Genesis, White Jesus, and Debating the Resurrection (with Dr. Bart Ehrman)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2022
- Dr. Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar, author, and educator. In advance of his upcoming debate with apologist Dr. Mike Licona, he joins us to talk about the Bible, Christ, and the April 9th online debate: "Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen?"
Debate registration link: bit.ly/349rOgu
Genesis course: bit.ly/3pyXovK
Dr. Ehrman's website: www.bartehrman.com
Dr. Ehrman's blog: ehrmanblog.org
lol, Seth said "How can you nail that down?" about the existence of Jesus. Golf clap.
By the time you strip all the legend and myths surrounding Jesus, you really do not have a Jesus of the new testament left at all.
This is exactly my position, as well. And, the fact that Bart continues to so closely guard and defend the historical Jesus tell me he’s protecting his professorship and reputation in academia.
His biggest defenses are always “Paul knew James, Jesus’s brother”. And, then the hearsay of Christians documented by people like Josephus.
The legends are parables. Like the fig tree. An out of season tree not producing nuts, so he kills the tree story sounds absurd. He is saying that the temple was destroyed (or killed), but the physical church (tree) isn't needed to worship to receive the fruit (the word of Jehovah). It has some neat and good stories. Stories like that were easier to spread with words, since it wasn't written down for a couple of centuries
@@DL-rl9bd -- your comment tells me that you don't understand tenure and don't mind disparaging people without evidence.
@@mojoman2001 His books and UA-cam videos are evidence of his position, right?
@@DL-rl9bdall historians of antiquity based a lot of their claims on hearsay. When they quoted something, they didn't cite who or where they were quoting from.
Of course, that creates a big problem to historical study of Jesus, etc, but Ancient History is all like that, all claims have high degree of uncertainty.
Bart, I love your work! Former Christian x 20 years. Now 20 years sober from religious lies. I love sharing my beliefs!
I don't think they're out to destroy Christianity they just don't believe Jebus existed. I don't believe Zeus existed but that doesn't mean I'm out to destroy Greek mythology.
It's kind of weird to say that when the only distinction between the two positions is whether you think one specific person actually existed even though you agree the rest is 99% bs.
I would like to see the whole thing go away and be replaced with a paradigm of decency and appreciation based on just that without a need to know where anything came from.
Not a good analogy, since Greek mythology has already been destroyed by Christianity, no less.
If you think Christianity has been corrupted then please find another religion. God is real
@@truthhurts4928 there is no demonstrable testable evidence of any God/Gods existence accept only in the minds of believers that believe in fairytales.
When I read Genesis I read nothing more than Mesopotamian creation myths that has been giving a Jewish makeover.
Which is pretty f’ing cool tbh. I still remember the first time I read the start of the Enūma Eliš and saw the narrative parallels between it and the start of Genesis. The authors of Genesis were definitely making conscious changes to a very common story of their day in order to make - what were at the time - quite revolutionary theological points.
I had a friend who was an anthropologist, archaeologist, and Native American who had been adopted by a white couple and was later adopted into the tribe of his father. He had a very interesting perspective. His view was that oral traditions always changed and evolved. If you write them down, especially if it is done over time, you are going to get exactly what is it the bible. It really doesn't matter what the oral traditions are. They all evolve and change. When there is a local disaster, the incorporate it into the traditions. When the tribe moves, that is also incorporated. Same for any notable event. When you look at any religion that way, it makes perfect sense. It's not even a history book, or a book on humanity. The bible is simply a book reflecting how oral traditions evolve, and how the written word impacted those traditions.
Bingo we have a winner.
I love ishtar... oooh... dem thighs... i mean, ishtar from fate series...
That statement actually means nothing. It doesn’t mean you are right, it only means that YOU are not able to see it or comprehend it;-)
I owe Bart Ehrman a thank you for somewhat educating me on the historicity and evolution of the Bible itself. I was approached recently by the self-proclaimed doctor of biblical studies. It didn't go well for him thanks to Dr. Ehrman.
Lol😄
Dr. Ehrman's recent book, "Heaven and Hell" is very interesting. I suspect you'd like it.
I am just starting my deconstruction journey after being a lifelong fundamental evangelical. Feels hopeless to untangle myself in a rationale way when I don't even trust my own understanding. Going to be tuning into the Erhman/Licona debate. Thank you for this episode.
I’m a former evangelical Christian myself. Stay strong 💪 you’re not alone
Just spend some time in a pediatric cancer ward and ask yourself where the loving god is supposed to be
Congrats on letting go! I understand it's a difficult process, especially if everyone you know is of Christian faith. I hope you are not alone in your journey.
Most of my family are Fundamentalist evangelicals, but the ones who know I'm atheist are okay about it. No matter how much proof I throw at them they still seem to hold to their religion. One of my siblings happens to be a Christian flat-earther, so convincing them of anything is impossible.
If you need any advice or recommendations I'm here for you.
Takes courage to make decisions like yours. Good for you.
@DasHobble. Years ago I worked at a big hospital in Boston. I always say the very same thing to people about the kids with cancer. I saw so many little ones die. God must be an a..hole to be sitting up in heaven watching this.
I, too often, feel compelled to remind people that most of Bart's opinions are standard, widely held, mainstream conclusions held by most objective scholars.
His books only feel radical to us because we've been lied to repeatedly by our clergy, who withold the info they learned in school.
Dr. Ehrman stated that Jesus taught profound things and Jesus did but about 500 years earlier was Buddha, Lao Tzu and others who taught the same principles of love, compassion and charity and they taught it more deeply. Jesus did not have the corner market on this wisdom.
The power of the Jesus message isn’t just about good works, though, is it?
Profound? Like you must hate your family and even hate life itself? Yeah ok buddy... lol
@kylekataryn Bullshit. You think no one could love or be charitable to anyone before this jesus character? Animals do that without knowing about some god. Children do that before they could know what a god is. Millions from different religions do that. Millions of atheists do that everyday. Your comment is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever read.
@kylekataryn Huh? Who is "they"? An unknown "oriental"? WTF dude where did you come up with that? Also, if the dude is unknown how the fuck do they know he was oriental and that term didn't even exist years ago anyway .
@kylekataryn First you say unknown. Now you say Confucious. Which is it. You are also assumimg all these biblical characters actually existed. I don't. These are just stories Job is just a character invented for Yahweh and Satan to play their sadistic game with. The entire thing is stupid.
I really like how Seth handled this interview. He pushed back and treated Bart like a regular guy. Nothing felt staged or fake and he didn't have this "star-struck" approach. All of these things held my interest and kept me engaged in the conversation and I wish more people would take this approach with interviews. Cheers to you both!
Those are indeed the best interviews, regardless of the subject matter, I find.
One of my major contentions with biblical literalists is always the dead rising and hanging out with their families at the resurrection. Like, did *nobody else* see this and think it worthwhile to write down?
Pilate: damn zombies...they're worse than cockroaches. 😁
@@bokononbokomaru8156 What would they even have to talk about?
"So... hows death?"
"You really don't notice it."
"Hmm. Well, you can't stay here tonight, your old room is my new man cave."
Haha, yes. Funny too, no mention of what happened to Lazarus after his claimed resurrection; yet another detail that the NT authors just left out, or simply didn't have, for some reason. Maybe they didn't want people asking why Jesus's resurrection implied that his teachings were true/divinely sourced?
@@timtheskeptic1147 😆 i think you have a good comedy bit there! 👍
The plagues in Egypt always got me. A nation that was the Mecca of information for many neighboring countries with the majority of the population being literate didn’t write about water turning to blood, 1st borns dropping dead overnight, darkness for days, and exodus of a whole ethnic group, etc? Not even one person wrote about it, or anyone that was visiting? Sounds extra suspicious.
There are scholars who doubt the historicity of Jesus. Here is what Richard Carrier wrote on his blog:
Ehrman falsely claims in his book that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity (previously at UCSD; now at the University of Toronto).
And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself, Richard Carrier-the first to publish a peer reviewed defense of the idea that Jesus didn’t really exist in On the Historicity of Jesus (Sheffield-Phoenix 2014)-and Robert Price, both of us fully qualified independent scholars; and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown. That is a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus.
Most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has also declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. Likewise Raphael Lataster joins the ranks of historicity-doubting experts, with a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Sydney. He’s since published the second ever peer reviewed book defending doubts about historicity, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus (Brill 2019). We can likewise Philip Davies (Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University), who publicly asserted doubt was a respectable academic position (per the category I enumerate below), but privately admitted that in fact he actually doubted the historicity of Jesus (posthumously confirmed by correspondence with Raphael Lataster); and David Madison, with a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies, who confirmed the same in Q&A at the GCRR e Conference on the Historical Jesus.
That makes now nine fully qualified experts on the record, two of them sitting professors, three retired professors, and four independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record (just like Davies, who feared admitting his doubt publicly).
