Bart Ehrman Responds to Mythicist Comments
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- I had Bart Ehrman back on to reply to a few Mythicist criticisms on our last video interview together.
--
Check out Dr. Ehrman's upcoming webinar here: holykoolaid--e...
Check out some of Dr. Ehrman's best-selling books:
Did Jesus Exist? - amzn.to/3I66rvN
Misquoting Jesus - amzn.to/3xErTTR
If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting my work:
Make a per-video pledge: / holykoolaid
Make a monthly pledge: subscribestar....
Make a one-time donation: www.paypal.com...
Join my newsletter: www.holykoolaid...
--
Get Holy Koolaid Merchandise: holykoolaid.cr...
+ Twitter: @holykoolaid
SUBSCRIBE
+ Please Subscribe to my channel: goo.gl/ie3EZh
Thank you so much for your ongoing support. Science is greater than Dogma. Dare to be curious, but don't Drink the Koolaid!
The easy argument is if biblical Jesus isn’t historical Jesus, then by definition the Christian biblical Jesus is a myth
It's really as simple as that. No need for all the fuss and debates.
Yes, the Christian BIBLICAL Jesus is a myth, based on a real not holy man. That's historian's point that Mythcists disregard.
Yes, the Biblical Jesus is a myth. There was a historical Jesus however. A troublemaker apocalyptic preacher that the mighty Roman Empire got rid of.
ROMA AETERNA VICTRIX
@@rogeriopenna9014
I don't think you can truly say there was a historical Jesus with certainty.
@@rogeriopenna9014
What's the evidence for a historical Jesus?
I find myself waffling on the mythicism claim.
If we're talking about a rabbi in ancient Jerusalem who was crucified, sure. He may have existed.
If we're talking about an incarnation of a God who performed miracles and rose from the dead, not so much.
But if we start disregarding the magical claims that make "Jesus" who we was, at what point does he even count as the same person?
That part
The second sentence, I think. At least that's where historians I've read draw the line. Mythicists (typically) claim that even that person did not exist. If they agree that that person existed, then at that point you're just quibbling over the definition of "historical"
For me, also in the times I (as german "cultural" catholic) did not question it.
I had the idea that the teachings of Jesus are way more impressive when Jesus KNEW he is a mere mortal, and nevertheless was so persuaded of the relevance and importance of his new ideas that he rather dies than betrays them.
This is a REAL sacrifice.
The Jesus of John, who KNEW he was divine, who KNEW his task, who KNEW that his role was important, and that he would return to heaven. So this one day of suffering and 3 days timeout was a mere inconvenience, he had even time to say goodbye to his buddies. That was no sacrifice.
I daresay with that certainty anybody would have done the same.
With examples problematic concerns during this deadly pandemic that includes the 70 years of treating the victims of the physical and emotional abuse as if a form of merely acceptable collateral damage by the church mafia since 1950 for only the country of France alone, and that number goes way up over 2000 aberhamic authoritarian polical arena rigged very prophetable years as they keep lying about norad tracking $anta.
Rush - Farewell To King$🗽
The magical claims make Jesus who his followers believed he was. Remember that the Gospels are very much propaganda for the Christian community. Many biographies from the ancient world are littered with miraculous claims including miraculous birth to signify that person's importance in history. Hugest problem with Jesus was that the messiah was not suppose to die and he did die by crucifixion, so his followers had to work backwards and argue through Jesus why it was necessary for him to die to fulfill his messianic role. I agree with Dr. Ehrman that Jesus was most likely an apostolic prophet as his teachings fit in 100% with Jewish apocalyptic literature from the same period.
You define a historical person based on what it is said they did. I’d like to see ANY evidence for the character called Jesus in the Bible having done anything claimed. Not supposed. Out of 100% claimed he did biblically, show me the percentage one can back up with any amount of real evidence…
Go for it,,,
That is not how things work. You go from, "that man didn't do these things" to "that man didn't exist". The burden of proof for that leap is on you.
@@ricksimon9867 we have no one by that name known historically, … and no one known to have done the claimed deeds of this same person…. That truly leaves the ball in your court,,, not ours.
@@paddyodriscoll8648
Occam's Razor. What is more likely, that there was a rabbi who was executed, or that a huge Jewish sect started from nowhere?
@@ricksimon9867 no one claimed it started from nowhere. People worshiped Dionysius,,, it doesn’t mean he was real. Alexander the Great thought Dionysius was real. He even tried to visit the place of his birth. King Arther was thought to be a true historical figure for centuries,,, but we now know that’s a load of bullocks,,,, in Ireland, Saint Brigid is still viewed as a real person, but all good common sense shows she is just the same Celtic goddess Brigid that the Catholic Church rewrote as being a real person,,, just as they changed Samhain into all saint’s day,,, or Halloween…
@@paddyodriscoll8648
See if you can tell the difference between Jesus on the one hand and Dionysos or King Arthur or "Brigid" the other hand.
Ol' Bart seems to be taking your questions a little too personally, dontcha think? He comes across as overly defensive, and quite the pompous ass.
Ehrman seemed to meet every question with knee-jerk scoffing. Not impressed.
Because mythicism is an irrational belief. Thats why its rejected by almost every historian.
@@Mike00513
Explain how mythicism is irrational. Or are you just lying again?
@@cygnusustus
Its irrational because its a fringe theory not even taken seriously by mainstream scholarship. Virtually all historians and New Testament scholars accept that Jesus existed.
Mythicists have erroneous methodology when assessing Jesus existence, especially when criticizing out fundamental sources, and they come to very fringe and bizarre conclusions. Thats why its irrational bozo.
@@Mike00513
"Its irrational because its a fringe theory not even taken seriously by mainstream scholarship."
Popular consensus is not what makes something rational or irrational, child. I'm not at all surprised you don't know what the word "rational" means.
"Mythicists have erroneous methodology when assessing Jesus existence"
Do you have evidence for Jesus's existence? I'm speaking of the Jesus which is popularly believe to have been born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the dead. Do you have any evidence for any of that nonsense?
No. Of course you don't. So the Jesus describe in the Gospels is rationally believed to be a myth, and it it those who believe such stories to be true that are irrational.
Wow, that was painful. Of course younger works can't have influenced how older works were created ... but younger works can influence how older works have since been edited.
The Jesus / Zeus question was really not handled properly. We can't read your mind Bart. "people don't write like that" just sounds like a blind assertion.
Of course Jesus couldn't have been a god, because there are no gods. But a lot of people today think he was/is a god, hence questions that make comparisons to Zeus or other gods.
Instead of snapping back something like "of course not because Jesus was a person and Zeus was a god!", just freaking explain that there's nothing in Zeus' mythology that links him to having been a real person with god stories wrapped around him, while there are links to Jesus (or multiple conflated Jesuses) being like this.
If you can't help people learn who don't know enough history to ask meaningful questions, then you're in the wrong place.
With the Jesus/Zeus thing, he basically responded to "how do you make the distinction?" by saying he doesn't understand the question and then reacting as though the one who asked was asserting that there is no distinction, which I don't think was the case (and even if it was, people who don't think that would still be interested in the answer to the actual question).
I get what you're saying, but I can also imagine Ehrman just losing his patience a bit. He likely hears this far more than a reasonable person would want to put up with. Also, I'm not sure it was a "meaningful question". The answer may have been poor, but then so was the question itself, and how it was phrased. He's not using the best example for the question. The Zeus/Jesus thing always feels like an overreach, far too general a category. Nonetheless, this was Bart's cue to be a bit pedantic, and patient, and it would have been good to hear a more measured, thoughtful response.
Greetings from Germany! As a teacher (MA of Ed., BA history + theology) I've often said to other people: don't hesitate to ask, there are no dumb questions. But meanwhile I've learnd, that there are a lot dumb questions and a lot unqualified Experts in theological and historical debates. Then I said to me: hey, stay calm. They don't know better, so be patient and take EVERYTHING seriously they say. Probably they know something new. The problem is, the moment you take a "expert" seriously, he/she stoppes listening at WHAT you say and just feels like: wow, I'm just having a debate with an intellectual about my "theories". I think Mr. Ehrman treats the question right in simply laughing at it. So the question and the person behind it, gets the deserved emotional response. I'm talking about adults. I never treat my students like that of course. (sorry for my bad english)
@@infocus this is 100% it. This shit is just stupid and he hears it all the time. He’s being dismissive with you because you’re being dismissed.
For me, the most frustrating thing about how he handled that question is that he has the answer. I’ve read some of his books, Ehrman could have given that a cool and measured response with a reasoned answer. It’s not like this is a hostile forum, I doubt the commenters were acting in bad faith. I’m sure he gets these questions a lot but where’s the patience for people who don’t know better and are trying to understand?
This was another fantastically poor showing from Dr. Ehrman. I'm not a Jesus mythicist, but this was bad. Really bad. It's especially telling that Dr. Ehrman _again_ implicitly compares Jesus mythicism to Holocaust denialism.
However, thanks to both of you for making the video.
"We have multiple independent sources for Jesus"
"If you're looking for historical documentation for a figure from first century, you'd have very few people in history who were documented the way Jesus was"
I am not a mythicist, but I am dubious on these 2 claims. Unless by "multiple sources" he is referring to 2 gospels, and a few quick mentioning's by people who were talking about Christians. The recorded evidence for Jesus is amazingly poor. All the "sources" are either astonishingly bias or barely mention him, and only when referring to Christians and their beliefs at the time. This is ignoring that the main sources for the life of Jesus, the gospels, have wildly differing accounts.
I have heard a lot, and I mean *A LOT* of people say "there's a lot of evidence for Jesus" but I've never seen any of them present much of anything. Usually, its the gospels, Tacitus and Josephus as the main ones... all of which have the issues I already mentioned and more.
Not to insult Ehrman, but experience has taught me to call bs whenever someone claims to have evidence but doesn't present any.
His argument by scoff is rather uncompelling.
"Argument by scoff!" - perfect. He comes across (at least to me) as if he thinks raising his voice proves his point.
Iirc Tacitus is considered a great Historian because he was careful with what he says in his works he will even let you know if he thinks something us off in a text and when he mentions Jesus he seems to be certain lol
@@305thief8 His writing dates from 116 CE, decades after the gospels were written. His entire knowledge about Jesus' life could come from that. Or his good friend Pliny the Younger who got his knowledge from talking to christians some 80 years more or less after the supposed events in the gospels (i.e, the people were NOT eyewitnesses). Or there seems to be a change in the spelling of christ which may mean it refers to a known rebel leader Chrestos. All the evidence seems to be like trying to get a handful of fog - maybe yes, maybe no.
@@305thief8 Yes, he is certain that Christians believe something about Jesus. He isn't giving an account of the life of Jesus, he is mentioning what Christians of the time believe.
Ehrman uses a very loose definition of "independent" sources. He makes up imaginary sources to fill the void.
Dude, hope you recover fully. Nobody said the bike life would be easy LOL.
Can't wait for Godless Engineer to respond to this video.
But what if God is an engineer? Choo choo!!
Can't wait for the uneducated man-child to try to objevt against the guy who literally wrote the text books used by universities, within his field.
@@TheDarkness1 Nah, humans are way too physically flawed. He was definitely an architect.
@@Noah2472-j1n Good thing I'm not human. 😜 Perhaps the architect of the Matrix? Mayyyyybeeee...🤷
@@BurnBird1 Respect to everyone in their field of expertise, however everyone in this lifetime has their own given talents and free will. You can nourish those talents and live with passion or give into the system of control. Who knows maybe I'm just a man child LOL.
This guy butchered his response to the Zeus question, and keeps falling back on his "I'm not a Christian, you're all the biased ones" defense. I'm not finishing this, an incredulity defense isn't worth listening to.
At no point in any of the ancient stories about Zeus is he ever described as a human. He is created as a god, as a child of gods. Jesus was a man from the beginning who later got divine characteristics attributed to him.
@@donsample1002 Proof of that?
@@donsample1002, writes _"Jesus was a man from the beginning"_
Jesus was a god first and foremost, a god who took on the form of a human being by being born of a woman jesus himself raped and impregnated. Now tell me again how that's more reasonable than Zeus being the child of Cronus and Rhea.
