Did Jesus Even Exist?

[@stephenscharf643]

Just started watching and the first thing I noticed is how much I am slacking in the cool eye glasses game.

[@jeffcastaneda7010]

Her glasses are awesome, aren’t they? And they go so well with the shape of her face.

[@Mattwigton]

Bro, idk if you've watched her other episodes with Bart, but she has a million different pairs of these things! Lol and they're ALL freaking tough! 😂

[@jimhurleywhitakerjr]

If I was around and some guy was walking on the water and telling the wind to stop and you know feeding a couple million people with a bag of fish I get out some clay and start writing things down you know what I mean

[@BarkerT]

Don't even try to keep up. And the hair...forget it.

[@leonardpaulson]

You both have the rare skill of being able to say “let’s talk about Jesus” without me recoiling in dread. That you for that.

[@jeanhartely]

You put that perfectly!

[@nasonguy]

I think it’s because it’s not immediately followed by trying to convince you into (or out of!) belief in Christianity.

[@a5cent]

Weird. I like having my beliefs challenged. Seems to me we'd be better off as a species if we didn't all want to just sit comfortably in our bubbles.

[@leonardpaulson]

@@a5cent I agree completely, but there are also only so many times I can hear the same claims, most of which I’m already familiar with and find unconvincing, before l start to anticipate that no new information will likely come from it. From my experience, those who tend to proselytize often don’t have a nuanced view of their own faith. There are exceptions, obviously, but I’m at the point where I think that my attention can be better served elsewhere.

[@leonardpaulson]

@@nasonguy I think you might be right.

[@eurech]

We know, time and time again, that historical figures who were popular eventually turned into legendary myths. Caesar is one example (the Roman senate recognized him as god and people would set up temples to him). Jesus was almost certainly a historical figure but because of key moments (Such as his death) myths and legends naturally evolved surrounding him. This is not unique, its not rare, it happened all the time.

[@Julian0101]

I would say the difference is that we have evidence of caesar existing and then legends/myths raised out of his existence, jesus' is almost backwards because most of the evidence of his existence is ropped into the legends/myths that were told of him. Im not mythicist, and i agree that an historical jesus likely existed (due to little evidence, like the contradiction on the bible of where/when he was born, a myth likely wouldnt have fumbled it like that). But i find interesting that the evidence for an historical jesus is way lower than most apologists like to sell it as (for example when comparing him to other historical figures like the caesar, for which we have a lot more evidence than jesus)

[@travis1240]

It also happened quite frequently in the other direction where a fictional character was given a "history" - Zeus had a tomb on Crete (or at least such a tomb was written about). Romulus and Moses didn't exist, yet they were given histories and were often thought of as historical figures.

[@brud1729]

It also seems strange the if Jesus was the son of god and god was in the process of using him to wash away all the sins of believers and non-believers around the world and forever more, that God wouldn't have made sure that the historical record of the person Jesus and his miracles and his all important death and resurrection would have been preserver for posterity. Particularly with his "all knowing" nature, he should have foreseen the difficulty that the absence of preserved historical would have had around the world. Makes one believe that the whole thing might have been just made up as they went along.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

You’re certainly correct that a figure can be both historical and mythic, but you need to go further and recognize that “mythic” is not a synonym for “fictitious”. A myth can describe something that actually happened. Many of the stories about Jesus found in the Bible clearly could not really have occurred, but those that did really occur (or that we may assume to have occurred) are no less mythic.

[@termination9353]

- The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@davidwimp701]

I don't think Mark was writing scripture but I think Mathew and Luke were intending to write scripture based on Mark.

[@christopherlyons5900]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'scripture'. Matthew and Luke certainly did use Mark, but they had another source, referred to as 'Q' by modern scholars. All the gospel authors were trying to promulgate certain specific ideas about who Jesus was, and what he wanted. Nobody was trying to prove Jesus existed, nor would it have occurred to them to do so. Because nobody ever said otherwise in the ancient world. There are zero ancient writers we have now who tried to disprove his existence. They were trying to prove he was a sham, a failure, a bad Jew, a false prophet, that his mother was an immoral woman (this would be after the Virgin Birth story became widely known, as it was not in the very earliest days of Christianity). The argument is over who Jesus was, what he meant, why he was killed (occasionally, later on, there'd be somebody insisting he couldn't have been killed, so it was somebody else). There was no argument over his existence. All Christians believed he existed. All enemies of Christianity said he existed, but Christians were wrong about who he was. The Mythicist argument is a modern invention, dating back to the 18th century. With a higher criteria in the modern world for proof of identity, people failed to understand that such evidence would not exist for any ordinary person, and maybe not even for very famous people.

[@charliebrady3751]

​@@christopherlyons5900You assert multiple things that you have no evidence for. Show me Q, for instance. How can you claim that nobody (in the ancient world) said that Jesus didn't exist? We have none of their conversations and almost none of their writings. Justin's Dialog with Trypho argues directly against the accusation that Christ was made up.

[@christopherlyons5900]

@@charliebrady3751 We have substantial evidence that people who disliked early Christians and their growing influence, attacked Jesus for being a fraud, an evil sorceror (most people believed in the supernatural, therefore being able to work miracles wouldn't prove you were God, or even good). There were even rumors Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier named Pantera (the Roman equivalent of calling an American soldier G.I. Joe, and those popped up far too late to be based on anything but malice). There is ample evidence of people in the ancient world becoming aware of Jesus as the cult that formed around his memory grew. Romans in power commented on the cult, and said he was someone Pilate had crucified. They had the basis for disproving that, before the fall of the Empire--never tried to. People who disliked and distrusted Christians, felt they were a bad influence (and insufficiently reverent of the pagan gods, who pagans believed would cause natural disasters if not sacrificed to on a regular basis), found ample ways to scoff at and insult the man who'd inspired them. They believed humans could become divine in a certain sense--many Roman emperors were made gods after their death. That didn't bother them, but Jesus had been crucified for questioning Roman authority, as they saw it, so they didn't want him being worshiped. It never occurred to any of them to say "There wasn't any Jesus." Among those who were aware of him, it was universally believed he'd really existed. It was the nature of that existence that was argued about. That is a fact. It's also a fact that until the 18th century, we have zero writings questioning his existence as a historical person.

[@christopherlyons5900]

@@charliebrady3751 You will have a very hard time finding a single serious scholar who doesn't believe both the authors of Matthew and Luke didn't have a shared source that no longer exists. "Show me Q" isn't a valid argument. Most ancient texts are gone forever. We have but a fraction of what was written then. We know from some surviving sources that Octavian, Emperor Augustus (officially deified after his death) wrote his memoirs. Not one copy can be found today. Show me Emperor Augustus. Statues, coins, histories---could all be faked. By your line of reasoning. Maybe he was a deepfake too. ;) If there was a line of argument back then that Jesus was a purely fictional person, Christians of the time would have responded to it. They responded to the many attacks made on Jesus' character and beliefs--later to his parentage (There's no more reason to believe he was illegitimate than that his mother was a virgin). Point is, you say this or that bit of evidence is lacking for Jesus, so he didn't exist. Then I point out there's no evidence anyone from the time of his death to the 18th century ever suggested he didn't, and somehow that doesn't call your assertion into question? Seems like a double standard. I don't believe he was a supernatural being. But he existed as a human being, and there's absolutely no reason to think otherwise. Just as I believe Octavian existed, and do not believe he was a god, even though the entire Roman Empire offered sacrifices in his name after his death, and millions were killed in the name of the Empire he created. Which Christianity inherited later, and among other things, got their concept of Heaven and Hell from. (Not a Jewish idea). You're never going to prove he didn't exist, and since his most ardent believers (like whoever wrote the Gospel of John) don't want to think of him as a physical being, you're not really doing any damage to belief in him as a deity. Mainly to your own credibility. Not to mention what passes for your dignity. :D

[@christopherlyons5900]

@@Bob94390 Most scholars agree we don't know the authors of the gospels, who had good reasons to be anonymous, but it's also standard practice among scholars to refer to those gospels by the names that were later given them. You don't have to use quotation marks every time you do so.Those who want to know, already do. The others refuse to know, which is their right. There probably were reasons, relating to tradition, for each name assigned, but as is always the case, much about the founding of the new religion was forgotten--and most of its early followers were either illiterate, or simply not well-equipped to write such masterworks. And masterworks they are. All four of them. Mark is my personal favorite. It's a mystery story.;)

[@cbwavy]

I'm so grateful to have found Bart here on KZbin. Being a closeted agnostic, he's been like a beacon for me, reassuring me that I'm not alone

[@brockgeorge6437]

You are not alone my friend, I am now an uncloseted one, (although I use the word atheist since I lack a belief in god, but am open to the possibility). Eventually coming out to my highly christian family caused problems but it was worth it. However do not do it, do not even consider it if you are still financially dependent on them.

[@patrickreeve2777]

​@@brockgeorge6437 999⁹999998999⁹⁹⁹99999999⁹99⁹99⁹⁹⁹⁹99⁹⁹⁹99

[@davorzmaj753]

@@brockgeorge6437 I consider myself both agnostic *and* atheist: I firmly believe that there is no god, but I don't presume to know that for sure. "Lack of belief ... open to the possibility" suggests that you're in the same camp. No claim of originality here: I got that line of thinking directly from Ehrman. See, for example, his "On Being an Agnostic Atheist" blog post. TL;DR: He says they're not weaker and stronger forms of the same thing, but rather two different things: one is about what one knows, while the other is about what one believes.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@brockgeorge6437 "Eventually coming out to my highly christian family caused problems but it was worth it."_ There the one who worship ritual human sacrifice based solely on nonsense.

[@brockgeorge6437]

@FoodTheMood We don't yet understand the mechanism through which abiogenesis occurred, although we have a very clear understanding of how that life form eventually gave rise to us. I think it is better to admit that we don't yet understand something rather than claim it happened by magic, which is essentially what the explanation of what god is. Every time we thought it was god in the past, wind, lightning, the rising sun, the tides, the diversty of species, it always turned out to have a natural explanation in the end.

[@joshd590]

Keeping Jesus as a historical figure gives job security to scholars like Ehrman

[@theozleyfiles]

I’ve been thinking about this question all week, I’m excited to hear this episode today! Thank you for all the hard time and work put into these informative episodes!

[@michael.1517]

Hey, I think you should check out scholars like Michael Heiser, N.T. Wright & James White. As a theology student I learned a lot from them. They can be found here on KZbin and they offer some academic work on creating a harmony between scientific history and the Christian faith. You should check them out!

[@scambammer6102]

@@michael.1517 why should there be "harmony" between science and faith? just stick to facts when doing history. Fact 1: dead guys don't come back to life. ever.

