Delerium

wow Robert, impressive resume!

avi

well done!
avi

Frank

Maybe you're right (and the scholars you mentioned may have developed a greater reputation, but I think that's largely because they've been around for longer, and because they didn't deviate away from orthodoxy as sharply as Ehrman has, who is now a self-proclaimed agnostic, and by remaining in the "Christian camp" so to speak, they maintained a broader appeal). However, Ehrman's credentials certainly matches or exceeds the credentials of all the aforementioned scholars.

Right, what Ehrman does is exercise more (call it) academic freedom than his counterparts. His major contribution is he walked away from presuppositionalism (which is rare for an American biblical scholar), and he began an analysis based on historical method.

The degree of evidence required to uphold historicity should be proportionate to the probability it could be true. There is no independent substantation for any miracle story contained in the New Testament. We can't even figure out who wrote many of the New Testament books (this is particularly true for the gospels). The only collection of books that we can trace is the Pauline epistles, yet Paul didn't witness anything (beyond his self-proclaimed conversion experience, for which he offers us no independent substantiation, beyond bare assertions of witnesses). Even the gospel of Mark (which enjoys the best historical support of all the gospels) lacks a virgin birth narrative, lacks stories like Roman guards at the tomb, and the earliest and most reliable manuscripts we have of Mark, even lacks a resurrection story. If Mark was indeed a companion of Peter, then it seems hard to believe that he would omit such facts (if they were in fact true).

So beyond mere textual criticism, the bible has huge problems from a historicity standpoint. The main problem is we really don't know what these authors actually wrote or believed.

This isn't like some of the fantastic tales in say the history of Alexander the Great. Did Alexander really have an encounter with an oracle in Egypt? We only have a second or third hand historical narrative. However, there is archeological evidence that Alexander was in Egypt, we also know there were oracles in Egypt, and the reports we do have claim to have been drawn from first hand historical reports (for instance, Alexanders personal historian, who traveled with him during his conquests). Does this mean we believe that this oracle had magical insight? Or does this mean we believe that Alexander's mother was impregnated by the lightning bolt of Zeus during a dream? We can accept the historicity of Alexander while at the same time acknowledging that these (and many other) aspects of the history are mythic.

Ehrman simply exhorts us to analyze biblical history in the same way we analyze history in general. This is an innovation, not because it's the first time anyone has ever done this, but rather because of who it's coming from (a leading expert in the analysis of biblical manuscripts, including the relevant languages, and of all the ancillary expertise scholars in this area require). Atheists usually do not earn a PhD in biblical studies (why would we), so it's rare to see someone with his qualifications take the position he takes.

spin

Roger must have got up on the wrong side of the bed when he wrote this. Biblical scholars have been writing about the beliefs of others (as well as their own) ever since the profession started.

Perhaps he actually fell out of bed... bumping his head. Ehrman has done precisely the sorts of study that lead to qualifications such as those that allow numerous religious scholars to make authoritative religious pronouncements. Take a look at the dudes on this Ehrman Project site for several examples.

And we fade out with another shot of generic venom. Milk it to synthesize an antidote.

mountainman

With transcripts.

Couldn't it all have been a conspiracy?

I just has a look through this very short article written by Dr. Ed Gravely, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. It starts with ....


I wonder who asked that question?

Of course! The first 3 centuries. Where have I heard this before? The writer goes on to say that it must be a really silly conspiracy.

Of course, the gospels differ! So it cant have been a conspiracy. Basic Spock. The author then goes on to say something really momentous:

The political environment of the fourth century church and Constantine remain entirely unaddressed. You might think that the erhmanproject would attempt to present the historical facts, and not try and tip-toe around them in such a nieve fashion. The author then turns to church councils and says:

The canon was closed during the 4th century, and it was in the 4th century and not the fifth century that councils discussed the books of the canon and about the prohibition of the "Uncanonical Books". The article closes with the remark:

The fourth century is glossed over.
Why? That's easy to explain ....

We think we have 2nd and 3rd century manuscripts from Oxyrynchus, but we will not know for certain until the palaeographers are corroborated by the physicists and their C14 tests.

I imagine an article on "Couldn't it all have been a conspiracy?" is required because the initiative of the project is of wide scope, and they are trying to address all the commonly asked questions, and not just the "highly informed" questions of "Biblical Scholars". No matter why it appears on this site, the article has imo some problems. In directly discussing the possibility of such "Conspiracy Theory", it sweeps the 4th century, with the political consequences of Constantine's "Council of Nicaea" under the carpet.

Frank

The term "conspiracy" applied to this seems pretty awkward (but I imagine if apologists can try and reduce objections to wild conspiracy theory, it probably obfuscates the facts and allows believers a way to reject objections, oddly enough, based on incredulity).


There's no need to speculate how these stories emerged, or why. It's enough to know there's no independent substantation, the authors (save Paul) are largely unknown, and there were changes to the text. It's perfectly possible someone like Peter really did believe his religious leader came back from the dead, and Paul really did become a Christian. It's also possible that the embellishments were written in reaction to objections, and there was no conspiracy per se. It's also possible that the interpolations written in by scribes were in some cases simple mistakes, in other cases were footnotes in margins, and perhaps in some other cases merely reflected the theological views of the scribe.

