Did Jesus Even Exist?

Did Jesus actually exist or was Jesus based on a myth? New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman explores the historical evidence for Jesus Christ and debunks mythicist claims about him. Dr. Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is the author of 30 books including, Did Jesus Exist? and Misquoting Jesus.
In recent years, mythicism has become increasingly popular, especially in atheist circles, with books by Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price, and others, but is there any validity to mythicist claims? Is Jesus mythicism just a kooky conspiracy theory, or is there reason to doubt the existence of Jesus?
Check out Bart Ehrman's Webinar: holykoolaid--e...
Recommended books by Dr. Ehrman:
Heaven and Hell: amzn.to/3CIontm
Did Jesus Exist: amzn.to/3wbz2KB
Misquoting Jesus: amzn.to/3BIhW8f
Check out Mythvision here: / mythvisionpodcast
--
If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting my work:
Make a per-video pledge: / holykoolaid
Make a monthly pledge: subscribestar....
Make a one-time donation: www.paypal.com...
Join my newsletter: www.holykoolaid...
--
Get Holy Koolaid Merchandise: holykoolaid.cr...
Connect with me: linktr.ee/holy...
SUBSCRIBE
Subscribe to my channel: goo.gl/ie3EZh
Subscribe to Dr. Ehrman's channel: / bartdehrman
Thank you so much for your ongoing support. Science is greater than Dogma. Dare to be curious, but don't Drink the Koolaid!

[@shadowscalestudios]

I want to weep watching this. I can't believe I lived for 30 years "believing." I was adopted and raised in a southern baptist household where it was, "believe in god or find another place to live." I was taught that the bible was historically accurate and I honestly believed it for longer than I want to admit. I wish I had come across these kinds of videos back then. Thank you for all of your amazing hard work.

[@takoja507]

Well you got out of it, so that's good. It's hard to imagine parents giving ultimatums to their kids over religions. Even after years of listening these stories how people "lose" their religion and how their family is and was, it's just difficult to imagine and understand that kind of behaviour :( I was "lucky" in that sense that I was raised as JW, but when I was 15 my mother didn't "force" me to into meeting anymore. I just cold turkey stop going into them, after an event happen at middle-school. It was the final nail for me. Now that I think back, I don't think I never really believed the stuff, I just had to go with mother because I was too young to be home alone. Only 1 of us 4 siblings still believes and mother of course but we still have close relationships. So didn't really lose anything for not believing. Then again I live in Finland so the cultural difference about religions might be the factor why I was so "lucky".

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

@@takoja507 You are indeed lucky. Here in the USA your mother would not be allowed to associate with her officially apostate children. JWs are strict about that; they consider it a way to scare members into staying and "tough love" to bring them back.

[@tempestive1]

Happy for you that you're out :)

[@moodyrick8503]

How _"expensive"_ was your deconversion? I hope you were not disowned by your family. A far too common fact among the extremely devout.

[@EvilXtianity]

Yes, it is all complete nonsense. Welcome to the real world.

[@rebekahdavis5935]

I feel like one of the main reasons so many people even take christianity seriously is because of how it was brutally forced onto all of Europe. I wish people discussed this time in history more. It could have been ANY religion.

[@avoicecalling3455]

Christianity is a multi-ethnic multi-cultural worldwide movement. The church of Ethiopia existed for over a thousand years before colonization. Even now, without colonialization, the Chinese and Iranian churches are the fastest growing, despite it being outlawed to practice Christianity. Christianity is bigger than the big bad conservative machine you've tried to box it in

[@Uldihaa]

@@avoicecalling3455 There are many forms of colonization, and religious conversion is one of them.

[@rebekahdavis5935]

@@Uldihaa Yes, it may not be the entirety of how it was spread but it's a pretty massive chunk.

[@avoicecalling3455]

@@Uldihaa right but religious conversion isn't always colonization. And obviously that's not what's happening today. And they WERE talking about a specific period in history, they said. And I pointed out that Christianity has spread and continues to spread outside of colonization attempts. Their thesis that Christianity being brutally forced on all of Europe causing Christianity to be taken seriously is so ridiculous, it seems that it was just an uneducated oversimplification of history on the point of being anti-scientific

[@Uldihaa]

@@avoicecalling3455 But it was. Christianity ruthlessly stomped out any and all religions it came across, and then re-wrote those beliefs as if they were always Christian. It's why we have damn near zero knowledge of un-Christianized religions in Ireland. It was the same with the Norse. You don't seem to understand that it's not just Christianity being spread: it's the Western culture that goes with it. Please see the First Nation "re-education" camps of North America.

