At the SBL meeting in San Francisco I heard that Bart Ehrman is publishing a book arguing against the mythicist view (i.e., the claim that Jesus never existed). It now appears that this work, aptly titled Did Jesus Exist? The Historical, Non-Religious Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, will only appear as an eBook. I’m disappointed, since I haven’t yet transitioned to that form of media. In any case, here is a summary:
For years Bart Ehrman has been routinely bombarded with one question: Did Jesus exist? As a leading Bible expert, fans and critics alike have sent letters, emails, posted blogs, and questioned Ehrman during interviews wanting his opinion about this nagging question that has become a conspiracy theorist cottage industry the world over. The idea that the character of Jesus was an invention of the early church – and later a tool of control employed by the Roman Catholic Church – is a widely held belief and Ehrman has decided it’s time to put the issue to rest. Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.
Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshalling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the popular mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.
Those committed to the “non-existence” theory will need to read this formidable scholar’s counter argument while the more traditionally minded will enthusiastically support Ehrman’s definitive answer to the question. Perfect for the vigorous online debating community, this eBook original will be a must read for anyone interested in Jesus, the Bible, and the birth of Christianity.
Is Ehrman that trustworthy a scholar? Are his methods sound or misguided?
The way he handles the TEXT of the New Testament, and the assertions he makes about the value of the Gospels testimony (e. g., If there is one innacuracy in the sayings of Jesus in a Gospel, then you can’t trust any of it) seems outrageous to me and violates basic canons of historical research in document evidence.
Besides, I have never had a conversation with anyone who doubts the existence of Jesus. Is this issue even discussed among reputable scholars — theologians or historians?
depends on what you mean by reputable – there is a Canadian theologian named Tom Harper (Harpur?) who wrote a book defending Jesus’ non-existence. Total waste of time
“(e. g., If there is one innacuracy in the sayings of Jesus in a Gospel, then you can’t trust any of it) ”
That’s a pretty serious misunderstanding of Bart Ehrman’s position. Have you read any of his books? He is quite reasonable and seldom oversteps, in his conclusions, what is suggested by the evidence he presents.
“Besides, I have never had a conversation with anyone who doubts the existence of Jesus. Is this issue even discussed among reputable scholars — theologians or historians?”
That is precisely what Bart Ehrman has said on the subject–that no serious scholar doubts the historicity of Jesus. The “Christ-Myth” theory is fairly fringe–but then, so was the theory that the earth goes around the sun, at one point! The popularity of an hypothesis is not what matters: what matters is the evidence, and which framework best explains it. I, personally, don’t care *what* the consensus is: I care *why* it is the consensus.
Most New Testament scholars are committed Christians who–let’s face it–can’t be expected to take seriously the suggestion that Jesus didn’t ever exist as an historical figure. Historically, they *haven’t* taken ‘mythicism’ seriously: they’ve dismissed it without bothering to refute it. I’m hoping Dr. Ehrman’s treatment of the subject will deal more seriously with the evidence that ‘Christ-myth’ advocates have advanced in favour of their position. It would be the first time anyone had, as far as I can tell.
If nothing else, Ehrman’s book might grant solace to some atheists/agnostics who have heretofore lacked the faith to believe that Jesus existed.
Bobby – Ehrman has attained a nearly divine status in some circles, and a demonic one in others. I, however, do not put him in either place. As for his methods, I think he does well in places but downright abysmal at a few points.
I summarized — from memory — something Ehrman said in this way: “If there is one innacuracy in the sayings of Jesus in a Gospel, then you can’t trust any of it.” That was inaccurate. But I have essentially the same problem with what he actually said.
In debate with Craig Evans on the reliability of the Gospels, Ehrman stated, “Is the Bible then inaccurate in SOME of the things that it says Jesus said? If so — if it’s inaccurate in SOME things — how do we know it’s not inaccurate in LOTS of things? And if it’s inaccurate in LOTS of things, what makes us think we can trust it?” Ehrman’s rhetoric is not the sort of thing a careful historian would say. So I still feel that he does not do well as a student of history.
His series of questions assumes some sort of logical necessity connecting them. There is none. A “yes” answer to his first question does not imply an agreealb response to his second question — that we DO NOT KNOW there are not lots of inaccuracies. And the last question is axiomatic; lots of inaccuracies is THE SAME THING AS being untrustworthy.
