Bart Ehrman is promoting his new book, ‘Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth,’ in the Huffington Post:
In a society in which people still claim the Holocaust did not happen, and in which there are resounding claims that the American president is, in fact, a Muslim born on foreign soil, is it any surprise to learn that the greatest figure in the history of Western civilization, the man on whom the most powerful and influential social, political, economic, cultural and religious institution in the world — the Christian church — was built, the man worshipped, literally, by billions of people today — is it any surprise to hear that Jesus never even existed?
That is the claim made by a small but growing cadre of (published ) writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists. This unusually vociferous group of nay-sayers maintains that Jesus is a myth invented for nefarious (or altruistic) purposes by the early Christians who modeled their savior along the lines of pagan divine men who, it is alleged, were also born of a virgin on Dec. 25, who also did miracles, who also died as an atonement for sin and were then raised from the dead.
Few of these mythicists are actually scholars trained in ancient history, religion, biblical studies or any cognate field, let alone in the ancient languages generally thought to matter for those who want to say something with any degree of authority about a Jewish teacher who (allegedly) lived in first-century Palestine. . . .
Why then is the mythicist movement growing, with advocates so confident of their views and vocal — even articulate — in their denunciation of the radical idea that Jesus actually existed? It is, in no small part, because these deniers of Jesus are at the same time denouncers of religion — a breed of human now very much in vogue. And what better way to malign the religious views of the vast majority of religious persons in the western world, which remains, despite everything, overwhelmingly Christian, than to claim that the historical founder of their religion was in fact the figment of his followers’ imagination?
The view, however, founders on its own premises. The reality — sad or salutary — is that Jesus was real. And that is the subject of my new book, "Did Jesus Exist?"
More here: Did Jesus Exist? – The Huffington Post
Did a quick text search at Amazon: “0 results for shroud.”
Modern day Christianity-loathing Academia is almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did in fact exist. The much trumpeted gnostic gospels are also quietly acknowledged by the vast majority of scholars to have been written AFTER the New Testament narratives.
Secular pagan sources such as Pliny, Seutonius, Tacitus, Josephus, etc all acknowledge that the man existed. These sources were written within living memory of Jesus’ death. Josephus, for example, was born in 37 AD, and died in 100. Tacitus was born in 56 AD, and died in 117. Different people from different backgrounds (supporters, neutral, enemies), ALL acknowledged that he existed, and was considered to be the messiah (christus). Pliny even writes that his followers would sing a hymn to him on a given day, “as to a god”. Sounds an awful lot like Sunday church to me. What is supposed to have happened on Sunday, again? Even the Jews who rejected Jesus, and who had the most to gain by denying his existence and miracles, referred to him as a “magician” who was executed for enticing the people to blasphemy.
Christianity can take many ugly forms. That, combined with the pain of this world, can produce some very rabid atheists. Nevertheless, if Academia (which hates Christianity almost as a matter of official policy) cannot bring itself to deny the existence of the Nazarene, then this new generation of the Jesus-didn’t-exist crowd is doomed to be shouting into the wind, just like all the others before it.
BTW. There is only ONE passage in Josephus that appears to have been tampered with. Most scholars agree that when Josephus writes “he was the Christ” it is apocryphal. Elsewhere, he writes “he was CALLED the Christ”. Arabic translations of the passage in question, however, state “he was CALLED the Christ”, which would be consistent with Joesphus’ other descriptions. It was tampered with, yes, but it seems to have been the removal of just one or two words.
Paul’s “seven authentic” letters attest to his personal acquaintance with some of Jesus’ closest disciples, as well as Jesus’ own brother, James, head of the Jerusalem church. Many of Paul’s comments about these “Pillars” are negative, which probably satisfies the criterion of embarrassment. SInce Paul knows James, and knows that James’ brother was Jesus, there is very little wiggle room here for the mythicists. Therefore, in order to refute the historical Jesus, we must refute Paul’s seven authentic letters, and to my knowledge, to date, this has not been accomplished.