[@grapeshot]

I've always thought even if he is a historical figure he was nothing more than a first-century Galilean cult leader. No superpowers and no resurrection.

[@HolyKoolaid]

I agree.

[@cbmacs]

the 'If' is getting bigger

[@moodyrick8503]

@@HolyKoolaid It is a fact of reality that _"ancient miracle claims"_ cannot be confirmed and must be taken on faith. Why would the Christian God require _"faith as a foundation"_ when he would have known that faith would lead billions to fall for false religions?

[@loveislam8189]

When you realise God exists but Christianity isn't the way to him,do not just become an atheist,go search for him... I'm a Muslim...

[@moodyrick8503]

@@loveislam8189 Which version, Sunni, or Shia, ect... Lookup _"no true Scottsman"_ fallacy.

[@TheRealLucifer_Morningstar]

I always found it odd that the Abrahamic god could make a man from mud, a woman from a rib, yet HAD to impregnate a Jewish minx to have a child. So he impregnates the girl WITH himself then sacrifices himself TO himself to save us all FROM himself. Makes perfect sense...... 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@EvilXtianity]

_"...yet HAD to impregnate a Jewish minx..."_ God raped ("overshadowed") Mary while she was engaged to Joseph and while God was married to Asherah, Aholah and Aholibah (who were sisters). God's sons also "ravished" human females and impregnated them. God sent one of his representatives to tell Mary, that even though she was engaged to Joseph and frightened by the encounter, that God would impregnate her. The Bible uses the word "overshadow", which is the Greek word, "επισκιάζω" (episkiazó). Some Christians interpret "overshadow" to mean that some sort of mystical cloud or divine wind hovered over Mary and then she became pregnant. But the literal translation of the word is, "to overshadow, to use influence upon by a looming presence (skiá)" and figuratively means "to invest with preternatural (extraordinary, exceeding what is normal) influence". So, the "overshadowing" was God using what the Bible describes as the "extraordinary" coercion of his greater power and status to dominate and overpower Mary's desires and will by forcing his own desire to force unwanted sexual contact from frightened Mary with the intent of impregnating her. The word Mary uses to accept the command to be impregnated is "ginomai", which means "let it not be, far be it from, God forbid". In Mary's praise and thanksgiving to God in Luke 1:48 she says, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant.” The Greek word for “humble” is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation.

[@EvilXtianity]

_"I always found it odd that the Abrahamic god could make a man from mud, a woman from a rib..."_ Therefore, all of humanity is the result of incest.

[@rudikok283]

What a great insight.

[@EvilXtianity]

_"...then sacrifices himself TO himself..."_ Christianity worships ritualistic human sacrifice and cannibalism.

[@suffist]

@@EvilXtianity Their Hebrew war god has a penchant for animal sacrifice, the smell of burning flesh, and the killing of babies.

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

Good interview. I think this is the longest anyone's ever got Bart to discuss mythicism in one stretch!

[@timothymulholland7905]

For once he is not using ad hominems!

[@bakters]

@@timothymulholland7905 He laughs a lot, though. Aren't you guys sufficiently bvtthvrt with that alone? ;-)

[@coreyc490]

Yes, this is definitely the first time he didn't dismiss Mythicism out of hand. I would've liked a bit more detail and depth against the pro-mythicist position but I can finally see why Dr.Ehrman doesn't entertain it.

[@bakters]

@@coreyc490 "he didn't dismiss Mythicism out of hand" This time he dismissed it in more detail. ;-) "more detail and depth" Just listen to mythicists. They replace a simple theory based on evidence with an extremely complex Daeniken-like construct, based on *lack of* evidence and speculations. I wouldn't mind them being wrong, but they claim to support science. More like soyence, to be honest.