We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Zeba Crook (Professor of Religious Studies at Carleton University), Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter), Emanuel Pfoh, a sitting professor of history at the National University of La Plata (Ibid., p. 92), Justin Meggitt (Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, who concludes that questioning historicity “does not belong to the past and nor is it irrational” and it “should not be dismissed with problematic appeals to expertise and authority and nor should it be viewed as unwelcome”), and Darren Slade, head of the Global Center for Religious Research, with a Ph.D. in theology and church history (confirmed to me personally and at the GCRR eConference on the Historical Jesus). Steve Mason, Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Religions and Cultures at the University of Groningen, has likewise said serious proposals that Jesus didn’t exist “should be considered and tested,” not rejected out of hand, and that “it may be” that Jesus didn’t exist (timestamp 28:30 here). Even Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter) says the historicity of Jesus is only “possible” and not certain. Which means she either agrees mythicism is plausible or is even an outright historicity agnostic. Likewise Dennis MacDonald, a sitting professor of New Testament and Christian Origins, agrees the historicity of Jesus is respectably debatable, and that there’s at least an 8% chance we’re right; and that’s his minimum estimate. And Richard C. Miller, with a Ph.D. in religion and a prominent peer reviewed monograph in the field, Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity by Routledge, whose foreword supporting the forthcoming anthology by John Loftus, The Varieties of Jesus Mythicism: Did He Even Exist? declares there are only two plausible positions in the field now regarding Jesus: that he is entirely a myth, or nothing survives about him but myth. Further afield, historian Tom Dykstra, with a Ph.D. in Renaissance Christianity who has nevertheless published peer reviewed works in New Testament studies, similarly grants the plausibility of the mythicist position.
Which makes nineteen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible.
Oh alright. This has more tied to it than I thought. Maybe there is debate.
Seth needs to pin this at the top of this comment list. It was great that Seth pushed back so hard.
Just because James Tour exists does not mean that there is a credible group of scientists that doubt evolution. You will always get one odd ball.. do you really want to be backing the odd ball?
@@magicker8052 When an abiogenic explaination for the start of life is scientifically theorized, the christians will say that "god breathing life into dust to create Adam - the proves buy-bull "truth" about how humanity started".
Those religious folks have an explaination, however crazy, for everything !
@@onedaya_martian1238 agreed... but by putting ourselves on the "jesus did not exist" side of the argument we are the odd balls.
When people say "Jesus existed" or "Jesus did not exist" need to define the "Jesus" they refer to. We have people who claim "Jesus existed, but I don't believe anything the Bible says about him" which they think is drastically different from saying " 'Jesus' never existed."
Was coming down to say pretty much this. The opening discussion felt like a clear communication/definition issue.
Well Ehrman has explained that many times. He thinks there was a real Jesus basically as described in the NT but without the miracles.
Jesus exists today, I have Hispanic friends some name Jesus.
The question should be should we trust the gospels?
People forget that a lot of stuff about Jesus in the New Testament is thoroughly unremarkable: he went to this and that city and told people to do this and that - sure, many preachers did that at the time. Even the passages about him talking about the kingdom of heaven are nothing special: many people believed what he believed at that point in time in that corner of the world. It’s perfectly reasonable to think he existed and that the New Testament is a good source for his existence - and that’s the position of any historian who looks at it. Believing that he was the son of god and that he performed miracles is a completely different matter. That’s all there is to it.
Here’s the thing: I think the professor, who I think is very smart, is somewhat flippant about the harm fundamentalism does and how it permeates our society. Sure, we can say the Bible has great stories, etc., but we are surrounded by people who take it literally and have no problem making everyone else’s life hell because of same. Just my thoughts.
Dr Ehrman is a biblical scholar who is focused on what the original intention of the authors of the bible is, not on how the bible is being misused currently. Since contemporary fundamentalism isn't his area of expertise, he isn't speaking on that. It doesn't mean he agrees at all with it or has no issue with the damage it causes, which he's discussed in other videos and lectures. It means from a scholarly academic view if he's discussing the biblical Jesus or the account of Genesis, he does his best to present his evidence of how it was understood by those in the past and allows his audience to see the wide chasm between the religion of the past vs the present, better equipping those who are focused on current issues.
I can concede the presence of an itinerant rabbi named Jesus, perhaps several. This has little to do with the Jesus written about in the Bible. Certainly no virgin birth, no miracles, no resurrection. No Divinity.
Yes, and most people don't care if a regular guy named Jesus lived and died a couple of thousand years ago. It's not notable.
@@yadabub , perhaps you are correct. However, I suspect the biblical Jesus was a composite of these possible Jesus; with the added mysticism.
@@yadabub Yeah but the people who do care are the ones who debate the historical Jesus issue. I don't care if you care.
Love that Dr Erhman finds humor in just about everything and love everything about you, Seth😊
I find his laughing after almost everything he says to be a bit offputting.
@@MeDecade I totally agree with you. He finds himself very funny but I find that very distracting.
@@MeDecade offputting and revealing of insecurity. Seth is a formidable conversationalist.
@@jewellevy I don't think Dr. Ehrman is intimidated in any way by Seth. He just has a jovial disposition.
@@heteroclitus inappropriate laughing. Nothing he said was funny.
It's great to see these two in conversation. I think both deserve more recognition/publicity in their respective specialties.
@7:40 I do that "gotcha" thing all the time by asking Christians questions they can't answer in a good way like *_"Have you read the Bible?"_* Yeah I know, that's an unfair question for someone who's basing their entire life on that book but I don't always play fair.
Thank you for this hangout. Very educational. Your efforts are appreciated.
Jebus the middle easterner that was given a Scandinavian makeover.
That explains the walk on the water. Something I've done this winter too.
Indeed, if this so called western " Christians" had to chance to see real Jesus , they will think he is like a Syrian refugee, what the f..k🤣
To be fair and to offer context, the convo didnt start with religion. He was talking about the fact that America was founded and intended for the 'real Americans'. After explaining to me what a 'real' American was, I replied "so one is judged a real American by how much one looks like a European and worships like middle-easterner?" This is what set him off. He said "we (Americans) are Christians, not middle-easterners."
This was the beginning of his denial of any connection between Christianity and the middle east.
I really like Dr Erhman but he relies on Paul’s account of meeting with James the brother of Jesus to affirm existence. I don’t necessarily think Paul is that reliable. I really don’t care if there was a guy or not because the whole story is absurd.
That's always been interesting to me, too. The books were complied by Catholics who believed Mary died a virgin. In catholic school, we were told he was just a brother in the church. I see Erhman's point when reading it with non-Catholic eyes, but it's hard to fully commit when I was taught otherwise by the people who constructed the work. It would make more sense that they'd want there to be a brother rather than not.
But I'm not a scholar. Just a youtube rambler. Don't mind me.
Paul spent significant time trying to get different churches to listen to him and thus would have a good reason to fabricate meeting Jesus's brother. The notion that he's in with Jesus's bro gives him credibility. He claimed God talked to him in a vision. He also never discusses Jesus's earthly ministry. How is Paul at all credible?
Need to believe "Paul" existed before believing in whatever "Paul" said about "Jesus."
@@h.g.wellington2500 Except he wasn't in with Jesus" bro. Paul hated Peter and James. THAT is why his comments about them are somewhat credible.
@@fredericdouglas3574 Even Richard Carrier thinks Paul existed and wrote seven of the epistles. Pretty much everyone agrees with that. The epistles have been examined 8 ways to sundown.
Wish Dr Ehrman would agree to a discussion with Dr Carrier. That would be an interesting conversation.
Didn't that happen already?
I maybe wrong. 🤷🏾♂️
@@kami2099 Has it?? 😱
@@kami2099 nope
Carrier is more convincing than Bart based on just this, where is there inscription of Jesus?
Plenty of inscription for other people of that time and location, but none for Jesus.
@@Instramark Totally agree. Dr Carrier has thoroughly examined the evidence where it exists. One point he makes that eviscerates Dr Ehrman's credibility is the fact we know so much more about ancient historical figures like Plato, Socrates, Alexander The Great, etc, than we do about Jesus. You'd think someone as famous, powerful, and important as the Son of God would be more...well... famous.
Probably a dumb question but I think that Dr. Richard Carrier qualifies quite nicely as a scholar and he does question the historicity of Jesus does he not?
I would qualify Carrier as a scholar. But Ehrman never debated him, nor has any intention to, as Ehrman just puts him down as a mystacist
Yes.
Carrier has a PhD. what else do you need? Ehrman doesn't consider you a scholar unless you taught or wrote an Ivory League text book. Goal post moving.
He is currently the voice crying in the wilderness, so to speak
Carrier says there is a 30% chance that there was a historical Jesus. For some reason nobody ever talks about that. Taking that into consideration makes him look far less radical. But a lot of his fans are looney tunes.