Answer to the question of the title : YES and he still lives in another dimension… As simple as that when you have FAITH ! :-)
Beware of the old leftist propaganda tactic of repeating a lie until it becomes the truth in order to achieve a political goal(s).
Chris, if you’re sure of your faith, you just have to laugh at this non sense propaganda ! That’s my advice…
Yannick I laugh heartily when I read this propaganda for it truly is propaganda. They are grasping at straws and preying on the more ignorant. I am also keenly aware that those who put it forth have a definite agenda.
At this point in History Faith is needed tremendously.
Of course they get an agenda. Everybody that put something out publicly these days seem to have an agenda ! And this is particularly true regarding the Shroud, whether it comes from the pro or the con side !!!
But to come back on the “did Jesus exist ?” question, I don’t think you’ll find one single true professional historian that will deny that Jesus of Nazareth really exist 2000 years ago !!! A religion like Christianity don’t come out of nowhere to become one of the most important on the planet without his centerpiece (Jesus) having been a real human being. It’s ridiculous to think something else. Now, for the question of whether or not he was the Son of God, it’s another story completely and, on this topic, faith is really needed to answer “yes” and I think the Shroud can come in support of this “yes” (for people like me, but not for the majority of Christians who don’t need that kind of help I guess). Having said that, I want to add : But the Shroud never come has any kind of “proof” for this “yes” (in a scientific sense). At least, it shouldn’t. In fact, if it could, faith wouldn’t be needed no more and our liberty (one of the biggest gift of God to mankind) would be denied by the one who gave it to us ! Complete nonsense !
I want to add a little reflection of mine on the topic of the gift of the liberty to us by God. If God was something else than Love, do you really think for one second that he would have gave us a gift like the liberty ? And the liberty to even reject him for eternity ? You really believe that ? For me, the great gift of the liberty is THE main sign that God is Love and nothing else because if he would be something else (we can say : if he would be like us), we would be slaves, puppets, or something like that, but surely not free to the point that we have the liberty to deny him, forget him, reject him, etc.!!! THINK ABOUT THAT FOLKS !!! ;-)
Yannick, I agree entirely! I have had this very same reflection many times over the years and in many conversations with friends. If we didn’t have free will, we would all be robots. The fact that He doesn’t control us shows how much He loves us as he has made us in His image – with a free will. All of Christianity is based on free will and no one person who calls themselves a Christian can compel another person to practice Christianity’s tenets. Always remember the Great Commission where Christ instructs His Apostles to walk away from those who reject the Gospel. He will not force Himself on us. We, as Christians now must imitate our Savior and give everyone we meet the same respect – freedom and liberty to run their own lives even within the Christian Community because we are all individuals.
So very unique among all other religions.
One thing I know deep in my heart is this : From the time you take away the notion that God is Love, you’re completely off-track versus the deep meaning of the Gospel of Christ and you don’t understand nothing about his message…
I wouldn’t single out ‘leftists’ alone in using the ‘propaganda tactic’, it is universally used, my friend!…Not talking about the Shroud issue here in particular, or at all ;-)
Ron
Ron, point taken as it’s universally abused. I was referring to it’s roots in Nazism as articulated by it’s propaganda minister.
That someone feels compelled by a need to write a work asserting the existence of Jesus is a sad commentary on the state in which Academia now finds itself. It has lost its way, unable to tell truth from myth and even challenging whether there can be such a reality as objective truth. Whether Erman’s book will find a postive response among the hallowed halls is an open question.
The origins of this general decay in Academia can probably best be traced to two French clowns Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault, who by their theories of deconstructionism became the leading exponents of what has come to be known as the post-modernist school of philosophy. The principal feature of this movement is that it is largely unintelligible and incoherent to any reasonable minded person, Its second characteristic is its assertion that there is no objective truth, which is the principal reason why I fear that Erman’s book will fail to engage. It is easily seen therefore that such a philosophy is necessarily the spawn of the father of lies!
Notwithstanding its general incoherence, post-modernism has become extremely influential in shaping much social thinking and the soft sciences in current western thought, their outgrowths, and the so-called “mythicists” mentioned in this title posting are merely one more symptom of it.