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

@@michael.1517 Sorry. We’re not interested in apologetics but serious scholarship on the Bible.

[@michael.1517]

@@Pseudo-Jonathan And yet, you sound like you made your research about these guys on TikTok ;)

[@vejeke]

"I believe a snake/serpent talked, yes I do." - James White. It is shocking how religions can completely destroy our most basic mechanisms for distinguishing reality from fantasy. Some Muslims believe that Muhammad split the Moon, and they do so with the same level of conviction with which James White believes in Genesis 3:1, but that's just another example of the exact same phenomena. There are some studies on this subject. *Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds* _In two studies, 5- and 6-year-old children were questioned about the status of the protagonist embedded in three different types of stories. In realistic stories that only included ordinary events, all children, irrespective of family background and schooling, claimed that the protagonist was a real person. In religious stories that included ordinarily impossible events brought about by divine intervention, claims about the status of the protagonist varied sharply with exposure to religion. Children who went to church or were enrolled in a parochial school, or both, judged the protagonist in religious stories to be a real person, whereas secular children with no such exposure to religion judged the protagonist in religious stories to be fictional. Children’s upbringing was also related to their judgment about the protagonist in fantastical stories that included ordinarily impossible events whether brought about by magic (Study 1) or without reference to magic (Study 2). Secular children were more likely than religious children to judge the protagonist in such fantastical stories to be fictional. The results suggest that exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on children’s differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories._

[@brianennion4832]

The way the video cut when Bart said there are things we can say with 'relative certainty' is hugely frustrating. What can we say with 'relative certainty'?

[@dustcircle]

I've read and listened to Dr Ehrman for a couple decades now. I never get bored.

[@musicmasterplayer4532]

But do you get enlightened?

[@mrlume9475]

​@@musicmasterplayer4532yes

[@Nick-Quick]

00:02 Exploring the historicity of Jesus 02:15 Examining the historical sources of Jesus. 06:25 Jesus is believed to have existed based on multiple independent sources. 08:36 Historical value of the Gospels 12:46 Similarities in synoptic gospels indicate copying. 14:34 Matthew, Mark, and Luke used Mark as one source but also had access to other material. 18:12 Scholars use rigorous methods to study and evaluate historical sources about Jesus. 20:05 Jesus' historical existence and basic life events 23:57 Limited written sources about Pontius Pilate in the first century 25:52 Need independent sources for Jesus' existence 29:35 Discussion on the webinar 'Will He Be Left Behind' about the Rapture 31:25 Having one lengthy biographical source for Jesus makes him unlikely to be a mythical figure. 35:23 Historians focus on if a prediction was made, not if it came true. 37:12 Jesus believed in an imminent apocalyptic intervention 40:54 Gospels were attributed to Jesus' followers, not written by Jesus. 42:50 Apocalyptic texts emphasize forces of evil punishing people 46:46 Jesus predicting the end of the world

[@Jamesbrad28]

Great as always Bart, have been soaking up info for over 10 years now and I’m still obsessed! Keep it up.

[@Jaxon5209]

Bart basically says most NT scholars believe Jesus existed. He provides no evidence that he did and just asserts it. The same was true about Moses, but now only fundamentalists believe he existed.

[@whiskeredtuna]

@Jaxon5209, lol….did you watch the video? Jesus existed dude.

[@bubblewrap4793]

​@whiskeredtuna there is no secular evidence only non secular. Just a bunch believers propagating the same myth. So historians say well since so many are propagating the same myth then it must have really happened.

[@rebella5769]

Just want to thank you so much. I LOVE these sessions. You guys together are such a fantastic team. I always get so excited when I see there's another one of your videos in my inbox. So much gratitude for this gift.

[@mustachemac5229]

I agree 💯%

[@gherieg.1091]

Are you an apostate ? If the Lord didn’t exist then none of us would be here. Just because you don’t believe that doesn’t mean that it’s false. You got to admit there’s lots and lots and lots that you don’t know about.

[@mustachemac5229]

@@gherieg.1091 What does this comment have to do with the original post?????? Are you a troll?

[@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana]

You could *say* that.

[@gherieg.1091]

@@mustachemac5229 I’m responding to the title of the video. If you support Bart in his drive against God and His children, then the comment applies to you too.

[@e_dharmalog]

I've never found Tacitus and Josephus to be particularly informative when it comes to the Jesus question. Tacitus never tells us that Jesus existed. He tells us that nearly a century later there was a group of Christians who BELIEVED that Jesus existed. Similarly with Josephus. Josephus isn't a source for the life of Jesus. He's a source for later Christian beliefs.

[@kraftmorrison]

All academic historians disagree with you, because for them, the passages from Tacitus and Josephus mention the HISTORICAL existence of Jesus (not the divine, but the historical). Tacitus mentions the name of Jesus and this is already considered proof of the person's physical existence for historians (I'm talking about the person, not his divine). Therefore, your argument is easily REFUTED BY THE history academy :)

[@Magik1369]

No you are clearly wrong and are making bogus claims that fit neatly with your second hand belief system. The interpolations in Josephus, who was a member of the Flavian Caesars is largely held to be a Christian forgery. Academic Historians? Give us a break. @@kraftmorrison

[@Magik1369]

You are absolutely correct. Tacitus and Josephus do not in any way provide solid evidence that Jesus existed.

[@kraftmorrison]

@@Magik1369 You are wrong. Tacitus and Josephus are solid evidence of the existence of Jesus, as they in fact narrate what archaeological evidence shows us: the ossuary of James, Jesus' brother, exhibited in the Jerusalem museum and confirmed by Flavius ​​Josephus, and also the crucifixion by Pontius Pilate , confirmed by OTHER sources outside the Bible such as Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Talmud, among other independent sources. The difficult thing for the militant neo atheist, who absolutely NOBODY RESPECTS and who SUFFERS PREJUDICE and PERSECUTION, is to REFUTE Middle Eastern archeology and refute historians from around the world. This is an extremely difficult task for the militant neo-atheist from the USA, the type of person that absolutely NO ONE respects!

[@kraftmorrison]

Are you a LIAR or pretending to be a liar? OBVIOUSLY you have ABSOLUTELY NOT READ EITHER of the two authors, who mention Jesus AND his life: "At that time Jesus appeared, a wise man, if indeed we can call him a man. For he was the author of amazing deeds, a master of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained followers both among many Jews, and among many of Greek origin. He was [the] Christ [Messiah], And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by our most prominent men , condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him before did not fail to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, alive again, exactly as the divine prophets had spoken of this and countless other amazing facts about him. And even Today the tribe of Christians, which owes its name to him, has not disappeared" And Tacitus mentions the crucifixion And also the name of the person who crucified Jesus: "To silence the rumor, Nero created scapegoats and subjected the most refined tortures to those whom the people called "Christians", hated for their abominable crimes. HIS NAME DRIVEN FROM CHRIST (CHRISTUS), which, during the government of Tiberius, had been EXECUTED by the Procurator PONTIUS PILATES. Suppressed for some time, deadly superstition broke out again, not only in Judea, the land where evil originated, but also in the city Rome, where all kinds of horrible and infamous practices from all parts of the world are concentrated and are fervently worshipped." EASILY REFUTED and I CHALLENGE you to counter me so I can launch the rejoinder

[@thesheffinator7124]

Megan is a great interviewer, and I don't think it's possible to get tired of listening to Bart Ehrman, it's a rare quality and along with his vast knowledge, has almost certainly contributed to his success.

[@AdamTait-hy2qh]

I am one of the rare breed of what might be called "minimal mythicists" - people who are totally open to the idea of Jesus beginning as a literal myth, AND/or to the idea that he was a first-century Jewish teacher who was crucified by the Romans. Either is fine and totally plausible - although I lean towards the idea that the myths (indeed we must admit 99% of what we have is literally myth) are likely based upon a real person. 30% mythicist, 70% historicist. I am fine with that, and do not need to be drawn into the polarised belief system.

[@mcake1234]

"Paul never met Jesus but he met people that did." And 'based on oral traditions'. These are huge red flags. Added to that nothing contemporary. Zip. Bugger all. Nothing.

[@Merrick]

what are you talking about bro, it happened to a friend of a friend of mine. in another city. this was a while ago.

[@mcake1234]

@@Merrick ha ha, right.

[@abuelo4977]

This scholarly process is quite difficult for me to follow. Based upon my understanding of this it seems to me that the same process could lead us to conclude King Arthur and Robin Hood were also real people. Thousands of years from now, can the writing of "Peter Parker the Spectacular Spider-Man", "The Amazing Spider-Man", and "Amazing Fantasy #15" be considered 'Independent Attestation' of the existence of a historical Spider-Man? Each set of writing agrees about details of a radioactive spider bite empowering an adolescent with the proportionate strength of a spider. All tell the story of "Peter", through anger and pride, failing to prevent the death of his uncle. Since this part of his story portrays Peter in a poor light, can we conclude that no one would make that up because it makes the main character look bad?

[@MarioMancinelli82]

Wow get a life

[@kraftmorrison]

None of those you mentioned divided the world calendar of civilization in half (before, during and after) just as none of those you mentioned promoted forgiveness of enemies. As none of these built Western civilization for millennia or centuries

[@rickmarshall5419]

I agree with you. It seems like no one can prove or can disprove the existence of Jesus, but the school of thought in universities favors those who do believe in the existence. Also, they say the evidence is overwhleming but when you watch the debates, it is far from it.

[@rickmarshall5419]

@@Bob94390 I agree, but this creates a scary precedent for historians. For example, imagine someone arguing that Peter Parker existed because there is a story line, we have made movies about this spider man, and there is no need to have bones, archeological findings, etc. In 2000 years, you will have people saying that Peter Parker was a real person but people added superpowers for fanaticism, especially since Marvel comics normally draw inspiration from real-life events. Historians need better criteria.

[@jessicamilare178]

​@@rickmarshall5419 different genres. Besides, there are tons of sources claiming Spiderman and Superman are fictional characters. There are zero ancient sources claiming Jesus was fictional. Furthermore, note that ancient biographies and portrayals of people considered important contained miracles, magic, etc.

[@kimthompkims9392]

Josephus speaks of a man with these characteristics. It was "The Egyptian". The difference is he was at a later date and around the time of Felix who was the governor. Historically there was no crucifixion around the time of Tiberius in Pilots governorship.

[@Dragonart666]

Min. 23:34 Josephus is mentioned by Suetonius in "Divus Vespasianus" 5: "Et unus ex nobilibus captivis Iosephus, cum coiceretur in vincula, constantissime asseveravit fore ut ab eodem brevi solveretur, verum iam imperatore." "And when Josephus, one of the noble prisoners, was put in chains, he confidently affirmed that he should be released in a very short time by the same man (Vespasian), but he would be emperor first".