I really appreciate this conversation because I am in the same “did Jesus really exist” camp as Seth but now I’m going to read Dr. Ehrman’s book for more information. Thank you both!
You should also look into Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald to get the other side of the argument, and the point out Ehrman’s flaws and blind spots. He says there are not scholars who don’t believe Jesus existed and that’s just not true. Carrier has a Ph.D from Columbia and wrote a peer reviewed book on mythicism. Fitzgerald isn’t a “scholar” but his book Jesus Mything in Action is well researched and excellent.
I'd also suggest Tim O'Neill's History for Atheists blog.
The deuction is simple.
Was there a guy? Maybe ... maybe several that roamed the land and preached.
If, was he divine? No ... not by any standards we can measure and declare as evidence.
But what about the fulfilled prophecies? You mean the ones the author of the NT knew about and could shoehorn in as fulfilled?
@@bladerunner3314 I got really excited by Richard Carrier when I read his book.. but then when I started the fact checking it was clear that time after time after time claims he made were just nonsense.
@@magicker8052 I have read neither nor, I'm talking strictly what is the miost likely scenario in my opinion.
Very interesting conversation gentleman. Seth always asks the questions I would ask! Thanks!
I started reading Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife this past week and I have to say it's an absolutely amazing book.
Thanks for all your work, Dr. Ehrman.
Heaven and Hell are only possible if you don't die.
How does that work?
I think his argument that Jesus didn't believe in a literal hell is very weak. He just disregards inconvenient language.
@@scambammer6102 I know the biblical scholar John Collins doesn’t agree with Bart on this either, at least from a mention on an interview at Mythvision. Still appreciate a lot of his other works.
@@TheGreatAgnostic Sure I love Bart, thanks for the info.
@@scambammer6102 Jesus was not waiting to be resurrected when he died he immediately return unto God
The Jeebus story was already a thing 1,500-2,000 years BEFORE his supposed existence with Zarathustra, Horus, Dionysis, and so many more. It seems so clear that he was just cobbled together from all these previous versions.
Except that we have seven undisputed letters of Paul that mention Paul meeting the brother of Jesus. Pure myths don't have brothers you can meet.
@@Kyeudo There are many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. 👽 There are *Billions* of people who believe Hanuman the monkey god created the universe. C'mon.
@@jesusisfictional
And your point is?
@@Kyeudo There are plenty of myths who have brothers, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, that people in writings have claimed to have spoken to. That's called part of the myth. Not to mention that just about every aspect of the writings from that era are highly suspect as to who actually wrote them. To be frank, we do not know. Just because the Gospels are named after X, Y and Z does not mean that X, Y or Z wrote them (and in many cases multiple people wrote them). Provide you sources to show clear evidence that these letters are 100% beyond any doubt written by someone named Paul, and then show your source to show clear evidence that 100% beyond doubt WHICH Paul exactly wrote them or to be frank, it is not undisputed. Furthermore, Jesus (actually Yeshua) was a VERY common name at that point in time so it's not unlikely that this "Paul" may have found some guy who was the brother of "Yeshua". Probably tons of them.
@@paulmiller7838
[" There are plenty of myths who have brothers, or sisters, or fathers, or mothers, that people in writings have claimed to have spoken to. That's called part of the myth."]
Now you are making the claim that either Paul or James lied about James being related to Jesus. That is actually an extraordinary claim and one you need to provide evidence for.
["Not to mention that just about every aspect of the writings from that era are highly suspect as to who actually wrote them. "]
There's a reason that the undisputed letters of Paul are referred to as the undisputed letters of Paul. It's because all attempts to dispute their authorship have failed to gain traction with the experts.
["To be frank, we do not know. Just because the Gospels are named after X, Y and Z does not mean that X, Y or Z wrote them (and in many cases multiple people wrote them)."]
Right, because the gospels are anonymous accounts written by literate Greek-speaking people decades after the events they purport to recount and no references to the titles are found before the second century.
["Provide you sources to show clear evidence that these letters are 100% beyond any doubt written by someone named Paul, and then show your source to show clear evidence that 100% beyond doubt WHICH Paul exactly wrote them or to be frank, it is not undisputed."]
You sound like a YEC trying to dispute evolution or the Big Bang Theory. "Just because the vast majority of the experts agree that this is the case after they have done the relevant work doesn't mean that the experts are probably right about this".
You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Don't do that.
["Furthermore, Jesus (actually Yeshua) was a VERY common name at that point in time so it's not unlikely that this "Paul" may have found some guy who was the brother of "Yeshua". Probably tons of them."]
You forgot that Paul also met Peter at the same time. You know, the Peter that was Jesus' chief disciple. The one who spent years with the man. Also, this is the Peter who is the head of the existing Christian movement, so he isn't just some guy claiming to have known Jesus. This eliminates the possibility that Paul talked to "just some guy who was the brother of some guy named Yeshua".
Hey Seth, I am a newbie to your channel, I must say you have a PERFECT radio voice! Excellent stuff.
He's a professional, is why.
The historicity of Jesus comes down to logic to me: Was there a Zeus? Was there an Odin? Were there any of the people/gods we look at as being part of history? If you are willing to believe there was a Jesus, then you should be just as willing to believe there was a Horus or a Set.
You can also ask if there was a Mohammad, or a Buddha, or a Confucius. The answers are more hazy for some and less so for others. Did any of these figures, including Yeshua, do everything that's claimed for them, and if not, does that mean that the legends have no specific person they can be traced back to?
But if you discount the miracles - which I have to, because I'm a filthy atheist - and the contradictions, and the downright untruths, like how the Roman census worked, and the common wisdom that existed in human thought before the 1st Century AD included in the New Testament, does it really _mean_ anything to assert that Jesus existed, considering how little there is left to him?
I think what Erhman is saying is that there is evidence pointing to a man named Jesus (Yeshua) from that time period who had a following and claimed to be the messiah. Just like 40 years ago a man named Jim Jones had a following and claimed to be this divine leader. Jesus existing is plausible however him performing nature defying miracles is where he draws the line. Zeus, Odin aren't as plausible because they take on a supernatural element.
I don't see the value to even knowing it, except for Historical accuracy.
No, sorry, that’s not a very well attested idea (even if it feels really good). Jesus was like Mohammad (or even Julius Caesar), in that they are figures later authors heavily mythologised. A lot of early Christians were incredibly passionate to spread their ideas, and even die for them. What inspires that sort of fanaticism? Charismatic leaders. We see it with the televangelists and faith healers of today. People follow a leader, and interpret what they see through the lens of their background beliefs. For the early Christians, they saw what Jesus did though the lens of the Old Testament, and the stories just got bigger with each retelling.
Can we please, please, give mythicism a rest? It’s really tenuous scholarship (and only really pushed by ex-evangelical atheists.)
So logic to you means that historians shouldn’t even consider the various sources at hand and just do simple thought experiments to reach their conclusions? That doesn’t sound logical to me at all.
Whenever i hear Ehrman speak i am reminded of what Sinclair Lewis once said "It's very hard to get a man to understand an idea when his salary depends on him not understanding the idea".
What salary would he lose?
So you think he has dedicated his entire life to the subject to make money? You don't become a teacher to become rich. He has strong arguments for his positions. Have you read "Did Jesus Exist?" His arguments are strong. If you're suggesting he holds his views so he can sell more books, I want to know what evidence you have for that?
If you read a children's book portraying George Washington as an iconic hero cutting down the tree and behaving in a mythologized manner, with emotionalized paintings, etc.. than that character in that book is mythological in a sense. The real George Washington and the George Washington of that book are two different characters.
There are a multitude of contemporary accounts of George Washington, but not even one for Jesus. The fact that “Jesus” (or whatever variants there are) was a common name complicates making any slight passing mention impossible to ascribe to a single person that can be identified as THE man-god.
The only interesting George Washington is the historical leader and not the mythological one.
I respect Dr. Erhman's work so much.
So Dr Ehrman doesn't want to debate Dr Carrier because he thinks he'll be mean to him? 🤯🤯🤯
There’s something Dawkins once said years ago about why he wouldn’t debate William Lane Craig “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine.”
I think a similar thing could be said here.
Seth, Dr. Ehrman is a sharp educated scholar, you can not win an argument with him about the historicity.
But... I really appreciate your openness in this video.
Thank you both for an excellent discussion
Doen't mean the guy isn't wrong from start to finish. I see a lot of bias towards his own conclusions by him and a lot of poeple just wanting to believe him.
@@bladerunner3314 Hello, I am thinking only about the Dr. comment on the number of scholars that deny the historicity.
Now, I don't think Dr. would lie about that as it is easy to confirm. And, yes, I do assume Dr. Ehrman has the proper information on the number of scholars... .
@@joed1950 Lying, no ... stopping investigation while he's right OR ignoiring people like Carrier, seems like it.
@@bladerunner3314 ok, thank you
Yes you can win against Ehrman. Start your own reading. Read the bibliographies of his books and get into his sources and his source's sources. Take a few courses.