There are many documents regarded by historians as very reliable that contain discrepancies — some of which concern important matters.
Among these documents, for a number of historians, are the Gospels. These scholars do not have the kind of problems with them Ehrman claims to have uncovered; and they do a much better job making their case.
The case Ehrman is making is solid and–ironically–the same case he dismisses when mythicists make it: you can’t take for granted that something is true or accurate, then use it as evidence for your conclusion. That’s circular reasoning.
We don’t have the original texts–we have copies of copies of copies. In later copies we see mistakes (or intentional changes) that are not in earlier copies. Are we to just assume that the oldest copy we have is a perfect copy of the ones before it? No. On the contrary, the rate of errors increases the earlier back you go, and so it is very likely that many, many changes were made before the earliest extant manuscripts.
Historians do not, and cannot, take for granted things for which they have no evidence. No evidence is no evidence. The evidence we *do* have suggests unreliability. It’s pure special pleading to argue that, in the single case of Christianity’s holy texts, there only exists the inaccuracies detectable by people today, but that the rest of the text accurately conveys history.
The texts, even on the face of it, don’t seem to do this. The gospels, for instance, are written with a 3rd person, omniscient narrator–relaying even events the narrator goes out of his way to say that nobody was there to witness! To assert that it is a reliable account of the event is, again, not an assertion open to a sober historian.
As documentary evidence goes, the New Testament texts are a good source of historical information. And, as COPIED manuscripts, they’re in great shape. Many historians take this perspective. They say, because we possess these documents, we can be sure about a good deal concerning Jesus and the early church. This is just a fact. It’s what a number of good historians say. No special pleading. They compare and contrast events talked about in the New Testament letters, Gospels, and Acts with historical episodes that lack as good documentation.
On the other hand, you seem to be over-stating, in a negative way, what we have in the New Testament manuscript evidence and what the form and content of the Gospels are. I know you’re following Ehrman in this, but I think he has forfeited sensible, careful research. You think he has not. We probably should end this conversation on that note.
Actually, I was following Richard Carrier (an actual historian) in his assessment of the evidence, which happens to agree with Ehrman in this regard. It’s not appropriate to include, as part of the consensus, New Testament scholars who do not have the wider perspective of how historians evaluate the reliability of evidence. In my experience it is these New Testament scholars who claim (but don’t support the claim!) that the New Testament is a good source of historical information. With respect to them, they are stepping well outside of their area of expertise in making this claim and so it should not be given more credence than that of other amateur historians.
But ultimately, credentials aren’t as important as the evidence. Since no significant *evidence* is advanced to support this consensus, it does indeed appear to be special pleading: the New Testament is assumed to have much greater stability during the period for which we have no manuscript evidence than it had in the period for which we do have good manuscript evidence. This is a conclusion-saving assumption: the very definition of special pleading.
Historical information can be gained from texts tentatively. Information from a text is considered dubious when it looks like propaganda in favour of the person or group responsible for the text, when it contains many fantastical or improbable elements, and when it contains elements that are not corroborated (or worse, are contradicted) by other historical sources. All three of these describe the New Testament. For all this, though, the NT is not worthless as an historical document, only *unreliable*–which is only to say that we can’t take for granted that anything it says is true, and therefore can’t use it as evidence for the historicity of any of its more improbable (and uncorroborated) events.
Many people seem to want the New Testament to be either infallible or worthless–ignoring the more reasonable middle: “informative but unreliable–prone to legendary embellishment and error.” This is how I would characterize the New Testament and, I suspect, how Bart Ehrman would, since he uses it to reconstruct what he believes to be the most likely picture of the historical Jesus! I hope this sheds some light on how I was approaching this, since it’s obvious I can across as much more negative than I actually am.
You give three reasons why you believe the New Testament should be classified with ancient texts that are “dubious” and “unreliable:”
(1) It is “propaganda,” because it speaks “in favour of the person or group responsible for the text.”
(2) It has too many “fantastical or improbable elements” to be counted as a legitimate source of historical study.
(3) It is, “not corroborated by other historical sources” and is, in fact, contradicted by them.
