dead as king of kings, with all power and authority in heaven and on Earth vested in Him, so he quietly ascended up to Heaven with only a handful of people knowing these things.
@@nuttysquirrel8816 We shouldn’t have to look for our parents for thousands of years 😂
@@nuttysquirrel8816 and if he was real then what did he sacrifice as he went to heaven to sit at the right hand so to speak for eternity.
Matthew 27:51-53 even says that MANY people were resurrected from their graves and walked around Jerusalem after the crucifixion, and were witnessed by the population. And that raising of countless dead didn't leave any other records in current reports?! Not even the other gospels report it like that!
Something is VERY fishy with Jesus. (Pun intended.) The Bible is either symbolic myth, or has been heavily edited and rewritten over the first five or so centuries. Maybe both.
His Kingdom was not of this world as He said. It was designed to happen that way, He would then come back and judge during the AD 70 temple destruction, using the Roman armies. Just like God did in the Old T when He would bring armies against Israel in judgment. Only this time, it was the end of the Old C and the bringing in of the New.
The evidence His kingdom is here, but yet not of the world physically, is that Christianity has literally changed the world. The values you cherish, the freedoms you have, all came on the back of the Protestant revolution. Watch some videos with Tom Holland the author as he has researched this extensively.
As for millions of people gathering around, He was crucified as a rebel rouser false Messiah, to the Jews at that time, He was just a trouble maker, but different than they had seen, because of His miracles and claims to be God, and they were fearful He would lead everyone astray. His resurrection was deliberately not in front of the Priest and too many people as the judgment He had predicted was already in the process because they killed Him as it was prophesied.
But Jesus told them who He was and that He would judge them in that generation. Sure enough, the temple was destroyed just like He said.
I really hope you have more of these one-on-one conversations stored up to just drop like this… they’re my favourite!
I approach this topic from two directions:
1. The mythicist hypothesis is just that-- a hypothesis. But that also means it should be brought in to see if it explains the evidence. I do think it has explanatory power, as well as predictive power for the type of evidence we will likely find in the future.
2. In addition to the mythicist hypothesis, looking at New Testament writing as primarily literary in nature needs to be considered. If anything, watching the scholars (Richard C. Miller, Robyn Faith Walsh, Dennis MacDonald) say more or less that NT scholars don't know the background of Greek literary culture in which the NT arose means there is a lot to weigh, and reconsider, as it makes the texts more fiction than history.
Example:
I find Ken Olson's work on the Testimonium Flavianum (TF) in Joseph's Antiquities to be most persuasive-- the language is Eusebian, and so most or all of what we see has been interpolated. We have no clear evidence of what was there before, if there was anything at all.
How Josephus was quoted decades before Eusebius is the best evidence that the TF was not original. Origen quotes Josephus against Celsus, citing clearly the John the Baptist passage, and saying nothing about the TF, which would have been a stellar quote for his argument. Its absence in Origen speaks volumes.
The later James (brother of Jesus, called Christ) passage a few chapters later is highly suspect, in that Origin does not directly cite it, and broadly mischaracterizes what Josephus has written. A hypothesis that best explains this is that Origen was thinking about what Hegesippus wrote, about the killing of James preceding the invasion by Vespasian, and eventual destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus is only writing about the succession of high priests in Jerusalem-- there is no focus on the fall of Jerusalem, and if the word "Christ" had appeared it was left with no explanation or follow-up. Origin is clearly thinking about something very different from what appears in Josephus.
Having read through all the other quotes by Origen on this, and related topics, I see a picture emerging of accidental misattribution (a kind of mistake which can be found elsewhere in Origen's writings). I think Origen was drawn to the James passage (with no mention of Christ) because there was discussion (or a scribal note left by Jewish reader) about who caused the fall of Jerusalem. The passage includes the character of Ananus, whose death in Josephus' earlier work The Jewish War, was described as the cause of the fall of Jerusalem.
Because Origen on several occasions excitedly hypes up the reasons for the fall of Jerusalem (angry that some think it was because of James, when it should have been because of the death of Jesus), I think he misremembered this passage in Josephus and conflated it with what Hegesippus wrote about James and the eventual fall of Jerusalem. Origen does not clearly cite the location in Antiquities XX when writing about James and the fall of Jerusalem in Contra Celsum.
Later, between the time of Origen and Eusebius someone probably added a clarifying line about who James was in this Josephus passage (believing it was helpful, and must be so, because Origen had previously written about it), and this was carried forward in the manuscript tradition. As Ken Olson stated, the scriptorium where Eusebius worked is the verified source for the entire surviving manuscript tradition of Philo, and so it's possible that all later copies of Josephus went through the Christianizing hands of the scribes there.
This means that there are very good explanations for the two passages about Christ in Josephus, which, at minimum, do not make Josephus a clearcut reliable source for anything about Christ.
Exactly!
The Testimonium Flavianum calls Christians a tribe and doesn't blame the Jewish leadership so it's probably partially authentic. Celsus was no mythicist so Origen had no reason to bring it or the nearly undisputed James passage up.
@@tomasrocha6139 One would have to argue that Eusebius was so impressed by the language and ideas of the TF that he imitated it elsewhere in his writing. In addition, Eusebius uses the passage in extended arguments that make the passage take on meanings different from what appears in Josephus. In those arguments, Eusebius is responding to a claim that Jesus was wise, but not divine, and is using the passage to reflect points he wants to make in favor of his argument (the nature of Jesus' divinity was a hot topic of debate in the fourth century). This means that the TF has many more lines that mean a lot more to Eusebius than what they might have meant for Josephus. Olson has done a good job explaining that the interpolations can be shown to be much wider than the low-hanging fruit phrases that sound truly Christian, to the point where the whole passage can be argued an interpolation.
In addition, the context in which Origen uses the James passage needs to be addressed. Steve Mason thinks "called Christ" is typical Josephus, in that he adds nicknames occasionally (the "smudged one" may be how a reader ignorant of Christianity may read that word). However, Origen uses what he thinks that passage is about (the fall of Jerusalem) in ways that go beyond anything in the passage. The alternative hypothesis for later scribal insertion to fix Origen's earlier misattribution explains all the evidence, given Origen's arguments and tendencies across his writings, which are not usually addressed by those only looking at the passage in isolation in the context of the rest of Josephus.
@@tomasrocha6139 this is a false claim. Josephus never uses the word tribe (phylon)anywhere- it’s actually Eusebius that uses the term (as well as other ethnic terms)- please read Ken Olson’s articles on this (he is not a mythicist). historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html?m=1.
Olson has shown other Eusebian traits.
2. Also the “uproar”/ calamity mentioned in the next paragraph after TF would aptly refer to the killing of innocent Jews by undercover Roman soldiers (in the paragraph prior to TF currently)
3. Josephus is the most widely referenced writer of the region in the GrecoRoman world in antiquity- there is no way Martyr, Ireneus, Origen (or Celsius) Tertullian and other apologists simply did not chose to comment on TF if it existed (and whatever it said period).
The Law of Moses (Hebrew: תֹּורַת מֹשֶׁה Torat Moshe), also called the Mosaic Law, (10 Commandment’s) is the law said to have been revealed to Moses by God.
The term primarily refers to the Torah or the first five books of the Hebrew Bible.
The Bible wasn’t written by one man! It has 63,779 cross references. If one man wrote a book that accurate he would be considered greatest composer of all time!
The bible was written by 40 men most who never met each other. It was written in 3 different languages.
It was over 3 different continents over a period of 1500 years. Without divine inspiration that’s absolutely impossible. 💯
(Let that sink in!)
The Bible is not a book about religion. The bible is a book of principals, promises, practices, precepts, patterns, prayers & prophecy!
It will give you the ability to make predictions about outcomes in the future, so you can know what’s gonna happen before it happens, and so you can position yourself in the path of prosperity meaning “Everlasting Life!”
John 3:16 KJV
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, thatt whosoever “believeth in him” should not perish, but have everlasting life. ❤️ 🙏🏼
Hey, Derek. Your work is fantastic. I look forward to the day when we can exchange ideas about the existence of Jesus.
You just did last night, as one of your panel pals was being taken in spirit to the Third Heaven, body being left behind.
:v
Carrier himself has said, in full agreement with Bowen, that it is appropriate to follow the consensus where you have not investigated. Bowen is right that, when someone has shown you that they talk a good game but are clearly wrong when they get to an area where you have expertise, you should discount their conclusions in other areas. But Bowen says he has spoken with Carrier, found him to be brilliant, and presumably not found him to be off-base in areas Bowen knows well (on this last point, I am inferring, since Bowen did not say so explicitly). Given that, I think even non-experts (like myself) can weigh the reasonableness of the arguments on both sides and choose the non-consensus view. For example, Carrier relies on the fact that Paul only mentions knowing Jesus through scripture and visions, never through discussions with eye witnesses. By comparison, Ehrman relies on hypothetical sources as a main part of his argument. Carrier himself does not given mythicism 100% certainty (most generous view is 66% chance). Weighing the strength of their arguments, I think Carrier has the better view. After all, overwhelming consensus was for a long time that the Exodus happened and Moses was historical, but it has flipped completely now.
Thanks, again, for your completely inexpert opinion.
@@sananton2821 And yet you read my post and even deigned to comment on it. Given the wide range of media available to read, I am honored.
You can stop reading this right now. In the off chance someone else is interested in my thoughts, I will continue.
The thing is my post is entirely on topic. Notwithstanding the somewhat clickbait title, this video is about how non-experts should approach controversial topics that interest them. Bowen himself admits straight off that he is not an expert in the NT studies field, and so does not delve into the historicity issue itself. So, the issue at hand is whether a non-expert can have the acumen in reading arguments on both sides of a historical question and make a judgment as to which argument is sounder, notwithstanding what is the relative consensus view - or rather, taking into account the consensus view and giving it more a priori weight accordingly.