You will be surprised how fast you can catch up to these guys and be able to pick apart fine points.
Here’s the thing, Jeeesus may have existed and even been killed in the most common way they killed people back then BUT that, in no way, means that he was divine and/or resurrected.
That’s the consensus view. Even mainstream scholars who are Christians will happily say that they can’t establish something like the resurrection took place historically; that’s a matter for private faith, not the historical-criterial method.
@@mil401 It's not really private any more when they smack you in the face with it. I view religion like having a penis. It's fine to have one, and even to be proud of it. But the minute you whip it out and start waving it in my face, we have a serious problem.
@@mil401 lol that isn't what christian scholars say
@@scambammer6102 Idk? I’m sure apologists would like us to think that mainstream Christian history/textual scholars are on their side when it comes to establishing Jesus’s resurrection using the critical historical method, but that’s just not the case. The mainstream Christian history scholars I know of: Prof. Dale Allison, Prof. Mark Goodacre, Prof. Candida Moss, Prof. Dale Martin, Dr Ian Mills and Dr Peter Enns, all appose the idea that you can demonstrate a resurrection historically.
Prof. Martin explicitly states this in his ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ undergrad course at Yale University (about 20 hrs worth of his of lectures are free to watch on Yale Open Courses.) He points out that while Christians (such as himself) can take a theological reading from the text, theological truth (i.e. the truth of the incarnation, resurrection, etc.) can’t be established just by using his field.
This divide between how Christian apologists and Christian history scholars at major universities think can be seen quite starkly in a debate/conversation that occurred a year ago between Laura Robinson, a Duke PhD candidate (I think Prof. Bart Ehrman is one of her thesis advisors, but I might be thinking about her colleague Ian Mills) and apologist Mike Licona.
ua-cam.com/video/Hr4i9eBIlq4/v-deo.html
The consensus amongst mainstream history scholars (including Christian ones) at universities with New Testament research departments like Oxford, Yale, Duke, Durham, Notre Dame etc. seems very much in favour of the view that Jesus’s resurrection is a matter of faith, not the historical critical method. Now of course, that being said, there are going to be US evangelical establishments that try to blur this boundary, but they only exist within their own (often unaccredited) bubble.
Have your experiences reading/watching mainstream scholarship been different? I could be wrong, this isn’t my field, so I might not have a broad enough understanding.
Everything else springs from that- it's not that hard to figure out that the people that traveled with him wanted to keep the movement alive even though the head guy was dead and gone- and the resurrection story was concocted, and the doubting Thomas, and the ascension, and so on and so forth, becoming more fantastical with each retelling of the story, each generation- I'm 62, and I can tell you that the story has changed in my own lifetime- ffs, everything is a different story now, not just in religion..
What Ehrman is saying is quite similar to one of my favorite historians/scholars, Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who would also state it as "not believing the literal words"...but admiring the literature. Not thinking people like Moses or Kind David actually existed,...but accepting that a Jesus existed [as a person, not a god-man].
One thing I would have asked Dr Ehrman would be this. As I read the gospel books of the Bible, I see most of it as if I'm reading fiction. The way it is laid out...how the stories come across...claims in it that don't read like reality...sections where Jesus was alone, yet a narrative was written about it. How much of the gospel message is a product of fiction...either during the first writings [which may not be known, since there aren't any originals] or added later [I know some parts were added later, like the "woman caught in adultery" and "drinking poison/picking up venomous snakes/speaking in other tongues"?
I read the bible like I read Outlander.
A perfectly fair question, and just to get it out of the way, I am not going to give a specfic answer to it, let alone as an apologist, which I am not in any sense. Looking back, I wonder whether or not one of my theology teachers that I had in high school (Catholic high school in central Texas - yes, I am permanently damaged) had heard of Ehrman or Stavrakopoulou, though he certainly did teach something similar, which makes it even more surpising as he was an ordained minister (Western Orthodox, if I recall correctly). Still, one of his lessons always stuck with me, even with how theology was taught at that high school. For context, the high school was operated by an order of religious brothers, which is something you just do not hear of often, at least not in the US, and they believed that having a strong and well-cultivated basis of earthly knowledge is vital to spiritual well-being - so shockingly, especially given where the school was located, things like creationism and intelligent design were kept as far from the science classrooms as possible and it was only evolution. Even in the theology classes, they were hardly brought up at all, and also shockingly, parents did not complain about that (maybe they believed teaching creationism and rejecting evolution was inherent in all Catholic schools - I guess the joke's on them for not being willing to look for evidence).
Anyway, the theology lessons did bear some similarities to the seminary, but there was a definite focus on teaching the Bible from the perspective of sciencists and historians rather than as theologians. One lesson from the aforementioned ordained minister that stuck with me and undoubtedly helped send me down the path towards leaving Christianity and becoming an atheist went thusly:
"Adopting a fundamental or literal interpretation of the Bible is perhaps the worst possible thing you can do with the Bible. When you read any Bible, you are reading an interpretation of an interpretation of a translation of a translation of a barely understood dead language and dialect. It is one of the oldest iterations of the game of Telephone ever, and we all know what happens in that game. The original message gets repeatedly and constantly distorted until the message you get is nothing like the original, but unlike the game, with the Bible, the chances of the original message being permanently lost are rather high. There is nothing wrong with studying the Bible or just reading it for entertainment, but trying to use it as a moral compass or a general life guide will only set you up to be a real scumbag in life, quite possibly the biggest scumbag most people will ever personally know. This can also be applied to any and all other religious texts, and trying to make any exception for any of them is pointless, and the ones who most typically try to do this were raised and immersed in it and often ONLY it. Read and compare any other religious text to the Bible, and you will find that what differences exist are predominantly superficial, and if you already believe this other text to be myth, then what exactly makes the one you were raised with special beyond the fact that you were raised with it? It is possible to extract some kind of history from any religious text, including the Bible, but that history can only be about the people who created the text and what it came to be used for. Certain events can be corroborated for when certain parts were written, but that is not a verification that what is written in the text is correct, not about its history and certainly not about its purported beliefs. It is far too easy to create any god or mythic heroic figure or supposedly religious text that can justify whatever you want, and how long it persists is a testament to its marketing, not its accuracy or validity. You were a captive audience when you were raised with it, and a captive audience is the golden goose for any and all marketing schemes, especially scams. Always be skeptical of whatever you read, especially when it comes to religion."
Again, this was an ordained minister who taught this. For extra context, I graduated from this high school in 2006, and I started at their attached middle school (same campus, different building) in 2000. I still remember exactly what happened in the 8th grade when 9/11 happened, how I got to watch the live broadcast of the second plane. He was not the only one who taught this or in this way, but he is the one whose lessons I remember most clearly. I wonder how many atheists he created - or at least how many he prevented from becoming fundamentalists. Last time I checked in on the school, he had become the guidance counselor, so I would like to think that the original mission of that religious order is still being followed.
@@DavidRichardson153 Thank you for the reply. It is appreciated!
The sad part about this religious nonsense is ,even if we found the original writings of the Bible or the Christian theology, it still wouldn't prove a God or Jesus was actually real. because a lot of the writings
came 50 to 100 years after the so-called crucifixion of Jesus .so I personally feel that all of that is worthless but it makes a really good Fairy Tail.
@@ishmaelkelly951 True. Even an original can be nothing but fabrications.
That seems odd to me mr bart says they are misusing the bible, that book is not clear on how to use it.
If he ever existed , he wasn't white or black ...
The people in that area had brown skin ...
In the line of modern day apologetic theologians Dr Licona is definitely the most kind and genuine person I know. He's different from the likes of Frank Turek, Lee Strobel and J. Warner Wallace and I think that has to do with his scholarship. Even though I don't agree with Licona's conclusions he doesn't make my blood boil.
So the God who is a god of the impossible-omniscient,omnipotent,and all wise-couldn't figure out a better and more perfect way to end the sin problem and save all the sinners-then to torture his son to death? Really? Is that what we are supposed to believe? And if we aren't convinced that these fantastical and preposterous things are true-like what's written above-we are going to be tortured forever with no reprieve? Really? I guess what I'm trying to say is-REALLY!!?
Yes, there's not an actual debate - yet I not even once heard a convincing argument for an actual historical Jesus' existence. I don't mean to say he certainly didn't exist, but I will say that it simply doesn't matter anyways, it's a completly futile discussion because he certainly didn't perform miracles, he certainly wasn't god nor the son of god, he certainly didn't rise from the dead - so we can state with certainty that the Jesus _as depicted by the bible_ didn't exist. What remains is one of many first century jews who maybe ended up on a cross, nothing special at all, and in that sense it is perfectly justified to say that Jesus didn't exist. Would it be justified to say Superman existed if it turns out that his inventor knew a guy called Clark Kent at one point? No, it wouldn't.
Thank you. I've been saying this for years.