Please consider the following:
(1) The self-effacing attitude of the apostles as they speak of their relationship with Jesus and the self-defacing statements they make about their own behavior seem to conflict with the idea that the New Testament is pure propaganda. On the other hand — as the apostle’s experiences with Jesus and the task he gave them are recounted — it would be absurd to expect the early believers to speak and write with anything less than a heated urgency to persuade. Surely, you’re not arguing that the only documents historians can trust are those which clearly deny the validity of what they’re intended to advocate!
(2) If by “fantastical and improbable” you mean “exceptional and miraculous,” then: Whether or not a document is given historical consideration because it contains such elements depends on philosophical and theological presuppositions, not a simple study of history.
(3) Are you saying there are no sources that corroborate anything in the New Testament? And are you saying that writings and interpretations that go counter to the New Testament have a prior claim to historicity, so that the New Testament is always wrong if another source appears to conflict with it? Again, some recognized historians cite numerous ways the New Testament has been confirmed in statements that can be verified. And they believe the biblical sources have as much claim to truth as other documents from ancient times when discrepancies are not readily resolved. They at least allow such matters to be debated — or left unresolved if the evidence is sparse or uncertain.
I think a better description of the New Testament than you have given is: The New Testament is preaching material, written to stir interest and conviction, by conveying truth through oratorical and literary devices. These devices simplify (for mind and memory) and satisfy (for the imagination). In the course of accomplishing their purposes, the early preachers spoke of what they were convinced of and recorded some details that can be verified.
I do not find hard-core, elemental conflict — even in the resurrection accounts and the birth narratives of the Gospels. Though the details cannot be worked out in all cases, the essential truth seems the same in each case and is expressed with steady conviction. Preaching and writing independently of each other — with different emphases — and framing their message in story-forms for both practical and aesthetic reasons, the New Testament authors seem to refer to real events, events that have left an indelbile impression, because of their exceptional and miraculous character.
In the birth narratives, Matthew does not mention a prior residence of Mary and Joseph in Nazareth, while Luke does, though they agree the couple was in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus’ birth. And in the stories of the resurrection, John has Mary coming to the tomb. The other Gospels talk of women coming, giving various names and details. But all agree to the essential story. I see literary devices at work here, fitting the stories into various modes. But taking into consideration the preaching-nature of the documents and the public proclammation that preceded them, there is nothing in this process that should call into question the broad, factual claims that underlie the stories told.
I think you missed the main point of my previous post: that “unreliable,” should not be confused with “totally worthless; not containing any valuable historical information.” So when you ask, for instance, if I think there are no sources which corroborate anything said in the gospels, it is puzzling. I was explicit that I believed the gospels contain some historically valuable information–but the question is how *reliable* they are–that is, how much confidence we can have that a given event happened, from the fact it is reported in the gospels.
This being cleared up, let’s look at the three considerations which cast the gospels (and Acts) in dubious light as historical documents:
(1) You list the self-effacing attitude of the apostles, and the “self-defacing statements they make about their own behaviour” as being incompatible with the suggestion that the gospels are propaganda in favour of the the person or group from which the texts have their origin. First, let me clarify that I did nowhere claim that the gospels are “pure” propaganda. But even as a refutation of this, exaggerated version of the claim I made, the self-effacing attitude of the apostles is poor evidence.
There gospels were not written by the apostles–and it is only wishful thinking on the part of Christian apologists that suggests they were written by anyone who even knew the apostles personally. So we don’t have any reason to think the evangelists would have been concerned to portray the apostles in a positive light, rather than as bumbling, confused followers. Indeed, this is just another of the literary devices in the text–as is frequently found similar ancient stories of the sage and his followers: it gives the evangelist a way to address clarifications and statements to the reader, by having the apostles fail to understand–even when they’ve had it explained to them repeatedly. What is more, there is a theological reason behind this: by portraying the apostles as weak and incompetent, the reader is made to understand that their success can only come from God. Paul makes similar claims about himself, despite being obviously intelligent and skilled as orator and writer. So the portrayal of the apostles is no obstacle to seeing the gospels as propagandistic: on the contrary, it’s one of the theological elements of the text.
You conclude: “Surely, you’re not arguing that the only documents historians can trust are those which clearly deny the validity of what they’re intended to advocate!” No, obviously not. But a source doesn’t have to be *against* a position in order to not be propaganda *for* the position. You are excluding the reasonable middle position: neutral sources. Historians prefer neutral sources because they know that sources which tell stories to prove a propagandistic point frequently exaggerate or fabricate events in order to better make the point in question.