Anyone who is interested enough to read this far, I urge to read both Carrier and Ehrman (and not the one-line comments on each that I made) and draw your own conclusions. If you think you do not have the ability to draw a conclusion because you are not an expert, then perhaps you shouldn't bother.
@@davidchamberlain4466 Actually mythisicm is loosing traction over time due to lack of evidence. There was consensus that jesus didn't exsisted but it has changed cause we found historians from first century who talks about Jesus says he lived, started christianity and died on cross. Meanwhile mythisists are incapable of producing any evidence any historians from that century who says he didn't exsisted. Carrier is incapable of understanding how basic archeology and gathering evidence looks like that's why he's laughed off by historians. Tell who do you want to believe. People who lived in first century who lived in that time of some idiot carrier who doesn't understand how archeology works. Also people are changing minds about exodus cause we find evidence that Exodus happend. Egyptians have inscription from that period about exsisting of plague and also we know egyptians change their religion to monotheism around that period of time when Bible claims Exodus happened. That wouldn't be possible if Exodus didn;t happened and it shows that both israelites and egyptians were together
Enjoyed the conversation. I am still of the opinion that Jesus was not a historical person. I think he was " a mythological construct. Thanks Derek and Dr. Bowman
If Jesus was Not a real person, where did the wisdom that is embedded in his teachings come from?
This teaching could have only come from a Realized Master
Why do many Buddhist Temples and the Nash Yogis say that they have records of the great teacher Issa studying at their Temples and Ashram?
Why do so many Realized Masters acknowledge that he was one of the Greatest Yogis to have ever lived and state that he traveled and studied throughout India, Nepal and Tibet?
Why not both? We may not know much about the historical person, and we never will, but myths can grow quickly. Donald Trump is already considered the Messiah by a substantial proportion of people in the US, and he is still alive. He also claims to be like Jesus.
The whole world history is based of existens of Jesus Christ...or you not know b.C. or a.C.
Do you mind explaining what you mean by “ mythical construct”?
What I mean by mythological construct is that the stories found in the gospels and other religious texts are simply stories. Not a real person who actually did these things. That is why I call Jesus a construct. Maybe a " conceptual ideology" would be a better way to explain Jesus.
Even though the consensus is that a historical Jesus existed, the bottom line is, well there just must have been 🤷🏾♂️ A very plausible case can be made, and I say with more evidence than the counter argument, that Jesus is 💯 fictional.
"💯" [citation needed]
I love Dr. Josh. I just wish he was more open about giving his opinion. I know what the scholarship says. I wanna know what you think, man!
He's pretty cautious and holds back a lot. That's expected for an academic. But yes, I hope he does cut loose one day and say just what he thinks, as opposed to what can be shown. Perhaps after he gets tenure!
Carrier has shown what happens to people who tell us what they really think, at this time. Dr Josh has seen it, and knows better to put his foot in that bear trap. It should suffice to note that the first and second derivatives of mythicism are strongly positive. In another generation, historicity will be too embarrassing for any but a preacher to maintain.
your long format shows are beautiful but I can get thru more of the shorter ones
It does make we wonder how many scholars who are counted among this consensus are merely deferring to the consensus because they haven’t specifically studied the issue of historicity vs. mythicism.
*Bad ways to defend historicity*
I’m a historicist. Some of the most vicious personal attacks I get in comments come from fellow historicists when I question specific reasons for supporting historicity.
Let’s drop all the un-evidenced claims of “your motivation is…” and deal only with the evidence.
*Scholarly consensus is important,* but when someone asks for the reasons for that consensus and the answer is “Your motivation must be…,” it doesn’t appear that that scholar has based their opinion on evidence. Or when their primary reason sounds illogical or gullible (“person X said he did Y, so he mist have done it.”), I also wonder about how much logic is behind their conclusion. A certain history professor was outside of his field evaluating biblical literature and claiming he was giving evidence for historicity. When I argued that those were not good reasons, the professor, instead of supporting his claims, accused me of being a lackey of Richard Carrier. My guess is that in the professor’s history classes he provides evidence when people aren’t convinced.
Another famous historicist fallacy is to claim that there is as much evidence for Jesus as for Alexander the Great. Not even close. The history of the region in multiple ways makes little sense of Alexander didn’t exist. In addition, there are coins from his time with his name. There are multiple cities across the regions he conquered that took his name after he conquered the area. I have an extensive list of types of evidence with references in case anyone wants details. I don’t waste any time characterizing people who think the evidence for Jesus’ historicity is on the level of Alexandr’s, I just cite a ton of evidence.
The history of the Christian movement also seems to have required that Jesus failed as an earthly messiah, then the claims were ratcheted up, and that scenario strongly implies a human story to me.
Now I’m going to reply to a mythicist comment I just saw and tell him why his logic fails.
"The history of the Christian movement also seems to have required that Jesus failed as an earthly messiah"
I'm interested in how you came to this conclusion. We don't have any christian history before Paul. At best, Paul uses ambiguous language to describe the mechanics of salvation etc. And we still only have his interpretation of events to go off of.
And then everything after that is best described as post hoc rationalizations for an apocalypse that never came.
@@rainbowkrampus I came up with the failed-messiah historicity argument independently, then heard the scholars below state corroborating evidence.
The scenario in which Jesus was expected to be the human Messiah seems to be the best general-history argument for historicity. It doesn’t make sense that someone would either
1) invent a failed Messiah, nor that
2)people would believe in a living Messiah, then invent his death and an overhaul of his nature.
In other words, the history of (proto-)Christianity proceeded as if an itinerant preacher known as Jesus was historical.
I’m not saying Ehrman says this is a point for historicity. For the failed-messiah-to-resurrected-savior scenario see:
“Did Jesus think he was Messiah”, Bart D Ehrman TH-cam channel 15:35-18:50
th-cam.com/video/ud-B79VZtzY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=nabn3NYNyuM3NHPD
12:09 in Dan McClellan TH-cam video of 2024-04-05 “Come say hi!”
th-cam.com/users/liveNM5cGEUkmTY?si=zqOJhZG0X0sCWe32
“Do you consider the death of Jesus being interpreted as prophesied to be an _ex eventu_ rationalization?”
“I do. It makes the most as rationalizing how Jesus’ mission came to naught…. none of [the disciples] understand until they see the resurrected Jesus.”
@@scienceexplains302 The problem with this argument is it assumes that we have a good grasp on the concept of Messianic thought in the 1st century. We don't. We've got Philo and Qumran, but that's about it. We have almost no commentary on the subject at all. We have no writings from the Pharisees or the Sadducees and they didn't believe in resurrection at all. Some people might throw in Josephus but he says that Vespasian is the Messiah, so do with that what you will.
Also, I believe you are applying the gospel narratives back into the founding of the Christian movement and assuming that the gospels we have now are stories the founders taught. We have no evidence for that being the case. No one invented a "failed" Messiah. There's no evidence I'm aware of that any Christian ever believed that Jesus death should be considered a "failure". No one would do "x", requires a awful lot of evidence and we basically have none.
@@scienceexplains302 Jesus isn't a failed messiah under any framework but that of a non-believer. Take Paul's Jesus. Jesus did the thing he was supposed to do. He died. That was the point, the end goal. He dies in a blood magic ritual, sin or whatever is atoned, the rest is just waiting on the army of angels and the installation of an immortal eternal monarchy.
This works under historicism and mythicism. I'm not seeing how this gets you to either.
A lot happens between the time of Paul and the formation of the gospels. A whole slaughterfest and a destruction of vast troves of lived and written knowledge. Several decades and cultural gaps occur between Paul's letters and our next sources. It seems odd to expect unaltered continuity. Especially since we already see alterations from Paul's work starting with Mark.
Obviously there's nothing definitive here either way. I'm just not really seeing anything that would get me past a 50/50 on the probability scale here.
@@jasonrollins6360 Of course few or no Christians kept thinking he failed. The ones who thought he failed generally stopped being followers. The ones who went with the new image thought he was succeeding in the sky, and it would be just a few years until he returned. This pattern repeated with other religious failures.
I don’t believe I’m applying the narratives back. I’m looking beneath the surface of the gospels and what they seem to have to admit - that Jesus acted as if he expected to be an Earthly messiah.
For example, Mark starts out quoting Isaiah 40:3, the way of the Lord. That was a traditional view from scripture about an earthly movement to “return” to Yahweh’s way.
The Jesus of the Bible is a myth, there is no doubt about it. The funny side of Christianity is that it is possible that Jesus is not even a historical person. All the evidence for the historicity of Jesus is on a slant, so Carrier's hypothesis is quite attractive.
🤣🤣🤣y'all are so damn crazy
Both camps can be right. There may have been some unremarkable street-preacher over whom accretions of myth accrued. But the fact that everything he's known for today are the fictitious additions grafted onto the story later make the whole thing amount to a myth. None of the "miracles" are real. (They were added later.) None of the claims of "being God" are in the earliest versions of the narrative. Even most of the maxims and proverbs he's known for are from other people who predate him. Scrape away all the syncretistic additions and plagiarized "wisdom" and you have . . . nothing at all.
You guys are not very smart. You just disregard every mention of Jesus in first century or not understanding anything while not capable of producing one historian from first century who says Jesus doesn't exsist.
@@paweprabucki6990 The historicity of Jesus can be divided into three possibilities.
1) Jesus of the Bible, i.e. part of the creator deity of the Universe. The one who performed miracles and rose from the dead.
2) One or more ordinary people, a teacher/guru, but the stories were invented with a supernatural addition.
3) A completely invented literary person. So has existed only as ink on paper.
It is remarkable that if only option 1 is true, Christianity is true.
Option 3 is attractive because there is no first decent source from the first century.
@@kolliq i can show you proof that the extra terrest exist and you don't wanna believe in miracles
Why I'd argue that the historical existence of a man named Jesus matters or not is that diving into the answer helps one understand how the myths began. That after diving in you should be able to assign a probability of that existence. For Carrier that's 33%. For others it might be 66%. Either way there's a gap of certainty not found with many primary historic figures. That uncertainty differentiates the discussion as a viable one unlike discussing a flat Earth, global climate change, evolution etc.