The thing it always seems to come down to when I encounter it is this is that the historical method seems to be something like: If we can't demonstrate x person didn't exist, then we'll proceed under the assumption they likely did. Which, in normal mundane issues seems like a perfectly reasonable assumption, given the state of reliable record keeping over the last 2000 years.
We can't demonstrate a guy named Jesus who allegedly said some things didn't exist, so we're going to assume some guy named Jesus who said some things existed. Which makes christianity false.
I couldn't agree more. And I've never heard Ehrman explain what he means by a historical Jesus either or give any other argument other than getting really upset and animated and claim everyone who questions is basically stupid. He spends so much time character assassinating and demeaning, why not spend that time giving an explanation? Please enlighten us so we don't have to be such contemptuous ignorant rubes!
Nailed it. (but not to a cross)
@@jimsrisom Exactly. He appeals to his own authority as a scholar, then says he hasn't read everything. I don't care if he hasn't read X or Y's latest take on a historical Jesus, but as a scholar who claims Jesus was a historical figure, I expect him to have read every contemporary historical document that mentions this Jesus, and he should be able to present a concise and convincing case for what convinced him, but instead he spends half his time giggling at his own self-perceived bon mots.
Biblical scholars carry no more value than Harry Potter Scholars.
If Bart Ehrman says Jesus existed, Jesus existed. I have great respect for his scholarship.
Perhaps he did exist... But it is the "what / who" he was. Was he really the "son of god" as claimed, or just another religious zealot who took advantage of his fellow men / followers? Rather than work for a living?
Did you read his book? Or, do you just accept what he says without question?
Dr. Ehrman has a great deal of information and research at his disposal, and there's no denying most of what he says has a pretty fair consensus behind it, but after seeing him make the circuit around every atheist channel this side of the demonetization line I have one complaint...
_Bart, can you please stop punctuating nearly every sentence with a fit of put-on cackling?_ It comes off as a knee-jerk response to presenting information you take as an absolute given, when it absolutely is not, otherwise there wouldn't be any debates left for you to participate in.
I don't think it's a "put-on," but rather a nervous tick, but I agree, he would be better to reduce it or cut it out. Ticks can be very hard to get rid of, however.
I totally agree and was thinking the very same thing. I think Bart decries the Adhominem Fallacy but falls straight into it himself just by laughing off other's views or attacking the people themselves
It is a given that those with authority, those with standing and those with a reputation agree that there was a historical Jesus. Sorry if this doesn’t fit other’s fantasies and conspiracy theories.
I agree, the conversation was interesting but the nervous laughter grates on the nerves
Ehrman seems to be presenting the idea that one can be a scholar, or someone who believes that Jesus was mythical, but not both. This seems ridiculous on its face, as we are talking about opinions.
I am not a Biblical scholar, but I fall into the camp of those who would consider Jesus to be a myth in the sense that I don't think the Biblical Jesus actually did or said *any* of the things that are attributed to him in the gospels.
Was there a Jesus that these stories were based on? Maybe, but if none of the stories about him are true, it's almost at the point of arguing that Superman really existed because he's been played by actors. After all, they were called Superman. Sure, they didn't actually have super powers, but they 'were' Superman just as much as a Jesus that we know nothing about was 'Jesus Christ.'
For what it's worth, I'm not "out to destroy Christianity." I do think, however- that if Christianity faded into history, the people of the world would be better off.
Agreed.....I would like to see it go away.
I mean, what he's saying is that no Scholar actively working in related fields are mythicists. So agreeing that you're not a Biblical scholar just proves his point. The way to refute him is not to say 'lots of people think he was a myth', it's to point out a scholar is the field that thinks Jesus never existed.
I'm on the fence & see both sides. You have an individual with a miraculous birth, then he falls off the map for decades save for a story for when he was like 12 or something & then next you hear he's started a ministry where many of the stories about him are based on Old Testament callbacks or take some form of a literary device. Add the miracles & the resurrection story... what percentage of the gospels are actually true? 5%? Maybe 10%? Does that include the existence of Jesus?
You're entitled to your opinion but thinking a historical Jesus didn't say or do the spectacular things listed in the bible is not what a mythicist is. If someone doesn't believe George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, they're a George Washington mythicist.
Makes me wonder what he thinks of "On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt" by Richard C. Carrier. I felt like the evidence for there not being a historical Jesus was extremely compelling and it's surprising to hear him argue otherwise.
Carrier is one of the few that believes that. I wouldnt waste my time.
There is zero evidence for there NOT being a historical Jesus. How could there be? The evidence FOR a historical Jesus isn't very strong either, despite what Ehrman says. I have heard his evidence many times and it is all remote hearsay and shaky inferences. The difference with Plato and Julius Ceasar is that THEY wrote stuff. Jesus didn't. Nobody who even knew Jesus wrote anything. Paul is the best source and he never met Jesus, and he lies a lot.
I was thinking the same thing. The book gives very compelling reasons as to why we do not have clear evidence on Jesus ever existing.
Yet Dr. Ehrman dismisses the issue with such contempt that comes very off putting, not to say Ad Verecundiam-ish.
@@PC-vg8vn Right, and you're a better source because ...?
lol there are plenty of "carrier" mentions on Bart's blog.. they are not fans of one another.
Assuming he thinks it is just as unlikely that the resurrection happened as Jesus not existing, I’m curious why he’d talk about one and not the other. I get he wrote a whole book on it. Maybe I’ll check it out. But for having written so extensively on it, you’d think he could boil it down to a few good points, rather than just being dismissive about it.
His book does not address actual mythiscism, it strawmans it, read on the historicity of Jesus by Richard carrier, then maybe read erhmans, he does not address carriers points
@@ARoll925 thanks. Will do!
Think for a moment, if Bart doesn't know who wrote Genesis, then how does Bart know what this mystery person did or did not intend? Assume for a moment that one unknown man really did write the entirety of Genesis. We'd still have no idea who he was or what he was thinking. How could we ever demonstrate that he didn't write what he wrote, hoping that it would be read the way the Southern Baptists read it? It may the case that the Southern Baptists are thinking extremely similar to the man for whom Bart claims to speak. Where's the evidence, Bart? Wheezing at your own "jokes" is not evidence.
😜🤣 that’s right and squeeze your grobble vlookum, snook yark bleek.
Yeah at the beginning there is a fundamental misunderstanding. Historical Jesus does not mean Jesus was divine and performed miracles. It just means the person the legends were based on, did exist, as in he was a person who inspired the legends.
I do think that the key theme of genesis when taken metaphorically is "loyalty and trust in God." That theme repeats itself in pretty much every Genesis story. I absolutely can't wait to hear Bart's Genesis lecture.
Bart is right about taking the story for what it is. You have to try to look at it in the proper context, nitpicking it because fundamentalists exist today, has nothing to do with the literature itself.
There was a roaming preacher or several, that were amalgamated into chezus - that's as far as I'm willing to go.
The fundamental believer requires the rest of us to nitpick the Bible at the very least, seems to me. Think the insurrection and those Bible thumpers.
@@bladerunner3314 The idea behind the Messiah was more about Jewish nationalism. The reason the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple is precisely because of the rebellious atmosphere in Judea during the first century. The New Testament is 100% political.
I love to hear these two guys. Seth throws the questions we all have and Bart is the perfect one to answer reasonably.
This was wild. Nice work guys
37:09 That doesn't really help the Christian case much if the theological philosophers need to be "off the charts smart" to be able to figure out the attonment is problematic.
I think I figured that out when I was a teen … and I really don't consider myself to be "off the charts smart".
I have read half of Ehrman's books which is too many. Bart is a good source but not the only source. Try Richard Carrier and his focus on lack of inscription for Jesus. It's obvious to me Bart is still reconciling his literal upbringing, plus Bart is a member of the mainstream Jesus business with an emphasis on business.
Carrier is little more than a con artist.
@kylekataryn
Good enough. Thanks!
You prove my ultimate point. The Jesus situation covers a spectrum of violent faith to anthropology of dietary hallucinogens explaining cultural and spiritual beginnings.
This is why the founding fathers separated church and state. I expect it to stay that way and your comment lends to this, thanks again.
Carrier a con man? Like Joel Osteen, etc? Ok. Fine with me, just keep it out of the government.
@kylekataryn Didn't they recently find Pilate's building, office or whatever?
Richard Carrier explains the “historical Jesus” with much more clarity. He is not combative nor does he seem to want to destroy Christianity, he knows the history of world religions, therefore compares them.
Great conversation.
If Jesus existed, he certainly didn't resemble a caucasian rock star circa 1970s.
@@keithboynton There's nothing to prove! Jewish Galilean men from 2'000 years ago probably didn't have fair skin, blue eyes and long blonde hair.
I have set up the University of Flat Earth, and am now a PhD in Flat Earth theory. "You would have to look at the evidence."
...and your point is?