You seem to believe that historians have an ‘innocent until proven guilty’ approach to historical sources. This is very nearly the opposite of the case. They don’t “trust” sources. They evaluate the reliability of the sources they have (using the kind of criteria I listed), then base tentative claims about what *probably* happened on that evaluation. The poorer quality are the sources, the less willing are sober historians to base any historical claims on those sources.
(2) It is not a philosophical or theological presupposition that miracles can’t happen which causes us to be skeptical of miracle accounts. It’s the methodological consideration of the principle of analogy. Anything is *possible*, but if we’re interested in what probably happened, we have no choice but to use our (modern) experience as a litmus test of what is probable in reading ancient accounts.
Without this approach, we’d be at the mercy of every text we have, having to take for granted that Heracles slew the Hydra and that Midas turned things to gold by touching them? Is it a philosophical bias against miracles that has us believe that Midas did no such thing? Or that Pythagoras or Asclepius performed no miracles? No. It is the because we know that a story having been fabricated or embellished is reasonably probable, whereas a miracle is not. Why would we choose the least probable option as what is likely to have occurred?
If you see a man pull a rabbit out of his hat, you assume it’s a trick, not a spell–not because of any philosophical bias against magic, but because we know about magicians, who use misdirection and illusion to appear to do fantastic things, and so it is always more probable any given rabbit-conjurer is also such a person, rather than a person endowed with mystical, rabbit-conjuring powers.
And so it is with ancient texts. We do not know of anyone who can walk on water or raise the dead. But we do know a lot about how legends and myths accumulate around spiritual leaders. So while it’s possible that, unlike Pythagoras and Asclepius, Jesus actually did perform healings and other miracles, the historian can’t make an exception in this one case, and assume that these texts are accurately reporting fantastic events.
(3) I did not mean to suggest that nothing in the New Testament is corroborated by other sources. But in the New Testament is the only source for *most* of what it reports. This by itself is not necessarily problematic. But when a text reads like a ‘hero biography’ (again, like Pythagoras, Asclepius, Romulus, or Apollonius of Tyana), the existence of legendary embellishment is so substantial that independent, neutral (or even hostile) attestation to the events is required to have confidence in the events as history. Without it we aren’t certain that the events didn’t happen–of course not!–but we can’t say that it is probable that they did. This is what I mean when I say that the text is ‘dubious’ or ‘unreliable’: not that we need to dismiss everything it reports as fabricated nonsense, but that we cannot take the text’s report of an event as strong evidence that the event took place.
The gospels use literary devices of their day. They contain events we know did not happen (the census, for example) and others which the principle of analogy requires us to set aside as improbable. They demonstrate borrowing (not to say plagerism) of other literary works–some of them fictional. Finally, their reporting of events is informed by theological considerations (where Matthew and Luke diverge from Mark, the differences often have theological significance, which is unlikely to be accidental). Other ancient texts which resemble the gospels in these ways (hero biographies) are treated with extreme skepticism–not only by historians but by everyone else too. We can’t simply strip away the obviously improbable events, then assume that everything else probably happened: it’s just not how history is done. No, even the reasonably plausible events in ancient hero biographies are seen as *possible* historical events at best, unless there is independent, neutral attestation.
So again: the New Testament is not, as many Christian apologists like to claim, the kind of evidence historians get excited about. It is too biased, and contains too many historical inaccuracies and legendary embellishments for historians to assume the accuracy of uncorroborated events reported in the New Testament. Once again this is not to say that we should assume it’s all made up, or that any given event definitely didn’t happen: only that its being reported in the gospels or in Acts is not sufficient evidence to believe that it probably did.
Finally, sorry for the length. :\
This will be my last response, then we’d better give the blog back to Mr. Henderson.
I will, first, respond to your statements about the nature of historical studies. Then I will respond to your comparisons of Jesus and the Gospels to other literary persons in ancient sources. And I’ll close with other things you’ve said about the Gospels.
Here are your three statements about historical studies and my responses:
(1) HISTORIANS PREFER NEUTRAL SOURCES.
Name one substantial historical document from ancient times that is “neutral.” People don’t usually write at length about what they are disinterested in; and we all have presuppositions. Sometimes we are able to evaluate and correct ourselves; but we are usually guided by beliefs of one sort or another.