There is an objective truth, for Jesus said “I am.the Way, the Truth and the Life”, and his followers not only knew him, and that he certainly existed, but they laid down their lives for what he taught, for who he was, and in asserting his resurrection. There are no mythicists who would be prepared to do the same for whatever it is they might beieve in. Perhaps Erman may need to write a companion volume “Did the Apostles Exist?” Ha!
If you feel the need to learn more about this obnoxious movement, just merely Google on “Postmodernism, Derrida, Foucault” but be prepared to either laugh or weep at the folly of it all.
“Modern day Christianity-loathing Academia is almost unanimous in saying that Jesus did in fact exist.”
Tony, it seems from your post that you have a distinct bias against academia. As an academician and scientist, while there may be individual academics that have objections to Christianity, I cannot vouch for them. I can frankly tell you that academics who study the historicity of religions, Christianity included, in general do not “loath” Christianity, or for that matter, any other religion. Biblical history academics are not concerned with theology but they are interested in the history, the actual events of the the formative Christian era. Whether this coincides with the theology is irrelevant. There is no judgment as to the beliefs of those who adhere to the theological precepts of Christianity, even if they themselves are not believers such as as myself. I do however have an abiding interest in history including ancient history. As a (non-blblical) scientist ( I am involved mostly in Medical as well as Anthropological research) and medical clinician (my background is in Biology and Cellular Biology), I am interested only in the physical evidence to determine what is going on in my fields of interest. That evidence has to be supportive of ones hypothesis, determined by diligent research and experimentation. The studies (experiments) must be reviewed by experts in the field (peer reviewed) before the results of the study can be published in a specialty journal. The study has to reproducible and yield the same results by other scientists in the field to be eventually accepted as hard evidence in support of one’s hypothesis. After several attempts to disprove one’s results, there being no evidence to falsify the conclusions, the hypothesis becomes a “theory”. After further time, and efforts to disprove the theory, it becomes generally accepted as fact, bearing in mind that science only determines the probability of a theory being true. Such is the case with several theories in biology including Evolution, which is considered fact due to the high degree of probability of it being true, as all attempts to disprove it over the last 155 years–haven’t. Obviously, historians, including Biblical New Testament historians cannot use the scientific method to the same degree as biologists or physicists, however they are quite diligent in their efforts to tease the physical historical evidence from the literature, which includes the ancient documents (most of which, if not all, are copies, as the originals are lost), in Greek, Latin and some in Aramaic. Some devote their careers to analyzing one document or even one chapter. These individuals are dedicated to discovering what really happened as opposed to those that believe what happened (despite their lack of evidence).
To respond to the second half of your statement. I am inclined to believe the evidence as cited by the academic experts in the field of Biblical, New Testament, history. The prevailing evidence seems to suggest that there was in fact an individual named Yeshua of Nazareth, who was probably baptized by a person who we know as John the Baptist, around 27CE and preached in Judea until 30CE when he was arrested for sedition and sentenced to death by the common Roman method of execution for enemies of the Roman State, crucifixion, by the governor of Judea, one Pontius Pilatus, who we know was governor from 26-36 CE. There is plentiful physical evidence to support this. The four (three synoptic) Gospels themselves, even though written decades (between 60-90 CE) after the death of Jesus, are sources that can be combed and teased for evidence for the historical Jesus. These were obviously based on earlier writings and oral traditions that go back to around 30CE. Paul’s letters offer much the same titillating tidbits of historical evidence. The picture of the historical Jesus is not at all the image that Christians see in their Jesus. The real history is nothing like what Christians believe what happened. The modern story is a construct that has been embellished by supernatural and fantastical events through the millennia, by hundreds of believers who added them for their own purposes, never mind the translational mistakes that occurred. We as scientists, have no opinion, or professional interest in theology, only in the physical evidence that describes the physical universe and what happened in it.
See and discuss above comment at Comment: The real history is nothing like what Christians believe . . .