Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mary
_Emeritus
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _Mary »

About the 30 mark on podcast 2 they talk about whether Mormonism offers parallels.
"It's a little like the Confederate Constitution guaranteeing the freedom to own slaves. Irony doesn't exist for bigots or fanatics." Maksutov
_DoubtingThomas
_Emeritus
Posts: 4551
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 7:04 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _DoubtingThomas »

_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF6Ua-G ... e=youtu.be

Costs $5 to view.

Free overview that was also posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuiFSCYO2d8

ETA: The overview is not worth the time, in my opinion. I stopped fairly quickly once it turned from the actual debate to what they thought Carrier would have argued had he been there.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

The full video is about 3 hours. If you pay the moneys to watch it, you get a 72 hour rental access that starts once you choose to do so.

The debate format started with both men having 30 minutes to present their positions.

Bart Ehrman was the first to speak. He noted that this debate is unusual for him in that he typically debates fundamentalist or other committed christians over topics like the resurrection. Here, he acknowledges his part is to play the radical conservative.

After asking the audience of their own positions on religious topics, he then asked who they were voting for in the Presidential election. Then joked that, whatever the outcome of the debate it was rigged.

It's undeniable that Christianity changed the west. He's working currently on a book about the Christian takeover of the Roman Empire.

He states he is not a believer in Jesus, but he is a believer in history and it's important to acknowledge what happened in the past even if it's something we'd rather not have happened. This includes acknowledging that there was a historical Jesus.

He chooses to present the arguments for his position, and not focusing on refuting mythists arguments. But he touches on two.

First, the idea that Jesus could not exist because there was no Nazareth. It isn't persuasive because archaeologists have dug in the location of Nazareth and found it. It's not an archaeological debatable point. It's also would not preclude a historical Jesus were this not the case.

Second, if Jesus' life can be found paralleling other myths. He points out that historical persons have patterns that tellings of their lives follow. He points out examples of famous people described in history in stereotypes. He notes examples of modern models (rag to riches, etc.)

His arguments - Jesus is one of the best attested Palestinian Jews from the period with only Josephus is better attested because he wrote himself. Gospel writers and apostles provided narrative accounts within a generation. Pilate, other people described in the Bible are not attested outside of the Bible. The Bible accounts are absolutely problematic, but they are useful for attesting to a person.

The gospels are not four of a kind. They are four separate accounts that also come from different sources and traditions of sharing information. The various gospel sources were also using other sources we no longer have. Multiple, independent 1st century sources is compelling evidence. Internal evidence that almost certainly go back to Aramaic and show Aramaic origins. Most likely go back to the 30 CE period. It would be hard to find better attested persons from this period of history.

Detour over timer issue.

Writings of Paul was not a follower of Jesus. 13 letters under Paul's name, 7 he actually wrote, 6 probably not his. This is important because Paul was writing before the gospels. Originated in the 50's CE. Rough chronology for Paul's life is able to be established from the internal content. Paul was likely a persecutor of the Christians within 2 years of the crucifixion. It is very likely Paul had heard about Jesus within a couple of years about Jesus. His views on Jesus, being very close to his life, is important. Paul talks about a real historical person, a Jew among Jew, a teacher and preacher who was crucified by the people who opposed him. Believed he was a divine being who became a human being. Paul is faulted about not talking more about Jesus. It's possible this is because Paul would have said more if he knew more about Jesus. But this isn't definitive. His mother, who is a firm Christian, writes letters and one could not read her letters to gain a strong understanding of minutea of Jesus' life either.

What does Paul say? That he was actually born of a woman. that he came from the line of king david, born a jew, had brothers, had 12 disciples, one of whom was Peter. Taught, had a last supper, was crucified by the Roman authorities at the instigation of the Jewish authorities.

Gal 1:19 - three years after Paul's conversion, Paul went to Jerusalem. Saw Peter and James the brother of Jesus. The word is a blood brother, and members of the same community. Without compelling reason, the word should be taken to mean James was the brother of Jesus. He is contrasting James and Peter and does not describe Peter as a brother. Paul also refers to James in this way in other places.

So, Paul is two positions away from Jesus.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

Paul describes Jesus as crucified, someone the Romans nailed or tied to a cross to humiliate or tortured to death. This would not have had any other meaning in Paul's time (idea that Jesus was supernaturally killed by demons in another realm).

Paul does not talk about God being crucified. He talks about Christ who was crucified. Paul talks about him being buried. The Jewish messiah was believed by some to be someone God was going to send to save the Jews. The annoited one was originally a term for the king, favored of God. The Jewish view that a new king after centuries without one would be a new mighty warrior like David. One thing they all had in common. Jews expected a powerful Messiah who would destroy the enemy and establish God's kingdom. If the story was made up about a Messiah, it would be almost unimaginable that it would include one that was executed by the Romans as a criminal. As invention, it makes no sense. As post hoc explanation for the Crucifixion it makes sense.

Quote- "You can't explain the crucified Messiah as something that was made up. The is because people thought Jesus was the messiah and knew that this man had been killed as a crucified criminal." This is why Paul said it was the greatest stumbling block for the Jews.