[@NathanBTQ]

[@troyfreedom]

There exists no method by which we can determine Jesus said the words attributed to him. It’s that simple.

[@michaeldebellis4202]

There is no way we can determine with certainty what words that are attributed to Jesus he actually said. The same is true for Socrates and many other ancient figures. But just as philosophical scholars have methods to evaluate what dialogues of Plato are things that are probably Plato transcribing things that Socrates said and which of them are Plato using Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, so there are methods that Bart and other biblical scholars use to determine what words Jesus is likely to have said and which words are likely made up after the fact. For example, things attributed to Jesus that align with things the messiah was supposed to say or sayings that are in only one Gospel and seem to reflect that author's point of view as measured by the rest of that Gospel are likely made up. Things that are consistent across two or more gospels and that in some ways conflict with later dogma by people like Paul (the whole issue of forgiving sins vs. paying for sins) are likely things that Jesus said. I've been an atheist since I was a kid. I was raised a Catholic but the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of Catholic dogma were obvious to me at a pretty young age. But I've always found the question of the historical Jesus very interesting for many reasons. One of them is that his message clearly resonated with people given that Christianity went from a persecuted cult to the official religion of the Roman empire in an amazingly short time. The reason his message resonated with people may tell us something about the essence of human thinking and human values and that's a very interesting topic indeed. And anything but simple.

[@michaeldebellis4202]

@@Bob94390 What are the "seven different sentences" you are referring to? There are only four canonical gospels and most of the gnostic and other non canon texts are only available in fragments and don't discuss his death and last words. I would genuinely like to know if there are actually 7 different accounts of his last words what each of them says.

[@salzysisters5799]

​@@michaeldebellis4202 so someone said things the Messiah was supposed to say and this is evidence for their existence? I'm a bit confused. Any Joe Blow on the street could have repeated what a messianic figure was supposed to say and it still lends no credibility to the claim, only that they knew the supposed prophecy.

[@michaeldebellis4202]

@@salzysisters5799 First of all, I'm an atheist so I don't believe Jesus rose from the dead or any other miracles. Second, I don't understand how your comment relates to anything I said. The point I was making is that ancient writers didn't have the same distinction between storytelling and history that we do. Now if you want to you can just say "well we can't know anything with certainty about ancient history then" and that is more or less true. But there is very little if anything we know with absolute certainty, that doesn't mean we can't try to separate fact from fiction. So some of what is in the New Testament about Jesus is clearly made up. I don't think anyone who comes to this site with a serious desire to learn thinks otherwise. In fact I agree with you, most if not all of the things in the New Testament that "confirm" that Jesus was the messiah are almost certainly made up. The claim that he was born in Bethlehem is a good example. That's where the messiah was supposed to be from so some of the New Testament authors made up stories that resulted in Jesus being born in Bethlehem. It's clear they are made up because the stories contradict each other and one of them that says Joseph had to return to Bethlehem because of a census is clearly a lie because people never had to return home for a census, that would have caused incredible chaos in the ancient world. That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING in the New Testament was made up. A few years ago I was reading Plutarch's Lives of the Ancient Greeks and Romans. He's one of the most quoted and authoritative ancient writers on Greek and Roman history. I got to the section where he talked about Alexander the Great. He begins by telling how Alexander's father was Zeus who came down to Earth and had sex with his mother and he described it with the same realism as he described various battles. I don't believe in Zeus so does that mean because there is a clearly a made up story in Plutarch about Alexander the Great that I think Alexander the Great never existed? Or that nothing that Plutarch wrote can be true? If that were the case many textbooks on ancient history would need to be re-written. It is possible for a rational person to tease apart fact from fiction. It's an important skill and not just for reading ancient history.

[@salzysisters5799]

@@michaeldebellis4202 I'm simply refuting that this Jesus character was ever a real human being.

[@enoynaert]

The thing that I liked about teaching at a university is that twice a year I was officially caught up.

[@jasongilder22]

Wdym

[@paskal007r]

I'm quite confused: how are two stories that were widely circulating for decades in the same religious group considered "independent"? Also why interpret the unique material in Mt or Lc as yet another independent tradition rather than legendary development on top of Mc and Q?

[@JorWat25]

Yeah, I'm also confused about this. He says that because the gospels were independently written, but all talk about Jesus, that's evidence he exists, but then says that two of the gospels clearly copy a previous one.

[@WeesloYT]

@@JorWat25 it's because Matthew and Luke have content not found in Mark, but also have content that is separate from each other

[@Gothlore]

I'm fairly confused here too. There's obviously a story about a savior god with a thin back story about being a preacher, and there's obviously people filling in that backstory. Even if there was a historical Jesus, there's no reason to think people decades later who didn't know him are getting his preaching correct. Lifespans weren't that long. They're more likely borrowing from adjacent churches and current popular preachers.

[@阳明子]

Another great episode! Would personally love to see one on the cosmology of Paul!

[@dumupad3-da241]

The problem with the sources about Jesus isn't that there aren't any contemporary ones, it's that there aren't any non-Christian ones even with the usual time lag. Josephus doesn't mention him (except for calling someone 'James the brother of Jesus'), Roman historians don't mention him. We do have decent, reliable written history of Israel at the time, with a multitude of people mentioned by Josephus and others.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

But that arguments suggests that Christians didn't exist either. Josephus doesn't mention them (Other than the disputed Testimonium, where Jesus is mentioned.) If Christianity isn't important enough to bring up, why would its founder be?

[@dumupad3-da241]

​@@jeffmacdonald9863 Well, the difference between Jesus and the Christians is that Christians do exist now and are well-documented as existing from a certain point onwards, so we already *know* that they appeared at some point and the question is only *when* they did so. (The first non-Christian mention of Christians is apparently dated to 110, in a letter by Pliny the Younger.) I see no reason to be so sure that Christianity was fully developed by the latest point in time described by Josephus (about 75 AD) or very prominent in Palestine. On the other hand, the events surrounding Jesus are portrayed as having had some political implications and I would have expected Josephus to be interested in them. In any case - the main problem isn't that we aren't sure that Jesus existed, it's that the quality of sources about him is so poor that we can hardly be sure of anything else about him. In other words, even if he did exist, the number of things that we can say about him with certainty is almost as little as if he hadn't existed. Maybe there was some dissident Jewish religious leader, maybe he was executed by the authorities, but what other parts of the NT story are true is guesswork. What we can speak about with some measure of certainty is the teachings and beliefs of early Christians as documented in their texts.

[@ghostriders_1]

7:28 Ehrman claims that Paul knew Jesus's disciples but this is not true. Paul knew some men who after his death were portrayed as disciples of Jesus by Mark. Paul never refers to anyone being a disciple, never even uses the word. He only knows Apostles, and to him, that is some one who has had a revelation of the risen Jesus. Ehrman here is implying that Paul confirms he knows of people who followed Jesus around & were installed in leadership positions by him. This information is conspicuously what Paul does not say, he has nothing at all to say about anyone knowing or doing anything with Jesus before his resurrection. Ehrman here is working with an unevidenced assumption.

[@9ja9ite]

I am relatively new to this area of study. So I have no horse in this race of historicity vs. mythicism. I love listening to interviews and lectures on both avenues of thought. I learn so much from just absorbing as much as I can. However there is one thing I have noticed that is frustrating to me. I have watched Dr. Carrier discuss his views and even spend entire 2 hour live streams allowing for the possibility of Jesus being a real historical person. He's looked at and discussed the probability of how Jesus could be a historic figure and what are the most likely ways Christianity developed from that position . Even though he disagrees ultimately on this line of thought. Basicially he actually looks at it from multiple angles. With Dr. Ehrman I do not see that kind of flexibility of consideration. He seems to have his view and only sticks to it while just dismissing any other views. He reminds me very much of christian apologists who don't actually stop and consider a position or wrestle with it to see if they can actually make it work or not. I keep getting an impression of arrogance from him in that any theory that does not agree with his is not worth the time to anylize or consider. This video would have been so much more interesting if he anylized the question from an honest mythicist POV. That's not to say he has to believe it or can't make counter points. But for a video titled "Did Jesus even exist?" an actual look at mythicist views would have been nice. Not just him by-passing the idea and just discusssing his own take that has already been expounded on everywhere. That's not me trashing talking. I have great respect and admiration for his study and ability to communicate his ideas. He's a brilliant man. I just wish he showed more flexibility in approaching contrasting ideas. I find researchers who can wrestle with opposing ideas and actually try to make sense of them way more interesting than a scholar who takes a dogmatic view of something that no one can actually know for sure. I find dogmatic positions off putting whether it be in religion or secular academic work. I think for me it just starts to feel like someone selling a product instead of a real honest exploration ideas and possibilities in the ultimate search for truth and understanding.

[@JeannieSoko]

Does Dr. Carrier have a yt channel?

[@HkFinn83]

It’s a fringe internet conspiracy theory. Should scholars give equal time to the ramblings of anybody able to operate a webcam and open a KZbin account?

[@Arven8]

That's interesting. I have the opposite impression. Carrier seems very narcissistic to me, obviously and obnoxiously so. Ehrman does not strike me as narcissistic or arrogant. I would describe him as confident but (usually) respectful. I can't read Carrier because the narcissism just seeps off the page, and I don't trust anyone who sounds like that. You give the example of Carrier "allowing for the possibility of Jesus being a real historical person." That's really not much of an allowance. Almost the entirety of biblical scholarship believes that Jesus was a historical figure. To "allow for the possibility" of what 99% of serious scholars believe is not a sign of intellectual humility. It is just admitting the obvious. When 99% of the experts say you're wrong, you either admit the possibility you're wrong or you look like a delusional fanatic. I'm puzzled why you think Bart is dogmatic and inflexible. I've read and listened to a lot of his stuff, and I've never found him to be such. He is very confident in his position, and he is clear about his disagreements, but that isn't the same thing as being dogmatic and inflexible.

[@cinemarchaeologist]

@@Arven8 "I'm puzzled why you think Bart is dogmatic and inflexible. I've read and listened to a lot of his stuff, and I've never found him to be such." You sound as if you've never heard Ehrman address this question at all. Ehrman has, in fact, compared mythicist views to Holocaust denial. His book on this subject was torn to pieces by critics shortly after it was published, shown to be full of errors, dishonest interpretations, idiotic comments, unsupportable assertions and ignoring much of the actual mythicist case. Before this became a dispute, I'd really admired Ehrman. Obviously, he doesn't need an internet nobody like me to sing the praises of his previous academic work, the stuff on which his reputation was built, but it was formidable. On this question though, he's been terrible. As for your appeal-to-authority fallacy regarding the "experts" on this matter, Ehrman himself has pointed out that most New Testament "scholars" are bible-believing Christians who argue it's an historical fact that Jesus straight-up rose from the dead.