@Don Sample
You're talking about two different Jesuses. To better ilustrate it I will give another example: Aesir. There was this idea among scholars that once in history they were a very much human noble family who got mythicized
There's no way of proving it either way. It might be an echo of some long forgotten history. Nevertheless for centuries now people treat those characters as gods
When someone makes fun of Odin who hung himself to learn how to read nobody claims that there was one day a real man who somehow developed whole writing system after his failed s*icide attempt
Human Odin and god Odin are two completly different characters
@@donsample1002 actually, Zeus was described as a human by Euhemerus.
And don't forget that academic mythicism claims that Jesus was believed to have had a human body at one point, so humanity isn't an argument against mythicism.
I am disappointed in Ehrman. He seems to have regressed. What Thomas brought up about Jesus of Ananias was pretty interesting and possible and Ehrman made fun of him for that. If Ananias is dead in 70 indeed his life/story could have influenced the Gospels, that were written after 70. The fact that Paul has written in the 50 about a Jesus is irrelevant to question that the life of Ananias could have influenced the formation of the Jesus character in the Gospels.
Both came to Jerusalem during major religious festival
(Mark14:2 , JW 6.301)
Both enter Temple areas and rant against Temple
(Mark11:15-17 , JW 6.301)
Both quote same chapter of Jeremiah
(Jer7:11- in Mark , Jer7:34- in JW)
Both preach daily in the temple
(Mark14:49 , JW6.306)
Both declared “woe” on to Judea or the Jews
(Mark13:17 JW6.304.306.309)
Both predict the temple would be destroyed
(Mark13:2. , JW 6.300.309)
Both are for this reason arrested by the Jews
(Mark14:43 , JW 6.302)
Both are accused of speaking against the temple
(Mark14:58 , JW 6.302)
Neither makes any defence of himself against the charges
(Mark14:60 , JW 6.302)
Both are beaten by the Jews
(Mark14:65 JW6.302)
Then both are taken to the Roman Governor
( Pilate in Mark , Albinus in JW)
Both interrogated by the Roman Governor
(15:2-4 , JW 6.303)
Both asked to identify themselves
(Mark15:2 , JW6.303)
Neither says anything in their defense
(Mark15:3-5 , JW6.305)
Both beaten by the Romans
(Mark15:15. , JW 6.304)
Not released in Mark15:6-15 ; released in JW6.309
Killed in Mark15:34 by execution
Killed in JW6.308-309 by artillery
Both utter lament for themselves immediately before they die
(Mark15:34 , JW6.309)
Both die with loud cry
(Mark15:37 , JW6.309)
@@unicyclist97 what is JW?
@@nazar1979iraq The Jewish War, by Flavius Josephus.
I’m sorry, I’ve tried time and time again to put up with the dismissive attitude and embarrassing laughter he uses instead of directly answering intelligent questions, his patronising response that people need to “learn how historical method is done” when the bulk of the reputable and absolutely serious scholars who “suggest” a mythical position are simply directly questioning the model of the historical method being used within biblical history unquestionably, by people like Dr Ehrman basically explains his fears.
For example… The absolute certainty of his claim that it’s a “fact” that Paul knew the brother of Jesus, instead of a contrived, disputed and by no means precise conclusion of an extremely flawed model of historical investigation that is only ever applied to biblical history is a major pointer.
The question didn’t say “because Zeus didn’t exist neither did Jesus” and he absolutely knew that… the question was why the special pleading for methods applied to Jesus Vs the ones applied to (for example) Moses, and then HK mentioned Zeus, did Ehrman address the question? No he deliberately latched onto the silly name, and ridiculed a perfectly reasonable question by attacking his own straw man.
As for his biases, he may not be a Christian, but the mans gotta eat, and his constant flippant, dismissive, and unsubstantiated rejection of everything that suggests any part of his current and previously published position on the myth question is flawed, smacks more of a financial fear and of an ego not able to contemplate even the possibility of losing face and adjusting his viewpoint, but that’s how the true scientific method works, and biblical history is a science, even while certain interested parties continue to claim a special pleading position for it as something that can exist outside of the scientific methods and standards applied in every other area of science archaeology and history, he’s not defending Christianity, he’s defending a flawed and damaged system of investigation that is riddled with past and current religious involvement and meddling.
The main position of mythicists isn’t an absolute claim that Jesus didn’t exist, it’s a reasonable question about the methods used by biblical historians, and that’s his problem with it, and why, he uses completely scientifically inappropriate absolutes when he claims Jesus existed… because any other position questions his body of work… and unlike a real scientist, he can’t be questioned.
If you ask a cosmologist: Was the Earth created in six days?, what kind of terminology do expect in the answer, something like "probably not"?
Bart is making the rounds all over youtube because he's got that new seminar that he's selling. One would think that his desire for that seminar to do well would give him the patience to enlighten us with the history instead of snapping at the audience, blowing them off as not knowing enough history or about the methods of historians to ask meaningful questions.
@@germancuervo945
That question is an example of reductio ad absurdum, and apart from being a logical fallacy, it’s a very pathetic way to address a legitimate question.
@@germancuervo945
Why your silly analogy is wrong.
You equate cosmologist with biblical historian.. When there is no comparison, because no branch of modern cosmology considers the involvement of astrology…
Dr Ehrman isn’t a historian, he’s a biblical historian… and he would have you believe that means his area of expertise is even more precise, instead of a flawed archaic section of ancient history studies, seeped in special pleading and deliberately ignorant of the modern historical methods used in every other area of historical investigation.
@@atheist666 But you didn't answer my question, what kind of terminology is the right one for such a question from a scientific perspective. Would be wrong if a cosmologist answers "of course the universe was not created in six days, evidence tell us a totally different story"?
I'm not a mythicist. But I don't understand why Bart Ehrman refuses to debate someone like Richard Carrier. If his arguments are so sound, it should be easy to expose the weaknesses of the arguments. I know Bart Ehrman debated Robert Price on mythicism, but frankly Richard Carrier is a much better debater, and would pose a sharper challenge. I know there are only so many hours in the day, and Bart Ehrman obviously is dismissive of mythicism, but I have always found it curious that he refuses to even name Richard Carrier, it's almost like he is not sure he could hold his own or keep his cool debating Carrier since he is prickly and abrasive at times. I don't know, it is just an observation. Again, I am convinced that a historical Jesus existed, by many of the arguments Bart Ehrman makes, but I always wondered why he refused to debate him.
Carrier is problematic. He uses the peer reviewed claim to cover over his bad arguments.
I read his books, they have some good points, but also some big stretches and false stuff.
The reason he avoids him is because he wouldn’t be able to appear in videos like this that seem to constantly label the mythicist position and RC as someone and as people who absolutely deny the existence of Jesus, he doesn’t, and that’s not the mythicist position.
His work on the subject is great in places, poor in others, but he doesn’t claim it to be complete or perfect, but as a starting point for serious debate, primarily about the problems with the process and standards used within the “biblical” historians community. Also RC isn’t a biblical historian… so there’s the Ehrman snobbery aspect, which is in itself an example of the problem.
Biblical historians think themselves a place apart from other ancient historians, and apply thus attitude when they use special pleading and questionable methods to reach conclusions that wouldn’t fly within mainstream ancient historian circles.
I was disappointed in how HK characterised mythicists within this video as people who say Jesus didn’t exist, because that’s not the case, a lot of individuals absolutely hold that view, but not the scholars, unlike Ehrman, they work on the balance of probabilities, not absolutes that are widely disputed.
@@honeysucklecat
Tbf… he doesn’t say he’s absolutely correct about everything, and whilst some of his work is a long stretch, his basic desire and insistence that there needs to be a full and frank modern discussion of the subject is absolutely correct.
I think he did already did he debated mythicists like Robert price lol
I recommend looking up a YT channel called History For Atheists he deals with Jesus Mythicism he's not a believer but an Atheist who accepts the Historical Jesus most likely existed
Goodness it is always frustrating to listen to Dr. Ehrman respond to mythicism. I get it, the idea to him is so trivially simple that he doesn't think its worth entertaining. But at least get to a real point at the end of the disappointment and condescension. I mean, I've seen professional scientists and science communicators field questions from flat earthers and, for sure, they pile on the eye rolling and condescension a lot of the time, but at least in the end they typically at least mention the science... There is a nuanced question there if he would just give it the smallest bit of charity. What is it about the different historical records that would lead the historical community to begin questioning the reality of Moses but not at all question the reality of Jesus? Of course, Zeus is thrown in there too and that is what Bart picks up on since it is clearly the more absurd comparison and the easier one to ridicule. From an outsider's perspective it sure seemed like the reality of Moses was fairly broadly accepted until archaeological and historical evidence made it pretty clear that many of the events of the narrative didn't happen. Well... those same kinds of evidence make it pretty clear that many of the events in the Gospels didn't happen either (dead walking around Jerusalem, sun standing still in the sky, etc.). So whats the difference that makes Moses mythicism mainstream and Jesus mythicism laughable.
I am not a mythicist. I have no problem accepting that the Gospel stories are based on a real person. It is just frustrating that the only tingle of sympathy I ever get for the mythicist position is apparently when I listen to Dr. Ehrman choose to answer questions in the most dismissive way possible.
He got to several points. You may not have liked the answers, but he did.
As a geologist, I have occasionally had to interact with people who are Creationists, but I have never laughed at them. I don’t know what Bart Ehrman’s laughter signifies. It makes me feel very uncomfortable and irritated.
@@SiriusMined Maybe we are talking about a different place in the video. I'm talking to the question that asks what (paraphrase) what is the difference between Jesus and figures like Moses and Zeus. I just listened to Bart's full response to that question over again and here is everything he said:
I have no bias, I'm not a Christian - fine, that's irrelevant
Zeus is a god, Jesus is a man - This I don't understand. Zeus's mythology did have him as a physical being existing on planet earth and interacting with people. Obviously Zeus and Jesus aren't the same thing, but the implication seems to be that the Zeus mythology is completely incompatible with even the possibility of a historical truth which I just don't understand.
Because Zeus didn't exist, Jesus didn't exist - This part he completely loses me. It makes me think he didn't understand the question at all. The question did not take anything even approaching that position.
It isn't a serious conversation - This is of course the whole purpose of the question... What makes this unserious compared to Zeus and Moses. Again, I agree that this isn't a serious conversation, but the point is that this is where he should be inserting reasons!
Jesus is a documented figure. Apostle Paul knew his brother. No one knew Zeus' brother - This is as close as he gets to giving a good reason, and I do think this is fundamentally a good reason. But instead of actually taking it seriously he again just dismisses it with "no one knew Zeus' brother". Well, fine, but all those gods were apparently out fathering half-human kids all over the place. I suspect there are plenty of stories or traditions that amount to "we saw his kid!" Is that really worse than "I knew his brother"? I think the real point to be made are things like proximity of the documentation to the events described, maybe something to do with the genre, etc.
He then mentions that some scholars still think that Moses is historical and they have some good reasons which completely demonstrates the point of the question! In the case of Moses, it is a serious conversation. But, he declines to elaborate further.
He finishes by saying you have to look at the evidence, again, exactly what the question was asking for - the methodology and evidence that justifies treating these 3 potential historical figures differently.
Maybe I am not being fair and maybe he gives better answers in the later parts of the video. I didn't have an appetite to listen further. I've heard him speak on the topic of mythicism before and this response is consistent with what I've seen. All he probably has to do is take the question seriously by mentioning proximity of documentation to the events described, some degree of verified independence of sourcing, early church traditions, I don't know... I'm not the expert. The point is that the question has a legitimate and scholarly answer and he just doesn't seem to want to dignify it by telling it.
@@MendTheWorld You just encapsulated my impression in a way I would never have thought to say it! Well done! That condescension really is irritating and offputting, and whether or not he's correct, he won't win anyone over that way.
@@zeta432 thanks, I needed to read this :)
I know of only two early extra-biblical sources that mention Jesus: Jospehus and Tacitus - no one else (despite Bart's claim of many, which went unchallenged here). The account of jesus given in Jospehus' "Antiquities" is considered to be entirely or partly fraudulent by mainstream NT scholars. Elsewhere in the "Antiquities" we find: "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" - a very clumsy sentence for Josephus, if indeed he wrote it entirely. But then later in the same paragraph, we learn that James is the son of "Damneus" (not Joseph), so it is unclear whether the Jesus mentioned there (as brother of James) is really the Jesus of the Gospels. Even if "called Christ" is not a scribal interpolation, the fact is that all Jewish priests wre anointed, and hence "christs", so the ambiguity as to who this Jesus is remains.