Neutral history – and neutral historians – are myths. (The best we can do is evaluate and criticize ourselves, and be as open as we can; but we should not assert that we or our sources are neutral.)
Historians are extremely interested in letters, pamphlets, and other material representative of great persons and movements of history. They want to get on the “inside” of what happened, what was being thought, and what was being said. That is why they have shown such interest in the Gospels and letters of the New Testament — our only respecatable sources for the vitally important historical transformation they document.
Historians find out things – that they have no access to otherwise – by studying materials like this that strike at the heart of what is going on within notable individuals and significant groups.
I am saying by all this that it is inaccurate to picture historians on an unending prowl for neutral, disinterested – and mostly non-existent – documentation.
(2) HISTORIANS DON’T TRUST THEIR SOURCES.
Many do not. They begin agnostically and often stay that way. They battle, rather than open up empathetically to what ancient authors have said. I think this is a mistake, and it is not what every historian does. To take a more positive approach is not a matter of regarding the texts as “innocent until proven guilty,” as you put it. Instead, we are likely to understand what has been written – that is presented to us as a statement of fact – by entering fully into the author’s mind, leaving out as much of the limitations of our own experience and bias as possible and assuming that the author may know a lot more about what he’s talking about than we do.
(3) HISTORIANS FOLLOW THE LITMUS TEST OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ANALOGY.
You claim, this principle is not a philosophical or theological presupposition. But, good grief, it was originated by Ernest Troeltsch, a theologian and writer on philosophy of religion and philosophy of history. It came up in the early twentieth century in a philosophical milieu strongly biased against orthodox Christianity. The principle as it is understood, explained, and applied by the majority of historians and theologians is philosophical, through and through.
(NOTE: There is an explanation of the principle that is not so agnostic that may include the view that miracles have happened in recent times, and so by analogy, they may have happened in earlier times.)
As applied to the New Testament, it’s interesting that the majority of historians agree that Jesus healed and practiced exorcism. But by the principle of analogy – applied agnostically – most conclude there is some natural explanation for what happened.
But, note this: In determining that the healings and exorcisms occurred, they are functioning as historians. In stating that they believe that everything Jesus did can be explained naturally, they are functioning as philosophers and theologians.
Writing from the side of faith, Scot McKnight of North Park University in Chicago, states, “As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification.” Here he speaks as a historian; then as a theologian. The two are tied together in the man, but they are also distinct.
Here is my response to your comparisons of Jesus and the Gospels to other literary persons in ancient sources:
YOU SAY THE GOSPELS REPRESENT “HERO BIOGRAPHY,” AND YOU GIVE THE EXAMPLES OF (1) ASCLEPIUS (2) ROMULUS (3) PYTHAGORAS, AND (4) APOLLONIUS OF TYANA.
I’m not sure you meant to list stories of the Greek God of Medicine (Asclepius) and the Son of Mars (Romulus) as examples of ancient biographies. I don’t know of anyone else who would classify them that way.
In addition, it is surely a stretch to compare the Gospels with the wispy tails of Pythagoras, written centuries after he lived, that assert his father was Apollo and he had a thigh of gold and his body glowed brightly.
It is just as far-fetched to compare Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana to the Gospels. The book was written 125 years after Apollonius’ death. Philostratus claims his primary source is a diary written by a woman who came from Babylon – a city that didn’t exist at the time.
In Philostratus’ account, Apollonius was born in a meadow after swans danced around his sleeping mother and awakened her by their cry. As an adult, he claimed he could speak all human languages and the languages of birds. He gives a list of different types of dragons, encounters a spooky ghost that is chased away, gives wine to a satyr, saw the chains of Prometheus in the mountains, etc.
I’m sorry, but Apollonius’ story – that is extremely longer than any professed biography among the ancients – is not like the Gospels.
Do you actually read the works of serious historians who liken Jesus to Asclepius, Romulus, Pythagoras, and Apollonius? I find it hard to believe that anyone would do a deep study of stories about these figures in order to understand and explain the contents of the Gospels.
IN ADDITION TO YOUR CLASSIFICATION OF THE GOSPELS, YOU SAY A FEW OTHER INTERESTING THINGS, SUCH AS:
The gospels were not written by the apostles or anyone who knew them; and the authors were so indifferent toward the apostles that they would plausibly create stories that made the apostles appear to be confused bumblers.