Many of the top scholars are saying it's idiotic to question Jesus's historicity. They say 100 percent he existed. BTW, I agree with you.
Yeah, asking people to come up with a percentage I think is reasonable. And I've seen this done where Carrier was talking with a few of the other scholars who seriously entertain the possibility of a mythicist position, and I forget exactly which percentage they come up with, but it was in the high 90s something like 95% or 99% on Jesus having been based on an actual human being.
Which...honestly, is pretty similar to the percentage I come up with on my own when I weigh some of the arguments I've seen from Carrier, and counterarguments I've seen from others.
A good example, and I think where Carrier gets his 33%, is that he listed out people for which we have legendary stories, some of which are historical like George Washington or Julius Cesar, some of which are not historical like the Angel Moroni or Slenderman, and concludes that only 1/3 of the figures with some legendary writing surrounding them were historical. And hey, Carrier did great work putting this list together, having a compiled list of figures with legendary stories is useful in and of itself.
But there's more work that could be done on this list. Critics of Carrier point out that in basically all the mythical cases, the mythical figure either lived far in the distant past at the time of writing (500-1000 years prior to writing, not 35 years prior to writing), or alternatively, appeared in secret to a tiny number of living witnesses (Slenderman, the Angel Moroni), and is never claimed to give talks in public to large gathered crowds, or to go out in public in broad daylight in a major city like Jerusalem, or meet an actual named governor who was a confirmed historical figure (Pontius Pilate), or meet other named competing religious figure (John the Baptist). Like...Joseph Smith went to congress and met President Van Buren. The Angel Moroni for some reason never met with President Van Buren, and chose to only appear in secret. Joseph Smith historical. Angel Moroni not historical.
So you could take Carrier's own list, and just rearrange it so that people who were claimed to have recently lived, like recently enough that people alive could contradict these stories, claimed to have given talks in public and to have met well documented governors or leaders are in one category, and that people who only appeared in secret to a tiny number of witnesses are in another category.
Rearranging the list like that, Jesus ends up in a category with a long list of confirmed historical figures. Jesus could still be the one exception, the one case of a purely mythical figure where the author decided to have him give public speeches and meet a named governor who might have still been alive at the time of writing. But...that still changes the probability calculation dramatically. That still gives a probability closer to 95%-99%.
@@KaitlynBurnellMath I think he mentions King Arthur,Robin Hood and others who supposedly have grounded biographies. I know Romulus is also mentioned, and his story is linked to the founding of Rome. Many scholars take the stance that someone had to create Christianity.
@@KaitlynBurnellMath I'm in the middle of digesting Carrier's book (it's 26 hours in audiobook form) and there is way more than just this list that he's working from. I will admit that a bunch of it is over my head, or I don't know the context, but all I have seen in response are arguments against one sliver of the book, or just plain dismissing him as a crank. For that and other reasons, I'm agnostic on the subject to the point of not yet being able to calculate my personal odds. I do agree that it (the percentage odds) is a great way to have the discussion, and I eagerly await people who will address the entire set of arguments by Carrier, Fitzgerald, Lataster, etc. One reason I'm fascinated by this particular debate is that I don't have any skin in the game, as I don't believe in godman Jesus in any case. So I'm stocking up on popcorn :D
Carrier just invents these silly numbers out of thin air
The point about deferring to the opinion of experts is valid but moot in this case. Keep in mind the question is about history, and hardly any biblical scholar has any training in history, let alone being an expert.
Sure, they may be experts in theology (if that even makes sense), in ancient languages, but typically they're clueless about doing history, which has been demonstrated multiple times.
Sadly, for historical/political reasons we do defer to their opinion rather than proper historians/classicists, and theology/biblical studies is still considered part of the academia rather than church where it belongs.
You don't have to be a historian to understand and evaluate what's in the gospels. You don't need a Ph.D. in history to have an opinion on whether Jesus existed. Of course, you do need to have a good background from a lot of reading. Do you need a Ph.D. to understand how the Jews of that time buried their dead? No, you just need common sense and reasonably good analytical ability. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in economics, but he never took an economics course in his life.
@@Paul-fg6mk Still, any consensus among "NT scholars" as to a point of historical fact is so much meaningless twaddle. Maybe a half-dozen of them have studied enough extracurricular history to be able to accurately judge historical evidence, and maybe one or two of those has gone on to study the evidence carefully enough to have a meaningful informed opinion. They few won't sway the consensus of the great thundering herd of ignorant "NT scholars" who count Eusebian speculation as if it were evidence.
@@sciptick My reply is surely interpreted as criticizing zbyszekkowalski2623. He is basically saying that biblical scholars have not studied history (no "training in history") or have no background in history and therefore are "clueless about doing history". You may have thought that I was defending theologians and biblical scholars. Not at all. I was simply stating that, in my opinion and experience, biblical scholars, linguists, archaeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, you name it, don't need an advanced degree (master's or Ph.D.) in history to study aspects of the origin of Christianity or the life of Jesus. I gave the example of Daniel Kahneman, but I could also give that of Claude Levi-Strauss, who went to Brazil in the mid-20th century to study tribes still living in the Amazon Forest. He knew almost nothing about ethnology and anthropology. He published classic books in these fields and is now recognized as one of the most famous ethnologists in the world. In fact, I'm extremely annoyed when I read comments arguing that Richard Carrier, for example, lacks credibility in his books and articles because he's a historian of classical antiquity or the Greco-Hellenistic world and not strictly speaking a theologian. This is bogus. Personally, I'd rather put my trust in a historian than a theologian who has to accept the content of the Bible as true by convention.
@sresponses Unless you believe that the Jesus we know from the gospel literature actually existed, you have no doubt whatsoever about the existence of a guy named Jesus, even if the evidence is very thin, Carrier's approach is the most logical of all. It is undeniable that there are huge gray areas in the life of a preacher who lived 2000 years ago. There is not a single irrefutable piece of evidence for his existence. On the other hand, it makes sense that there must have been a real, probably charismatic person who, in a time of trouble in that part of the Roman Empire, started a tiny spiritual movement that grew slowly over a few centuries. Accordingly, Carrier's position that there is a 33% chance that the Jesus guy really existed is a reasonable one, since it leaves the door open for further searches for real evidence and continued discussion of this controversial issue. However, like any historical method, it is not without flaws. But it's a good place to start.
It's easier and likeliest that a story is built on a known quantity.
Since a number of people were circulating as magicians, wise men, and messiahs at the time, I can see how many attributes might condense into the person of a few or one ... if pushed.
We had an actual George Washington, only human, but perhaps an uncommon, relatively virtuous man for his time. Remembered and documented in his own lifetime and shortly thereafter.
But he managed to collect an inhuman reputation of heavenly perfection and godly foresight.
Ele nunca existiu
Only for americans
@@labeilleautiste6318 brasil canal detetive da fé
Do you think Spiderman is based on a real crime fighter in the 1990's?
Jesus myths existed hundreds of years before Paul or Mark. They are recorded in the OT.
well i mean he did lead a nation against one of the largest empires at the time and came out victorious... its not unreasonable to view him as a bit of a giant when it comes to the men of his time or of all time.... that being said, he did not do it alone, so we shouldn't diminish the men around him, but they are equally well known.
Most of the time experts are right. It is undeniable. There's a reason that experts are experts, but Dr. Bowden prefacing his answer about a historical Jesus with "I'm not a New Testament scholar" is kind of the problem with the historicist position. What would knowing the New Testament have to do with whether Jesus is a historical person or not. It's not a scriptural question. It's a historical one, and all the history we have has been handed down to us from Christian New Testament scholars who have a vested interest in a historical person being at the heart of their religion. It's like asking a scholar of Mormon scripture questions about Joseph Smith or asking a scholar of Dianetics for an accurate biography of L. Ron Hubbard. Understanding the concepts in Dianetics doesn't make you a dependable source for historical information about L. Ron.
Probably Jesus existed. Probably Paul existed. I'll even throw the Mandaeans a bone and say that probably John the Baptist existed, but total the dependable evidence for all three and you still have little more than the evidence for a historical Hercules... probably Hercules existed too. There was probably some guy somewhere once. Can we say for sure?
When he says he's not a New Testament scholar, he means that historical field, not in a theological sense.
I think even if it's a conscensus view that "there was a guy" it can still be very frustrating for the regular non-scholar person to deal with family members who hold the belief "there was a guy...and therfore all these other parts of his story are literally true and we can base out lives around that." Like, my parents are the type of people who watch The Chosen and they will comment "this is so historically accurate". And me, letting myself watch the first season was so...just cringed out by it because the creators of that show are creating a work that makes the story they believe in seem so real by using what seems like versimilitude, or what passes as period costumes or having the actors all do some kind of accent and casting an actor as Jesus who has a certain vocal quality to the point where he's almost performing ASMR as he recites NT verses. They make money from that show and the related apps and special theater showings, etc. I know at this point, my parents are old and there's just no way they will be convinced that at least the NT stuff isn't real. Like, they are Roman Catholic, and they can agree if you argue the flood wasn't scientific or Eden wasn't literal or Moses and the conquest wasn't exactly as in movies, but Jesus: totally real and did everything described. But it's really hard to keep sane around that because even if there's scholars who can have some nuance and draw a line it is hard to summarize that in a way to understand "Well, HOW MUCH is true?" Like, OK, "there's a guy", but how is that actually HELPFUL to the world? We need a conscensus that tells us who invented which parts of the story and when. If we know who wrote the stories, then maybe at least that helps us understand if maybe there were authors...like Paul, if Paul is real, and we could say: "Paul is no different from George Lucase using resonance from various existing mythic sories to create a narrative." Like, in our world where real people are making political descisions that effect others based on faith and belief we NEED a scholarly consensus that can strongly tell us something like "95% of the Jesus story is made up by probably this number of writers in this period for an audience with these issues and society and therefore stop making descions today based on these details." But scholars being scholars are still argueing over the little details of who did write which bit and what their infuces may have been. And I get that. That's how the scholarship works. But it's kinda not useful to the average person trying to deal with familiy problems or politics. I feel like, yeah, mythicists get accused of poor scholarly or scientific rigor, but they are there asking us "but could you at least consider it's all made up and maybe we shouldn't base so many decisions on all this?" Which, yeah, not rigorous, but kinda fiils a need people have. So, I don't know what to think about this topic. It's so frustrating that at this date we don't have more voices telling the public to just stop making decisions based on faith and belief. If we say "there was a guy..." That's all the believer hears. They don't even hear or listen to the details of which parts of the story are clearly invented or based on some older source. Their guy is real they can go on believing that's why they had some 'experience' or survived a car accident that one time or whatever. They can keep on praying for their kids like prayer will fix economic issues in society.