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@JeannieSoko No, but he does plenty of interviews. You can check out one of his most recent ones over at Godless Engineer.

[@ExtremeCleanoutSolutions]

The only evidence we have for the existence of Jesus are primarily the Gospels which Bart Ehrman has proven to be unreliable and not the original copies. There are no contemporary writings describing Jesus by the people of his time.

[@Amadorrenteria]

Bart literally said there is evidence he existed. But don’t have much details about what he was like. Just as we have no details about anyone in the ancient world

[@ExtremeCleanoutSolutions]

Actually there is far more archeaological evidence of other ancient people like Caesar for example than with Jesus. There are no coins with Jesus picture. There are no statues from the contemporary time period etc. etc. I think Jesus is a myth just like other characters out of the Bible. @aaraar7929

[@dumupad3-da241]

The problem with the Gospels isn't just that they're in the Bible, it's that they are Christian religious texts. There are hardly any early non-Christian mentions, which does seem a bit odd if Jesus was a relatively notable figure, and the very few there are may well be based on the Christians' own stories. Of course we have more narratives about Jesus than about most people of his time, but the same is true of, say, Odysseus - the question is how reliable they are. There are an enormous number of major or minor historical figures from around that time that are known from sober and secular historical accounts, sometimes from administrative documents, and a few lines of such text are more reliable than the four gospels put together. But sure, it is plausible that there was some historical figure by the name Jesus - just inventing a character with a random name out of nowhere would have been odd even for a myth/legend. Another issue is that the only sources we have about that figure are extremely biased, untrustworthy and have clearly accumulated many legendary elements, so we can only have a very broad and vague idea about what actually transpired.

[@richarddemuth7077]

The PROPER question to ask is "Did Jesus OF NAZARETH exist?" There was also JESUS JUSTUS of Corinthos mentioned in Paul's epistle to the Colossians, whose son was apparently Elymas barJESUS the magician of Cypros at Paphos according to the "Acts of the Apostles". NO evidence has been found for THEIR existence either.

[@TrevonFoxxx]

I had no idea about these other guys wtf omg

[@brianb4877]

Idea, start doing shorts (can just be clips) for KZbin and Instagram. I think it could work as a solid lead to the channel and Bart’s material overall. Particularly viral are debate moments, but I understand that sometimes people can get the wrong adversarial perception.

[@therealzilch]

Another wonderful video. Even as an atheist who has spent years arguing with YECs and Calvinists, I must say I find the story of Jesus fascinating. Lunch is on me if you're ever in town. Cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott

[@montagdp]

As a Christian, I can hardly think of a doctrine I find more abhorrent than Calvinism. Hell is already bad enough, but the idea that God has chosen from the beginning of time who goes there and who doesn't (and most people do, btw), and there's nothing anyone can do about it, is just wrong.

[@freetobememe4358]

@@montagdp Darby is worse.

[@mitchellrose3620]

I don't enjoy listening to Ehrman, but the title is important. Apparently, Paul's reference to James as the brother of the lord, is key. My question would have to be who is Paul? How do we know the authenticity of him.

[@Vortragskunst]

We know of him literally nothing, which in fact is even stranger than the case for Jesus. There is not one historical mentioning of Paul. And to say "brother of the Lord" means "brother of Jesus" (as the the christians do), is highly problematic, too.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Imagine the 33AD newspaper kid riding around the streets on his disciple, throwing solid tablets through people's windows. Doing a newspaper round in that era would have been a challenging job.

[@oldpossum57]

Housewives were so relieved that window glass wasn’t due to be invented for hundreds of years!

[@HardHardMaster]

What about the printer that had to chisel those thousands upon thousands of tablets every night

[@oldpossum57]

@@HardHardMaster Should have invented Quipu. Then you could hang the Decalogue in your tent as macrame art-to-admonish-children-with

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@HardHardMaster Good point. Like much of today's media- a bunch of chiselers. If the apprentice made a spelling error, the poor kid would have to start over or place tiny stones into the gap with chewing gum.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@oldpossum57 Shame on you. You are not taking this thread seriously. Like all biblical mythology, we don't want facts to get in the way of the narrative. If looking through a glass darkly isn't a euphemism for one hell of a cranky housewife's face. 1 Cor 13;12.

[@tacitusvoltaire6570]

the reason i’m convinced that there is an historical person, or maybe two or three people, at the base of the gospel depictions, is occam’s razor: somebody wrote the sermon on the mount, somebody who people expected to be anointed had a very unkingly death that required an extraordinary explanation, and to think that some genius or small group of them came up with the entire enterprise by themselves sounds way less likely than an accumulation of myths growing up around one or two famous faith healers, miracle workers, and eloquent poet of selfless compassion

[@nosuchthing8]

Ah, but you omit other existing deities like dionysus. One parent a God the other a mortal, had magical powers over wine, mother ascended to heaven, dionysus dies and is reborn each year, etc. A nice template to build on

[@arjan2777]

Much easier to take an existing person that already has the right reputation and attach more stories to him. People are more interested. They are interested in new stories about Jesus. Not new stories about some unknown person. The real question is how far did the Jesus from the stories drift away from the original one.

[@NathanMyers-c8y]

The sermon on the mount was demonstrably written after 70 AD, after Rome had obliterated Jerusalem. Nobody before expected it, everybody after had to come to terms with it.

[@arjan2777]

@@NathanMyers-c8y Ah but that secular logic. According to Christian logic this is exactly what Jesus said and it proves he was a true prophet and so he was god. QED

[@oldpossum57]

“Christian logic”. I guess whatever a christian wants to believe is what he will believe. You cannot reason with them. Like trying to reason with Marxist-Leninists, MAGA, QAnon.@@arjan2777

[@lars-hendrikschilling3531]

Shouldn't the real question be "How many Jesuses were there?"? Oral transmission often creates compound characters where reports of several historical people are fused. King Arthur would be a good example. Mythicists often don't believe the number of real Jesuses to have been 0, they don't think it's 1 either.

[@JeffPenaify]

There was nothing written about King Arthur until like 700 years after his death while the first texts concerning Jesus were written within living memory 😂

[@lars-hendrikschilling3531]

@@JeffPenaify That’s not actually a good argument, because human memory is highly unreliable. A lot of research has quite clearly shown that our memories change over time and what we think what happened decades earlier (or who said something) is often just wrong. Take the sermon on the mount, for example. Most people would probably say that those teachings are definitely what they think of, when they imagine “Jesus”. But this narrative appears exclusively in Matthew, written decades after the crucifixion. Now, it’s possible that Matthew just made this story up, but that is unlikely because Luke has a somewhat similar store. So, he probably wrote down a highly permutated account of something which occurred. But there is no reason to assume a priori that this sermon was given by the same guy who (supposedly) banned some demons into pigs. It’s not like there was a shortage of apocalyptic Jewish preachers back then. You can’t even Occam’s Razor your way out of this because OR only applies to explanations of comparable explanatory power. E. g. the Standard Model of particle physics is much more complicated than Newtonian mechanics, but it pays for those complications by explaining more observations. And the many different accounts of Jesus’s acts in the Bible (at least to me) seems much better explained if we are looking at a compound figure.

[@JeffPenaify]

@@lars-hendrikschilling3531 only a bad argument if you apply it towards a defacto interpretation of early christian writings. Peoples memory isnt reliable, but not to the point where they recall someone who didnt exist and was figment of imagination across multiple people who wrote about him within living memory of his life lmao

[@JeffPenaify]

@@lars-hendrikschilling3531 whether or not stories of Jesus was compounded from other jewish preachers of his era over the years, is not foundation to say a Jesus of Nazareth didnt exist. in fact that lends more credence to another actual Jesus of the period who was so well known that supposed feats of his forgotten contemporaries were retroactively contributed to him. Maybe cause he was the one who got crucified.

[@stevengeldmacher405]

OMG. I love this! I really like, admire and respect Bart. He has helped me so much on my faith journey. It has been a delight to get to know Megan better. She is awesome. She asks wonderful questions, not easy questions, but probing questions that lead us deeper into whatever they are talking that day. And they are both from different generations and it is so much fun to see them interact and that they have professional respect for one another but you can see a friendship develop among them. I appreciate the seriousness of the subjects they are discussing but I also realize we are witnessing a conversation among friends. Thank you both for allowing us to witness these conversations. My best to both of you.

[@haushofer100]

Yes, Megan's questions are what this podcast makes so good (and Bart's answers, of course ;) )

[@SIERRATREES]

So glad to have found this - I just read "Lost Christianities"..... It was excellent. Congrats to you Bart. Keep up your great work, and, Who knows what other exciting finds will emerge from the sands of what was the Ancient world. ?

[@shgysk8zer0]

Was Pontius Pilate not written about as being removed from office for being too antagonistic? It is my understanding that the gospels present him as caving to demands, which contradicts other writings.

[@shgysk8zer0]

@Mike JJJ you said "in a good mood" and I just imagined this being how that went: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g5qQin9_rNCZgNU

[@stevearmstrong6758]

He was recalled to Rome because even by Roman standards, he was brutal. In some of the gospels, he is portrayed as not wanting to execute Jesus but being forced to do so to appease the Jewish leaders. Since the gospels were written at least 40-60 years after Jesus’ execution, it seems (to me) that the narrative of the Jews having killed Jesus had evolved and Pilate was portrayed as less vicious. I suspect that Pilate executed any non Roman who created any disturbance (as Jesus did the week prior to his execution).

[@maatjusticia3954]

It would be great to have a peer-reviewed scholarly book arguing for the historicity of Jesus, instead of assuming that's just the case. We have, to my knowledge, two peer-reviewed works presenting solid theories for minimal mythicism, but none for historicity. Logically, a theory for minimal historicity should address the arguments for mythicism and be developed by unbiased historians (most "experts in the field" of Biblical and NT studies are undoubtedly biased and are not historians).

[@Kyeudo]

_["We have, to my knowledge, two peer-reviewed works presenting solid theories for minimal mythicism, but none for historicity."]_ There's not a theory needed for historicity. "Jesus was a person who was born, named Yeshua ben Yosuf, did things, then died" isn't really a theory. We have authentic first-hand records, in the form of the undisputed letters of Paul, that claim that a person met with Jesus's brother James. It's very hard for a fake person to have a real brother. _["Logically, a theory for minimal historicity should address the arguments for mythicism"]_ Only after mythicism can supply evidence for its position. As of right now, mythicism can explain the same documents, but it doesn't have evidence contradicting historicity. This is equivalent to saying astronomers should have to address the arguments for the flat earth model.