The passage in Tacitus relating to "Christ" and "Christians" (or is it "Chrestians"?) does not find scholarly consensus as to authenticity. It seems strange to me that Christians in the 60s CE (when Nero was emperor) would have been considered a threat by the Romans, and distinguised from Jews, and numbered as a "multitude" by then (as Tacitus allegedly claimed). The only missionary to Rome in that period was Paul (that I am aware of). But Paul was under house arrest, so could hardly be expected to have converted multitudes of Romans to Christianity. And of course the Gospels had still not been wirtten. I have doubts about the authenticity of the passage in Tacitus.
*The account of Jesus given in Josephus “Antiquities” is considered to the entirety or partly fraudulent by mainstream NT scholars.*
The majority of historical Jesus scholars and Josephus specialists consider the Testimonium Flavianum to not be authentic in its entirety, but partly authentic to Josephus. As in, there was an original reference to Jesus in book 18, but was altered and edited by Christian scribes. And based on the evidence we can be confident that Josephus did mention Jesus. The theory that the Testimonium was inserted wholesale by Christians is a minority view.
-
*We find: “Brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name is James” a very clumsy sentence if written by Josephus. But we learn later in the same paragraph that James is the son of Damneus not Joseph.*
The consensus of scholars is that the James reference is entirely authentic and is highly unlikely to have been a scribal interpolation. Given that Josephus doesn’t directly call Jesus “The Christ” or “Messiah” only “Who was called Christ”. Meaning Josephus is telling us that Jesus is known as the Christ to some people. And the Greek word he uses for it can be translated to “Alleged”, “called”, or “so called”. Which can have a negative or neutral connotation.
And we see this same word used by Josephus elsewhere in his works so it matches Josephus vocabulary. And Christians didn’t normally refer to James as the brother of Jesus, rather the Lords brother. So the reference doesn’t match Christian vocabulary. And, we know how Josephus was careful to differentiate between different people with the same common first name.
So it makes more sense that he calls one “Jesus who was called Messiah” and the other “Jesus son of Damneus” to do precisely this. Nowhere else does he call the same person two different things in the same passage, as the Mythicist argument requires. And he certainly would not do so without making it clear that the Jesus who was made High Priest was the same he had mentioned earlier, which he does not do.
-
*Even if “called Christ” is not a scribal interpolation, the fact is that all Jewish priests were anointed and hence “Christs”, so the ambiguity to who this Jesus is remains.*
Since there are no actual examples of any priests being referred to this way, this is another ad hoc argument designed merely to get your argument off the hook.
-
*The passage in Tacitus relating to Christ and Christians (Or is it Chrestians) does not find scholarly consensus as to authenticity.*
You probably won’t find a single reputable Tacitean scholar who actually finds this passage about Jesus and the Christians dubious or subject to interpolation. The large scholarly consensus is that Tacitus reference to Jesus is both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source. Its really only Jesus mythicists on the internet that find problems with this reference.
Are we skipping Pliny?
Nothing better than watching these atheists battle it out over Jesus. 😂
Did Bart Ehrman really compare the evidence for the holocaust to the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth? Did I hear that right???
Yeah, he either knows nothing about the vast difference between the quality of evidence between those or he's deliberately straw manning.
@@unicyclist97 he’s straw-manning. It’s his go-to move.
horrible debater and can't hold his own...it would've been excellent for C. Hitchens to debate this guy
People still deny the Holocaust, don't they?
@@sananton2821 So you have photos of the historical Jesus???? 😂
As a historian, I completely know the way Dr. Ehman feels at times. It gets very difficult to explain certain things over and over again like he has to.
and then you have everyone in the comments upset that bart didn’t give his best answer or remain perfectly calm lmao.
It sucks, but don’t portray yourself as a teacher if you’re not willing to explain the same thing a million times. There’s literally always going to be someone who hasn’t heard the explanation before. Good luck making getting the person to listen if you make them feel stupid for asking.
@@Looshington lol I know. It's obnoxious (on the part of the overconfident commenters).
When the Question came up about Second Jesus in Josephus, Erhman said that this Jesus was prophesying about the destruction of the Temple only, so, he could have not been the Jesus of the Bible.
Why?
Because according to Bart, the Gospel of John does not speak about the destruction of the temple---then he uses the argument that Paul wrote about Jesus before the temple was destroyed.
But, Bart did not give any references where Paul mentions that Jesus prophesied about the destruction of the Temple?
so, did Paul in his 7 letters ever spoke about Jesus prophesying the destruction of the Temple? if the answer is no, which i have a feeling is the right answer, then Bart just made a huge mistake, he refuted his own argument.
@@heelercs I completely agree with your sentiment. It's the path Dr. Ehrman chose, and he is very good at walking that path. I've watched many hours of him debating, lecturing and so on. I've read 4 of his books, so I have some familiarity with his work. I admire the man. My point was that I know how it feels, and that being said, I am not composed, nor patient enough to do what he does. It's why I deal in ancient numismatics, and not in teaching students. There isn't as much contention there. You want to know what the first Roman coin with a Christian reference on it? I can help. If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? I can answer that, but I prefer not to, depending on who is asking.
Ehrman is insufferable in this conversation.
Because insufferable to you means anyone questioning your indoctrinated beliefs? Just curious.
@@TheDarkness1. I think he’s referring to Ehrman’s flippant and condescending tone.
@@dostonjones7183 because it comes to a point where people get tired of dealing with those that can't think on their own. They rely on some indoctrination of belief and stick to it like a damaged child throwing a temper tantrum. He's just stating it like it is and not afraid to throw questions back.
@@TheDarkness1 No. I never had the opportunity to learn, ask questions, or make counter arguments because he was too busy scoffing at the idea to the extent that he was incomprehensible. I couldn't hear his arguments over his indignant attitude. That's why he was insufferable.
My position is that even of there was a Jesus... He's not the Jesus in the bible. My neighbor exists. But if I told you he could conjure physical objects just by imagiging them, and he could teleport himself to anywhere on the globe when he wanted, and he has a massive cult following; I would be describing someone who doesn't exist. So that is where my bias would lie. Stating Jesus was a real person when everything we know about him isn't real seems as ridiculous to me as the mythasists appear to Ehrman. But unlike Ehrman I'd never angirly laugh and scoff at people who simply think there was a guy named Jesus that stood as the basis of the tales. I would ask for evidence and that evidence would be convincing or its not. (His evidence is not convincing...at least what I could gather when he's carrying that attitude.)
@@dwightfry99 apparently we must have watched completely different discussions because that's not what he said at all. You and him are on the same side but apparently there's a disconnect of communication in your mind.
Ouch, pre suppositions on the whole story being known in pauls era, not stitched together in the 90s. Not Ehrmans best for sure.
10:00 whether Jesus was "historical" or not I think Bart is being a prick here. The question is pretty obvious...They're even asking what methodology. Then Bart throws it back in their face, "there is propper methodology here". wtf lol
I thought Erhman was being a bit disingenuous. The question mention Moses so why did he get so hung up on Zeus?
Moses was considered an historical figure at one point. So mentioned couldn't he roughly lay out the process in which consensus changed.
@@WorldCupWillie Zeus was a much lower hanging fruit. Very telling Bart.
I agree. My overall impression is that Bart was quite arrogant in this interview. He is so convinced that his position is correct that he is entirely dismissive of contrary views. The reality is that no one knows if a single "Jesus" existed or not. Personally I suspect that he did, but it would not surprise me in the slightest if one day it is discovered (somehow) that he was entirely mythological.
@@WorldCupWillie except that he then goes on to clarify that there *is* currently historical debate about whether a figure Moses was based on *did* exist, which brings him into the same ambiguously historical realm as Jesus. there was never historical record of Zeus existing as other than a god. there's no reason to question whether He existed because there's no claim He did.
@@nondescriptcat5620 he doesn't mention Moses after the part where he talks about Zeus.
Bart is way too defensive and angry.
yep
Yeah he comes off a bit condescending sometimes.
I’ve gotten farther into the video, and so let me correct myself - Bart is VERY condescending LOL. As well as defensive and angry. If you don’t understand someone’s question, you can handle it a much gentler way
Isn't the existence of the apocryphal writings evidence that there was some "competition" to come up with some story?
Else, why do we even have so many non-canonical texts?
You should now have Richard Carrier on your channel.
Good vid, but he misunderstood or missed the actual question that said something about Zues. The question was simple, how do you separate the myth from the man/men.
I think he was fully aware of what the real question was. He could have rephrased it and answered it properly. Instead he chose to laugh it off as ridiculous.
This is to Mr. Ehrman, why are you always laughing when what you are saying is so important and worth listening to? The laughter is a bad distraction.
You don't like laughter? Why so serious? 😁
It’s nervous laughing because he’s being tagged on poor scholarship, and a refusal to properly address this issue, and it pisses him off to be found out.
Please have this guy debate the Godless Engineer, rather than strawmen. I'd be much more interested in that. I'd like to see a serious debate against someone with the best arguments. Rather than one guest laughing as he kicks down straw effigies of people that aren't there. It would be much more informative to me.
No, would be much better if he debated Dr Richard Carrier. John Gleason is just a messenger, he's not a source.
@@ykalon Carrier isn't a source either.
@@kissfan7 He certainly is. He is a historian. He has written extensively about the Jesus myth
@@ykalon First, historians aren't sources. Second, Carrier is pretty low tier on any list of "historians". He's currently unemployed and even he admits his theories are fringe.
In any event, Bart already debated a Mythicist. Robert Price is pretty much the only real academic who follows the Christ Myth theory and he pretty handily lost the debate.
I was looking forward to the Price vs Erhman debate for a long time. I like Price but he didn't do very well in their debate.
I am not a mythicist, but I wish Ehrman and Carrier would get together and either fight or fuck already. It would at least be entertaining and probably educational.
I saw Ehrman and Price's debate, and while Ehrman clearly won that, I think it was less on the strength of the materials and more on the strength of the debater. I'm not saying that Ehrman has bad materials; I'm saying Price did poorly enough that it was hard to tell just how strong of a case Ehrman had. On the other hand, I doubt anyone's ever accused Carrier of being too apathetic on the subject.
I find places where both Ehrman's and Carrier's claims seem to extend beyond the evidence, and I can't imagine anyone being better checks on them than each other. Bring it on. Maybe at least respond to Godless Engineer's and Carrier's response videos to your original video with Koolaid.
I don't know why I bothered here. Jesus was real because *list disputed author or source* followed by Jesus is real because * unknown non existent source* and he's mentioned in the gospels. 🙄. Tom. Buddy. Just let this die.
Did Ehrman just completely ignore the fact that both Mathew and Luke deliberately alter accounts, add stories and rearrange events to clearly follow a non Torah observant/ Torah observant agenda? And doesn’t think this could be influential on how they present sources?
So yes they obviously both copied Mark, but there’s a pretty strong argument that Luke “copied” from Mathew, albeit to usually alter the message, it doesn’t actually matter, regardless, they’re not any of them eye witness, or even 5th hand accounts, nothing said in them proves anything about the actual existence of Jesus, and well John is just… out there… 😂
There isn't a strong argument for it, considering that the vast majority of scholars don't support that position. The differences between Luke and Matthew makes it really clear that they didn't use each other as sources. The different nativity stories, both of which are constructed to fulfill the same prophecy makes it rather clear that they didn't know of each other. Why would they invent two different stories to solve the exact same problem?
@@BurnBird1
Do I really need to point out that arbitrarily saying “there isn’t a strong argument” and then only supporting this with “the vast majority of scholars” is about as flawed a piece of reasoning a person can use.
Setting aside the logical fallacy of appealing to the majority…. It’s in trouble when the “vast majority” of biblical scholars are self confessed, self interested, religiously biased pre determined individuals who on the whole obtained and use doctorates as badges of authority to help falsely reinforce the bias in their arguments and conclusions.
With regards to the differences you cite and to many others, both of these writers had specific political (within a religious context) ideals that they were determined to promote by redaction, alteration, addition and invention..
The problem when being expertly lied to, is the same in biblical study as it is when you’re in the religious cults themselves, because the liars are the basically same people with the same agenda and motives, and the audience just listening without questioning.
@@BurnBird1 Perhaps Matthew’s author was anti Herodian? He doesn’t take kindly to the Jewish elite in his Gospel. Also one other argument could be at the end of the day someone has to make up at least part of their gospel narrative. Maybe Luke thought his sounded better.