Word salad alert.
I’ve concluded that the evidence about Jesus’ historical existence is insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion. The most prudent position might be that we simply don’t know, as the evidence has been lost to history.
My primary issue with the scholarly consensus in this field is the apparent confusion between the length of study and the strength of arguments. An expert’s credibility should stem from their deep understanding of the subject, including all significant arguments and counterarguments, not how long they spent.
In reviewing the Historicist arguments, I find that they often lean on consensus, Paul’s letters, the Gospels, and early non-biblical sources. These are frequently cited as independent attestations, yet their actual independence and reliability are subject to debate. Specifically, the use of Josephus as a source is problematic without addressing the Eusebius forgery bottleneck, which casts doubt on its reliability as evidence of Jesus’ existence.
On the flip side, Mythicists like Dr. Carrier present their positions with primary sources and methodologies. This transparency allows others to scrutinize their arguments, which is a fundamental expectation of any expert. While this approach doesn’t automatically confirm Dr. Carrier’s conclusions, it does satisfy the essential criteria of expertise by enabling a critical evaluation of the arguments presented.
tl;dr Historicist need to articulate their case better, if they have one.
The reliance on Josephus continues to be baffling to me. It's already widely agreed it was interpolated at least once. Then there's the whole Eusebius being a lying liar who lies, Origen not using it in Contra Celsus thing. Even if you want to say that there's nothing definitive there, the fact that it's so suspect and that there's nothing definitive to support the contrary position should leave you with one conclusion, that you cannot rely on this as a source. Doing so is just asserting its validity based on a whim and nothing more. The vaunted consensus rings quite hollow when considering what stands as an acceptable source.
Of course, this is a field that endlessly gleans for "kernels of truth" in story books that are very resistant to anything but literary interpretation. So I guess whim is just an acceptable model here?
🎯
Under most circumstances, Ehrman says that the gospels are not independent sources, except when discussing the historical Jesus. Then suddenly they're independent. I don't know why but the majority of new testament scholarship seems to be biased.
I don't find their arguments convincing.
The thing is, that even Carrier says that he's not sure there was a Jesus but the historicist camp is very sure.
I don't know if there was a Jesus. The biases and unconvincing arguments confound me, though.
Yup, it's a problem. While I agree with Dr. Bowen that we who have not earned advanced degrees in a field should usually defer to a consensus of those who have, we cannot ignore the question of whether that field gets reliable results and New Testament Studies does not. Our host Derek, Dr. Bowen, and Professor Ehrman previously studied theology, and clearly have have undo respect for New Testament scholarship because theology is so much worse. Secular history has higher standards of evidence than secular religious study, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) blows that away.
One thing that trips me out is how being the equivalent of "agnostic atheist" to historicity is subject to the same type of response that theists normally have to agnostic atheists about god claims. Just because I don't think the claim (in this case of a definite historical Jesus) has enough evidence to convince me, doesn't mean I'm making a strong claim that he didn't exist. Some of the same people that tell me that I should reserve belief in something until I see enough evidence to convince me also imply that I'm the equivalent of a Creationist for being a soft/agnostic mythicist. That type of behavior make me less convinced as it reeks of bias.
A 1982 series called The Mysterious Cities of Gold centered around Esteban, a young man who could command the sun. He was very much another Sun God figure, a golden boy. The series was loosely based on The King's Fifth by Scott O'Dell, a semi-historical novel about the Conquistadors' search for Cibola, one of the legendary cities of gold in the American South West. The historical man behind it all was a Moroccan slave called Estevan de Dorantes, the first black man to set foot in the Americas. My point is there is no resemblance between Estevan and the mythological Esteban.
I liked this discussion quite a lot. Thank you
When I grow up I want to be like Dr. Bowen 😄! If certain scholars (and TH-camrs) were as respectful as he is, we wouldn't waste our time in bitter polemics. Instead, we'd be learning by weighing the soundness of each other's arguments. With respect.
Derek complains at 19:35 that he finds few mythicist PhDs., but a lot of historicists. Well, back in 1960s, if this channel could have been possible then, he would have complained about how few scholars claiming Moses and the Exodus were not historical were to be found. Even Dr. Bowen would have admitted the consensus was that Moses and the Exodus were historical.
The duty of a true scholar is to challenge the consensus when it can't effectively explain the evidence we have. We see this, for example, in physics where we're still trying to reconcile quantum and relativity models. On ancient grounds, Dr. Robert Cargill challenges the consensus about Melchizedek in "Melchizedek, King of Sodom (2019)." Dr. Mark Goodacre follows Austin Farrer's hypothesis to challenge the consensus about Q in his "The Case Against Q (2002)" and "The Synoptic Problem (2004)." We could add many more examples, such as Dr. Dennis McDonald with Greek mimesis, and Dr. Israel Finkelstein when he published "The Bible Unearthed (2001)." Maybe not every new theory is totally right, but all valid scholarly works (specially peer-reviewed ones) deserve a place at the table, including Jesus minimal historicity.
One key factor I rarely see properly explained and would be very useful (particularly for those viewers with little or no academic background) is the methodology used to get to a consensus in a particular issue. Any good methodology is designed to prevent as much as possible the researcher's bias or errors, and when we have so many different, and contradictory portraits of Jesus, it's clear that the methodology is faulty. This could be a whole new educational series of videos in MythVision.
Dr. Bowen had an academic responsibility to research the question adequately before the interview, so as to be equipped to express an informed opinion. That he didn't, or pretended not to, is probably an artifact of the very serious danger anybody in his field risks by honestly expressing such an informed opinion. I cannot fault him for dodging the question. He will need to be much older before it is safe for him to be forthright.
This guy seriously waffles tho. Wish he would get to the point where
Absolutely. I listened for 10 minutes hoping he would get to his point, which never happened. Then I just listened to what Derek had to say.
@@Paul-fg6mk And Derek also said approximately nothing. He could have said what changed his mind about historicity, but we are left guessing. By appearances he found his viewership numbers are better when he sides with the historicists.
Everybody in this line of work can see what happens to people when they give mythicism any credence. Nobody wants that to happens to themselves. But in another generation, only preachers will still be historicists.
@@sciptick I would not be too hard on Derek. He explained in other videos why he leans more on historicist camp than on the mythicist’s. He is doing an invaluable job by letting scholars and people who are interested in biblical topics express their views and exposing the results of their research. He has an open mind and let both camps make their case. In future generations, historicists will not fade away. What will become an anachronism is the position according to which the Bible content is true. Only a fringe will believe in these idiotic miracles and the resurrection.
Agree. What a waste of time.
The weirdest thing about Jesus is that he doesn't even have a tomb nor did he actually write stuff so we have to rely to the Gospels whic very clearly are biased and based upon myth. However I'm no historian.
As I say to someone on one of the Jewish FB groups..."James the brother of Superman" is as real as Superman.
As a comic writer here in Australia, I've been putting my specialty into play in assessing all the information I've read in 38 years.
And too often, I'm finding elements of FICTION at play.
Let's look at Protevangelon of James, for example. IF that were a modern fictional work, it would be equivalent of prequels like Smallville, or Enterprise, or Discovery.
It is a LATE-written prequel decades AFTER an INITIAL Euangelon (a 70 ce initial one)...which is bringing a NEW element into play.
Like "birth stories."
And technically, that Protevangelon story PREDATES the birth stories we see in g-Matthew and g-Luke.
And if we analyse the Protevangelon FURTHER...we can see it's DOWNGRADING someone..."Mary Salome."
We Are MythVision!
I imagine over the course of two thousand years, a lot of stuff is lost, a lot of stuff deteriorates, while a lot of stuff is just made up and added. 😐
Yeah, we take for granted how long 2,000 years is. It's hard to really grasp how long it is and just how much can happen in that length of time.
and mush just made up
Why did "the Lamb" need to be sacrificed? For mankind to avoid being dragged to the underworld by one or more of the seven demons, that's why, kind of important. "Gallu demons hauled unfortunate victims off to the underworld. They were one of seven devils (or "the offspring of hell") of Babylonian theology that could be appeased by the sacrifice of a lamb at their altars." BTW, Sitchin translated the Sumerian very inaccurately, and extrapolated complete lunacy. However, the real translations are quite interesting.
Of _which_ "Jesus" are you asking? Isn't that the important question? The Anglicized name "Jesus" comes from a Hebrew name which a great many people would have carried during the time of Roman occupation of the land. Furthermore, what about all those images on cloth, or toast, or paintings? I can say with much confidence that *the "Jesus"es which fill the minds of most people (who are not ancient historians) are quite mythical.*
Even Richard Carrier gives Jesus the man a one out of three chance of existing.
The Jesus Triplets
Jesus, Schmezus & Wheezus, one of them defo existed
Cheeseus bless my pizza to give me strenght!
well, that depends on which of his various talks, blog posts, articles, or books one is looking at. I have seen it vary between 50% and 30%.