[@maatjusticia3954]

@@Kyeudo Just tell me one thing Jesus did or say on earth that Paul (the first Christian source) mentions in his epistles.

[@Kyeudo]

@@maatjusticia3954 I don't have to. Jesus's existence isn't dependent on what Paul recorded Jesus said or did.

[@donnievance1942]

@@Kyeudo Neat way to sidestep the issue that Paul never writes anything that indicates Jesus had an earthly history. He appears not to know or care about anything whatever in the life of Jesus other than the ritual significance of the sacrifice of a cosmic son of God. Paul's only interest in Jesus is as a divine figure who makes the incantatory requirement that people recognize his divinity and affirm his blood sacrifice. Paul has no interest even in Jesus as an ethical teacher. He never quotes any of his sayings or even alludes to any moral requirement that Jesus would make of followers. He doesn't care one whit about, or even mention, Jesus healing the sick or his exhortations to help the poor. Paul's Christianity is the original iteration of Christianity, and it is strictly a voodoo cult. It doesn't have a moral dimension, but only the requirement of doxastic recognition of Jesus as the divine avatar of God. If any person meets this requirement, makes obeisance to this divinity, explicitly begs its forgiveness, then one is good to go. Of course tithing is expected as a continued affirmation of belief. The argument that Jesus refers to "James the brother of the Lord" is pathetic at this point, as everyone who puts it forward has been told a hundred times that Paul repeatedly refers to any Christian as a brother or sister of the "Lord." I know why you people keep doing it, though. It's literally the best argument you've got. When you're evidence is that thin, you have no choice but to use desperate arguments. And what if Paul really did mean to say that James was the biological brother of the Lord. Wow! Now you have evidence that there was some cult leader who claimed that his brother was the son of God. Killer evidence that Jesus was real. Paul had a fat gig going. His continuous travel around his wide circuit of faith farms makes it clear that he had ample resources. There are many references to the business aspect of the setup in the Bible. Maybe you should read more carefully. It seems that time and experience showed the church daddies that a more morally and humanistically substantial avatar was needed to appeal to potential converts and keep the faithful on board, so after a couple of decades the Gospels came out to give the supernatural Jesus figure a relatable life story. There were perhaps earlier iterations of these, but they are lost to time or suppression in favor of the ones that market tested better. I don't actually expect you to absorb what I wrote here. You are one of the faithful. But more nimble and less obsessional minds may be reading.

[@Kyeudo]

​@@donnievance1942 _["Neat way to sidestep the issue that Paul never writes anything that indicates Jesus had an earthly history. "]_ It's not a sidestep. The lack of details about Jesus's life history in Paul's works isn't relevant. Given that Paul only cared about Jesus after his hallucination on the road to Damascus, I doubt he knew much about his mortal life. Paul certainly didn't care about the teachings propagated by Peter and company. He focused on proclaiming his theology about Jesus, so it is not surprising at all that he doesn't bother with life details. _["Paul has no interest even in Jesus as an ethical teacher."]_ Not surprising. Paul thinks he got all the knowledge he needed about Jesus directly from Jesus. _["Paul's Christianity is the original iteration of Christianity, and it is strictly a voodoo cult."]_ Nope. Even Paul's letters make it clear that Christianity pre-existed Paul. _["The argument that Jesus refers to "James the brother of the Lord" is pathetic at this point, as everyone who puts it forward has been told a hundred times that Paul repeatedly refers to any Christian as a brother or sister of the "Lord.""]_ Not as an identifier. We are dealing with a time before surnames and with letters to groups who do not have knowledge of which James Paul is referring to. Paul may metaphorically say that all Christians are brothers and sisters to Jesus, but that isn't used to identify them to others. _["It's literally the best argument you've got."]_ It's more evidence than you can produce for Hercules or Thor or Gilgamesh or even the vast majority of all humans that have ever lived. _["When you're evidence is that thin, you have no choice but to use desperate arguments."]_ Yes, that is a good description of what mythicists try to do. _["And what if Paul really did mean to say that James was the biological brother of the Lord. Wow! Now you have evidence that there was some cult leader who claimed that his brother was the son of God. Killer evidence that Jesus was real."]_ So, rather than present any evidence for your position, all you can do is speculate that Paul fell for a lie put forward by James? _["Paul had a fat gig going."]_ And this matters how? _["It seems that time and experience showed the church daddies that a more morally and humanistically substantial avatar was needed to appeal to potential converts and keep the faithful on board, so after a couple of decades the Gospels came out to give the supernatural Jesus figure a relatable life story."]_ Sorry, but the theological schisms among the early Christians make this position untenable. The four canonical gospels were developed by diverse communities, with Luke appealing more to Romans and Matthew to Jewish Christians. They weren't part of some coordinated project. _["I don't actually expect you to absorb what I wrote here."]_ That's your problem. You don't expect other people to be as smart as you are. Your arrogance is clear, but you reek of Dunning-Kruger. _["You are one of the faithful."]_ Lol. You are arguing with an atheist. _["But more nimble and less obsessional minds may be reading."]_ Such minds will notice that you have no evidence, only an explanation for the evidence that then invites more questions, like "Why didn't everyone in Jerusalem remember that they hadn't ever heard of this preacher guy?".

[@HPLeft]

Great stuff. Thank you both for another great presentation.

[@lesniewskis]

Well done, Bart, for getting a proper mic 👍

[@pig5267]

Would we be able to see a Bart Ehrman vs Richard Carrier debate in our lifetime?

[@nosuchthing8]

Yes

[@optimeg]

Already happened in 2012 in blog vs blog format

[@JohnSmith-tp6xl]

I am waiting for Godless Engineer and Dr.Richard Carrier's response to this.. there is a lot to get into... I personally am with Dr.Carrier... there's 1 in 3 chances that jesus was a real person.. i would say one more thing.. we don't really know if Paul refers to a biological brother of Jesus.. all the baptized christians were considered brothers amongst themselves... Nonetheless, much respect to you Dr.Ehrman.

[@russellmiles2861]

Well said

[@dancahill9585]

I suspect Jesus existed, but I think it's possible, since none of the authors of the New Testament ever met Jesus, that version of Jesus that is in the New Testament is so unlike the real Jesus, that he might as well have been mythological.

[@fepeerreview3150]

I heard a funny thing once. I don't know if it's true. But apparently the creator of the Donald Duck cartoon character had a neighbor who had a pet duck named Donald. So, does that make Donald Duck a historical ... person? ... duck?

[@dancahill9585]

@@neverepeatsbutrhymes Honestly, and this is probably terrible, when I read Paul, his arrogance and pride shows through so much, that I view him as the spiritual ancestor of most of the modern day televangelists. To me, it seems like he cares more about being in charge than it does Jesus' message or the original Apostles and their message. It seems to me Paul was preaching his own message, and just co-opting the Jesus Myth to sell it.

[@tasmarkou5681]

Do some research before you comment, john new him ,I'm fact was one of his disciplines, wrote a few gospels revelation as wll, it it that hard to do a quick search before come to conclusions, I really don't understand people sometimes

[@dancahill9585]

@@tasmarkou5681 You should probably research the Bible yourself. The consensus of academics is that the named Disciples didn't actually write the Gospels attributed to them. The attribution was added in the 2nd Century, when the Church wanted to tell a good story. The Gospels were written by literate Greek speakers, not the illiterate Aramaic disciples. John was long dead at the time the Book of John was written.

[@tasmarkou5681]

@@dancahill9585 send me your sources, this is the most redicoulous thing I've ever heard

[@haushofer100]

Great podcast, I truely love your initiative (and Digital Hammurabi!) As an amateur-jesus historian, I think that the mythicism pov is not as far-fetched as many christians and historians want us to believe. And even if the historical pov is stronger: the mythicism pov throws up some very interesting questions regarding methodology. Nevertheless, some mythicism arguments tend to apophenia. Also, see the great series "Fishers of evidence", which deserves many more views than it currently has.

[@HkFinn83]

The problem with being an ‘amateur historian’ is you really have no frame of reference for what might be an interesting question and what might not. All you have is the feeling of the way something rubs you up. Sorry if this seems a little rude but people need to realise there’s a lot more to scholarship than ‘looking it up’ and making up your own mind.

[@haushofer100]

@@HkFinn83 Oh no, you're completely right. I don't pretend otherwise. I have a PhD in Quantum Gravity/String Theory/Cosmology related stuff, and encounter "amateur physicists" all the time selling their "theories". I recognize what you're saying. I'm just doing it for the fun of it. That doesn't mean my views are completely uninformed (I do read published work an popular books), but as an "amateur" you tend to have a narrow and limited view of the subject, and not a robuste methodology. I'm just sharing my hunch. And that's why I love these podcasts ;)

[@johndroescher6291]

@@HkFinn83 When the majority of people studying the subject are already preachers, doesn't it make for a pretty biased set of observations.

[@arnulfo267]

Remember the story of Simon of Cyrene? The man who helped Jesus carry the cross. I once heard professor Dale Martin say that he thinks that the story of Simon of Cyrene might go back to some kind of actual memory. There might be a historical reality behind it.

[@cinemarchaeologist]

@Never repeats MacDonald's work is often quite speculative though, whereas one can show that nearly everything in the gospels is merely rewritten material from the Hebrew bible, or born of obscurantist readings of it. Scholars will universally (or near-universally) acknowledge this is true of the passion narrative but they've been far more reluctant to acknowledge that everything else is as well.

[@arnulfo267]

@Never repeats But the story of Simon of Cyrene doesn't have any theological or supernatural about it. Why would somebody invent it?

[@legron121]

@@arnulfo267 Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross may be a symbolic illustration of Jesus' teaching in Mark 8:34 that "whoever wants to be my follower must deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me". Simon of Cyrene does exactly that, in contrast to Simon Peter (to whom Jesus' teaching was directed: Mark 8:33, 34). Indeed, Mark creates literary irony here: Simon Peter (Jesus' closest disciple) was told he must deny himself and follow Jesus with the cross, but instead he denies _Christ_ (three times: Mark 14:30) and is replaced by a _different_ Simon (a foreigner from Cyrene) who follows Jesus with the cross. Simon Peter resists Jesus' path to the cross; Simon of Cyrene helps Jesus on his path to the cross. This is very plausibly symbolic.

[@virginiahobby3726]

Yet true IMHO, read The Book.

[@jrodhemi67]

Please make the mythicist video. Too many are sharing quotes from the Robert Price debate saying, "even Ehrman says there is no evidence for Jesus". They always ignore the next sentence in that debate, assuming they even bothered to watch it.

[@jrodhemi67]

I hate that. I see it all the time and from atheists who claim to do more research then Christians.

[@jrodhemi67]

I hate that. I see it all the time and from atheists who claim to do more research than Christians.