@@chrisnash6094 Having a PhD in the New Testament is a way of imposing an aura of holistic knowledge. The Bible states in the beginning that the true authors of the content is unknown. Being a scholar of some old myths wouldn't merit any more than what it is. These scripts are as relevant today as Snorre Sturlason's Edda, interesting from a historic perspective but nothing more. The entire god myth is as true as the flat earth conspiracy theories.
@@nollattacykel my father read Snorri Sturlason''s Edda to me when I was a little girl. Ironically, if you had asked me I would have said he was from Norway. It was only recently that I found out he was Icelandic.
I loved those stories and they are very interesting 🙋🏼♀️
@@nollattacykel
["Having a PhD in the New Testament is a way of imposing an aura of holistic knowledge."]
It's not just an aura. Bart Ehrman has done the work and has the knowledge. He can tell you exactly why you shouldn't trust most details from any of the gospels, which passages are the most mangled by translation, and which few passages are likely to have been real teaching by the real Jesus instead of later exaggerations or complete fabrications.
["The Bible states in the beginning that the true authors of the content is unknown."]
Not for the letters of Paul. A good half of those letters are forgeries, but seven aren't disputed.
["Being a scholar of some old myths wouldn't merit any more than what it is."]
Those "old myths" are the backbone of the most influential religious tradition of the last two thousand years. They remain relevant today, whether we like it or not.
@@Kyeudo "The real Jesus", of whom there are no historic records. You would think that a god who put himself on Earth would have done a better job to make his divinity more convincing. Snakes burning bushes, walking on water, feeding thousands of people and the resurrection are all fairy tales. What religious tradition does anything a secular one couldn't do.
I don't know whether or not there was a Jesus, I've read some arguments and the evidence doesn't seem to be up to standard but that doesn't necessarily mean that the evidence is wrong just not wholly conclusive..
I don't think it matters whether there was one or not. There have been lots of cult leaders over the centuries, and not one of them have made the sweeping changes to the world they promise that have meaningfully reduced the crappiness of reality. Jesus, whether he existed or not, just had better marketing and propaganda, used and pushed by those in power, so we know his name better than most.
No, it's not completely conclusive, of course. There is a fair amount of evidence by the standards that historians use but even then they won't typically say "definitely" they'll usually say "probably".
History for Atheists blog has a good series of articles on the subject.
@@redshark92 Eh. I have read and heard Ehrman's arguments on the subject many times and his evidence looks very shaky to me.
@@scambammer6102 He has no evidence.
I really enjoyed this. Thanks.
Thank you Professor Bart Ehrman.
No true biblical scholar questions the existence of Jesus? Sounds like a fallacy to me 😬
How many of those are christians, I wonder.
This man needs to actually have a sit down with Dr. Richard Carrier.
I think that's who Ehrmann is whining about.
The commercial for this video was the movie Risen
Thanks Seth for challenging Bart. He expects people to bow to his status and tries to laugh off all challenges to his veracity. His laughter is a tool to discourage people and shut off any follow up comment by trying to make you feel that you are silly in pursuing a line of questioning that he is not comfortable with. I usually listen to Seth's broadcasts from beginning to end, but I could not get past all the silly laughs and ended the torture early.
Yes I absolutely agree. I am really annoyed by his laughs... I don't understand why he continues to behave like this. Seth was only asking some questions... Bart seems to be irritated and aggressive...
@@kiakia6617 I got the sense that Bart was irritated and aggressive too. Why not just explain your views instead of getting defensive? Seth was just asking questions. Chill. Tell us your argument.
Can I be a PhD in Harry Potter?
If Harry potter became the linchpin of a huge belief system im sure there would be classes and courses on its different facets
@@eirikwatz6179 Harry Potter does not exist because?
Why not?
People have PhDs based upon the works of Shakespeare and other classical writers. It depends upon what your PhD is in.
@@ladyselenafelicitywhite1596 True, but it wouldn't give you authority over other issues than HP.
Depends.
The mythical Jesus towers so expansively over the tiny blur of the original person that it seems bizarre to dismiss mythicists as academically irrelevant. Yet Jesus is 99% myth, a blend of original invention and purloined fables, so current Jesus scholars may be reluctant to admit the mythicism, which correctly puts their work on level with the study of fairy tales. It would disconcert Jesus scholars to correctly share the status of Little Red Riding Hood scholars, so they stick to the veracity of the original Jesus like barnacles, though Jesus remains an almost utterly unknowable and perhaps possibly real-ish historical figure. It appears a desperate clinging.
Unlike Little Red Riding Hood, Christianity has been the single most influential religious movement of the last two thousand years.
Meanwhile, there is reasonable evidence for the existence of a real human named Yeshua ben Yosef. There are seven undisputed letters of Paul, in which Paul claims to have met Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. The claim of having met these people is not extraordinary and the existence of a brother of Jesus implies the existence of a Jesus. The evidence is sufficient for the claim.
@@Kyeudo Funny you should mention the "real person" by name, which excessively makes the point there was no Jesus with the last name Christ.
@@onedaya_martian1238 "Christ" is a title, not a name. People in that time period did not have surnames unless they were in the upper classes.
@@Kyeudo You missed my point completely. Did an itinerant rabbi named Jesus exist and was crucified? Sure, I'll grant anyone that. So what? That's all we might know about Jesus, that he may have existed. The New Testament is built on hearsay, stories and wholly manufactured narratives, "manufactured" because one can easily discern the many and well recognized contradictions among the four recognized gospels, and the contradictions of mythical Jesus's history and message multiply when considering the available non-synoptic gospels.
We know nothing about what the original Jesus (if he existed) actually believed, preached or did. We simply have no way to know what Jesus said, and what is now presented as his words and demonstrations of magical powers ("miracles") in texts are myths in permanent contradiction to one another. Jesus is a vast myth built on a blur of a human being at very most, or else was a character invented wholly, like Peter Parker was invented, and though there may have existed an actual Peter Parker residing in New York city, that does not prove the existence of a historical figure named Spiderman, except to Spidey true believers.
@@martymccorkle225
["So what?"]
When someone says that Jesus never existed at all, they are stating that someone intentionally fabricated Jesus. Christianity becomes the result of a conspiracy instead of the more likely option of Christianity being the result of actors in good faith being subject to hallucinations and then decades of oral tradition exaggerate the details.
["We know nothing about what the original Jesus (if he existed) actually believed, preached or did."]
Not actually true. There are bits and pieces that scholars can be reasonably sure were actually original teachings of Jesus, mostly because they clash with Pauline conceptions of salvation. It's not a lot, but it isn't nothing.
The Price Ehrman debate was a complete debacle. Bart just resorted to "Read my book!" and giggling, and Price eventually concluded that Ehrman was not serious and refused to participate further.
I mean here's a guy who "should" have the answer and he's done nothing to convince me there was ever a single jesus.
Dr. Ehrman thinks if he laughs alot it will prove he is so confident because his argument is indisputable. Not convincing.
Ah yes, “big-Bible” has got to him. /s
He’s had tenure for years (and is basically retired at this point): he’s completely free to say whatever he wants. Tenured emeritus professors have the essentially the same job security as supreme court justices. If anything, he’d make a lot more money pushing Jesus mythicism than he does now.
But he doesn’t, which shows an awful lot of integrity towards the historical-critical method and his field. Hats off to him, I’m reading one his undergrad textbooks right now and I have to say, he definitely has a great way of presenting the material in an engaging yet detailed way.
Why do you think he isn’t being genuine?
@@mil401The constant and inappropriate laughter reveals discomfort. He wouldn't pass polygraph.
@@jewellevy I don't think he can help it. I think it may just be a nervous tick.
It may be just a nervous habit, but boy it is annoying. He is not a very good public speaker.
None of Jesus's brothers or sisters wrote about him, nor , any of their children or, grandchildren! None of the disciples families wrote anything about this , nor , any of their children! None of the Infantry soldiers who supposedly had contact with jesus, wrote anything about him, nor , any of their children! The 3 wise men who most likely traveled from Iraq, and who supposedly was with the christ didn't leave anything, nor any of their decendents! People who seen these miracles , and knew jesus wouldve been absolutely relentless on writing , speaking, make statues, carvings, inscriptions, about this man, but we have nothing, absolutely nothing from the day!
their
Because the character likely was invented long after the time in which the story was set. No one alive at the time of the alleged earthly ministry was alive to tell the story when it was invented. Like producing a cowboy movie, samarui movie, or other film in 2022 that has a story set in 1869. An entirely fictional story could be told, which would explain why there are no surviving documents from 1869 about the 2022 character, because the character never existed.
Okay, so there was a man named Jesus. So what? The problem is that the fundamentalists take this as proof that Jesus was a divine being.