I just don't see the need for the man. Jesus is an amalgamation of several other demigods, Paul didn't even know who the disciples are or any of the Earthly Jesus story. I just see no reason to take Jesus as anything else as any other demigod story in which we don't accept as historical.
Dear Derek: it would be very informative if, every time you ask for the opinion about historicity/mythicism, you asked what is their level of confidence about Jesus existence (from 0% to 100%).
Also, it is a good practice that the interviewer don't share his/her opinion when asking for the opinion of the interviewed.
Yes, I'm as well hoping one day Derek will ask his guests to quantify their opinion.
Rather than asking Bowen, I've got a better idea. Derek, prepare your best 3 reasons for the existence of a historical Jesus and present them to Carrier and let him respond. Then you can state whether you accept or reject what Carrier is saying. This is especially true for your statement that Paul would have plainly stated that Jesus was born and crucified in the heavens had he so believed, which he clearly did not state to his churches. All his churches would have been taught that Jesus was historical unless Paul had told them differently at the outset. I think that is your best argument. I am of the opinion that Carrier can deal with that issue quite easily if you will give him a chance.
I would love to listen a series of videos on "the bias". Bias towards all kinds of ideas and especially the matrix of personal motivations for them (either conscious or "hidden"). I mean the attitudes of "it MUST be this way" or "No, it CANNOT be so".
Carrier come address this mess of a deflection
It's amazing to me that you automatically appeal to consensus instead of listening to the arguments. Consensus is fine, but isn't it possible (as you would be able to determine immediately in your own field) that someone has a better explanation than the consensus position who you're dismissing before hearing the argument?
If that someone has a “better argument,” then they should publish it and work to convince more scholars of why their argument is better. If it really is better, then the relevant experts will be convinced, change their minds, and the consensus will shift.
If you’re arguing outside your own area of expertise, by definition you are not well-informed enough to properly evaluate if the argument is better or not. Therefore you should still go with the consensus out of humility and a recognition of your ignorance on the topic.
Ah, but if I misinterpret these passages and writings then maybe in antiquity people misinterpreted them the same way, therefore it was definitely all made up to fit this misinterpretation and why aren't you convinced?
They do listen to the arguments, and they just don’t agree with them, for good reason. It’s the mythicists that aren’t listening.
Take a look at other subjects that have nothing to do with this. Where uneducated internet theorists who ‘do their own research’ challenge expert opinion, on subjects where there is broad expert consensus, and look at the style of arguments made by the challenging people that are non-consensus, non-expert, non-publishing-in-peer-reviewed-journals.
Then look at the style of arguments that mythicists are making and compare…….
Yep. I was a butt hasty with my comment :)
Dr. Josh: Derek, why you gotta put me in the middle of this? I thought we were friends...😂
❤
Good discussion!
I can see both sides of the argument so I am currently agnostic. Just haven’t done enough research on my own. I loved watching Richard Carrier speak about his theory on a non-existent Jesus Christ although at the time I was a historicist. So I decided to pick up his book a few months back and have only had time to read about 1/3 of it. A better understanding of the historical context made it very difficult for me to hold onto a historical Jesus Christ with any bit of certainty. Historical scholars in my opinion, “need” to present better arguments against Richard Carrier. More times than not it just seems that they haven’t actually looked into mythicism, let alone taken the time to care. A few years ago I watched a debate between Robert M. Price and Bart Ehrman in which at the time I believed that Ehrman had clearly debunked mythicism and we could move along onto important scholarship. I rewatched that debate about a month ago and although Robert Price did a terrible job as the debate goes, the arguments presented by Ehrman were very weak and at points silly and foolish. It was obvious that he never actually looked into mythicism in depth or at least to a satisfactory level. This is just a prime example, and unfortunately this sort of behavior has continued to infect the scholarship community. Many Historical scholars seem to just skim the surface without actually doing their due diligence as scholars that many of us trust and look to. It’s very frustrating. Yes…. We get it , 99% of you scholars believe that he existed, but can some of you guys just take a in depth look into mythicism and present better quality information and evidence because this is something that your fans would love to support you on. So yes, I’m very disappointed at the lack of vigor and the lack of care within the historicist camp when it comes to this topic. Nonetheless, I look forward to someone coming along to debunk mythicism so I can better compare the two and hopefully do more research.
Also Derek, this “Bart Ehrman consensus argument” is getting outta hand. Come on now.
Right there with you. Enjoying the journey on my first epistemological ride without any bias brakes!
I never watched the Ehrman/Price debate. I read Carrier's analysis and there was no need to waste time with the debate itself. Price had a strong case to present but failed to do so, and Ehrman just embarrassed himself -- as he usually does.
@@ardalla535lol. I don’t wanna hear another word from Bart Ehrman on the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Following the consensus of the majority...? If you want to follow the fallacy of ad numerum, most biblical scholars agree that the New Testament's Jesus not only existed, but performed the miracles, was crucified, resurrected. Either be consistent in adherence to fallacies or stop using them as an excuse!
22:57 It’s like your connection to the Holy Spirit is of a higher quality. Like an audiophile and their thousand dollar cable.
I think seeing Jesus is historical is Big Business and I think historians trying to have it both ways There's No Church in the South that would say Jesus was just a regular man
What would it even mean for Paul to not exist? Obviously someone wrote those letters, so it is not clear how anyone could think that there wasn't even a guy the way there might not have been a guy for Jesus. As far as I'm concerned, if there was someone writing letters and calling himself Paul, then Paul existed; that was Paul. What else could we want from a real Paul? If he lied about his visions of Jesus, that doesn't make Paul himself any less real.
I like Dr Price's opinions on Paul. Paul was a real person, a legendary person, but he didn't write any of the letters attributed to him. He was a distant, authority figure that people respected. So his followers wrote in his name. We don't really know anything about the real Paul other than what can be gleaned from the missives of his followers.
Thomas Brodie was a Catholic priest whose belief in a historical Jesus disappeared as he discovered Luke used Elijah-Elisha to construct Jesus of Nazareth. This much I generally agree with except that it was Mark first, not a proto-Luke.
Anyway, as Brodie read Galatians, it seemed too convenient to what was needed for the church at that time. So he lost Paul to myth as well. I say that Paul's "convenience" was just the result of the church ending up, by chance, going Paul's way. It could have gone another route but it didn't.
huum, the epistles are not single letters but combinations of other letters, edited and redacted into a clearer text. The contention isn't if St Paul existed, but if the epistles were the work of a scholarly community that may have included a primary writer. Novels of today and a team of editors, publishers marketing. Writing and distributing was an expensive thing of the time - no universal postal service for a start. It is most unlikely that a single person created the epistles, and there still may have been a St Paul. The assertion that the only possible explanation is that the epistles where the work of one person is kind of absurd.
From what I discovered upon Google searching if we had original documents from Paul. I can understand why his historicity could be questioned. It's as if nobody new of Paul until the church found the document much later. So what teachings were they following before the letters were found?
@sresponses : Even if all of that is true about the Romans, someone still had to write the epistles, and whoever did that writing called himself Paul in his writing. Maybe that was not he real name for whatever reason. Maybe he was working for the Romans. Even so, that person was still Paul. He's the person who wrote the letters, the person we mean when we talk about Paul. Having secret ulterior motives does not make him fictional.
Total waste of time. This is 23 minutes of Josh Bowen saying "trust the scholars & experts." This guy doesn't even spend 5 seconds talking about whether Jesus existed or not. "Ancient Aliens?" Seriously? My view is most likely, Jesus was invented by Greek-speaking scholars & experts 2,000 years ago. Would love for somebody to disprove, or at least discuss that.
You think Jesus was invented by Greek speaking scholars? I don’t agree with that. The reason is the story and accounts of the Paul and the disciples accounts.
Remember Paul transitioned from a Christian persecuting Pharisees, to the main author of the the New Testament and later died for his belief in Jesus.
All of the disciples of Jesus
Preached of him until their execution years later. Being a martyr does not sound like a characteristic of someone living a lie.
@@Caleb-mj5cn There is no evidence that Paul or Peter or any of those other apostles were killed, nor is there any evidence of Jesus' crucifixion. So, we're totally going by what we read in the Christian Bible, and the additional stories Christians have invented afterwards to make us think something serious really happened. Even the death of Stephen has me scratching my head -- why would they kill a fellow Jew by stoning when he had done nothing serious except preaching about Jesus, especially when they repeatedly failed to stone Jesus, who did the much more serious sin of claiming to be both God and the Messiah/"King of the Jews" (if you take the NT's words seriously.) The New Testament's lack of understanding basic Torah, and even Jesus failing to understand the basic Hebrew of the Psalms tells me it was written by a bunch of Greek-speaking non-Jews. And Paul seriously messes up Judaism, despite claiming to be born & raised a Pharisee. Totally unbelievable. What the Christian Bible does really effectively is serve as a bunch of racial & irreligious excuses to hate the Jews. And looking through history, it has worked even more effectively than the Qur'an.
An appeal to authority is when you use it as your argument against and over a competing arguement.
Simply admitting that you aren't and can't be an expert in everything, is just being humble enough to admit your own limitations.
@@Bl_Radio what I said was not an appeal to authority. Using MULTIPLE eye witness accounts is called using evidence. An appeal to authority is refuting a claim because a person of authority purely said so, without the use of evidence.
Gospel of Mathew: eye witness testimony of Jesus
Gospel of Mark: eye witness testimony of Jesus.
Gospel of Luke: interviews and investigated claims from eye witnesses.
Gospel of John: eye witness testimony of Jesus.
All of the Epistles of Paul were written only a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion after he spent much time with other eye witnesses of Jesus.
These are all writings of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus from multiple sources.
Please provide any evidence Jesus was created by Greek scholars so I can weigh the validity of that claim.
@@Caleb-mj5cn oh boi... you do you boo.
There may have been a name that we called Jesus, but the god man character called Jesus is mythical. How do you tell the difference between the two of them?