[@bleirdo_dude]

@@bakters Mark the first Gospel written is not conveying history. But is a literary artifice, an allegory (also midrash) of OT scripture (overt/covert) and Pauline theology. *Mark 5:1-20* "1 *They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 And when he had stepped out of the boat, immediately a man out of the tombs with an unclean spirit met him. 3 He lived among the tombs; and no one could restrain him any more, even with a chain; 4 for he had often been restrained with shackles and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the shackles he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. 5 Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always howling and bruising himself with stones.* 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and bowed down before him; 7 and he shouted at the top of his voice, *“What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” 8 For he had said to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!” 9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” He replied, “My name is Legion; for we are many.”* 10 He begged him earnestly not to send them out of the country. 11 Now there on the hillside a great herd of swine was feeding; 12 and the unclean spirits begged him, “Send us into the swine; let us enter them.” 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, *rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.* 14 The swineherds ran off and told it in the city and in the country. Then people came to see what it was that had happened. 15 They came to Jesus and saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they were afraid. 16 Those who had seen what had happened to the demoniac and to the swine reported it. 17 Then they began to beg Jesus to leave their neighborhood. 18 *As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed by demons begged him that he might be with him. 19 But Jesus refused, and said to him, “Go home to your friends, and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and what mercy he has shown you.” 20 And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him; and everyone was amazed."* Philo: In Flaccum "VI *There was a certain madman named Carabbas,... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat,..."* Isaiah 65:1, :4a "1 *I was ready to be sought out by those who did not ask, to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, 'Here I am, here I am', to a nation that did not call on my name."* "4a *who sit inside tombs, and spend the night in secret places; who eat swine's flesh,"* Psalm 107:4-7 :10-14 "4 *Some wandered in desert wastes, finding no way to a city to dwell in;* 5 hungry and thirsty, their soul fainted within them. 6 *Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; 7 he led them by a straight way, till they reached a city to dwell in."* "10 *Some sat in darkness and in gloom, prisoners in affliction and in irons, 11 for they had rebelled against the words of God,* and spurned the counsel of the Most High. 12 Their hearts were bowed down with hard labor; they fell down, with none to help. 13 Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; 14 *he brought them out of darkness and gloom, and broke their bonds asunder."* 1 Kings 17:18 "18 And she said to Eli′jah, *“What have you against me, O man of God? You have come to me to bring my sin to remembrance,* and to cause the death of my son!” " Psalm 78:49 "49 He let loose on them his fierce anger, wrath, indignation, and distress, *a (legion) company of destroying angels."* Exodus 14:28a "28a *The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea;"* "Mark's imitation also retains some of the distinctive traits of Odyssey, insofar as both stories place monsters in caves, grazing animals on the mountains, and neighbors at the scene. ...Finally, just as Odysseus told Polyphemus to tell others who it was who blinded him, Jesus tells the Gerasene to tell others who it was who healed him." Dennis R MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, pp. 73 "Detailed analysis of the traditions shared by Matthew, Mark, and Luke provides strong support for the view that Mark provided the template that Matthew and Luke revised, both correcting and smoothing out its language and expanding the Jesus material it contained." The New Oxford Annotated Bible-NRSV, pp. 1380 The anonymous author of Mark (named out of early church tradition) hints to the reader that it's entirely a parable in which the meaning is an inside secret. Mark 4:10-12 "10 *When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; 12 in order that 'they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven (Isa. 6:9-10).'"* More examples of Mark using the OT to flesh out his narrative: *Mark 1:16-17* "16 And passing along by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon *casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, “Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men.”'* Jeremiah 16:16a "16a *“Behold, I am sending for many fishers, says the Lord, and they shall catch them;"* Ezekiel 47:10a, :10c "10a *Fishermen will stand beside the sea;" "10c fish will be of very many kinds, like the fish of the Great Sea."* 1 Kings 19:19-21 "19 So he set out from there, and found Elisha son of Shaphat, who was plowing. *There were twelve yoke of oxen ahead of him, and he was with the twelfth. Elijah passed by him and threw his mantle over him.* 20 He left the oxen, ran after Elijah, and said, "Let me kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow you." Then Elijah said to him, "Go back again; for what have I done to you?" (compare Mat. 8:21-22) 21 He returned from following him, took the yoke of oxen, and slaughtered them; using the equipment from the oxen, he boiled their flesh, and gave it to the people, and they ate. *Then he set out and followed Elijah, and became his servant."* *Mark 4:37-41* "37 And a great storm of wind arose, and the waves beat into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. 38 *But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care if we perish?”* 39 And he awoke and rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. 40 He said to them, *“Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” 41 And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even wind and sea obey him?”'* Jonah 1:6, :11-17 "6 The captain came and said to him, *“What are you doing sound asleep? Get up, call on your god! Perhaps the god will spare us a thought so that we do not perish.”* "11 Then they said to him, “What shall we do to you, that the sea may quiet down for us?” For the sea was growing more and more tempestuous. 12 He said to them, *“Pick me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great storm has come upon you.”* 13 Nevertheless the men rowed hard to bring the ship back to land, but they could not, for the sea grew more and more stormy against them. 14 Then they cried out to the Lord, “Please, O Lord, we pray, do not let us perish on account of this man’s life. Do not make us guilty of innocent blood; for you, O Lord, have done as it pleased you.” 15 *So they picked Jonah up and threw him into the sea; and the sea ceased from its raging. 16 Then the men feared the Lord even more, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows. 17 But the Lord provided a large fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights."* Psalm 107:23-29 "23 *Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the mighty waters; 24 they saw the deeds of the Lord, his wondrous works in the deep. 25 For he commanded and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea.* 26 They mounted up to heaven, they went down to the depths; *their courage melted away in their calamity;* 27 they reeled and staggered like drunkards, and were at their wits’ end. 28 *Then they cried to the Lord in their trouble, and he brought them out from their distress; 29 he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed."* "A raft of scholars, including Randel Helms, Thomas L. Brodie, John Dominic Crossan and others, have shown again and again how this and that Gospel passage likely originated as a Christian rewrite of this or that Old Testament passage. What one Testament had Moses do, the other had Jesus do. Fill in the name. What did David do? Joshua? Elijah? Elisha? Turns out Jesus did it, too, and even in the same descriptive words." Thomas L Thompson, Is This Not the Carpenter, pp. 113-114