I would say, the burden of proof is on anyone who would claim that the churches for whom the Gospels and letters were written were so devoid of apostolic contact that they did not know who the apostles were and what they taught. It is evident that the bulk of the New Testament documents were in wide circulation in the early second century and were all written in the mid to late first century. I ask you: During this time, what was the driving force of the church and its preserved teaching – oral and written – if it was not the vivid memory of Jesus Christ and the message of his primary, chosen envoys?
You speak of the theological motives of the Gospels authors and their “propaganda.” But what were they so dead-set on advocating and persuading people of if it was not their deep felt convictions about Jesus? And where did they get these ideas if not from those who journeyed with him, witnessed his resurrection, and passed along the message to trusted successors? Cut off from any realistic memory of Jesus and devoid of any witness to his message and work, what gave them any motive and put any content into their so-called propaganda?
Such a conception of the church — that leaves us with such questions — seems to me both historically and theologically untenable.
You write off – as a “literary device” – the struggling efforts of the apostles to understand Christ. You forget that their failures included their grief-stricken failure to follow him as he wept in the Garden and faced torture and death by crucifixion.
And you claim that all of this negative information does not discredit the theory that the Gospels are unreliable propaganda, but, instead, the negative details are an easily explained example of propaganda. I guess you’ll label the Gospels that way whether the writers speak favorably or unfavorably about their position.
And I believe that your approach exemplifies what I said earlier: When you take up a document, thinking it is the enemy of the truth, you’re likely to find loads of confirming evidence.
On the other hand, I’ve tried to read the Gospels in as favorable a light as I can, and I find that – in spite of difficulties in coordinating some of the details – I believe they were written by men who had a deep love and devotion to Christ and felt a deep responsibility to tell the truth about him.
One more comment:
You state that Luke was mistaken about the census mentioned in conjunction with Jesus’ birth. Maybe he was, and maybe he wasn’t. There are complications in both the translation of the text and in the historical circumstances of when and how censuses were taken in that part of the empire in the period from 8 B. C. to A. D. 6. Luke is meticulous in the details of what he has written, and more than once his critics have been corrected in what they – thought they knew – about his political and geographical surroundings.
Bobby, I very much enjoyed this post. Thanks for taking the time to reply to Jason. It was just what I needed ;-]
You’re right. We should probably let this go–though I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a blogger object to traffic on the comments section.
Since you wish to drop the discussion, I will not reply to anything you wrote, save one–your attributing to me a kind of malice toward the New Testament.
You suggest (explicitly in this last post) that I’m *hostile* to the text–that I think it is the “enemy of truth.” This is an absolutely unfair reading of what I wrote. I went into detail about how “unreliable” and “full of nothing but nonsense” are not the same thing. In now way do I think of the New Testament as some kind of ‘enemy of truth’. On the contrary, despite no longer being a believer, I find the New Testament fascinating, and enjoy the challenge of piecing together the picture of early Christianity from the evidence we have–acknowledging that, unfortunately, our sources are contaminated by significant embellishment, fabrication, and propaganda. I recognize the incomparable value of the NT as a source for understanding early Christianity, but I recognize that our sources are imperfect and often unreliable. That you consider it hostility to the texts to suggest that they are not inerrant only reveals your own theological loyalty to these particular scriptures.
You accuse me of merely seeking out ‘loads of confirming evidence’ for a preferred conclusion–but I’m defending a reliable *method,* not any specific conclusion. Being unable to take the New Testament at its word is a consequence of this method–not a motivation for adopting it. Indeed you adopt this exact methodology in your ridicule of other hero biographies (I’m sorry you don’t see the similarity between these other stories of incarnate gods or sons of gods), but then you use different, weaker criteria when looking at the New Testament. I am advocating the consistent, unflinching application of the accepted historical methodologies. This is no more an ‘attack’ on the New Testament than it is an attack on any other ancient documents–it’s just how history is done. One can choose to prefer theological loyalty to the New Testament over rigorous historical methods: but one should not confuse the two.
In any case, thank you for this conversation. It has been enjoyable, if a little frustrating at times. I hope you continue to enjoy your studies of this fascinating time in history as much as I do!
Jason . . .
Why do you hate Jesus?
(wink)
Ó
Pingback: Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?” Being Published in Hardcover Format | Earliest Christianity