AIRFARCE…. Check his legs to see if he shaves them! Enjoyed the podcast. Keep up the good work and maybe ask a DOGFACE Army guy. 😅
The expert consensus...aka the christian consensus.
IN the absence of any factual or documentary or any other form of evidence then the answer has to be no .
The story of Jesus is a superhero myth of it's age , the entire story was to acheive a certain outcome , freeing Israel from Roman rule was the prime objective .
"IN the absence of any factual or documentary or any other form of evidence" This is a false assertion.
@@dirkjensen969 Yes.
No documentary evidence? Except for Paul, the Gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian...
@@tomasrocha6139 Paul is the only one who personally claims to have seen Christ, and that was the spiritual, not historical Jesus. I'm not a Jesus-mythicist myself, but they certainly make more sense than people who think that what a zealous control-freak allegedly heard from a magical voice in the sky qualifies as historical data.
@@brygenon Paul knew Jesus' brother. None of our sources about Arminius or Boudicca knew them either.
I can't believe this. Yesterday I had a conversation with my Christian friend about evolution and he said that his pastor has looked into evolution very extensively and came up with a conclusion that there couldn't be dinosaurs at the time which the scientists say because there was different concentration of oxygen back then and that it led to completely wrong assesment of the earth sediment by the scholars. I was flabbergasted because my friend himself is studying medicine and I was like but what about the overwhelming consensus, don't you think the pastor had some motivation to come to certain conclusion? His response was: yeah but atheist scientists have their own bias. 😀
I wad having the EXACT conversation and conversation now you release this video..
Does Bowen know anything? The whole video is Bowen saying "I don't know , I just go with whatever most experts seem to be saying". What a waste.
I have a serious question
After hearing in this video that Dr Bowen said that Sitchen is completely wrong and illiterate in cuneiform
How am I supposed to start all over on the Sumerian tablets?
I ask because Jordan Maxwell and other supposed scholars go along with the Annunaki story line
Who is the correct path to the real translation of them?
"Did Jesus Exist or Not?"
To me, it does not matter. If he did exist, he wasn't a god, for sure, and he himself left nothing exceptional behind. Christian theology is ludicrous and basically very superficial.
When compared to Buddhism for example, christian scripture is like a joke.
I agree, I just love having the conversation and looking deeper into the ideas. I think what Erhman and some of these other scholars are doing is shutting down questions. Questioning and analyzing is how we come to know new things and synthesize new concepts.
Matthew 26 53 gives you author and Messiah, Sabine Sancus Saints HOLY Roman Empire render to Caesar what is Caesars because he who creates owns.
كيف؟
@@bobyoung3857 yup! I am banking popcorn for the time when there are enough dissenters to be taken more seriously and the intellectual gladiators can battle Royale head to head.
But this is only your opinion... Jesus Christ is real, you can ask him yourself🙏
The gospels themselves show clear evidence (sorry: evidences), that Jesus is as real as the Earl of Greystoke.
yes, all those zombies
Their evidence is so great they have to pluralise it
As real as Tarzan, anyway. I.e., named after somebody real, but resembling him in literally no detail.
Makes me feel better knowing I won’t have to worry about an afterlife. FINALLY some peace and quiet!!!
I wish this channel was on Apple podcast platform !
Jesus never existed.
Just go with the evidence. There is none. So whether jesus existed or not is a matter of belief. As long as there is no further or new evidence, scholars should be agnostic regarding historicity.
Maybe no evidence that your feeble mind can comprehend:
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 94 AD, book 18 and book 20
Publius Cornelius Tacitus 115 AD, Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44
Uncontested Pauline Letters, 48 AD
Pliny the Younger, AD 112, Letter to Emperor Trajan.
The claim that "there is no evidence" is unwarranted. Read a book.
Actually there’s plenty of evidence you guys just choose to reject it. Can you set the bar so ridiculously high that pretty much nothing could ever meet it.
@@collegework6191 These kind of listings come from people who dont really engage with the topic. But thanks 🤷
@@notanemoprog suggest one please
Holy crap this episode is over my head. All the terms and concepts I’ve never heard of before, I can’t keep up!
Something that really bothers me is this idea that the majority of biblical scholars have to sign statements of belief to be employed at the their respective academic institutions. This is simply wrong and a fantastical belief.
There are hundreds to thousands of religious departments across the country and the world that do not require it.
I think it is an extremely small minority that teach at evangelical Christian seminaries mostly in the South.
I'm sure there was a person named Jesus, and New Testament isn't the book about that man who really existed.
The Jesus that existed was as much a messiah as Trump is the second coming of Jesus. It's possible that 100 years from now people will believe Trump was indeed orange Jesus but the New New Testament wouldn't be describing the real Trump that we know and some love & worship.
You're weird.
Clinton's father was Dr George Wright.
Obama's father was Frank Marshall Davis.
John F. Kennedy is on his way to being mostly myth.
Trump is just an oddball who isn't controlled by the "make war, make money" cabal.
@@notanemoprog I got his Idea he saying about how with Time things peoples Say in a futur Can be see as trust
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂I had a good laugh bro, 💯
Dawn French as ‘The Vicar of Dibley’ makes the joke: “Jesus probably did not exist, but if he did, he certainly wasn’t a Christian!”. The real question is whether or not Christianity began as a grassroots Jewish movement, or the imposition of aristocratic astroturf.
Academics are always intelligent and often open-minded but understandably cautious when it comes to paradigm busting theories. It took twenty years for the physics community to fully embrace general and special relativity. The English literature crowd is still debating who wrote Shakespeare. The first paper on plate tectonics was 1915. The first textbook to teach plate tectonics was 1976. The religious population is slower. It’s been a hundred years since the Scopes trial.
Jesus did not exist. Paul did not exist. ( I think James and John the Baptist were real! ) Get over it. We’re still digesting the archeological discoveries of the twentieth century.
Someone once asked Will Durant the meaning of the French Revolution. “Too early to tell.”
Great job Derek and Josh, I wonder in the future if Dr Carrier's thesis, sorry "conversation", Dr Carrier wanted a conversation may gain traction amongst Scholarship, it took 30 years for Moses to become fictional, which has wide acceptance today. Time will tell.
The narrative of the serpent being punished to crawl on its belly, as mentioned in Genesis 3:14, is often interpreted symbolically rather than literally. In the context of the story, the serpent’s punishment represents a fall from a previous state, implying a loss of status or ability. The text may suggest that the serpent, once perhaps a more noble creature, is now reduced to a lower form, symbolizing disgrace and humility.
Additionally, the imagery of “eating dust” is seen as a metaphor for defeat and subservience. It’s not that snakes literally consume dust, but rather that the phrase conveys the idea of being brought low1. The serpent’s punishment is thus a literary device to express the consequences of its actions within the story.
In various interpretations, the serpent’s condition after the punishment is contrasted with the creation of humans from dust, highlighting a reversal of fortune where the serpent is now associated with the dust it once rose above3.
It’s important to note that these interpretations are diverse and can vary widely depending on theological perspectives, cultural contexts, and individual beliefs.
It just sounds like you guys trying to hold on to your heroes, the very thing that gave you this great opportunity over others. "Of course everyone in there was real, there was a guy mimicking homer. Although all these characters have no real life back story but a made ones, like finding a letter that talks about an archangel that may or may not have walked among us, and his name . Yeah ok.
"hommer" 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Homer, not "hommer". Archangel, not "arch angle".
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o I saw "Arch Angle" open for "The 33rd Degree" at the Masonic Temple Theatre in Detroit
The argument isn’t that all the stories about Jesus are true, but that there was most likely a guy who inspired the stories and lies.
History proceeded as if there was a charismatic preacher who expected to be messiah, but failed. And when he died, instead of giving up, some of his followers ratcheted up the claims from messiah to supernatural savior and beyond
@@scienceexplains302 I'm not saying I didn't understand,all in saying is in reality reads different, let's take Joseph Smith like there's artifacts of his existence, whether what he was was saying was true or not, now that's recent but not so recent to talk you that when humans find something important to them they usually reserved some of that person's property. So you mean to tell me besides the kings that supposedly rule during that error that we have proof of but Jesus and Paul is just writing? Two figures that was sooooo important. Yeah ok. Like I said you just want Zeus, Homer, and Hercules to be real but I say otherwise.
I respect expertise, but sometimes experts have real blind spots. It seems to be those who assume Jesus was an historical figure don't have much real evidence to stand on. They will grant things like whole sections of the Bible are made up, some of the people in the Bible are made up, etc., but then say it's obvious Jesus was a real person. I sometimes think the only reason they think that is because they always have. And in some way it's their final attempt to cling to something they held dear at a certain point in their lives.
Paul knew his brother. Josephus recorded his brother's death. We have nothing like this for characters like Abraham.
Of course experts have blind spots, they’re human. The answer isn’t to ignore experts. We have the peer review process precisely to correct for this very flaw in our innate psychological makeup.
Experts in a field publish their works publicly in academic journals for other experts in the field to publicly pull apart their work. This is how consensus is arrived at. Not by amateurs on the internet.
Just because an expert (singular) can be wrong, that is not a good reason to ignore experts (plural) and the consensus within the field.
Q. What evidence for a historical Jesus do you want? What evidence do you expect and why do you expect it?
@@secretgoldfish931 Yes this is all true. I never said otherwise. My argument still stands. And I have a PhD, so no need to make obvious points about the nature of scholarship.
@@tomasrocha6139 Well a lot of people think the Josephus thing is bogus. And Paul saying he knew his brother doesn't really establish anything. The Gospels trace his lineage to Abraham, who you seem to concede might have been made up.
@@scottythetrex5197 Van Voorst (ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 83) states that the overwhelming majority of scholars consider both the reference to "the brother of Jesus called Christ" and the entire passage that includes it as authentic." Bauckham (ISBN 90-04-11550-1 pages 199-203) states: "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic". Meir (ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 108-109) agrees with Feldman that few have questioned the authenticity of the James passage. Setzer (ISBN 0-8006-2680-X pages 108-109) also states that few have questioned its authenticity.