If there was a "conspiracy" (like a stolen body) it's not necessary to think the apostles did it .... maybe it was other followers of Jesus (two or three guys who rob a grave at night is hardly tantamount to a "who shot Kennedy" conspiracy .... it's a pretty garden variety conspiracy, like we see everyday when a few guys team up to rob a liquor store). What started as an idea of a spiritual resurrection may have simply changed form as the story was disseminated.

Who knows .... and who can ever know? The fact that there's a dark period, a gap in the history, makes anything possible, so the question is what's more probable?

aa5874

A "dark period" suggest "NO history". If there was NO history then there would be a DARK PERIOD.

The evidence is a PERFECT match for a Non-history theory.

Virtually all the DISPUTES about the nature of Jesus was in the 2nd century. The Jesus story was most likely INVENTED in the 2nd century or at least AFTER the Fall of the Temple c 70 CE.

Justin Martyr in "First Apology" seemed to be unaware of the Jesus cult in his search for the "TRUTH" up to the middle of the 2nd century. The Emperor of Rome and the Senate about the middle of the 2nd century did NOT even appear to KNOW that Christians who believed in Jesus Christ WORSHIPED on a day called Sunday.

Examine "First Apology"LXVII It is obvious that the Emperor and the Senate of Rome did NOT know much about Christians who worshiped Jesus Christ up to the middle of the 2nd century.

It is EXTREMELY plausible, based on the evidence from antiquity, that the Jesus story was INITIATED and developed well into the 2nd century.

mountainman

Hi Frank,

Some interesting comments there. But I would have thought that the last thing that the Ehrman Project envisages are such comments. I thought Ehrman was about representing things in a clear and open style based upon what is known of the history of Christianity. Maybe I thought wrong.


I would like to see the project address factual and historical material in an informed manner. That can be done by starting the article off as follows ...

The Conspiracy of the Valueless Dud Cheque

If we are dealing with a valueless dud cheque, the question must sooner or later return to the identity of the earliest widespread publication of this dud cheque. In which century (and it was not the 1st or the 2nd or the 3rd or the 5th) was the dud cheque first presented in a widespread publication, and who was in charge of the mints at that time? Who wrote the histories of that epoch, and how do we know that these histories are a true and accurate reflection of the age. Were there any major controversies at that time about the authenticity of the Official Jesus Bank Notes? Were there ever any historical issues regarding the face value of the Jesus currency? What is the difference between the Canonical Jesus Bank Notes and the Non Canonical Jesus Bank Notes? What parties were historically responsible for the manufacture of the earliest physical evidence? What are their names and when and where did they operate, and how did the two opposing authorities become resolved?

Some more questions Frank.

Best wishes,



Pete

Frank

Right, but there is trace evidence (Tacitus, Seutonius). So I think we can date this religion to at minimum very early second century, and before that it becomes obscure.

The reason work like Ehrman's is so important is because it offers an honest examination of the only evidence we really have, the manuscripts (and what can be gleaned from them).

I personally rejected this whole idea pretty early on, based on incredulity I suppose; but the more I've learned about it over the years, the more suprised I became at how thin the evidence really is. We have little beyond educated guesswork dating these works. All of our manuscripts are late, and there's even some obscurity in the meaning of Pauline literature (the best quality works we have). The earliest manuscripts of Mark omit the resurrection, the virgin birth narrative and all the typologies drawn in books like Matthew, are almost obviously contrived (and counter polemical).

Apologists like to parse the details, and fill the debate with smoke, but the only thing that really matters is what we can glean from the first decades after the fact. People believing fantastic stories isn't very impressive (there's millions today who believe their favorite guru can perform all sorts of magic tricks, so there's nothing unique about gullibility).

I often hear arguments by analogy to other historical stories (pointing out how little evidence we have for some pretty major historical events). But Caesar walked through the Rubicon (and got his feet wet), he didn't defy nature and walk on the rivers surface, and there's nothing suprising or magical about another in a long list of power hungry Romans. At this point ... I guess I view religion as somewhat silly. It's obviously not true (and there's really not anything worth debating about it), yet billions of people are completely indoctrinated by it. Frankly I find it hard to believe any western man or woman could believe in such a provincial and trivial god. Imagine, the god of the multiverse, the inventor of physics, only revealed himself to primitive desert tribes. Hell, if there is a super-spirit somewhere, how can we really know it's a friendly super-spirit? Think about it .... if there's a shred of truth in any of this shit, we must be the amusement toys for one crazy fucking super-spirit.

Littlejohn

It's strange that Roger Pearse, a profound connoisseur of patristic literature, pretend to ignore the fierce criticism that the apologist fathers of the early centuries led to the religion of pagans, that they also arrived to define 'beasts', because they worshiped idols representing their gods and sacrificed victims for them.

It is from over 19 centuries that the catholic-christian forgers we continue to teach that what is permitted for Catholics is not allowed to others, since they are by the part of the 'true' God... (outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, according to the Catholic magisterium)


Littlejohn

.