When my sons were in grade school several Seattle Seahawks held a summer camp for boys in Pop Warner football. Some of the most well known were Steve Largent, Jim Zorn. I had been raised in the Episcopal church teaches the book of Revelation but not for children. So after dinner they watched horrible films about the battle of Armageddon made altar calls and then sent their boys to bed to have nightmares. I’m so glad that the internet gives us the ability to to warn parents about that before their kids get their socks knocked off!
Ehrman is knowledgeable about the written information, but he just can't get past the idea that Jesus was real.
Bart’s insistence that there is no debate on the historical Jesus is so frustrating and dishonest. The “evidence” of Jesus is certainly not overwhelmingly.
I was wondering about that, too. I was wondering why he would say something so fundamentally absurd.
I agree. The only relevant source is Paul, and he never met Jesus, plus he lies a lot.
Yes. I've listened to Ehrman for years but never heard him be so rudely dismissive of the mythicists and others who question the existence of Jesus.
But just listen to what he said. He didn’t say there is no debate. He said there is no debate AMONGST scholars - People who are paid and whose work is peer reviewed. People who have a reputation to defend and whose work is based on facts. If you listen to them there is no debate.
Sure there are wackos in the internet with different views, but you can find all sorts of hokum if you look for it. Most of it isn’t factually based.
@@GoodAvatar He didn’t, though did he?
Enjoyed it cheers
I love Bart Ehrman. I think he must be an extraordinarily happy man. And I love that he bridges the gap between scholars and laypeople. There ought to be a short video called "how religious scholars work" or even "how scholars work"-I believe that would bridge the gap even further.
Where Ehrman loses me is on his insistence that the plot to have Jesus murdered as told in the Gospel of John is true and accurate history.
I think he would say that "this is how the community that "john" was part of remembers Jesus" and work from there. See Jesus Before The Gospels: How The Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, And Invented Their Stories Of The Savior
Great interview Seth! This was very frustrating at certain points and I am glad you were pushing back against what he was saying. Part of me was wishing you could tag Matt Dillahunty in for some of what Bart was saying. Hamlet and Plato are not scripts or schools of thought claiming divine origin or an explanation for the how things came to be. Whether or not the inception of these stories was meant to be just an explanation of the world as they saw it, they make some bold claims and with those claims comes a lot of responsibility. You don't just get to excuse them because cults were formed and then used to subjugate people. What do you expect would happen?
Bart's fondness with Genesis was revolting. There are far better and less disgusting myths around creation that can be appreciated. How you can read Genesis and think, "wow, this story is great and needs to be shared because it's a great story" is beyond me. To each their own, but knowing it was copied from many previous texts, why would the copy even be worth more than a mention? If anything it should be ridiculed for its disgusting, backwards tropes.
@kylekataryn I consider myself a Mythicisit, but I don't deny a Jesus existed. There are at least 12 Jesus" in the gospels alone. The position I take and what I think was frustrating Seth is that there is no God born man Jesus. This is not a hard stance to take or figure out. The mere fact that Erdmann was so strident about talking down Mythicisim (and yes there are some fringe figures). but not acknowledging this position is a bit disingenuous.
He is clearly still biased from his indoctrination and maybe he can't see it or doesn't want to admit it, but it was on clear display. The bias wasn't just from this point it was from thinking Genesis is somehow beautiful and dismissing the vileness. Believing the Jews would disobey their own laws and penalty of death from their YHWH to torture and kill some cult, rabble rouser?! Let alone the vast differences in details of all of the gospels!
I don't know what is worse Genesis or Job, but I would lean towards the latter. I don't need any lessons from Job other than to know how absolute and morally abhorrent is the god of the Old Testament. YHWH sanctions the devil to torture his most devout follower. Makes a wager with the devil to commit the most horrid acts to test the faith of Job just so he will curse him? An omni-potent god can't see the strength of faith of his most ardent worshipper so he allows the devil to kill his family and all of his animals, destroy his very well being? For his amusement?
Sorry, but get the fuck out of here with Job. Pick up Aesops, fables Star Wars, Harry Potter or something that doesn't have some adolescent, evil, unintelligent, sociopath requiring absolute faith to tell any morals. The only effect this garbage had was holding back any society it ever influenced.
There is uncertainty in the Theory of Gravity. It's how we improve it. Science is about reducing error bars and making models robust to new variables. Apologists tend to confuse scale; +/- 10% is not the same as "You could be completely wrong".
It is pleasant to believe in an all-powerful being that conforms to your every whim.
Bart Ehrman is great, but he sure does speak in a way that makes it easy for apologists to take him out of context
Bart is mostly great, but when it comes to “historical” Jesus from him, I don’t take his training as a historian too serious. Considering it mostly comes from a Christian backbone. (Seminary schools, Bible college, etc.) IMO: He’s already indoctrinated into believing Jesus was a real person. There is no other confirming historical evidence other than the Bible and we know that is far from being truthful in so many instances. Anyways love most of what Bart does, but he’s just so convinced on this issue for the wrong reasons. (Argument from authority) But my opinions are just opinions! Have a great day Seth!
I would go with the "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" from Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 1), correlated to Galatians 1:19 from Paul, " I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother." I've read Richard Carrier's explanation of how "who was called Christ" could have been accidentally interpolated in Origen's copy of Antiquities, and it's frankly unconvincing. I cannot rule out a purposeful replacement of "Jesus ben Damneus" with "Jesus, who was called the Christ," but the motivation to do so seems incredibly weak. This is very unlike Testimonium Flavianum's obvious forgery, and seems it would serve little to no purpose, unless Origen could have predicted future arguments on the historicity of Jesus a couple thousand years later.
You might not accept this, but you can't say there's "no" extra-biblical evidence. People who have biological brothers tend to exist.
If you're all looking at the same historical evidence then it shouldn't matter where the information was learned, such as a bible college. After watching debates Ermon has done and reading misquoting jesus, I don't get the impression that it's an argument from authority. The evidence seems pretty clear that jesus probably existed and he became a legend with miracle stories about him probably being created after his death. Accepting this doesn't give ground to Christianity, it's actually a huge issue of debate for christians that jesus never claimed to be God or to have done miracles. If there is a god and jesus is the most important fact and wants people to believe in him, then god would have cleared this up. The fact that he hasn't is a big problem. That seems like a better argument against Christianity than the historical jesus
@@grumpylibrarian _"James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ"_
That passage refers to Jesus and James ben Damnaus, sons of a high priest. Christ means "annointed one" not "messiah".
@@grumpylibrarian Do you not realize just how many different Jesus's Josephus actually writes about? And as @Stefan Travis mentioned, in that specific reference he did not use the term "Christ" in the way you think that he does.
@@StefanTravis I recommend you read the passage. And my post, for that matter. Jesus ben Damneus is mentioned in that passage, but later. There are 20-ish Jesuses in Antiquities, and Josephus isn't going to leave a bare "Jesus" lying around. That's why Carrier's "accidental" insertion of a margin note won't fly, because something had to have been removed to insert "who was called Christ" in it place. It was either deliberately altered, or not at all, and I see insufficient reason or motivation to conclude that it was deliberately altered.
"Who was called Christ" is entirely appropriate here. The "Christ" label is evidence against Tacitus, who uses "Christ" as a name when it was never a name, and evidence he believed he was talking about a "Chrestus" and later edited his scroll to reflect the title "Christus" later. Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, was definitely "called Christ" by Paul and others. Paul routinely refers to "Jesus Christ" as if it were his name, which is a large part of why modern christians think it's a name. (And that's why I don't capitalize "christ" or "christians." "Jesus" is a name. "Christ" is a title.)
Watching this „debate“ reminds me of the movie Don’t look up…
I feel like Bart is conceding that Jesus is amythologized figure . While holding to a historicist view.
And I think it needs to be more explicitly made clear that rejecting mythicism simply means you believe the myth of Jesus is based on a real person. And is not a historian endorsing biblical literalism/innerancy.
Perhaps I've not seen/heard enough, but the only arguments I hear about Jesus being real are citing the bible itself. So I can just as easily "prove" that Gandalf exists because of what is written about him in the works of Tolkien.
Not quite. Paul was a real person and he wrote about Jesus not long after he was supposedly crucified. But he never met Jesus and he lies a lot.
Very interesting to see Bart being interviewed by someone who doesn’t have a clue about this stuff. People are often too shy to put basic things in front of him, so this is a fun angle. Thanks for sharing!
19:10 saying you don't care that people "misuse" an old folklore assumes there is an objective way to use that folklore. We can only have an objective way to use a folklore if said folklore literally provided us with an objective way to use that folklore.
"Whoever wrote Genesis didn't plan it to be the inerrant word of god...he was just writing some stories, you know?" Seriously. Is Bart high? Does his think that Genesis had a single author, a man, who sat down one day to write some stories, just 'cuz? Really. Does Bart really think that someone thought he'd write a story about why women must be cursed to suffer pain in child birth due to our founding mother's disobedience, and there wasn't any more or religious agenda whatsoever? This is not believable. Something is wrong.