[@barbara12281960]

When I married a Jewish man, and raised our children Jewish, people would ask me how I could just "stop" believing in Jesus. I usually laugh and say, "that's personal but since you asked... who says I ever believed in Jesus in the first place?" smh. Magic

[@majormarketing6552]

The weakest word (believe) but yet it is held with such high value with religious people, sooth sayers, and scammers. Just wait for the gaslighting if you don’t trust blindly.

[@nosuchthing8]

Just curious, why do you believe in the OT? not hassling you, just asking.

[@undrwatropium3724]

Jesus magic 💥

[@veganbutterfly3652]

Not only Jesus didn't exist... but Abraham, Noah and Moses didn't exist either. The bible is not historically at all it's all myths.

[@WayneBraack]

Remind them that Jesus was Jewish. Moses was Jewish, The Exodus the followers of Jesus all Jewish et cetera et cetera...

[@HolyKoolaid]

If you loved this video and want more great content from Dr. Ehrman's, check out his upcoming webinar: ehrman.thrivecart.com/bart-webinar/?affiliate=holykoolaid Check out the Mythvision podcast here: kzbin.info

[@benjamindover5676]

I don't believe that most anything in the bible ever happed. Apologists always point to the Apostle Paul as evidence for a Historical Jesus? (Ehrman and others) They believe that Paul met with the brother of Jesus named James. Right? If so, don't you think that James and others might have told Paul some childhood stories about Jesus? If you met the brother of God,, wouldn't you ask him some questions and mention them in letters? Don't you think we would have heard something about that? But yet,, not one word from Paul about the Earthy young Jesus?

[@benjamindover5676]

Again Ehrman is not quite accurate. Around the time of jesus thousand of Jews were executed by crucifixion for claiming to be the messiah. There was another messiah (or Rabbi) named Simon Bar Kobha. Simon Kobha actually managed to avoid crucifixion by the Romans and he was called the king of the Hebrews for a few years. He would have made a much better candidate for messiah than Jesus. Jesus was never even close to being king or was shown no mention by any writers of his day. Because Jesus's name was not mentioned by any contemporaries, many now believe that Jesus never even existed.