@@Will-uu9kh Luke's gospel isn't pro Herod either and there's really nothing about Luke's account that really changes anything surrounding Jesus' birth. If anything, Luke's version is way more nonsensical, since he has to invent a census which doesn't work the way censuses work.
@@atheist666 you are using the exact same arguement as creationists, you do realize, right?
There's no vast conspiracy within academia, but arguements stand and fall on their own. If biblical academia was do corrupt as you propose, then why would the majority of scholars hold that:
Jews started out as polytheists, but through theological evolution and later, through religious reforms, made Yahweh their only God, while still retaining a lot of polytheistic elements.
That the OT was stitched together from multiple different writers, all of whom had different understandings of god's nature.
That the vast majority of events in the OT weren't historical
That half of Paul's epistles are forgeries, along with all the other episltes from supposed disciples. along with that, the gospels were written anonymously, by non eyewitnesses and decades after the events.
That the Bible is full of contradictions and errors, both historical and geographical as well as theological.
Even if there's a lot of chrisitans within the field, the scholarship is decidedly neutral and approved of by both secular and religious scholars.
Don't argue like a creationist. You're better than that. There's no conspiracy to hide the truth. Facts are just facts.
I’m not a mythicist more on the fence but I find Bart dishonest in his claim there’s more evidence for the Jesus than other historical figures from that time. There is zero contemporary evidence for Jesus yet other famous people from that time and even earlier there is contemporary evidence, either writings from those individuals, people who knew them personally or archeological evidence.
With history we claim people existed until proven otherwise, there’s definitely not enough evidence to claim with 100% certainty that he did.
I've always thought that analysis of proving the existence of Jesus misses the point. The question is what are the origins of Christianity and what evidence is there for it. If Jesus was invented by whom was he invented? What evidence is there?
@@mrjdgibbs Not how this works. The origins of Christianity is a separate matter from Jesus' existence or lack thereof. If the origins of Christianity are lost to history then that's not a reason to say, "Whelp, ok, I guess this Jesus guy existed."
@@295Phoenix I'm sorry, mate but that is not at all how history works.
There is plenty of information from the world at that time to be able to posit a theory about the origin of Christianity.
You cannot simply say "there isn't as much evidence as I would like for Jesus the man therefore he didn't exist and we'll never know the origins of Christianity."
If Jesus were invented there are all sorts of things one would expect to be able to see in the lead up to 1st century Judaism that are simply not there. That's a serious problem for mythicists.
@@mrjdgibbs Wow, your logic is no better than that of the historians defending Moses' existence 50 years ago.
@@295Phoenix Weak.
And for what it's worth there's a world of difference between what we know about 1st century Rome and the world from which Judaism emerged post bronze age collapse. Likewise there's a world of difference between the evidence for Jesus and the evidence for Moses.
But you would know that if you actually cared about history.
The question around 9:40 about why he believes Jesus was a real person really works against him. He misundertood the question wildly, to the point where I'm confused how he could be that far off the mark. But just as surprisingly, he somewhat ended up finding his way close to the original question but still never actually answers it. It looks more like he didn't have an answer and tried his best to skip around it.
It didn’t seem intentional to me. It almost seems that he’s very quick to dismiss arguments as “I’ve already debunked this!”, and this makes him dismiss these questions without really giving them an honest consideration. It’s very unfortunate.
Bart really has a problem with the mythicist argument. Perhaps because he is so fond of his own theories and he is just no prepared to budge. He just won't engage with it. His book on the subject was pitiful.
You guys seem to mix LEGEND and MYTH. Alexander the Great was "legendized" and many "heroes" were legendized. It is likely that this was all about "giving authority" to real individuals by attaching supernatural elements to them.
That is not the same as stories of supernatural beings.
Counter:
But Jesus was described as a supernatural being.
Answer:
Yes, but he was also described in totally ordinary ways as well. Just take the fact that they had to "harmonize" the fact that he was from Nazareth with the prophecy that he was supposed to have been born in Bethlehem. A pure, fictional character would not have that problem. Pure fiction doesn't have to harmonize!
Also, people outside of a religion would not report pure myth as "fact", but legends they might ..
Also, the idea of Jesus as divine, was something that was DISPUTED in the first century. Naturalists would have to be expunged as "anti-christs" and heretics (it was a BIG problem), in order to get everybody on board with the "Jesus is God" (not an "adopted son", but one "from eternity") idea. This would not be a problem with a pure supernatural myth. Supernatural beings are "gods", they just are ..
@@lil-al Right because you are renowned New Testament scholar who has written peer research articles, textbooks used in seminary including my own, and “popular” books on the topic. Where you part of the team that translated and published the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Bible that most scholars used like Dr. Erhman?
This is why he does not take mysticism comments with no justification seriously.
As for his book, the evidence presented changed my mind about mythicism.
He definitely understood the question. The examples the questioner chose were poor, hence Ehrman's incredulous response. He should have picked Abraham or Laozi or another semi-mythical founder. The use of Zeus and Moses was not the best choice if he wanted to be understood.
Using the better analog, Abraham, the quick answer is simply this: Abraham is first written about CENTURIES after he allegedly lived, and there is no independent corroboration of his existence, meaning we cannot know with certainty.
I contrast, JC was written of within DECADES of his death, by people who knew his first order relatives. Paul knew James. Josephus was in the city where James died. Those facts make Jesus's existence MUCH more certain than Abraham's. Furthermore, the facts we think are true in his biography fit PERFECTLY in historical context. The figures of Pilate, James and John the Baptist for example are ALL linked to the narrative in such a way as to jive with independent witnesses about their location and time. When people are made up myths, the authors do not generally forge biographical details with the goal to fool later historiographers. The audience for the Gospels were not historically literate enough to care strongly about such subtle details. The contextual clues suggest the broad strokes of the biography (he was a provocative Nazarene/ Galilean baptizer associated with John the Baptist and who was later killed by Pilate around Passover in the early 30s).
I'm skeptical of the numerous independent source claim. Q, M and L are all hypothetical. It may just be that you have creative embellishments of the authors of Matt and Luke with no other sources than Mark. His reasoning for Q doesn't address Goodacre's narrative fatigue evidence.
I'm not clear on Ehrman's reasons for dismissing the Jesus Ben Ananias narrative as an influence on the Mark's passion narrative. There is no decisive evidence that Mark was written before Josephus.
Most scholars date Mark being written between 66-74 based on the Koine Greek used in the earliest manuscripts. This would place completion a year before Josephus published The Wars of the Jews (75) where Jesus Ben Ananias is mentioned.
As for the independent source there is scholarly consensus due to multiple factors and argumentation based on the same historical standards used for other ancient documents that are no longer in existence. Yes there are creative license taken by all of the gospel writers because it is widely recognized they wrote for specific audiences.
M and L aren't hypothetical.
M is "the source from which the author of Matthew got his information for material that isn't in Mark or Luke (or anywhere else that we know of"
Even if this "source" is himself - he made it up - it's still real. It's not hypothetical.
Same for L
@@usmagrad87 I’m curious as to the evidence regarding the Koine Greek used in Mark being more indicative of 66-74 CE rather than slightly later (80 CE). Where can I read more about this specific claim?
@@Will-zy3ru I don’t have the exact paper on me but it was based on paleography. The primary task of the paleographer is to read the writings of the past correctly and to assign a date and place of origin. Close acquaintance with the language of the text is a prerequisite. The paleographer reads the Greek to understand the nuances used and how they change over time and location, just like evaluating the use of words change over time and location in English.
This is why Dr. Erhman suggested that Mark was written in Rome and not Antioch or Jerusalem.
That is not the only reason for the dating but it does corroborates other evidence like Jesus’ “prediction” of the Jewish Temple being destroyed. Which places the writing of Mark around 70 ACE.
@@usmagrad87 If you happen to find it please drop me the title, authors or where I can find it. Thanks.
I think we need to list every claim about Jesus, and give a score for how much historical confidence we have for each claim.
Basically define exactly what we _mean_ by "Jesus" when we say "Jesus existed."
Yes my thought as well. My understanding is that almost every particular anecdote of Jesus' life in the Gospels has been put in serious doubt by serious scholarship. If there is virtually no reliable content for Jesus life in the Bible, how can it be said that he was a "real" person?
Yes. I think when you break it down that way even Ehrman would probably say that there is a less than 100% confidence score on any one of the points, and even less when a few are put together.
Basically define exactly what we mean by "Jesus"
The is the basis of why opposing views seem to talk past each other. Each has a different Jesus in mind. The devout Christians seem to want both in one....for example, if there was a historical Jesus then EVERYTHING said about Jesus must also be true.
I don’t like how he dismisses the discussion of Zeus as if it didn’t matter and essentially said that we don’t understand how historians do history. The question is simply what test do you use to dismiss Zeus as not being a historical figure and how does Jesus pass that same test?
I can kind of answer this question. One I am a polytheist who does worship the ancient Greek gods, and even I dismiss most of the stories. Most of them paint Zeus as this preditor, but in the same breath say that what he did was wrong. The thing is that most of these stories were written by men who believed things that you and I would be appalled at. The way they viewed women was not okay. So if you strip away all those stories you are left with nothing but faith. So, unlike some Christians I am not looking for a 'historical' Zeus. That is just ridiculous.
Are you suggesting that there's a reason to believe that an immortal being who survived being eaten by his own father, hurled lightning bolts, and could transform himself into various animals, could have been based on a historical figure?
@@rloomis3 I’m suggesting that whatever test one applies to one should apply to others. He seems quick to dismiss Zeus as essentially absurd yet why? Because we consider it absurd? The stories of Jesus are absurd but many believe them and here we are debating his existence yet why do we not then hold others to the same test?
@@jeffsstuff But whereas Jesus is claimed to have been "both god and man," Zeus is never spoken of as anything other than divine. The former lends itself to the possibility of having been based on the existence of a real person (with divine qualities attributed after the fact), whereas the latter doesn't (assuming one doesn't believe in the supernatural). Jesus is said to have lived (and died) as a man; no such claims are made of Zeus. It's kind of like Batman being more plausible than Superman - believing that a man with limitless financial resources and technical/scientific knowledge created a persona through which he fights crime is a lot less of a stretch than believing that a being from another planet (who looks just like a human from Earth) can deflect bullets, shoot heat rays from his eyes, and fly under his own power.
We can't place Zeus anywhere in time or space when he would have lived, which coupled with the fact that he's derived from the same source as Jupiter, Týr and Dyaus Pitr makes it very clear that he's not a real person. Jesus on the other hand lived in a very specific time and place and immediately had followers reaffirming the time and place of his life, in addition to his death. Jesus also had a brother who outlived him.
This is such a ridiculous question that I understand why Bart wouldn't go into too much detail over it. One wouldn't assume that anyone would be stupid enough to actually make this arguement.
The way he scoffs at everything is very telling and I won't be buying any of his products sorry lol
I used to respect him. Highly respect him. But he seems to have gotten so dogmatic, offended anyone questions him.
Actually *the existence of an historical Jesus doesn't/wouldn't matter at all.*
If a guy of this name existed he probably wouldn't be able to recognize himself in the protagonist of the bible, and if then just barely so.
It's like William Wallace watching "Braveheart" - he would recognize some familiar names, but nothing else would make any sense to him.
The depiction is that far from the original that you aren't actually justified to call them the same person.
And even if there was a crump of truth somewhere in the NT we won't ever be able to distinguish the legit 1% from the 99% fanfiction. Jesus' existence is irrelevant, it adds nothing of value whatsoever.
I think Jesus would agree with you 😃
@@beyondthegreatfilter
Yeah which one though? 😂
@@atheist666 there is only the historical man Jesus. The rest is a pile of bs concocted after his death.
All we can say is that Christianity started at one point. Nobody knows how it really started. The bible can't be taken as a historical source. Neither can the writings of Tacitus and especially not those of believers. We can say that somebody started Christianity, question is, was it really a guy who was thought to be the messiah, or did they convert people by fabricating and telling stories about a messiah. You don't really need a Jesus to start the religion, you just need to tell people the story about such a person and make them believe in him, I'd say that's even easier. It's not like Jesus is the one turning people into Christians since his supposed death. Both of the posibilities are equally valid, even though Christians will feel triggered by the latter and desperately want to cling to the belief that Jesus must have been real as even cultural Christians love to think that he is the source of their morals.