The genealogies are pious fiction, so what?
The Historicity of Jesus would appear to be the least stable consensus around… it’s 100 years out of date. The most current scholarship would lead me to believe it is very OVERDETERMINED.
That being said, I think Dr. Bowen was quite responsible here.
What I basically hear from the conversation, is that the man and the interviewer too point to having done a lengthy study into ancient languages and texts, and from all of this they have come to the conclusion that Jesus was a historical person, but they do not argue otherwise that bragging about their deep knowledge. Without them giving some evidence out of their knowledge, their stance do not look convincing. What I hear also, is that a ley person have no right to think others than what the expertise teach them. But experts may not be honest and may absolutely want people in general believe thing they do not believe themselves. All things experts say must be weighted against own knowledge and own observations. People that blindly trust experts always fall into a trap sooner or later.
True, but at the same time, you can't really have an informed opinion about basically any serious academic issue without becoming an expert. Most of us recognize that in some fields, but in others just assume that common sense and casual observations are enough to put us on equal footing with the experts.
If you can't read Koine and Hebrew and you're not deeply familiar with the cultures in which the NT texts were written, why would you think you can debate on equal footing with those who are?
And we all recognize this when someone's talking nonsense where we do have expertise, but it's harder to see when we're doing it ourselves.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 A ley person interested in a field may still know some basic facts and when an expert say something that simply is not logical in regard to these facts, you have a reason to think the expert tells something he want you to believe, but does not believe himself. Also when an expert says something about a debated issue and demand others to believe it only because he is an expert, you have a red flag.
In this case there is no written evidence from the time of Jesus about Jesus himself . For me to believe Jesus was a historical person, I need some of these facts the expert uses to make this plausible. These pieces of his deep knowledge he did not provide.
The monologue this expert provided us with, is simply void of information. This is not good enough.
Myself I have said things about fields where I am not an expert, but based on some facts I knew, and I showed to be right.
Myself I admit that I do not know such basic facts about the historicality of Jesus. Therefore I did not state an opinion about it. But in this monologue I got nothing providing this,
@@knutholt3486 You're right. He didn't make the case for historicism. Because, as he said, he's not an expert on the period or the topic. So he restated the scholarly consensus on the subject.
Moses was considered historical as well as Abraham and other biblical figures. Now look at the consensus. Jesus is the logical next step.
The question of whether or not Jesus was a historical mundane human isn’t even relevant.
So what is he existed in history.
The only relevant questions are whether he was bullet proof and could fly.
Tell us sweetie, do you think that John the Baptist was a historical figure?
@@moonshoes11 I know what you mean. But the whole conversation shifts when you realize that Jesus was just an revealed being.
@@name_christian
Do you mean “imaginary” being?
@@name_christian Your "realization" here is your _belief_ and not a matter of fact.
the Jesus space astronaut, no. Could there have been a guy named Jesus (Yeshua) of course. But theres no evidence, if you cant substantiate the veracity of the bible, which we cant, then theres no reason to believe any of the bible stories
“There’s no evidence”
Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 93 AD, book 18 and book 20
Publius Cornelius Tacitus 115 AD, Annals, Book 15, Chapter 44
Uncontested Pauline Letters, 48 AD
Pliny the Younger, AD 112, Letter to Emperor Trajan.
The evidence is actually better than 99% of anyone who lived in first century Palestine.
@@collegework6191so you would agree Achilles was a real person? What about Remus, and Romulus? If I can find three ancient authors that wrote that people believe a myth about a person, that person is suddenly historical?
@@hermes2056your reasoning is flawed. That isn’t what he’s saying. This is just not how history is done.
Remove all the miracles, and we have an identifiable person at the core. The legends got bolted on afterwards.
There are no good reasons to conclude that Achilles or Romulus and Remus existed and the stories told about them are so far removed from the purported events.
Just because my great great grandad has stories told about how big the fish that he caught was, it doesn’t mean that I conclude that my great great grandad didn’t exist.
@@secretgoldfish931 I agree. We would have no clue what this Jesus did, or what his life looked like. That's effectively mysticism.
When inspiring philosophy argues for a historical Jesus, and ehrman argues for a historical Jesus these are very different people.
There is no good reason to conclude that the Jesus in the new testament existed. If you want to say a messianic cult leader that is one percent the person in the story that's fine. But who cares?
No one seems to agree how " history is done". History is done by however the experts in the field think it's done.
@@hermes2056 don’t get me started on Inspiring Philosophy! 😂😂😂
They might be very different, but that’s not the same as saying it’s reasonable to conclude that he didn’t exist.
Remove all the miracles and you have a specific person from a specific place in a specific time.
He was a cult leader that thought the end of the world was near and spoke about this. He had a named mother and named companions. He offended those in power who had him executed.
Much more than that we can’t say, but it is not the same as saying with confidence that if we travelled back in time, we would almost certainly not find a cult leader called Jesus from Nazareth, with a mother called Mary and a brother James and companions called Peter and Andrew who were fishermen……(maybe not all 12) wandering around, telling people about the end of the world, causing a disturbance in the Jerusalem temple and being executed by the authorities.
Inspiring Philosophy, of course, goes way too far. And so does mythicism, but in the other direction.
Derek clearly has access to decent podcasting equipment and an uncanny ability to make that equipment any of it sound like crap.
Yeshua was a common name in thebfirst century and apocalyptic rabbis were also just as common. So, the possibility that an apocalyptic rabbi named Yeshua isn't a stretch. The question is whether or not the Jesus in the Bible existed. Considering the fact that the Gospels and the letters of Paul each seem to be talking about a different "Jesus", it's quite possible that legendary stories of multiple apocalyptic rabbis (one of whome may have been named Yeshua) were merged together to create a mythological founder for Christianity much the same as Moses was created as a mythological savior figure for the Hebrews when the Egyptian economy collapsed and Canaan was no longer under Egyptian rule.
Jesus as well as all the Hebrew characters in the Torah/Bible are mythical.
Talk about pretentious.
💯
I would put an asterisk on trusting the consensus, because there is a history of subject matter experts in all sorts of fields getting important things very wrong and/or coming up with wrong ideas and holding to them long past the point where they are no longer supported by evidence. In physics an example of the first is the luminiferous aether and the string theory is an example of the second (I did a dissertation on string theory in grad school). Somewhat ironically the Clovis hypothesis has been on both sides of the argument when it comes to how and when the America's were first populated; initially being rejected for positing an older history of the native Americans, and now steadfastly holding on in light of evidence of older habitation and the unlikeliness of Beringia coexisting with an ice-free corridor in the ice sheet. My point isn't that the consensus on Jesus' historicity is wrong, but rather, we need a keep an open mind and recognize fallibility in even experts.
Yea, the argument has become reversed, in the realm of myth..its the "historical Jesus" believers who have the burden of proof. until then the mythologist position should be the default should it not?
Did Jesus exist? Most likely not
What was the point in your non-argument opinion?
Not a single person wrote about Jesus when he was supposed to be alive. Literally everything about Jesus is opinion or hearsay.
My view is we don't know. I''ve seen Richard Carrier's arguments. I've seen others who really really want to believe there was, but like you said, we have nothing from that time.
يسوع كان قبل ذلك ب1000سنه يسوع عاش ومات في اليمن ليس في فلسطين
But that is what history is most of the time. "OPinion and Hearsay". They didnt have video tapes and photographs back then. Historians piece together multiple sources of opinions and gathers multiple quotes that may even be hearsay to paint a picture. Very rarely in ancient history do you get something as solid as a tomb or a contemporaneous inscription with the name of the person your looking for.
@@ScholarVisual Yes, sir💐, it is difficult to find complete documentation of the lives of important people, such as philosophers, scientists, and prophets. We do not find contemporary writings about them, but we find many signs and evidence about their existence, especially what relates to the biblical stories, for a fundamental reason, in my opinion, that Westerners believe the Biblical and Biblical story and the first writings written by Westerners about those stories💐, sir.🌷 The biblical stories have been completed. Transferring its entire geography, so you find confusion and uncertainty around it. What if you searched for the true location of the story? What if the Arabic story is the correct one🌺? What if you searched for it in Yemen🌻? Thank you🌺🌱🌹🌳💐🌲🪴🌴
@@ScholarVisual Right, and in the case of Jesus, we have exactly zero sources. Paul never claimed to have met Jesus. The first complete gospel was in 200, and there were many gospels, including the gospel of Judas. We don't even know who wrote the 4 cannonical gospels. They all copied from "Mark". What we have are stories. But hey, if you are a believer, why not have your all powerful all knowing god show up to everybody tomorrow, prove he's god, let everybody ask all the questions they want, and record all the responses in their own language? Why are we guessing?
I’m happy to defer to the consensus … but I’m still not personally convinced he existed… the frustrating thing is that scholars who are convinced have passed the burden of proof to people who aren’t convinced of the consensus positive claim.
Everytime I ask “what is the one piece of evidence that really convinced you Jesus must have existed?” I never get a great answer.
You talk about " new testament consensus " would Licona, Habermas etc be part of that? Because they also believe in Jesus AND miracles. Are they reliable historians??
Alas, the consensus of scholars at issue are expert in New Testament Studies, a field that does not get reliable results. It might seem that it does to Derek our host, Dr. Bowen, and Professor Ehram, because they got here via theology which is so much worse. Secular history has a higher standard of evidence than secular religious studies, and gets blown away by STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). Some of the fields tangentially referenced, -- astronomy, biology, geology -- are nowhere close to New Testament Studies.
Dr Josh looks like a young Indiana Jones
Would like to hear more about the Sabians and their relationship to early Christianity.
And the consensus answer Wins? Really!! So the highest number is correct? The More the mightier? How tall is this tower again?