[@mikewiz1054]

Biggest shock here is Megan saying she has a 16 year old daughter. She looks like she is in her early 30’s. She must’ve hit the genetic lottery

[@JeffPenaify]

i mean look at her hair and pronouns, she got knocked up young 😂

[@realnsenpai]

I mean, they said satan is god of confusion. The bible itself is really confusing that we even question if the people there even existed. Who created satan and confusions anyway and the best question is: why would you do that to your children? Unless you see them as lab rats or test subjects

[@PurpleHeart99]

According to Christians they say, "god created the devil and gave him and everyone else free will. Satan disobeyed. God did not destroy him but allowed him to tempt and harm others as this is a way to test our faith and glorify god as his strength is found in our weakness. Confusion and everything bad comes from the devil and ourselves. Our sin is the reason for disease and misery. God allows it because of free will." 😂😂😂

[@jedsithor]

The thing about Josephus is that he doesn't actually cite any Roman or Jewish records. It's entirely possible that he spoke to some Christians who went "yeah we follow a guy named Jesus we think is the Messiah and he was crucified" and that's the extent of it. Maybe he spoke to actual disciples of Jesus, we don't know but it's entirely plausible that Josephus is basing his own writing about Jesus on the testimony of people who were converted Christians who didn't know Jesus so even Josephus' account could be wrong. Now, I do think Jesus existed but I don't think there's any hard evidence of it.

[@rafaelvelazquez460]

Thanks for this. Can you do a show on the unpardonable sin? I'm sure many would enjoy the information.

[@Hilderik1]

Great content Debate with Carrier soon?

[@EchoP7596]

Debates are fruitless for ancient history. I doubt Bart will ever debate Carrier because Carrier isn’t interested in academic discussion. He’s a polemicist who wants everyone to be wrong and him to be right. When I was a younger teen I used to think “maybe Carrier is right” but then I started reading all of these sources Carrier uses to make his case. It’s actually mind blowing how contrived and convoluted his arguments are, but Carrier knows most of his readers will not check the sources.

[@songsmithy07]

Even though I no longer identify as a Christian, I still enjoy these sessions.

[@NeronistaDeNeron]

These are clearly not intended for Christians... Bart himself is an agnostic atheist

[@jansvensson8201]

Great to hear from you every week. When do you come to Sweden?

[@JohnKerr-bq3vo]

I thought the word brother was used liberally to describe men you knew at that time.. not necessarily blood related.. and if mary is venerated as a virgin how come she gave birth to james and supposedly many other brothers and sisters?... Bart 'asserts' plenty, but what evidence is there that paul knew james... cos he SAID so?... not a lot of academic historic research went into that I am guessing.... not a mythicist myself but neither am i convinced of a jesus as depicted and certainly not a god, existed... and certainly past caring yes or no.

[@salzysisters5799]

I'm inclined to agree. I've still yet to be convinced that an actual person named Jesus that these fables are based on existed.

[@baltasarnoreno5973]

Aramaic and Hebrew had no word for cousin. The Aramaic/Hebrew word for 'brother' was used interchangeably when referring to brothers and cousins. So James and Jesus could have been cousins rather than full brothers. There is also a tradition that Joseph was married twice and was the father of five children with his first wife. Jesus was the product of his second marriage with Mary, so James and Jesus would have been stepbrothers. The virgin status of Mary is very possibly a case of bad translation. The word in Koiné Greek for 'virgin' and 'young woman' is the same; parthenos. Don't get too hung up about her supposed virgin status. And yes, we know that James and Jesus knew each other because they were both present at the first Church Ecumenical Council at Jerusalem in 49 AD. They debated how much of traditional Jewish Law needed to be kept and how much could be discarded. James was inclined to preserve almost all of it. Paul wanted to get rid of almost all of it. James was the leader of the Christian congregation in Jerusalem at the time, while Paul was the leader in Antioch. The two men were very important figures in the Christianity of the first three decades after the death of Jesus, and at a time when the total number of Christians in the world was a few thousand, and were confined to a few cities in the eastern Mediterranean. It is inconceivable the the two men did not know each other.

[@TrevonFoxxx]

@@baltasarnoreno5973it’s inconceivable that any of that is legit

[@sootuckchoong7077]

Why should it take 40 to 60 years after Jesus death, then only the story is written. Shouldn't it be written as soon as even a few days or weeks later so that it wouldn't be forgotten?

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Why should it? Especially if the early followers were apocalypticists, expecting the kingdom of God to come soon. No need to worry about it being forgotten, just spread the message to as many as possible now. And since they were mostly illiterate anyway, writing it down wouldn't help with that.

[@Professor_Pink]

​@@jeffmacdonald9863You'd think if it was divine though, God would have ensured it would be authenticated and protected and preserved for future ages. 🤔

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

@@Professor_Pink Sure, but I don't think it was, so ...

[@nathangrant104]

Are the gospels really independent of one another? Not all of them, because it has been shown that Luke borrowed heavily from Mark and Matthew did as well, meaning the authors of those gospels copied (plaigerised) the other. Are they really not meant to be scripture and meant to be historical accounts? No, they were part of the writings of an existing religious branch of Judaism that became Christianity, not at all meant to be merely an account of Jesus, making them suspect as a source.

[@dalex60]

A man by the name of Jesus may or may not have existed during the supposed time the "Jesus of the bible" walked, but absolutely nothing proves his divinity, miracles, or resurrection... NOTHING!!!

[@michaeldebellis4202]

No need for all caps and lots of exclamation marks. Bart and almost everyone who watches these videos agree that there is no evidence for miracles, etc.

[@harryjennings5602]

Megan, I don't mean to be creepy old guy and all, but hand on heart, I thought you were mid-late 20s, just out of grad school. In another episode where you mention your eldest, I did actually rewind because I thought, "surely I misheard and she said six year old . . ." On a not creepy old guy note, thanks for the great podcast. I look forward to every new one hitting my notifications.

[@TheMNbassHunter]

The way Dr. Ehrman describes the various gospels makes me think of how all the various canonical and, now, non-canonical Star Wars books have been written. In those books, you'll find references to the same or similar source material while each of them also had their own spin, is writing their own story, and is certainly done by many different authors.

[@angelikimercouri1226]

I’m a Greek Orthodox and a church going… can someone tell me… how can someone believe thr historical books written by various historians… and believe what they had written centuries ago before Jesus Christ was born??? Or even after he died….?

[@kathrynmoores4146]

My week doesn’t twirl around fun at the weekend; I look forward to Tuesday; I adore these podcasts and there isn’t a single other I check in on every week. A missing week = moping. So much respect for Bart and just getting to know Digital Hammurabi 🥰

[@josephpostma1787]

I am also looking forward to the next episode; I thought the the black nonbelievers blog had a good article on the question about if Jesus predict his soon return.

[@exasperated]

"...that's not an issue that's seriously debated among experts in the field.." "So the scholarly consensus then is that yes, Jesus was an (sic) historical figure" Nice tactic there. Frame only those who agree with Jesus historicity as experts, so that by your definition there is scholarly consensus. That's me noping out of here.

[@TrevonFoxxx]

I caught that too, that was actually shocking

[@Zen_Traveler]

Ya know, we DO seem to have record of a person called "The Teacher of Righteousness" in the DSS at the time and it DOES shed light on what folks were thinkin' at the time. I highly recommend "The First Messiah, " by Michael Wise. Btw, thanks for another great show!

[@clarkelaidlaw1678]

there were more than 300 self proclaimed messiahs who were crucified by the Romans in that era.there is no reason to suggest that Jesus knew any more or was a better person than any of the others.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@clarkelaidlaw1678 _"...there were more than 300 self proclaimed messiahs who were crucified by the Romans in that era."_ That's because of the Daniel 9:25 prophesy that expired unfulfilled. Then Paul created Christianity in 48 AD to garner support for the insurrection against the Romans which began in 46 AD led by two brothers, Jacob and Simon, in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency until it climaxed in 48 AD when it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed. He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah. He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' rebellion against the Romans.

[@d.m.collins1501]

Isn't "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist" also one of the things basically everyone agrees about?

[@TimBee100]

So did Jesus really say he would be back and some people who were alive would still be alive when he returned?

[@Arven8]

Well, sort of, but not the part about "I'll be back, and you'll still be alive." It's more like "God is going to cleanse the Earth before this generation ends (or before some of the people in the audience die)." The first relevant statement is in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Jesus says, “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” The "things" he's referring to are the coming apocalypse -- God coming to destroy the powers of evil and establish his kingdom on Earth. That did not happen within that generation. So he was wrong about that. There is also the statement in Matthew, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." He's talking about that same apocalyptic vision of God coming down, destroying evil, and establishing his Kingdom on Earth. Again, that did not happen -- everyone who was standing there died, and we've still got lots of evil in the world. So he was wrong about that, too. Bart will explain this better than I can. It sounds like they will address this in an upcoming episode.

[@rainbowkrampus]

There's no way of knowing. Even if you do think he was a real dude, there's no way to verify that anything said about or by him is accurate. Even the mundane stuff is not evidenced anywhere. Remember, the Bible is the claim, not the evidence. All we have in the gospels are people writing decades later claiming he did things. Paul only ever talks about his visions of Jesus. Jesus and most of his pals are shadows to history.

[@Arven8]

@@rainbowkrampus So you can't use the Bible as evidence? That's stupid.

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@Arven8 Uh, no? You can definitely use it as evidence that claims were made by people about certain subjects. What you cannot do is take those claims and declare them as evidence. Otherwise you'd have to accept that me saying, "I have a unicorn." is evidence that I have a unicorn. Which, in case there is any confusion, it is not and I do not.

[@HardHardMaster]

​@@rainbowkrampusI believe you do. Only a true unicorn owner would deny it's existence

[@brizo68yeah74]

I don't know how I missed this last year. Anyway i enjoyed it all the more. Love the vids.

[@jtramelli5464]

mysticism is seriously being debated in the field, there are multiple peer reviewed PhD historians who are arguing the case and what I find really disheartening from a very accomplished scholar like dr. Ehrman is his complete unwillingness to actually address their position. I'm personally pretty agnostic about the situation, but I just think it's really strange that's so many scholars seem afraid to address the actual position of the mythicists....

[@nathanwhite704]

Because they know there's a serious lack of evidence, and their historicist view is their job security.

[@werefeat0356]

Dr. Ehrman thinks the holocaust is real too.

[@tasmarkou5681]

Really lack if evidence?i suppose every ancient document that writes BC and A D is based on a Myth, or you could tell me why the Jewish Talmud recorded his crucifixion, his accusers, also called him a sorcerer ,which is evidence that he had some supernatural ability, and many other historians also Flavious Josephus Thalus Tactus Pliny the younger Suetonius..