But let us not trigger cultural Christians too much, let us assume that there was indeed a person who functioned as the messianic figure himself, who went around doing good deeds and thereby getting a following, a person who also had the name Jesus (or rather something like Yeshua). There were definitely many Jewish preachers walking around and some of them might have had that name. So it is not far fetched to think that one such person functioned as the starting point of Christianity. And Christianity might have started by his followers eventually deifying that person. Now, the problem is that we don't know anything about that person, assuming he really existed. And if he existed we don't know what he actually did and how he came to be. We don't really know if he was crucified, as there is literally no real historic evidence for that. Even if there was a preacher named Yeshua who functioned as the man who started the Chrstianity movement, that wouldn't prove any of the biblical stories about that man as all of them could have been fabricated afterwards to make people believe that he was of divine origin.
That said, even if that founder figure named Yeshua existed, he for sure wasn't the son of God, or like some branches of Christianity like to believe, God himself. He didn't do any of the miracles told in the bible. It doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a load of bullshit, like all the other religions. Jesus existing would not give any credibility to Christianity itself.
And Jesus not existing doesn't take away your morals. Jesus didn't invent morals.
The most honest answer is that nobody knows how the first Christians came to be. It could have started with a Jewish preacher named Yeshua, but it equally could have started with someone making up stories about a messiah, son of god and convincing people to join his cult. Anybody who claims to know the truth is just biased and wants to believe what they believe is a fact. Even if that person, likes to say that he isn't even Christian, that doesn't give it any more credibility.
@@maythesciencebewithyou you’re right, we can’t know. But like most Homo Sapiens I like to make up my own version based on little or no evidence. So here it is. There was this super charismatic guy who got tired of menial work, had an early mid-life crisis and started vanlifing around Jerusalem speaking unconventional things. And non-charismatic people were highly attracted to him. Some even straight way left their profession and began following him. These people would write back to their families about all of the “valid” reason they had for leaving behind their responsibilities and following this man. And they thought only incredible, amazing stories would suffice. But their families weren’t buying it. Then suddenly the man they followed, that appeared bigger than life, was dead. How could they explain this turn of events to their families. It was obvious they were fools and their families would never allow them to live this down. So they gathered together to create an embellishment worthy of this irresponsible life decision. And everywhere they walked towns people would mock and scorn them making them double down on their fabrication. Yada yada yada… Constantine.
Ask Dr. Ehrman this simple question... Did a supernatural Jesus exists.
That's kind of the whole point right? If Jesus was just a normal man then 99% of the attention around this Jesus character is unwarranted.
When I say Jesus didn't exist, I mean there is no 'real' evidence to support a supernatural Jesus.
Yeah but that's a separate issue from Mythicist positions, and I think lots of people are drawn to the latter because, after all, if Jesus as a human being never even existed then questions about him being divine or whatever are pointless, ergo Christianity falls like a house of cards. So it can become a very alluring position to hold.
@@IsmailofeRegime
No that’s not the mythicist scholars position… it may be the position of a lot of people who have read some of the mythicists books, and its an easy trope to keep repeating in videos like this by people who obviously haven’t read any of the mythicist books.
But basically in reality they’re simply questioning the methods standards and conclusions of biblical historians… which is woefully below the methods , standards and conclusions of mainstream ancient history studies, mainly because the vast majority of biblical scholars are just biased Christian ministers and priest’s who got the degree whilst already committed to lies, simply to appear more authoritative,
Or are people who now work in institutions that require articles of faith for tenure, and dollars are better currency than nuggets of truth.
Biblical history is a mess… but it’s what pays Ehrmans bills.
@@atheist666 But again, "did Jesus exist" and "did Jesus, if he existed, possess the supernatural powers attributed to him by the New Testament" are two entirely separate questions. The latter assumes, if only for sake of argument, that the Jesus of the New Testament was more or less a real person. In scholarly debate there are obviously differences between, say, "Jesus literally never existed" and "there was a real person but we know basically nothing about his life because the New Testament narrative is entirely or almost wholly false." Yet these can both be considered "Mythicist" positions, because both are arguing the Jesus of the New Testament is a myth.
Arguing that Mythicists merely question the methodology used by Biblical historians doesn't seem accurate. Why would they be called Mythicists then, rather than Skeptics or some other more "neutral" term?
@@IsmailofeRegime And this has been my beef with Jesus discussions... When you say Jesus... What the fuck do you mean? Since Jesus is the central part of all these Christian discussions, I think one should state(up front) clearly what they mean by the Jesus character.
he's pretty clear that he doesn't think the historical jesus had any supernatural abilities. What he argues is that there was a real person to whom the supernatural claims were attributed.
Laughing at arguments that people are making in earnest seems disingenuous. Those arguments seem ridiculous to him, but it's important for him to realise that not everyone is a biblical scholar. They haven't heard the arguments against them because no-one wants to push back against it they just dismiss it, like Bart ehrmann does.
They’re not ridiculous to him, they’re threatening to him, they question the highly questionable methods snd standards used with “biblical history” a school of studies which is considered a joke with the circles of actual mainstream historians, not because of the subject, but because the methods and standards are 200 years out of date.
@@atheist666 like it or not this is the mainstream narrative and decrying someone as having outdated methodology only gets you so far. At some point you actually have to address his arguments and get him to address yours. Preferably without either party laughing at the other or throwing insults.
I don't find Bart's arguments convincing, because they are framed in such a way as "oh this has been well known since the nineteenth century and if you looked at the evidence you'd agree with me." Yeah, that's a very conservative mindset and I find that way of thinking leads to confirmation bias.
Let him explain why it couldn't be adapted stories and why all the stories are of the same person. "Pfft. You don't know the history, read my book." Doesn't cut it, but neither does, "pfft, your methodology is outdated."
He's entitled to laugh at it because the people bringing them have made no effort to familiarize themselves with the NT, scholarship on the NT etc. Instead they've just watched a Richard Carrier video or read THE GOD DELUSION and that's it. Can you imagine these people applying the same level of IQ and effort to challenging relativity or quantum physics or population genetics? The relevant professors would laugh at them as well
@@stephenglasse9756 maybe, but it doesn't help his case. People are genuinely engaging with this subject and he's laughing at them. Maybe professors in other subjects would do the same, but Bart's here trying to sell a seminar, he should act with a little decorum.
@@marcuslangford4679
They ARE ridiculous. I don't know the first thing about basketball, but I am aware of my ignorance; so I don't run around making wild claims and demanding they be taken seriously. And these mythicists are very much aware of their ignorance regarding the historicity of Jesus. And yet, they demand to be treated with respect when they themselves are so very dishonest. That IS ridiculous.
_
It's worth pointing out that Ehrman is fully aware of the "born of a woman" claim being very poor evidence for historicity. It was Ehrman himself who pointed out that Christian scribes changed the word to "born" from the original word, which Paul used for the creation of celestial bodies. He must also be aware that Paul explicitly said he was using the women as allegories in the same letter, and that Paul never mentioned Mary or Joseph.
The things that Paul is speaking of allegorically are Abraham’s sons and wives in verses 22 and 23. Not Jesus which is way back in verse 4. Paul’s allegory doesn’t begin until verse 21.
I think Bart's reply would be: He was a person not a god! So of course he was born of a woman!
I have got the impression from Bart but other scholarship of ancient Jewish belief that one difference between humans and angels is that angels don't reproduce.
With the framework of the theory that Paul held to an "Angel Christology" where he believed that Jesus was a preincarnate angel before being born of a human female on Earth.
If Paul had meant a literal birth he would have used the word he used for literal birth, and he would have mentioned who the parents were or where and when the birth occurred.
If Paul was using an allegory he would have used the word he used for divine manufacture rather than the word he used for birth, and would have added something like "under the law" to fit with his allegory.
The actual phrasing was "made [from the seed] of a woman" in the same since Eve was made from the rib of a man or Adam was made from the dust of the Earth.
I would love to here Carrier reacting to this interview...
Godless Engineer will have Carrier on his channel, in about 2 hours, for a live rebuttal
Thanks. I watched that. Reflecting on the Erhman interview it really was a car crash.. very adversarial, when he didnt need to be. Disappointed in him really, as I've appreciated his stuff before. I wouldn't like a debate between the two.. I dont think Bart is in the right state of mind to do it.
I can't say I feel confident with laughing boy here, it's like everything he doesn't agree with sounds ridiculous to him.
yes, if our questions make us unworthy of his presence, then he's doing the rounds on youtube, selling his christmas seminar to the wrong audience.
I don't think it's impossible that Jesus could have been real and turned into a mythical figure. Many kings, figureheads, or folk heroes in cultures all around the world and across time have been deified into divine beings/ added to pantheons. It's not impossible for that to happen with Jesus
@@mhouse1115 It has also happened the other way around (where mythical figures come to be understood as historical). Both are possible.
Sorry, forgot to mention this bit… probably because it’s not actually relevant to the biblical Jesus… but it does however shine a light into Ehrmans thinking…
So whilst once again, patronisingly dismissing the question of docetism…. He absolutely said they didn’t believe in a mythical Jesus… Then he said they weren’t mentioned… then he said they were.. but… let’s get this right… a sect that believed that a divine character/being… who did not have real flesh and blood… was basically a kind of hologram, who existed and walked about the earth, speaking and performing miracles…. Wasn’t mythical? So this version of Jesus existed too?? 😂
Man he is so desperate to avoid this issue 😂
Bart having a Get off my lawn kind of day! 😄
It was an interesting conversation but like many other viewers have mentioned it left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Witch is a shame since i was thinking of attending his webbinar.Bart Earman (sorry if i misspelled the name) knows his stuff but came of as a bit dismissive. I'm neither a christian or a mythisist but I still felt a bit attacked. The way to educate people is not by calling ideas reddicelus (even if they are). I have friends who belive in loads of crazy stuff, but those who move away from those things did so with communication and open discussion.
I do not think Bart Earman is trying ro be cruel or mean, but he needs to remember that he is among people who find these things facenating but maybe don't have a degree in Theology or History. I studdy fysics and enginering, but if someone asks why bouyency issent a substitute for gravity i explain why and do you call them stupid.
Im sure he has very good reasons to think jesus was a real person but i think ill try to go to othrer sources explaining why.
....'I studdy fysics and enginering'.... I'm guessing spelling wasn't included in those lessons, lol.
I agree. I really don't like the way he dismissed the whole question about Zeus. The real question was obvious to me - what criteria are we actually using to determine if someone with so much myth around them was a real person or not? Since Jesus was purported to be a god or demigod, his existence should automatically be suspect. Why wouldn't it be when almost all other purported demigods are entirely fictional? Maybe he has a good answer, but I just heard a lot of dismissiveness instead.
All we can say is that Christianity started at one point. Nobody knows how it really started. The bible can't be taken as a historical source. Neither can the writings of Tacitus and especially not those of believers. We can say that somebody started Christianity, question is, was it really a guy who was thought to be the messiah, or did they convert people by fabricating and telling stories about a messiah. You don't really need a Jesus to start the religion, you just need to tell people the story about such a person and make them believe in him, I'd say that's even easier. It's not like Jesus is the one turning people into Christians since his supposed death. Both of the posibilities are equally valid, even though Christians will feel triggered by the latter and desperately want to cling to the belief that Jesus must have been real as even cultural Christians love to think that he is the source of their morals.
But let us not trigger cultural Christians too much, let us assume that there was indeed a person who functioned as the messianic figure himself, who went around doing good deeds and thereby getting a following, a person who also had the name Jesus (or rather something like Yeshua). There were definitely many Jewish preachers walking around and some of them might have had that name. So it is not far fetched to think that one such person functioned as the starting point of Christianity. And Christianity might have started by his followers eventually deifying that person. Now, the problem is that we don't know anything about that person, assuming he really existed. And if he existed we don't know what he actually did and how he came to be. We don't really know if he was crucified, as there is literally no real historic evidence for that. Even if there was a preacher named Yeshua who functioned as the man who started the Chrstianity movement, that wouldn't prove any of the biblical stories about that man as all of them could have been fabricated afterwards to make people believe that he was of divine origin.
That said, even if that founder figure named Yeshua existed, he for sure wasn't the son of God, or like some branches of Christianity like to believe, God himself. He didn't do any of the miracles told in the bible. It doesn't change the fact that Christianity is a load of bullshit, like all the other religions. Jesus existing would not give any credibility to Christianity itself.
And Jesus not existing doesn't take away your morals. Jesus didn't invent morals.