Ehrman summary - Jesus is one of the two best attested Jews from the 1st century. The information is problematic, historians spend their lives working to sort it out. But that doesn't mean there isn't historical information in them.

Paul - his narrative is compelling for a real person. He spoke of and knew people who were his best friends and family.

Closes with a case he makes to his believing students. Look to the evidence. Deal with it. Base your perspective on what you have reason to believe to be true.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

Robert Price -

There is no man behind the curtain. Bart agrees there is no wizard in Oz, but behind the curtain is a man.

Not sure that Jesus' non-existence not used as an attack on early Christians. Notes Justin Martyr quote as evidence this isn't the case. 2nd century critic notes that writings are a lie. 2 Peter 1:16-18 - We did not follow cleverly constructed fables... so the Bible supports that this was a criticism.

Price pictures emergence of Christ as like evolution and the emergence of a new species after small, many variables accumulate that morph over a long time until a form emerges that defines the figure of Jesus. Bart is attacking the "Committee invention of Jesus", but Price sees this as a strawman. Acknowledges this is likely created by mythisists who mistook how the invention of Jesus likely occurred.

14 times in Ehrman's book Did Jesus Exist?, he notes we can traditions of Jesus back to the supposed crucifixion within a few years of when it is said to have occurred. Price argues there was no defined point when Jesus was created but Bart assumes the argument is schemers invented Jesus at the same point in history. But if no historical Jesus, the bottom falls out of this argument. There's no way to determine when the timeline began. When would "early" be on this timeline?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

Bart deconstructs this argument. But how could non-Christian writers have ignored the miraculous events around Jesus? Bart may argue that it calls into question if the historical Jesus did these things, but Price compares this to arguing over a historical Superman who lacked powers beyond ordinary men. Should we decide there was a historical Superman but he's only Clark Kent?

Look at potential historical hypothetical ideas: What is the historical core of the drowning of the pigs filled with evil spirits? Of raising children from the dead? "My poor man, you have my sympathies. Now let's have some lunch."

What would be the historical core for the story about the feeding of the thousands. That Jesus sent them out to find food in the area and they managed to feed themselves and were satisfied?

Who would have remembered the unremarkable incidents if they were not miraculous. To treat these elements as mundane to be embellished over time is like attempting to redefine the myths of ancient gods. Heracles was a weightlifter, Apollo owner of a tanning salon...

Could the Christian religion have really begun from such an anemic figure?

Barts accepts Pliny the Younger, etc., as authentic. But also acknowledges these are attestations of hearsay.

Why are the gospel any better founded? Also hearsay.

It's attestation is proof a lot of people heard of it, possibly believed it, but not that it happened.

No historic attestations mention resurrection. The wholesale god-Jesus was not early reported on in mentions of Jesus, but this makes no sense if Jesus was an anemic historic figure. He is talked about because he was a mythic figure (meaning noteworthy) in the stories from early on.

Eusebius makes sense as early contributor, and being inserted into Josephus at a latter date based on content.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

Pausing for a moment. I'm less interested in what Price has to say the longer it goes on. Anyway.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

Moves from Ehrman to other defenders of Jesus. Gospels can not be used to construct a supported view of Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Q, M, Luke, L all may be compilations from early sources. But it's been shown to Price's satisfaction that the sources of Luke can be found in the traditions of the time, and Matthew can be seen as the origin of what is unique in his gospel. Does Luke note other sources? This is like Bart, creating a fabricated paper trail for Luke similar to how Islam can be seen doing this.

Ra's al ghul nod.

Hypothetical documents like Q are just that. Not provable texts. Subject to intense debate.

Another pause. I'm not impressed with Price's approach. Tempted to skip to the questions.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Bart Ehrman vs Robert Price

Post by _honorentheos »

Paul never describes the crucifixion as the death of a man at the hands of human opponents. Rather, he was put to death by archons of this eon, by the scions of power, principalities. Mythisists assume this was written at a time when the belief was in a supernatural, Gnostic view of Jesus. Moves to argument that Gnosticism is more important in understanding the early explanation of Jesus, that this eventually was grounded over time and the creation of a Jesus as man evolved after beliefs in a Man of Light that was killed but seeded the world leads to salvation. Paul is speaking of Gnostic belief, pre-historistic Christology.

As Ehrman notes, we can't verify any of this without a time machine. But we can't assume Paul is asserting a historical Jesus rather than a supernatural being believed in and taught.

"I did not receive it from men, nor was I taught it, but received it from Jesus Christ."

John's Gospel can not be the sayings of a historical Jesus. Do not appear in the synoptics. Rather these sayings did not exist in the time of Q, Mark, Matthew, Luke. They arose after this time. Shouldn't we view Paul the same way that lacks sayings from the Gospels?

Mythisist Mischief

Non-mythisists made arguments that are originators of many of the arguments, so it can't be pinned on those who doubt a historical Jesus.

Galatians, Paul had interview with brother of Jesus. Word "again" was absent from Marcion and others. Cites multiple examples from arguments for interpolation to explain textual development.

These are not the inventions of mythisists, but rather those viewing the text critically. The myth of the sacred King explains Jesus, derived from stories of how JHVH becomes king of the gods, being devoured, pattern for Jesus as God and early Christology.

Ends rushed.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
Post Reply