[@jtramelli5464]

@@tasmarkou5681 @Tas Markou perhaps if you actually knew anything about these sources that you have provided you wouldn't make such glaring mistakes.... The Talmud for example put this Jesus character over 100 years earlier in history and has a completely different story... the other people you mentioned are simply repeating what is being said by Christians and/or what can be found in the gospels (which are definitively fiction).. this is not good evidence

[@WEREFEAT003]

@@tasmarkou5681 Right, well no one ever actually SAW Jesus. Saul/Paul is a good example. Christians "see" things and have an invisible friend they imagine. They have "visions" and hear voices talking to them. Josephus is another good example, because the Flavianum has long been considered a forged phrase that Josephus never wrote. It was inserted by ANOTHER lying Christian. And don't get me started on the MILLIONS of people Christians have killed for failing to become Christian. Murderers. Lunatics. Monsters.

[@VOLKHVORONOVICH]

In Second Peter 3:16 Peter seems to regard what Paul wrote, as being Scripture, reckoning them as being numbered alongside the Old Testament (which he refers to as the "other scriptures." "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Very much enjoyed your presentation. Especially liked your having your students write their own accounts of what they'd witnessed you doing for three minutes.

[@rhaynes8955]

Using these standards, I could also say that someone like Luke Skywalker existed. Lots of people wrote about Luke and his dad, lots of different people. Maybe in another 1,000 years we could say that Harry Potter existed. It’s called fan fiction. Quite a lot was written about the Greek gods, but we don’t automatically assume they exist. Another issue I have is dismissing mythicism by saying it isn’t seriously debated among scholars today… That is just flatly untrue. Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and many others have reached different conclusions based on the evidence or lack of it they’ve uncovered. And while not a “scholar”, David Fitzgerald’s book, Nailed - 10 Christian Myths that Show Jesus Never Existed At All lays them out quite well.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Well by your reasoning we can dismiss that anyone in history existed. Become all we have are stories.

[@Ergeniz]

@@ceceroxy2227 Except that's not the case. There is actual empirical evidence for many historical figures. Nice try.

[@arjan2777]

@@Ergeniz that is all fake evidence to support the story.

[@paweprabucki6990]

@@Ergeniz Except Christians and historians from 1 century agreed Jesus exsisted and basic facts about him while today historians and people know spiderman is not real. Guys pls learn some archeology and history before saying something stupid.

[@rickmarshall5419]

If the gospels were based down through oral tradition, then they are just hearsay and not credible evidence. The fact that the gospels weren't written by the actual authors compounds this. Using Dr. Bart's classroom example, each student would tell the story differently and each student would have different details hurting the credibility, but if one student told the story of another student, it would be inadmissible as a second strike to the credibility.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Welcome to the study of ancient history. Almost nothing written is eyewitness testimony. We're piecing together the most likely version of events from scraps of evidence.

[@SadisticSenpai61]

I mean, given how many different and contradictory ideas about Jesus were bouncing around in early Christianity, I'm not entirely sure how much stock I'd put in the idea of "this must have been true cuz it's counter to this person's understanding/teachings about Jesus." It could be they thought it was true, but it was made up by or heard from a different group of Christians. See the debates about whether Jesus was divine or human. After all, we just discussed a few weeks ago about how controversial it was to include Revelation in the Bible because it was so contrary to the portrayal of Jesus and Christianity. Does that mean we should accept Revelation as "true" because it's a theological outlier but managed to stay attached to the biblical canon anyway? All Revelation really depicts is an alternate version of Christianity (and wishful thinking) where Rome is destroyed by God and the Christians inherit everything. It's basically a precursor to the Prosperity Gospel in a way. I don't know. That rationale seems flimsy to me. Especially as someone who grew up Baptist. Ask 5 Baptists to describe Jesus and you'll get 10 contradictory descriptions - several of which have absolutely nothing to do with any Biblical passage or teaching. I mean, look at modern evangelicals - they will tell you all about how Jesus is love and he's all "love your neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" and he's also coming with an AR-15 and going to go all Rambo on the unbelievers. And they see absolutely no contradiction in there. If modern evangelicals can preach such contradictory things, why can't early Christians?

[@andrewmays3988]

You are asking excellent questions. I encourage you to discover why Moslems and Jews today DO NOT BELIEVE JESUS WAS DIVINE OR THE MESSIAH. I'm not suggesting they are correct in their analysis and conclusions, but at least you'll know what billions of other people think. 😇

[@SadisticSenpai61]

@@andrewmays3988 I'm not sure how you got that I'm still a Christian out of my reply.

[@tasmarkou5681]

Early Christians don't say contradictory things, the first church is,the orthodox church it pre dates the catholic church by 1000 years, the bishop of Rome left the other bishops and started the catholic church , then all the other protestants and watered down Christianity started , watch jay dyer ,who'd was baptist then catholic for ten years now Orthodox

[@SadisticSenpai61]

@@tasmarkou5681 Thank you for demonstrating you don't know anything about early Christianity. I'm talking about the period between Jesus' death and Christianity becoming the majority religion of Rome. There were a ton of different versions of Christianity during that period (and after, but they started being repressed due to efforts to unify the religion in theology). In fact there were more differences in belief between Christians in that time period than there are now. Gnostics in particular were a very popular group which believed that everything of the flesh was evil and sinful. As such, they completely rejected the idea that Jesus was human at all.

[@tasmarkou5681]

@@SadisticSenpai61 I know that what's your point

[@yosefbenavraham]

It's a well-known phenomenon that most police, interrogators, etc. are aware of, namely that when witnesses' stories are identical, or the details match too closely, the story is very likely a lie. This is because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable in the details of their reports: Witness 1: "I remember it clearly: the guy was wearing black socks." Witness 2: "I remember it clearly: the guy wasn't wearing any socks." It's not even uncommon for the same witness to remember the details of their account differently if they're questioned at a later time. The writers of the NT knew this well, which is why they included four different versions in their "scripture." This alleviates many problems at once, including the above mentioned issue. In addition, if you have only one account and any of it it is proved false, then the whole story collapses. Using this multiple reporting technique, the writers not only played into the basic phenomenon of human nature (i.e., the tendency of eyewitness claims to diverge) to attempt to lend credibility to their tale, but also had an easy out to circumvent potential errors that might arise in any one of the fictional accounts. Another purpose this technique serves is to deflect attention from the absurdities themselves to arguments *about* the absurdities. For example, one account could be: "JC went to the 7/11 at 9pm." Another might be, "Yes, he went to the 7/11, but it was at midnight." The third says, "you're both wrong. It wasn't the 7/11, it was the Stop and Go." The fourth is "No, he walked past the Stop and Go at 9pm and past the 7/11 at midnight, but didn't actually go in." Now the debate shifts from the complete unlikelihood that JC was ever at a 7/11 (or "risen from the dead," or whatever the absurd claim might be), and onto the the specifics of the claims. The inventors of the jesus tale got a h3ll of a lot wrong in their attempts to take from the Hebrew Bible, but they were very clever in manipulation tactics and techniques, which are pervasive all through the NT. Another important question on this topic is: if the NT is allegedly the "word of God," how could there in fact be ANY conflicting accounts? That would obviously be nonsensical and inconsistent with the generally understood nature of God as being truthful, all-knowing, etc.

[@michaeldunningham2770]

Contemporary’s of the Jesus lived decades after his death. There were dozens of intellectuals who lived in a radius to whom newsworthy details would have drifted. Writers such as Philo, whose writings are read even today never mentioned this guy. What does this totally ignoring of such interesting miracles seem odd. I think it’s a valid question. Cheers Mike

[@geoffreyriggs6331]

Don't straw-man the professional historians, thank you. "Casual" misdirections like yours are pathetically transparent. "Miracles" have nothing to do with the conclusions generated by professional historians today on the rabbi Jesus. Reliable anti-Christian non-apologetic a-hagiographic non-scriptural sources like Tacitus and at least one or two others all confirm an historical ordinary rabbi who was nailed by the imperialist Roman occupation as a simple human troublemaker. The real history of this rabbi, duly analyzed by modern professional academic secular researchers, circles around civil disturbances and not "miracles" at all. In fact, those civil disturbances are perfectly clear without even bothering to read any scripture, thank you -- something of which you're probably well aware, even though you "fail" to mention that.

[@mrjdgibbs]

Because there were many supposed miracle workers, Jesus wasn't special and Romans hardly troubled themselves with the superstitions of the provinces. Until they became to big to ignore.

[@flyboyben8384]

You need a follow-up on the extra-Biblical writings: Josephus, Taticus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian of Samosata.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

Why, they already have!

[@NathanMyers-c8y]

None of those shore up a historical Jesus to any degree. The Josephus reference is painfully obvious forgery, and the latter only demonstrate there were Christians in their time, a fact not in question. But that's the only evidence there is.

[@BanjaraHillbillies]

Bart (he/him) is right as usual...

[@maatjusticia3954]

Of course! He's El-hrman!

[@WilliamofOckham990]

We really appreciate the effort but you don’t have to randomly provide someone else’s pronouns

[@elbarbonnhiphop]

There should be a place where all those historical texts are compiled

[@peterrebhahn1113]

I suspect people who watched this video hoping to see Ehrman address mythicism are disappointed. I was. I also suspect not discussing mythicism was a precondition of the interview, which the interviewer more or less acknowledged at the intro. Well, OK -- Ehrman’s channel, Ehrman’s rules. I’m not a historian, just a bloke who’s read about the historical Jesus (including Bart Ehrman’s books) and watched a lot of videos about the topic. Am I a mythicist? No, I believe it’s more likely than not that there was a historical figure who’s been mythicized. But I don’t think mythicists are crazy, as Ehrman does, though he doesn’t say so in this video. His vehemence about the issue has a ‘whistling past the graveyard’ quality about it. He also stakes his position too much on academic credentials for my taste, which allows easy dismissal of people like Richard Carrier and Robert M. Price. Mythicists are probably wrong, but they're not crazy. Around 1905 a nobody working in the patent office in Switzerland who was fond of thought experiments published some articles that seemed crazy to many in the scientific community about light, gravity, and something that came to be called ‘relativity’ and, well, the rest is history. Ehrman is too quick to dismiss people who lack what he thinks are requisite academic credentials. It’s a bad look, professor.

[@scienceexplains302]

*Great class exercise* Bart’s class exercise is even better than he said. The students were eyewitnesses who all spoke the same language and lived at the same time and still didn’t get the words the same.