The most honest answer is that nobody knows how the first Christians came to be. It could have started with a Jewish preacher named Yeshua, but it equally could have started with someone making up stories about a messiah, son of god and convincing people to join his cult. Anybody who claims to know the truth is just biased and wants to believe what they believe is a fact. Even if that person, likes to say that he isn't even Christian, that doesn't give it any more credibility.
May I suggest you watch a few of Ehrman's lectures here on youtube? And then come back here and delete this thread.
It's interesting that you should use the term "messianic figure." Most people would also use that term to describe Jesus. What's funny about that is, according to Jewish religion and messianic tradition, Jesus wasn't the messiah as he (A) failed to fulfil the prerequisites of the coming messiah and (B) he failed to fulfil the duties of the messiah. If we look at another "messiah" from 100 years later- Simon Bar Kochba- we see that the Jews hailed him as the messiah, right up to the point where they were certain that he wasn't the messiah. They killed him shortly after that point. Shortly after that, the Roman legions arrived, killed them all and put down the Bar Kochba revolt. But I digress...
What I find truly baffling is how many christians are convinced that Jesus was definitely the messiah and yet they don't make the slightest effort to investigate what the messiah was supposed to be and what he was supposed to do. I guess if they did that, they'd discover that Jesus couldn't possibly be the messiah, so perhaps there's no collective desire to investigate?
@@ricksimon9867 May I suggest to you not to be a gullible fool desperately wanting to belive in something without any true evidence.
dislike
It's always great when a channel engages with comments. Great job making the community feel heard!
It's entirely possible that Luke used Mark first and then Matthew, his own imagination and other sources to fill in what he liked.
There is no Peter/Cephas in Mark. He appears when it became necessary to create an hierarchy for the Church purportedly founded by Mark's Jesus in recruiting disciples as the very first act of his public ministry. Luke goes even further, first appropriating the term "apostle" from the earlier Epistle literature, ultimately commandeering one of its primary spokesmen to serve, along with Matthew's Peter, as co-originator of the hierarchy of his own Church milieu.
At the end of this...all I got out of it was "for the Bible tells me so" even though he doesn't believe....🤷♂️
Well you greatly misinterpreted the video.
@@Mike00513 well you greatly misinterpreted my comment.
Even if I were to grant that a Q Gospel existed, it wouldn't prove historicity of Jesus anymore than the Wisdom of Solomon proves the historicity of Solomon. A hypothetical Q Gosepel would just be a collection of sayings that the author made up.
Dr. Ehrman tries to claim that Paul talked about a historical Jesus. Paul does not. He only talks about having visions of Jesus, and having met other people who have had visions of Jesus, like Peter and James. Paul never mentions any earthly ministry of Jesus. He never mentions Peter or James or John ever meeting Jesus in the flesh. When he calls James the Brother of the Lord (whom he conspicuously doe not call an apostle and is a different James than James the Pillar) he means that this James was an acolyte of the Baptismal cult, not a biological brother. All this is more consistent with a purely angelic Jesus.
Ehrman should learn that argument by scoff is neither valid nor persuasive.
It's ashame he won't sit down and debate or converse with Richard Carrier. I'd pay to see that.
Bart should at least take an honest look at Carrier's thesis. He appears never to have even bothered.
@@lil-al He wrote a while book about Jesus Mythicism. If anyone here "appears never to have even bothered" to research her opponent's views, it seems to be you.
@@kissfan7 except that book didn't respond to what Carrier wrote did it.
@@kissfan7 the book Ehrman wrote predates peer-reviewed mythicist work. He doesn’t respond to serious, academic criticisms and rebuttals. I would say one has to wonder why… but then I see him all over TH-cam looking like a damn fool and I understand why… he’s so obviously not up to the task. Instead, he chooses to lie about being a historian, continue to make provably wrong claims, and responds to “mythicist arguments” that serious mythicists don’t even make.
@@michaelchampion936 What did the book not respond to?
This exchange became very unproductive for a while. Not sure who hurt Dr. Ehrman but dude got so hot at one point that he wasn’t even hearing the questions being asked. He didn’t come across looking like a good educator. I’m kind of disappointed, as someone who read several of his books. I expected him to be more cool headed than this.
Yeah, "Fart"-Bart lost his cool.....
I don’t think anyone “hurt” Dr. Ehrman in this regard, in fact, he has been very gracious to even engage with the mythicist topic. However, it remains that serious scholars and the academy at large, do not take the mythicist position seriously, as it is ahistorical, and even anti-historical in a systematic sense.
Paul said in Galatians 1:12 he got his information from no man, but from personal revelation through Jesus. Other places, he says visions. Seriously, how reliable is any of that? How could he write about a historical Jesus if this is what he really relied on? Not sure how one coincides that with others that says he knew John, James and Peter. When Van Voorst wrote in defense of a historical Jesus, IIRC, Bart Erhrman was disappointed in it, so he thought he’d write a scholarly piece. He gave us his version that came out, and it was picked apart by plenty, in which I believe he later admits it was just another popular writing. He did respond to what many considered some of the easier questions, that quite a few mythicists don’t accept either, but some do. Joseph McCabe, the late ex-Catholic priest who was the Catholics golden boy, and one of the greatest scholars who ever lived, knew the languages well, translated The Riddle of the Universe, and others, educated himself right out of the faith. Unlike Bart, to him though, he thought it was a serious question on whether or not there was any historic person that the gospels were based on during that time and region. McCabe did still think there was some kind of historical Jesus, he just didn’t laugh at the question the way Bart continually does. To me it’s off putting, and his answers are not near as good as some other atheists like McCabe that I think can make a better case for a historical Jesus, even though he didn’t spend that much time on it, and he’s long passed, so didn’t address many of arguments that are of today. But if he did, I bet he’d still consider the no historical Jesus arguments respectfully. I’m still waiting on a peer-reviewed scholarly piece by Bart on the historicity of Jesus.
I know for sure Bart Ehrman doesn’t know, no one can say 100% either way wether he existed or not, I can say 100% IF he existed he wasn’t divine he was mortal.
he is too sure.
there is certainly reason for doubt...
you are right
Christian mythology: Jesus is a god
Ehrman: No, Jesus was a man!
Greek mythology: Zeus is a god
Euhemerus (4th BC): No, Zeus was a man!
Nobody claims to have met Zeus' brother, we don't have records of non-believers talking about Zeus as if he exists, his life events are all supernatural, and he's fucking Zeus!
It's better to compare Jesus to Hannibal (who, though he almost brought down the Roman Republic, we also have no contemporary sources for). However, people don't do that because it doesn't earn them cred points among ahistorial atheist edgelords.
@@kissfan7 Nobody claims to have met Jesus' brother either.
Paul met James, a brother of the Lord (this his how Christians called themselves by then)
@@theemptycross1234
Where else in Paul's writings does he refer to someone as "a brother *of the lord*"?
@@kissfan7 1 Corinthians 9:5
@@theemptycross1234 That's also referring to Jesus' biological brothers, distinguishing them from other apostles and Cephas (AKA Peter).
On the sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond," Ray has a brother named Robert. Therefore, Ray and Robert exist in real life. I wish Bart would quit saying Jesus was real because he supposedly had a brother. Bart also knows there is debate over whether the brother is simply referring to one of Jesus' followers who were referred to as brothers and not a biological brother. It is a lame argument. My best friend and I used to refer to each other as sisters when we introduced ourselves to people. I called my Dad's best friend "Uncle Bob" all my life. He was not biologically related to me in any way. Many of my friends met my Uncle Bob. However, if you look into my life, you will not find someone who had an Uncle named Bob.
Yes that issue is a real problem for him, along with him thinking that the gospels are somehow historical.
Except there is no debate. Sure, mythicist claim that therefore ambiguity, but that's because they have to, not because there's actually any scholary support behind it. Mythicists throw around claims in a *very* similar manner to creationists "how do biologists explain unfossilized tissue in dinosaur bones?!" It's only an "issue" to those who don't know any better.
If Paul and the early Christians knew that Jesus was a celestial being who never existed, then *why* would he claim to have met Jesus' biological brother, along with his apostles who had known Jesus while he was alive.
@@lil-al the gospels are historical - they are documents from a period of time. Historical doesn't mean true.
@@natew.7951 Ha ha yes, of course, I meant "somehow recorded history". I'll remember that error, thanks.
@@lil-al Erhman lost me as soon as I realized that he relies heavily on the Bible (the gospels, specifically) to prove events in the Bible.
Bart Ehrman has lost all credibility.
He argues Jesus Ben Annianas (died during the Temple's destruction) couldn't have inspired some jesus stories in the Gospel, which were written after the Temple's destruction... because the chronology doesn't work out and future events can't influence the past?!?! WTF kind of argument is that? He argues because the Gospels have some hypotetical sources from before the Temple's destruction, that they can't incorporate a story of another Jesus from the Temple's detruction? Thats a load of bullshit.
Then he claims that Paul met disciples of Jesus, yet Paul never makes such a claim, he's making shit up based on later tradition. Paul never mentions anyone meeting a Jesus on Early, only mentions Jesus appearing toe "Cephas" after resurrecting, and only calls Peter someone esteeemed as a pillar of the Church.
Bart relies on later tradition equating Peter with Cephas, and relies on later tradition to say that Cephas also saw Jesus before the crucifixion.
Bart is just being dishonest here.
Saying 100 to 500 years after the fact that Jesus was "documented " is just polishing a turd. LoL
Which jeasus? Take your pick of the dozen or so wandering evangelizers named Jesus at that time. Jhon the Baptist is just one of the boatload of guys doing this . It was so common that the Roman's rarely paid it much mind unless they had a huge following and many of them did, and met thier fate with the Roman governance. Apparently this one was no exception to the rule. If Rome didn't get them the religious leaders of the temple would.
I'm not convinced by the mythicist position, but while Dr. Ehrman does make some good points, far too many of his objections are arguments from pfffft, Lol! And he talks about people not knowing how to do history and that no one could look at the evidence and come away thinking that Jesus may not have existed, but there are historians who doubt his existence. It's a small group on the fringes, to be sure, but acting like they don't exist or if they do they don't know how to do history is not a good look for his arguments. Even if he's 100% correct, his approach takes a lot away from his credibility. I generally like his work, and put a lot of trust in its rigor. And this doesn't change that. Good work is good work. But the man himself is not a great spokesperson for his cause
It’s because Bart ehrman already addressed the points of mythicists and all they do is give ad hominems and insult him. You can read his responses to Richard carrier in his blog and carriers book is just insults to Bart ehrman. It’s why he doesn’t take them seriously for their aggressive behavior
@@darklord7069 That's a really stupid reason considering he agreed to this Q&A ahead of time. If you think it's not worth your time, don't agree to the Q&A. If for no other reason than that this will inevitably be someone's (my) first encountering of Ehrman talking about these ideas, & he gives an extremely poor first impression. I tell you what, he better actually explain his views in his debate with this Prince guy, I'm going to be pissed if it's just 2 more hours of "bah, that's stupid, & no, I won't elaborate on why!"
@@TheLithp you see how you said that what I said is stupid and here you are being butthurt about Bart ehrman doing the same? And it’s because it is true because mythicists arguments are terrible and it’s no different than someone arguing for flat earth since it requires large amounts of dishonesty and denial. You provided no reason to how his points are poor. Any argument about the existence of Jesus, you people just deny everything and have the worst standards of when it comes to evidence. Bart ehrman doesn’t even believe that Jesus is God nor does he think that early Christian’s believed that he was. Your Jesus denial makes you belong at the level of dishonesty with the creationists and flat earthers
Plenty of independent documents and stories that the lochness monsters is real, even multiple eye witnesses..... Same with Santa Clause. So they must be real ?
That's a fine argument against the existence of a supernatural Jesus, but it's a poor argument against some dude from Galilee existing. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", goes the saying. A supernatural Jesus is an extraordinary claim, but a wanna-be Messiah existing is NOT an extraordiary claim.
I can be skeptical of Mormonism and Islam without thinking Joseph Smith and Muhammad didn't exist.
"The evidence [of jesus] is a lot". There are no contemporary reports of jesus's existence. As far as contemporary history is concerned, jesus didn't exist. Jesus only exists as an ever increasingly mythological figure from history.
I have a question for Bart, which jesus is the real jesus? The one born in the days of Herod the King? Or the one born while Quirinius was governor of Syria?
Bingo, we have a winner!