1 Kings 18:21-22 NKJV
And Elijah came to all the people, and said, "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him." But the people answered him not a word. [22] Then Elijah said to the people, "I alone am left a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
paul did not exist. he is a literary character created to convert gentiles.
@sresponses exactly.
Nobody can prove or disprove if Jesus existed. The “scholars” can make their best guess but that’s about it.
@@dirkjensen969Poor eyesight perhaps?
Hitchens' Razor - "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." There is no verifiable evidence that a Biblical Jesus existed, so we can simply dismiss the claim.
@@secretgoldfish931 A guy?
@@Vintage-Bobmy reply keeps getting deleted I think, maybe cos of the link?
Anyway, search for Christopher Hitchens on Jesus of Nazareth, the clip is by Anti1Theist.
@@Vintage-Bobyeah, dunno why my reply keeps disappearing. Seems I can’t include a link. Just search for Hitchens on Jesus of Nazareth, there’s a clip loaded up by Anti1Theist.
There are three Jesuses in the OT. Two of them, Elishua and Jesus Jehozadak, are "second comings" of the other Jesus, Jesus son of Nun. Only twice is Jesus Nun mentioned after his death in Judges. Once as Elijah is being introduced (Jericho rebuilt), as the Elijah/Elisha relationship is partly based on the Moses/ Jesus relationship. (They all part bodies of water, for example). The second mention is in Nehemiah 8. Nehemiah begins with the return of the exiles (led by Jesus) and ends with Nehemiah confronting the descendants of a Jesus. Nehemiah rebuilds the wall and has the Levites celebrate by circling it. Sound familiar (Jericho, inverted).
This is all in the OT, so OT (Hebrew Bible) scholars should be the FIRST to say, "LOOK, Jesus of Nazareth is based on OT Jesuses!"
I've never understood the mythicist position. We have Apollonius of Tyana. Like Exorcists were popular in this time period. Doomsday prophets were popular. If you're going to tell me that there was a man named Yeshua from Nazareth who started preaching to people, and who then became unpopular with people in power over his message and his following and was killed, and that two followers, his brother James, and his disciple Peter, spent the rest of their life sharing his message, while another guy, Paul, who was persecuting the people who came to worship the man as a god, suddenly did something so atrocious that it caused him to have a mental breakdown and change sides. That doesn't seem that far fetched or difficult to imagine.
Then you say, they worked as a communistic union, recruiting people to sell everything they own, bring all the money to the church and then did outreach, by feeding the poor and hungry and recruiting them into the church, causing it to grow. Seems legitimate.
Then a government official, has a conversion, and decides to spread the message far and wide.
Yeah, that's what happened with Buddhism and King Ashoka.
It's not that it's difficult to imagine an historical Jesus. It's that the evidence available to us is more suggestive of a composite figure molded from Jewish scripture and Greek storytelling and drama. For example, the 12 disciples. We have no evidence outside the NT that any of them existed, except for wild stories invented by the Church.
Yes a person named Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef in the first century Palestine existed . I don't believe in all the miracles but Jesus existed. In the Bible the word Christian is only spoke of three times. I actually believe the word Christian was interpolated into the book. And Christian's as we know them today did not exist in the first century in name and practice. The first century so called quote on quote Christians were actually named Nazarene.
I think when people talk about Jesus they actually have to qualify who exactly they mean. When it comes to christianity, a historical Jesus has attributes like being killed by Pilates etc. That ofc is utter nonsense.
@@name_christian
The historical Pontius Pilate didn't keep a record of his persecutions. All we have is the biblical account. Like I said previously, I personally don't believe in all the miracles of Yeshua. Jesus name in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke. If the miraculous birth never happened happened, Jesus will be the direct descendant of King David tribe of Yuda(Judah). Making his name Yeshua Ben Yosef.
In the first century CE, literally every religious zealot, messianic preacher or whoever followed beliefs or ideology about a jewish messiah, would be understood as "Christian" by Greeks or Romans. A christian bible didn't exist yet, but the Septuaginta was already written BCE, translating any use of "mashiach" in Hebrew to "Christos" in Greek. No Jesus needed for that.
Speaking of BCE, Christians did exist during the Septuagint. The only difference is dear lord and savior was named Christos Serapis. An Egyptian God created by the Ptolemaic Dynasty. The religion live throughout the Ptolemaic period, well into the Hellenistic period. During the Hellenistic period, the followers(Christians) of Serapis were made to go underground in secret as a mystery religion, akin to the Freemason religion of today.
Yeshua Bar Yosef, not Ben Yosef
The man,yes. The demigod,no
Nobody claimed Jesus was a demigod.
@@dirkjensen969 Actually, both. Each in its own manner of existence. "Man" as an actual living and breathing member of the Homo sapiens species in the 1st century Galilee and Judea, and "demigod" as a creation of the weird little minds of the 20th and 21st century crackpot conspiracy theorists who know nothing and spout everything. And the third thing, the Jesus Christ of Christian belief, existing as an object of worship in the minds of the believers.
Well stated sir maybe ma'am lol
@@yunglion8676 What about other genders?
We have nothing contemporaneous. My view is we just don't know.
We know for sure the following did not happen. Matthew 27:51-53 At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and[a] went into the holy city and appeared to many people.... .We can conclude Jesus did not exist and it's a MYTH.
So I asked the question about Isaiah 53 and still haven’t found a good answer after doing a lot of research. But then I started thinking about all of the other OT prophecies and foreshadowing of the Messiah to come. After thinking through it, I determined that if the NT isn’t true and if it was all made up or a hoax, it would have been so elaborate that it can’t be ignored. Even under the assumption that Jesus didn’t exist, it still would have required that the disciples create a story that would tie in to over 300 OT prophecies/foreshadowings about Christ including references to his birthplace, lineage, miracles he would perform, suffering, death and resurrection as well as typological/symbolic references such as the sacrificial lamb, Passover killing of first born/Jews being spared by putting blood of a lamb on their door posts, Abraham and Isaac, the bronze serpent in the desert, Jonah 3 days in the belly of a fish, Jesus as the new Adam, Satan striking his heel and Jesus crushing his head, etc.). And in terms of the life and eventual crucifixion of Christ in order to fulfill all those prophecies that were not specific mind you (just little snippets), this what the disciples would have had to pull off to make it all align:
First find a unmarried woman from Nazareth in the line of Jesse who was willing to lie and say she became pregnant by way of the Holy Spirit despite whatever scorn that might bring to fulfill Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 11:1. She would also have to agree to her son being tortured and killed to fulfill the OT prophecy about a sacrificial lamb. Then, the disciples would have to be sure that Mary would give birth in Bethlehem even though she’s from Nazareth to fulfill Micah 5:2 (even though the disciples may not have even been familiar with the minor prophets). Then when the child grows up, they would need to convince him to claim to be the Messiah and eventually be crucified for it. Oh and her husband would have to be on board with all of it as well.
Now, Isaiah 53 says that his own people would reject and kill him, so they would need to be sure that no one actually believes what he says and that in fact that he so anger them that they crucify him. And then there’s Zechariah 11:12-13 (again, minor prophet) which talks about how Jesus would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and so they would need to find someone who could get into his inner circle and agree to betray Jesus at which point they would need to get the Jewish Leaders to pay the betrayer that exact amount for betraying him. Now, when he’s crucified, they would need to make sure that the Roman soldiers don’t break his legs before taking him down as they do with many other criminals because of what it says in Psalm 34:20 (even though the disciples may not have been familiar with all of the Psalms). Also, they would need to make sure that the soldiers give Jesus vinegar to drink to fulfill Psalm 69:21. Then they would need to add a story about how the soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ clothing to fulfill Psalm 22:18. They would also need a story about how a rich man put Jesus in his own tomb to fulfill Isaiah 53:9. Knowing that people would be less likely to believe the story if it was just on their own account, they would need to get a Jewish historian who didn’t believe that Jesus was the Christ to corroborate in a written work that Jesus was in fact tried before Pontius Pilate, was crucified, and that many people claimed to have Jesus after he died (yes, I get that this is disputed).
To summarize: The disciples meticulously went through scripture as if they somehow even understood what the prophecies were about and then created a plan that would seemingly fulfill all of the 300 prophecies/foreshadowings about Christ including finding a virgin from Nazareth in the line of Jesse who would agree to shame herself by saying she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit and then have her give birth to the child in Bethlehem and then get the guy to agree to call himself the Messiah just so he could be rejected and crucified all while creating however many hundreds of other tie-ins back to the OT. And for what? To be thrown in jail, flogged, and eventually executed just to perpetrate a hoax? Would you die for that or would you just renounce it as a hoax instead of being stoned, beheaded, or crucified upside down? Then you have to get everyone around you to believe your hoax (even though they could easily disprove it if not true) and then have it spread it all over the place. And that’s assuming that Jesus actually existed and was crucified. Now try spreading that gospel for a man who was entirely fake and that no one ever even saw or heard preach or seen crucified.
However you slice it, that’s no small feat and again, for what? What could they possibly have to gain even if they were somehow able to create a story that would align perfectly with those 300 OT references and then get a guy along with his mother and father to all agree to him being rejected and crucified. If the goal here is objective truth, you can’t ignore this, and if you can without having an answer to it, then I’m sorry but you’re a blind fool. And sincerely, I don’t say that to offend anyone but to challenge people that if you don’t have a good explanation for how that’s possible, it’s a big problem. Even if scribes altered texts or disciples made stuff up, there’s simply no way that anyone would be smart enough and meticulous enough to somehow make it all work together like that. I’m open to other people’s thoughts and explanations but I’m just saying, think about it. No one even knew what those prophecies meant on the whole, they were just nuggets, and so think of how much more difficult it would be to then create a story that hits on all of those even if Jesus was fake, which historians agree that he wasn't. If the goal is to be objective and find the truth, then I would challenge people to have an answer for how that is possible and also think of a good reason why anyone would even do it if it meant certain death.