I had gotten “saved” by reading Case for Christ in like 2002, as well as works by Strobel, CS Lewis, Chesterton, McGrath, Habermas, Ravi, McDowell, etc.
Over the years, many of those arguments started to fall apart but I was still holding onto a few that I found decently convincing. It wasn’t until I read Ehrman’s “Forged” that my faith experienced the final nail in the coffin. His books, courses, and weekly blog are all absolutely fantastic, even if I disagree with him on a fee minor things.
That's amazing, because all I did was read the Bible and realize that this is just a conglomeration of old writings written by different people through time and then put together by someone and they call it the word of God??? I don't know how a God could be so in-app as to write the nonsense in the Bible... One example would be the so-called God man Jesus says washing your hands doesn't do you any good... 🤣🤔
All of the Christian Apologists are using the same man made narratives as "evidence",
but if you take the time to locate the contradictions and departures from reality in the stories
they begin to fall apart.
@kylekataryn I'm not sure Jesus taught anything. I'm not even sure there was a Jesus of the Bible, yes there were many people that were named Jesus, just like there are today many people named Jesus(hell my name is Jesus Christ! bow down and worship me, and I will forgive your sins! Whatever that is 🤣 but you got to send me some money first!) so I'm not saying there wasn't an individual who had the name Jesus! And I never said the Bible was not a book of contradictions James 4:8 contradicts what you just said that Jesus supposedly meant when he said that it's not what goes in the mouth that defiles a man but it's what's in his heart... The last time I checked all my heart ever did was pump blood 🤣 We both know Jesus didn't know that there were little microscopic critters that could make you sick so therefore he couldn't tell anybody to wash your hands to keep these nasty little critters out of your mouth, so instead he made a dumb comment about you didn't need to wash your hands before you eat food because of some stupid ritual that the Jews did which actually unbeknownst to them it turns out its a good thing to wash your hands, even raccoons have sense enough to wash their hands before they eat... 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I also find this strange as in my family no one cared if Jesus was real or not. We felt sorry for folk who needed to prove what is a faith.
@@MegaTattoo69 Jesus as fully man is not God
Dr. Ehrman has that typical academic arrogance in that because he has studied something he thinks his views are paramount. Fact is he can’t prove that there was a real Paul, he can’t prove that there was a Jesus, he can only quote texts he has had access to mostly written by people he can’t prove that they indeed existed or said any of those things.
I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate? Historians don’t prove anything, they attempt to say what most likely happened. Proof is for math, not history. The model with the least assumptions that explains the data best is something like: one of many messiah figures during the reign of Herod the 1st developed a following. He got on the bad side of local religious leaders and was killed by the Romans. His followers, heartbroken, started to have hallucinations and dreams that he was still alive. They dug into the Old Testament to try and understand why their messiah hadn’t been victorious. Different explanations were put forward by different communities that all attempted to fix the cognitive dissonance they felt: why hadn’t Jesus driven out the Romans? Several regional oral traditions developed, that, over time, embellished the stories shared about Jesus’s work. These oral traditions were codified - baked in with the theological solutions to cognitive dissonance - in gospels by authors a century later. The author of Mark, for example, has as a strong theme ‘the messianic secret,’ that is, ‘Jesus didn’t tell many people his true purpose deliberately.’ This is just one of many ideas that would have quelled some of the cognitive dissonance his followers would have been feeling; ‘they weren’t to blame for not seeing it, it’s what Jesus intended, etc.’
Jesus mythicism doesn’t explain the data nearly as well. If someone they thought was the to-be victorious messiah wasn’t killed, what inspired the zealous early Christians to create theology that attempted to explain why the Messiah was (in stark contrast with Jewish thought up to then) was _actually_ supposed to be killed all along?
So what there was a guy named Jesus? If someone named Jesus preached a bit, so what? Was he crucified? Did he go to the temple and debate Rabbis when he was 12? If so, didn't people realize this amazing child seemed to go missing for 18 years?
If a United Church minister exists and is named Jesus, would that mean that Jesus exists today?
There probably was an unlikely rebel rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef but certainly not Jesus with a last name Christ.
I see a book by one of my favorite authors on Ehrman’s bookshelf: _Tears and Saints_ by Emil Cioran.
I was just discussing a Munchausen by Proxy case, I witnessed. (Now called by a term that's not so much fun. Sorry.)
I love how many people just say "Jesus was a historical person" or "there's evidence for Jesus" then being unable to properly support those statements.
While it is extremely likely that someone names "Jesus" started a cult, the evidence is not nearly as strong as Ehrman claims.
I think he was saying the evidence is equal to what we have for other historical figures we accept as real - Socrates being the example he gives. He was stressing that if we are unbiased and apply consistent standards to what we accept as historical fact, we have to accept that Jesus (the man, not the myth) existed.
@@heteroclitus and yet, when asked about it he makes arguments from authority and giggles rather than presenting the evidence.
Its the same response many creationists give when asked for evidence of their claims.
@@timeshark8727 It would certainly be interesting hear to him speak about it, and he does have a book on the topic, but I suspect it was beyond the scope of this interview.
Ehrman has presented his case for historical Jesus many times. Why are you assuming he hasn't?
@@scambammer6102 probably because every time I've heard him talk about it all he's presented is giggles and fallacies.
Though I admit I haven't looked very hard at his work.
The point is that the Jesus of the gospels is a mythologized character... based upon a real person.
whether he was a real person is debatable
@@scambammer6102 Bart seems very dogmatic on this particular point. I personally think part of this could be that he doesn't want to feel like he dedicated his entire career to studying a fantastical mythical being. I could see how that might be a bit depressing.
@@yukonnoka I agree with that and have made the same comment.
Am I in a minority in finding him high-handed and irritating? The laughing dismissiveness as default mode of disagreement annoys me. "All the true scholars agree... "
I don't understand how Dr Ehrman Claims that the historicity of Jesus is not disputed. Where does he put books like "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier? He says that other historical figures hold up to scrutiny about as well as Jesus when Mr. Carrier definitely shows this is not true in comparison to some of the Roman figures.
I rarely disagree with Seth but the devotion to mythacism is just untenable. A brief Look at the Ehrman vs Price debate just dismantles the mythacist argument. It needs to go away, unless or until new evidence arrives that would significantly impugn the veracity or profoundly recontextualize the existing evidence. Christianity is profoundly flawed and can be dealt with in more honest ways.
OK, so Thinking atheist - thinking, I guess, is a bit of an overstatement, definitely not being able to think clearly, only repeating prejudices. First he says, there's a debate among scholars - Dr. Ehrman corrects him, there is no real debate, most scholars accept he is a real historical person. (By the way, it doesn't necessarily mean he was God - obviously.) Now Bart is an expert - why someone, who obviously not one, tries to argue with his expert opinion. And Bart is right, he has written a book on the subject and in 3 secs you can get UA-cam videos where he lists his quite good arguments. Why this guy didn't check any of those? Maybe it would have paid to spend half an hour on the subject before making this interview. And then it becomes even more pathetic, when Bart asks if he believes Plato existed. Then he say, yes, but Plato didn't claim to be God - seriously? Why would the claim to be something be a criterion on someone's existence? Being an atheist is of course perfectly fine... but thinking should really be excercised...
Thank you! This is exactly what I was thinking during the entire video. Experts are experts for a reason :)
love Dr Ehrman!! I feel like Seth wasn't quite on the same page though
'There is no debate among scholars' is not a sound argument that Jesus definitely existed.
The thousands of years of religious baggage almost everybody in the western world carries, is not negligible to this question.
In any case the question is not that interesting, really.
Because whether he existed or not, the supernatural claims are unsubstantiated.
["'There is no debate among scholars' is not a sound argument that Jesus definitely existed."]
It's a summation of the results of the arguments. Most laypersons aren't going to get into the nitty-gritty of whether a particular passage is discordant enough with the religious preferences of Pauline Christians to demonstrate that it must have actually been taught by Jesus to have survived Paul's theology.
13:05 - "Moses is an Egyptian name. THAT'S interesting!" (that is, why would a prominent Jewish character in the bible have an Egyptian name if he weren't a real guy...?)
Because that's the myth, that's his origin story. Hidden away in a last-ditch effort to save him from a culling, found and adopted by Egyptian royalty. OF COURSE HE HAS AN EGYPTIAN NAME, HE WAS ADOPTED AND NAMED BY EGYPTIANS. Why would that be surprising in any way if that is the story?
@kylekataryn Because as I said that is the story they built around him. An incorruptible hero who was given a comfortable life by the Egyptians but was willing to throw it all away to save his people. If you're telling that story then certain details naturally follow and the name is one of them.
We can't look back and specualte like "oh this doesn't seem like information they would just create if they were creating a story" because whoever made that story could make any creative decisions they wanted. If a story detail or two seems surprising, well that is part of good storytelling. It's part of how you keep the audience engaged. A story where all the details are exactly what you'd expect is boring.