If I'm not wrong but isn't Josephus our best and only ancient source on 1st century Palestine?? So wouldn't this also include info on apocalyptic prophets back the 1st cent. Palestine and a whole other plethora of other things and even events that exceed his own birth I heard about this but if this is the case contemporary evidence isn't the focus
Also don't we know of details on Herod the King mostly cuz of Josephus mind you Josephus was born in 37 CE and Herod died around when Jesus was just born if not older???
I might be wrong but Mary Joseph Jesus were some of the most common names of the era so chances are if I threw a stone at the region during the time I might hit a dude named jesus with mum named Mary and a dad named Joseph, I don’t even know what mythicysm is but I find the whole question unprovable either way ( if I’m wrong about the name thing oh well I don’t really care if he existed)
@@305thief8
If you don’t want to be wrong, go read Josephus… then you’ll know… for yourself…
It isn't true that "all historians" reject Mythicism, but even if it were it wouldn't matter. "All historians" once believed that Moses existed and wrote the Pentateuch. "All historians" once believed that Rome was founded by a fictional character named Romulus in 756 BC.
Most biologists believe in evolution. Most climate scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change. Should we reject their conclusion just because academic consensus can change?
Still not convinced. I have lost my trust in Ehrman. What tangible evidence is there? Examples.
That whining tone mixed with the mocking laugh don't help his veracity. I definitely do not believe Ehrman anymore.
It's like Ehrmann wasn't really trying to understand the questions, like when he was hung up on Zeus at the beginning... The "Zeus" part was not the point at all... it was the methodology of comparison and the criteria for assuming historical personhood that the question was trying to bring out.
Yeah, I'd like to hear an explanation of how historians come to those different conclusions as well. Why do they think Jesus of Nazareth and, for example, Siddhartha Gautama buddha were based on real people, but other mythical figures are usually read as completely fictional? Where is the line for that consideration, what types of textual clues need ro show up?
I think he did understand but summarily dismissed it because there aren't reliable sources claiming that Zeus existed as a tangible real being, as there are with Jesus.
We need a Richard Carrier vs Bart Ehrman debate.
In my opinion, the Skeptoid podcast has given the most honest answer on this historical matter: we don't know because there is not enough evidence. And it doesn't matter much anyway because Christianity is all about the mythological Jesus who performed feats of magic, the supernatural kind.
I don't know. Him being a man AND god is central to the story. It was the man who supposedly died for our sins. A god CAN'T die. If he was always a god, then getting crucified was no big deal. The death is important as the ultimate sacrifice.*
Yes, I know it makes no sense, but there it is.
Bingo!
What an embarrassment. Ehrman is responding to crank mythicism, and internet memes. Way to pummel those strawmen to death. When you are ready, there is actual peer reviewed literature to discuss. But you guys seem primarily interested in dunking on amateurs.
They can't refute the academic arguments so instead they pretend they don't exist.
Romulus would be a better comparison?
Q M and L are hypothesis; not evidence. Mark is just a story filled with so much fiction that I don't see why we would look for facts in it. The other gospels are clearly based on Mark. I don't know where Ehrman is seeing all this evidence. I wish he would point it out instead of just stating that it exists.
Dr. Bart Ehrman presentation here is evasive and defensive and presents few evidencial points. It all ends up " It's all in my book." Somehow, this Webinar doesn't pass the smell test
Because he wrote about these topics and addressed them countless times. People like to say that he’s “scared” of Richard carrier when he addressed carrier before and he doesn’t debate him for how he only results to insults and arrogance
I agree that Ehrman comes across as defensive. I can also see how he might come across as evasive to some viewers. I certainly think he doesn't do himself any favors in his tone, demeanor, and mannerisms. I do think he adequately answers the questions to the degree that they can be answered.
I never watch the State of the Union Address until I have read the transcript, spent some time thinking about what I've read, and formulated my thoughts and opinions. Usually, I don't even watch the president speak after reading the transcript. I have followed this practice for at least 20 years and I apply it to other important presentations made by the president and other people in government.
The reason for this practice is simply that I don't want the message to be impacted, wither positively or negatively, by the messenger, the audience, or anything else that may take place during the presentation.
IMO, Bart Ehrman's message is often impacted negatively by his tone, demeanor, and mannerisms. He's not a fantastic presenter, IMO, though I think he's made improvements over the last decade. Ten years ago, I had difficulty even watching him speak or debate, though I loved reading his written work.
My friend knows Dwayne Johnson's brother, therefore "The Rock" is real and not a fictional wrestling character.
That is the dumbest example ever. He is played by a human, right? Mythisists are saying Jesus wasn't even played by a human.
That's quite nonsensical
The mythcist position is the inverse.
Because clearly The Rock is a dictionary character, they deny Dwayne Johnson existed.
If you check the internet White Pages there's a Clark Kent in Kansas. Clearly Superman is real !!!
Here is the mythicist view on previous video with B.Ehrman (R. Carrier on Godless Engineer channel):
th-cam.com/video/bfPvPIBtVxU/w-d-xo.html
No need to react on (mostly uneducated) TH-cam comments, just have a proper discussion on the topic with R. Carrier already!
Wonder how soon it will be a major view among historians that the historicity vs myth is simply 50:50 because we just don't know from our currently available documents.
I think Ehrman has been in too many debates with fundamentalist Christians, they seem to be rubbing off on him. (I agree with him I don’t just like the way he handled the questions).
While I appreciate Ehrman’s knowledge I still see NO credible evidence that the jeebus of the buybull was an actual person.
Do you actually look like that? Lol
@@jakejerrison5181 what an odd reply. Well trimmed good length gray beard, good haircut, well chosen glasses. Laugh at him and you might as well laugh at humanity.
Anyway, very odd remark considering the topic of the video and the likely population that watches it. Go to Instagram if you want to rate people based on their appearance.
@@gerardhermus8297 He looks like a freak. That he says “jeebus”- totally expected.
@@jakejerrison5181 Desperate and lamentably disappointing. I hope you soon will not feel the need to lash out at strangers. All the best!
@@jakejerrison5181 You believe in Jesus I gather? [the point of the video].
On Moses, part of the reason he's widely thought to be mythical is the underlying story that he's tied to, the exodus from Egypt, seems to have not happened. Jesus's life is far more plausible, even if the miracles aren't & we have much closer sources.
My religious studies teacher always told us that there is as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as the existence of Julius Caesar. One book, and a bunch of a historical documents a few hundreds years later.
The mythological properties of Moses are about far more than the obviously mythical exodus legend.
The question that involved Moses, was why isn’t the evidence for Jesus held to the same standards… because it really isn’t… that is how Ehrman gets to state as fact that Paul personally knew the brother of Jesus, when that’s an extremely disputed position.
Ehrman ignored that question and used a straw man response about Zeus… that sums up his position, a poor apologist for a flawed and religiously infected area of historical studies.
@@placeholdernameisplacehold7671 Well that's a ridiculous statement by your teacher...
@@placeholdernameisplacehold7671 I guess that why they are teaching religious studies and not history.
@@Wayfaringwolf Why? It's true. There are no contemporary statues of Julius Caesar. There are no coins depicting his face. No actual sources from the era. Just his diary of his conquest, and the account of his existence written over 200 years later.
6:46 When your arguments are hypothetical sources as « source L, source Q, source M », you know you already lost the game. By the way « allmost everything in the gospels is legend and non historical » and « gospels are testimonies for jesus » is nonsense.
That argument of "there was a Moses figure", yeah well.... There was a Gilgamesh figure, a Hercules figure, an Agamemnon figure ect..... That's not a argument for a.faith or a belief.
The Jewish diaspora from Egypt never happened, those text were written as propaganda during the exile into Babylon.
So Dr. Blowhard .... Your evidence is as shaky as your arguments
I like Bart Ehrman, but this was painful to watch.
It's just a number of argument from incredulity
Thomas, keep pushing, Bart Ehrman has not read Richard Carrier and does not want to debate him. Why?
The problem with the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, is that most of it is passed down from oral tradition. In this, each generation changes the stories passed down, just a little bit. These changes don’t alter the core values of the story; however, over the course of centuries, details become altered and obscured. Names change, events gain and lose details and over the centuries, the events being described bear almost no resemblance to their source of origin.
(Read: In Search of the Trojan War by Michael Wood.)
I actually think biblical scholars attribute too much to oral tradition and not enough to "just made it up". You're right that oral tradition carries and should carry very little weight though.
@@travis1240 Attributinb a lack of reliability in Old Testament “History” (If any of it can be called that) to oral tradition, has the advantage of, at least sounding more scholarly than “They just made it up.” At the very least, graduate level Theology professors give higher grades on papers.
But seriously...
There’s a lot of corroborating evidence from other faiths and cultures, in support of oral tradition. Just one example, comes from the nearly identical natures of the Noah story and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Both stories center on an ancient flood in the region, and give evidence of such a flood having been passed down through the centuries, by vastly different cultures. By the time Gilgamesh was carved onto clay tablets, Ancient Hebrew was still centuries away; meaning (Among other things), that Noah’s story had more time to be altered and refined.
The fact that there are still people in the 21st Century, arguing that the Noah story is literal fact, even almost 200 years after Darwin, is simply mind-boggling.
Ehrman know a lot of things but is full of strawman.
good video. Ehrman exposed in all his non-rational (emotional) arguments.
I didn't knew he is so weak...
Now I have no choice but just to see it..
I know I'm late and that most of the conversation happens in the first day after the video is released, but as an atheist agnostic (that is, I do not believe a god, and I have no reason to think there is a god, so I believe there is none - for the definitions of god that imply anything anthropomorphic in such a being. Of course, we could be all part of a historical simulation, I know the concept of solipsism, and I feel that since it's unfalsifiable, it brings nothing to the table). I have a hard time understanding where I stand in the "real vs myth" issue on Jesus. That is, I feel I should call myself a mythicist, but I really do not feel that the word, as commonly understood, actually represents my position. These are my beliefs on the issue:
- There were plenty of apocalyptic prophets in the the time period between the years 100 BCE and 100 CE, and at least some of those had a following
- Joshua was a common name back then, and thus it is highly likely than there was at least one (and possibly more) of those apocalyptic prophets who went by that name
- Crucifixion was a method of capital punishment employed by the romans at the time
- Any such historical figure would not recognize itself in what was part of the christian belief at the year 200 CE, due to the amount of accretion that the stories experienced, with at least some of it done by interested parties wanting to make him fit an existing mold, i.e. to make him fit what they understood as biblical prophecies?
I mean, if only the barest hint of an historical fact is present on the figure of Jesus, and almost everything that is believed about him is myth, does that spec of historical fact make him a historical figure? In other words, if, many years from now, and after a total collapse of modern society, all we had on Abraham Lincoln was the movie "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter", could we infer things about what Lincoln was like from it? The image of Jesus might be based on a historical figure, but the belief on him does not rest on such a spec, but instead on the mythical parts of the story, to the point that such spec could be removed or replaced with little to no doctrinal changes.
Hercules or Perseus or Krishna or Siddhartha Gautama (aka the Buddha) would've been a better example than Zeus. I think the question about whether there's bias towards believing Jesus existence over that of other similar figures is a good and pertinent question. Shame the mention of a god threw him off because yeah, that's a ridiculous comparison.
I like Bart's books, but why is he so angry in this video? Maybe he was having a very day, has many debts to pay, or something. This video was very difficult to watch. I don't know, but it wasn't good at all. Being angry doesn't count as an argument. And like it or not, we are all talking about myths here. If Jesus existed or not, doesn't matter at all. Christians will continue to believe in the only Jesus that matters, the one who made miracles.
I'm of the studied opinion that Jesus was an historical figure (though certainly NOT divine), for a number of reasons:
1) As Thomas and Bart noted, Josephus mentions multiple men named Jesus (fourteen, to be exact). Thus, it's clear it was a VERY common name for the time and place. If the New Testament authors were creating an icon out of whole cloth, it seems logical they'd choose a name that is UNIQUE, not a name as common as "John Smith."
2) As the late, great Christopher Hitchens rightly pointed out, if the New Testament authors were completely fabricating Jesus' story, why would they concoct the whole phony "tax census" story in Luke 2 in order to get his family to Bethlehem? They could have simply followed the storyline from Matthew, where Jesus' family ALREADY lived in Bethlehem. Obviously, the author of Luke was manipulating the real life story of someone to fit a supposed Old Testament 'prophecy.'