[@Interfect727]

This is Bart's weak point. I read his book on this subject "Did Jesus Exist?" and it was a very poor defense. He basically says Jesus exists because a majority of academics say so and they have degrees and you do not so take their word for it; or we really don't know a lot about anybody in the ancient world therefore the fact that gospels and letters were written about him concludes that he must have existed. If Aristophanes didn't include Socrates in his play, I would have written Socrates off as a mental construct of Plato. What extra-biblical (non-faith based) accounts reflect the existence of Jesus? One could mention the old chestnuts of Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny, but they all talk about Jesus as told to them by someone else. It is not direct or even second-hand. Socrates was physically described by Plato, interesting that Jesus is not physically described until 300 years after Paul's epistles (i.e. the Eastern orthodox idea that Jesus had one leg smaller than another, hence the slanted footboard on their crosses).

[@TheProphetofLogic]

The best evadence for the historical Jesus is actually in India... there are churches that predate European missionaries and are attributed to the apostle Thomas. That noted, I personally am not Christian, and nether was Jesus. Religion is the enemy of spirituality and man

[@SamuelHutagalung-w8u]

There were stories about Jesus Christ, although they are different and even contradictory yet it come out because of this single person. He was not a king, politician or a general, thus why people bother to care about him? Certainly he was meant somthing for some people, then stories spread

[@TheProphetofLogic]

@@SamuelHutagalung-w8u you are correct, Jesus clearly stated that he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel, meaning that they were following a man-made religion...the essential teaching is universal, the rest of it is interesting but not important. The golden rule is universal. It's ethics based on empathy. It is expressed through love and compassion. These are the traits of higher consciousness and spiritual awareness. Character of the Universal Spirit. Buddhist teaching is similar, only the golden rule applies to all creatures, not only Humanity, and Jainism is older still, with the same morale code... do unto others as you would like them to do unto you, love your neighbor as yourself, there's one unified Consusness...a spirit within all of us, and by loving others we love God. Jesus was a Budda, his philosophy was dharma... Jesus was teaching non-duality. "If anyone is in me, I am in them." And you're right about him not being a king, he declined the offer to be Messiah, he was an enlightened being, buddhas don't care about such things! Jesus was an ascetic. when the people tried to crown him...he ran away...a lot of Christian teaching is made up. But the things that contradict religion you can believe because the clergy wouldn't be adding them. But the parts about him destroying orthodox religion and teaching the Dharma, I do believe because these went against official church doctrine and not something church fathers would have added. These essential teachings survived somehow despite being anti-religious. Buddhist teaching was also not a religion, ( Budda forbid people from making images of him, or praying to him, it was three hundred years later, they started doing that.) but simplified Yogic traditions into it's purist form... arrived at the same point ☝🏼 Morality based on empathy and compassion.

[@edgarearly4203]

He brushes off anyone that disagree as not qualified.

[@GammaNu955]

Your point makes no sense. He existed and died

[@DeCamJ]

good info, but u should cut out the personal conversations in the beginning

[@alexchavez4951]

So, what Bart is saying is because mark and Paul wrote about him Jesus existed! Ok. Then all the figures from the old testament existed then. Even Moses and Abraham, even Adam and Eve. Since they all have been written about and they even had relatives. Makes me wonder how he can use that as a fact for Jesus!

[@Theactivepsychos]

What do you mean by Jesus?

[@dimbulb23]

Just amazing hair Megan... reminds me of my Hill Billy High School Chemistry class in 1962 in Viriginia. My lab partner's brother changed her hair color every weekend. Thanks for reminding me of how futuristic we were way back then. You should suggest something for Bart to do with his but I can't imagine what. I was an atheist even then. Hi to Bart.

[@gg3675]

I don’t really understand how Bart can say we don’t have contemporary evidence of Josephus. Is that because the manuscripts are later? He presumably actually wrote his histories?

[@albwilso9]

Bart : please just say if you think JESUS EXISTS OR NOT! No beating around the bush!!!!

[@alancook4407]

Jesus is not a myth but a experience light of the father no Jesus no life came to reveal the father was crucified for revealing the truth a light that came into a dark period of mankind

[@josephstrider747]

I'm loving these Podcast. Thank you for doing them!

[@silvershadchan4085]

John the Baptist also claimed to be the messiah and in fact John the Baptist messianic movement predated the Jesus messianic movement and in fact lasted into the 2nd century that’s the reason John the Baptist appears prominently in the Synoptic Gospel Matthew, Mark, and Luke but is virtually absent in the Gospel of John.

[@McCainenl]

I'm glad someone asked about John P Meier's books - I have several volumes and I was wondering what Ehrman made of them. I'd say that they are at an equal calibre of knowledge and balanced, honest assessment for sure, even if they come out to slightly different conclusions in particular details (that's to be expected anyway). Bart Ehrman fans could do worse than reading these too! Always better to read from multiple authors.

[@williamcarter7977]

What is more important? Values or facts? I think it values. Many fictional works teach values. The Odyssey and Uncle Tom's Cabin are just two examples. I have pet peeve against those who disparage myths and fairytale. I think you can learn from such stories.😊

[@larrybikedummy]

Thank you Bart and Megan for the ever interesting episode. Absolutely love each and every of them❤

[@cmall97]

The only reason concern i have with saying the synoptic gospels are not distinct accounts from another unfound source, is that when Greeks learned to write in ancient history, thye would take source material and put their spin on the material. Since most people believe that Matthew was targeting more Jewish minded christians and Mark and Luke were written for a Gentile audience, it would make sense there would be differences in the accounts even if Mark was the original source for the other two. Additionally, there are decades between the gospels from what most historians account and the gospels may have had to adjust their messages to target those audiences.

[@HebaruSan]

Using the New Testament scholar-consensus to debunk mythicism is somewhat problematic due to how many of those scholars are believing Christians. That bias has impacted their accuracy before. Mythicism may not be ultimately correct, but it deserves a more thoughtful rebuttal than that.

[@elijahpruitt6536]

Bart is not a Christian he’s a professing atheist

[@nutyyyy]

And plenty of atheists/non-religious scholars and people are of the same opinion also, myself included. I don't doubt the historical existence of Muhammed or the Buddha either. Of course it's possible they weren't a real person. Certainly the character as portrayed in scripture likely did not exist - even if a real person that those stories are based on did. It's just far less plausible with the evidence we have. The simplest explanation is that it came from a true series of event and a real man, even if most of his deeds have been inflated or later invented.

[@nebufabu]

The same applies in reverse. You don't have to be a mythicist to be a non-Christian, just like you don't need to deny Joseph Smith's existence to be a non-Mormon. It's not non-belief that guides most mythicists, it's some very specific understandings of what Christianity originally was -- either that, essentially, all religions are the same, Horus was mythical, therefore Jesus must be mythical too, or desire to prove Christianity is somehow uniquely fraudulent, every single thing about it is false, even the mere existence of its founder. Both those viewpoints can bias your views just as much as any religious belief.

[@Itsjustgoody]

Same can go for atheists…

[@jonathandutra4831]

Lol, Man there's a TON !! of NT scholars who are not Christian at all who debunk mysticism.

[@oreopagus2476]

The father of Jewish historian Josephus was Matthias III, who served as a priest at the Temple in Jerusalem. Since Josephus was born only 4 years after Yeshua of Nazareth's crucifixion, I think it's very likely he learned about Yeshua from his father, since it would have been a big deal that his body was not found in the tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea. The Jewish leaders never did produce the dead body of Yeshua, which would have stopped the "Jesus movement" from spreading. The Roman historian Tacitus was stating a FACT that a first century man that he referred to as Christus/Christ was ordered crucified by Pontius Pilatus (Latin name for Pilate). Yeshua (Jesus), Matthias III, Josephus, Pontius Pilatus/Pilate, Herod the Great, Tiberius Caesar Augustus, and Joseph ben Caiaphas were all real people of the first-century AD.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

To play the devils advocat, one can easily find refutations for these two arguments: - If Yeshua had caused so much trouble, why would Flavius Josephus spend only 3 sentences on him, which also seem to be quite out of context? - Pontius Pilatus certainly crucified more than one Yeshua and picturing your story with real people is just a way to make it plausible. I think the simple argument given by Dr. Ehrman at the beginning of the talk: "Paul knew the brother of Yeshua", is still the best.

[@chefebispo]

It is weird how worked up about this the Jesus Myth mythers can get about this stuff. After all, Ehrman really agrees with them for the most part, i.e., most of the stuff you read about Jesus is myth but that's not good enough for the myth mythers. To them, it must be 100% myth or else.

[@Aakraos]

It's Just about being intellectually honest. We have no proofs for Jesus, so this is most likely he was invented to serve a narrative. We say this about Buddha, we can't say this about Jesus even though common sense would tell you he is just a myth.

[@maatjusticia3954]

The thing is, how can we tell what is historical form fiction works? I'm still waiting for a valid methodology.

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@maatjusticia3954 that's precisely historians job : try to find what is historical and what is not using historical method.

[@donnievance1942]

Jesus was either a real person or he wasn't. He was either 100% a real man or 100% a myth. Having the opinion that he was 100% a myth is one of only two available options. So your comment is nonsense.

[@chefebispo]

@@donnievance1942 nope, like many historical figures he is also the subject of unprovable legends. He's mostly, but not entirely, myth. And your silly all-or-nothing dichotomy, in addition to proving my original point, is 100% nonsense.

[@miguelurdaci7884]

Finally, getting to the historical realities and probabilities of Jesus. I didn't know there was nothing written about the great figures of his day ... Makes me wonder how we know about Pontius Pilate and a long etc. So, thanks for this (maybe one "thanks" is enough ... not one for every question answered!?!)

[@brokinsage7138]

I find Richard Carrier's view and argument on this topic rather compelling.

[@dukegroovy5162]

He knows what he's talking about

[@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar]

I agree, though I do have a concern that so many of his arguments are contingent on accepting that an interpolation has taken place.

[@maatjusticia3954]

@@chefchaudard3580 I'd rather say: Read the book and judge for yourself.

[@TheHookahSmokingCaterpillar]

@@chefchaudard3580 So, when are they publishing their peer reviewed volume?

[@chefchaudard3580]

@@maatjusticia3954 i did. Same conclusion.

[@carlwilson8859]

There's a common assumption that "Jesus" refers to a single person. Could it be that there was a multiplicity of figures who were, in some sense, candidates for messiah? Bart has picked out one of these: one who preached immanent establishment of an exterior kingdom, neglecting what points to a "kingdom within".

[@fas1840]

The question is do we have evidence to support this thesis? Is there any evidence that these figures were in any way connected to the Jesus movement? What do the earliest sources say, and how do they understand the Jesus figure? Etc.

[@e_dharmalog]

There could very well be a synthesis of historicism and mythicism. I would speculate that there may have been historical would-be messiahs who were incorporated to the Christ myth story.