3) If the New Testament authors were not at least trying to recount the story of a real live person, why would they narrate the detail of Jesus scribbling in the dirt in John 8, when the Pharisees are trying to stone an adulterous woman? As the story goes, twice Jesus stoops down to write in the dirt, and it NEVER elaborates on what he was writing, or the reason for the writing. If that story were completely fabricated, doesn't it make sense that the authors would have some purpose for (or lesson from) this behavior? It sounds much more like someone recounting something that actually happened, without knowing the reason.
4) As scant as the historical mentions are, there ARE mentions of either Jesus himself or the cult created around him. And history demonstrates time and time again that cults are MUCH more likely to spring up around actual, living charismatic individuals than fantasy figures created from pure imagination (I'm speaking of cult leaders and 'prophets' here, not 'gods').
Apologies to all for the long post.
In response to your point 3: On top of John being the most outlandish of gospels in the canon, that story in John, the pericope, has been determined to not be original to John but added later. We even have ancient Greek manuscripts of John that do not contain that story, including the Vaticanus (idk if I spelled that right). It is earliest mentioned in the 300s but manuscripts from earlier don't contain it and some in the 300s don't contain it as well. Also other manuscripts have the story in Luke and not John. Not going for or against your whole position, but just pointing out that your point 3 isn't that strong as there is a rather substantial argument that the whole passage in John was an addition and not authentic.
1) "Jesus" or Joshua? His local name would have been the very common name Yeshua - yes, the same name as Joshua. I don't know how we came to start calling him Jesus instead.
@@FahadAyaz Latinization. Latin was the language of the church and as such his Latin name was the one that spread (technically Latinization of the Hellenized forms of the Semitic name, like so many others in the NT). That's all there is to it
@@BurnBird1 if it's simply a case of the latinisation of Yeshua, then why does the same text not call Joshua as "Jesus" in the Christian version of the Hebrew Bible?
@@xaayer Nevertheless, even if the story of "casting the first stone" was added later to John, my point remains. In fact, if it was indeed added later, it makes my point even MORE compelling -- Why add it, with no explanation or purpose, after all that time, unless it's a recounting of an actual event?
I'm a little disappointed in Ehrman's responses, like "look at the evidens" - then pointing to writings supposedly done by Mark or Paul... are those even credible historian sources ?
Also, he never explained the evidential process of concluding that Thor was'nt based off an actual person, had some "writings" been found, claiming to be written by Loke, would that make Thor historical ? 🤷🏼♂️
When verifying the historicity of a historical figure, you look at primary sources and see if they have any historical basis. For Jesus we have the testimony of Paul, who knew Jesus own brother James, Mark who wrote a biography of Jesus along with Matthew, Luke and John, and we have a few ancient historians who validate Jesus existence.
Your comment about Thor and Loki are bad analogies since their sources are evidently mythical non-historical sources, plus this rhetorical argument you made could be equally applied to any other historical figure.
Ironically, as much as I dislike pretentious agnostics, I’m an “agnostic atheist” on this issue. I have no problem believing the religion is based on a mortal man. But we don’t have evidence for even that. The “evidence” that convinces Erhman is basically what you get from apologists. I respect his work but this is a central issue we’re dealing with and I think it requires a bit more than what Erhman seems to be satisfied with.
The evidence includes not just the Gospels themselves, but Paul's writings, Tacitus, Josephus, and other sources, even graffiti on ancient walls mocking the crucified Jesus.
"I respect his work but this is a central issue we’re dealing with and I think it requires a bit more than what Erhman seems to be satisfied with."
It really doesn't. It's a pretty fringe theory among actual scholars of the period (including non-Christians).
Read the History for Atheists blog about the Jesus Myth. It's a blog by an atheist pointing out that the theory is pretty bunk.
@@kissfan7 I’ve heard all that evidence, and I’ve also heard it torn to shreds.
@@paddyodriscoll8648 In what way?
it's not about him; it's about the evidence and see if his sources satisfies.
@@kissfan7 Too many missing pieces, the lack of evidence from so many secular writers (Carrier's book) during that period, for such an influential person is astounding. Evidence for is miniscule.
You should invite an actual Christian scholar on for once, Bart Ehrman is fine but come on.
Damn. Most flat earth debunkings are more respectful and informative than theese answers. A laugh and a dismissal for that many questions is simply not helping anyone learn. If dismissal without explanation or argument is your response you will at best have called a disingenuous commenter out without the audience learning why they were wrong or at worst basically called an honest question stupid without wanting to let them know the answer is leaving them still with a stupid question.
It's really hard when you're confronted with someone who's coming from *WAY* out of left field. The first times I encountered flat earthers or moon landing deniers in real life (before TH-cam) I was completely flummoxed. Oh, there was another one the other day who claimed that communists and fascists were the same (and he didn't mean that effectively ultra-left and ultra-right circle around and end up acting the same - he meant they *were* the same). I need to remind myself to take a "Street Epistemology" kind of approach to these people.
I've seen at least a couple of videos where genuine physicists / geologists are flummoxed by flat earthers or young earth creationists. Because the FE / YEC person caught them by surprise by spouting such complete bullsh*t that they hadn't anticipated anyone could believe that.
I think it's the same with Ehrman and mythicists. Their stuff is just *so* off the wall that it's hard for anyone with years of scholarship behind them to anticipate that anyone could really believe that.
Yeah, maybe he could have been more polite. But he was clearly struggling to encompass the "argument".
@@mikeharrison1868 "Their stuff is just so off the wall..." You're aware that Carrier gives Jesus a 1/3 probability of being historical, right? Hardly a radical position. Carrier's rationale is technical and detailed, but Ehrman and others like you seem to not come up with any critique that goes much beyond incredulity and epithets like "wacko." Ehrman has refused to debate Carrier and EVEN TO READ HIS BOOKS. So Ehrman literally has no fine grained knowledge of what Carriers arguments actually are. Both Carrier and myself have had a great deal of respect for Ehrman in the past, but the guy seems to be losing it. His arguments against Carrier are replete with strawman misrepresentations of Carrier's positions, and recently some actual lies about issues of scholarship. This video was a disturbing display of Ehrman answering questions with nothing but angry, defensive, spluttering expressions of incredulity. If Carrier is so "off the wall" it should be easy to debunk him with substantial arguments and evidence. Ehrman's rejoinders boil down to little more than indignant claims that Carrier is wildly "out of the mainstream consensus." I predict that something like the Mythicist position will be the consensus of the future, once Biblical scholarship is no longer dominated by religious believers.
@@donnievance1942 Thanks, Donnie. I'm interested to know your position of the possible historicity of the Buddha, Muhammad, Sri Chaitanya, and Guru Nanak?
@@mikeharrison1868 What are you even talking about? Your response is honestly disgusting and you should be embarrassed. There is evidence that the earth is not flat. Do you have evidence that Jesus was real? Also, where are Ehrman's "years of scholarship" coming from, his degree in Christian theology or his degree in evangelical theology?
@@ryandegrave8978 Hi Ryan. Yes, Ehrman seemed dismissive. But we all need to consider the emotional reasons why we take a point of view. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that people who put a lot of emotional energy into maintaining that an apocalyptic rabbi named Yehoshua never existed at all don't put much emotional energy into maintaining that e.g. Siddhartha Gautama, Muhammad, Sri Chaitana or Guru Nanak never existed at all. Why is that?
It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians who believe the Gospels are more or less a transcription of a video recording of what happened - that if you had been there you would have seen events unfold exactly as the Gospels claimed, miracles and all - are on one extreme.
It seems to me that people who claim that no such person as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yusuf ever existed are at the other extreme.
It seems to me that the most Occam explanation for the birth and development of the cult is that there was a Rabbi Yehoshua, a fairly standard apocalyptic but otherwise orthodox Jew of his time. He never claimed to be God, etc. He may have been charismatic. During his life some people may have believed he did miracles (though most stories would have accreted as legends after his death) though he never did. He was executed and never came back from the dead, though some of his followers may have had grief hallucinations, etc. After his death, legends grew around him, and a lot of Jewish scripture was taken out of context to suggest they were prophecies about him, and stories about him were altered accordingly. Etc.
Like Ehrman, I am an exvangelical. I have skin in the game - if I could deny that there was ever a Jesus, I would. But it just doesn't seem feasible.
Sorry to hear about your accident. Hope you're all better soon
What's with all the people who do not understand Ehrman's reaction to the 9:40 question?
Are you all joking?
Ehrman does not convince me. Based on the facts that he mentions, which mostly fall in the hearsay category, a more honest conclusion would be: we don't know if the historical Jesus ever existed and he could as well have been an amalgamation or a complete myth.
I'd say that a mundane claim that there was an itinerant rabbi named Josh that the origin stories of the religion are loosely based on should be our default stance. We know Josh was a common name at the time. We know that itinerant rabbis were common at the time. We know the stories frequently have some sort of real world inspiration. The stance that there wasn't someone who was the inspiration is a strange claim.
@@unnefer001 It's not as strange as you might think. Zeus, Apollo, Thor, Vishnu, Anubis and many other gods were most likely not based on an historical person.
However, reinterpreting a mythical god as maybe based on a real person is something that happened sometimes. It's called Euhemerization. Author Richard Carrier defines "euhemerization" as "the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified."
The book "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald provides some strong arguments for the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus.
The sequence argument for source Q is so weak. Oh my god, this guy is definitely not serious. Luke didn’t change Mark Order because Mark is the blueprint for Jesus biography. And Luke wrote after Matthew. So basically, he can’t change the order of the story. But he can fix some matthew issues because Matthew isn’t the blueprint. Matthew is just a correction of Mark + some parables and sermons. Of course it’s possible to change order for parables and sermons. Read Mark Goodacre’s book « Against Q », this is far more serious than Bart Ehrman arguments for Q, M, and L sources (All lost 🤣🤣). I’m done watching videos with Bart Ehrman. Laughing at arguments and saying « historians are serious » is not an argument M Ehrman.
Ehrman didn't say the evidence for Q was strong, he just gave a summary of the evidence. He's familiar with Goodacre's book (and I'm pretty sure he critiqued it or responded to it on his blog). I don't think Dr. Ehrman thinks the evidence for Q is as strong as you think he thinks it is.
The existence of Q is not generally agreed upon by the majority of NT Historical Scholars (from what I recall) so that would mean that it's not something that Dr Ehrman will be emphatic about.
He only gets emphatic about stuff that every serious scholar agrees with
I don't understand Holy Koolaid. In the last video I, and many others, pointed out that you were unaware of the arguments made by mythicists like Richard Carrier and others.
Once again Ehrman makes reference to Paul quoting Jesus at the Last Supper, knowing Jesus' brother and knowing the disciple Peter as evidence of Jesus' historicity. For a moment let us grant that these are true statements and actually demonstrate what Ehrman purports they do. This seems like such and open and shut case that Jesus existed, no further discussion or evidence should be needed. And yet there are people who are mythicists. Are you not tiniest bit curious of how people can hold the mythicist position in the face of the above information. Either you must think they have never heard such amazing evidence or there is some other explanation not addressed in these videos.
You (and Ehrman for that matter) seem to not be aware of the counter arguments put forth by those critical of historicity and the arguments about a brother James, and disciples mentioned by Paul ,and Jesus quotes (and others) and you don't show any interest in attempting to learn more about them in order to make a judgement as to their validity.
Ehrman here tells us that mythicists need better arguments - while only strawmanning their claims and not mentioning anything about what the actual arguments are. Question you should be asking:
- Why aren't mythicists convinced Paul is talking about a biological brother?
- Why don't mythicists think "quotes from Jesus" are sufficient evidence?
- What doesn't scream "historical Jesus" when Paul says "born of a woman"?
Understanding the answer mythicists give to the questions above (whether you find them convincing or not) will help you better understand the position they are taking.
I do wish Ehrman would take the trouble to read carrier's book then he would know why he is wrong on so many things.
It's funny that you think he hasn't.
@@Raz.C Its funny you think he has when he explicitly said himself that he hasn't and won't because he "doesn't have enough time" and its "too long" but clearly you know more about ehrman than his ownself.
Ehrman said he hasn't read the book and everything he says clearly shows he hasn't read the book, so I don't know why someone would lie by claiming he has read the book.
Well... I do know why someone would lie. To protect their undefended Jesus.
@@unicyclist97 Even if he did read the book it's unlikely he would ever admit he was wrong. It's too late for that.
Why would Erhman read some unemployed blogger's self-published, unscholarly trash?
Ending with that last comment from Dr. Ehrman was excellent editing despite your accident! 👌