[@benjamindover5676]

I feel better after reading the comments. Many agree with me that Ehrman misrepresents many things. Like Josephus, the author of "Antiquity of the Jews" was the earliest mentioned and he wasn't born for years after the supposed death of jesus. Also, most Christian apologists will admit there are no sources given and that the passages mentioned are a fraud. Early church fathers wrote letters to each other discussing Josephus in the 3rd century and they never mention this paragraph. If there was any mention of Jesus in Antiquities you can be certain they would have discussed it thoroughly. This paragraph didn't show up until centuries later. I didn't hear Bart bring that up.

[@BR-ur2gk]

holykoolaid was my first patreon subscription

[@ronb8066]

@@benjamindover5676 and then of course there was also a man called Brian...

[@kevinswanson6439]

Paul saying he knew the brother of somebody named Jesus by no means proves the existence of Jesus SoG. Knowing somebody named Joshua in 1st Century Palestine is akin to knowing somebody named Bob or Mike in 21st Century America.

[@EvilXtianity]

Paul is solely responsible for creating Christianity.

[@EvilXtianity]

Paul and Josephus were the same person- Both Paul and Josephus were Roman citizens. Both Paul and Josephus were Pharisees. Both spent time as Roman prisoners. Paul was originally named Saul | Titus Flavius Josephus was formally Joseph ben Matityahu. Paul was a former persecutor of Christians | Josephus had been an enemy of Rome. Paul said that circumcision was not required for Gentile Christians | Josephus maintained that non-Jews did not require circumcision in order to stay among Jews. Paul was "caught away to the third heaven" | Josephus had prophetic dreams. Paul made a defense of Christianity before Agrippa II | Josephus appealed to Agrippa II to attest the truth of what he had written in his history of the Roman/Jewish wars. Both had a friend named Epaphroditus. Both of them were Pharisees. Both were hellenistic Jews. Both are known for their literary works, and both produced their works with upper-class Koine greek. Josephus tells that he knows many ancient dramas. In Acts, there's an episode that narrates Paul's conversion; and the saying "hard to kick against the goad", which has its origin in a drama (written by Jospehus himself?), is used. Paul (paulos) means "small". Josephus mentions Mathhias Curtus as his forefather. Curtus means "small". Paul was in his famous shipwreck when he was on his way to Rome. Josephus also mentions that he was shipwrecked when on his way to Rome. Both were in Rome during the well-known fire in 63/64 AD. Paul spent two years in inprisonment in Caesarea when waiting for his trip to Rome. Josephus was inprisoned for two years during the Jewish war in 67-69 AD and he was apparently kept in Caesarea. He too ended up in Rome. Paul disappears into desert for three years after the Damascus incident. Josephus mentions that he had been in the desert with a hermit named Banus for a period of three years when he was young. After the Jewish war, Josephus became a traitor in the eyes of the Jews, and he lived in Rome, apparently for reasons of safety, and wrote his apologies. Paul became a traitor and a "renegade of the law" in the eyes of the Jews; and there were many attempts to kill him.

[@skullo5557]

@@EvilXtianity bruh no

[@EvilXtianity]

@BigPig _"Let me guess, you're gonna quote my sentences to yours and respond, to show my "fallacies," or whatever? Right? F*ker"_ Yes, I quote the assertion I am responding to as a courtesy to you and to assist me in following many different threads I am active in. So... you really didn't reply with anything worthy of a reply, just "bruh no". Do you believe Jesus is God?

[@lnsflare1]

@@EvilXtianity Do you mean that Paul was based off of Josephus, or that Paul and Josephus were actually the same person? Because I'm pretty sure that Josephus was very specifically not a believer in the divinity of Jesus

[@fred_derf]

I have no problem accepting that there were a bunch of itinerant jewish-rabbis wandering around the "holy lands" 2,000 years ago or that many of them were apocalyptic preachers looking to expand their various death-cults or that the story of jesus is an amalgamation of stories based on these men. I have a huge problem with the idea that any of them were divine.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Agreed.

[@ceceroxy2227]

some of us have a problem with the notion of sin, and that there will be a judgement also

[@EJ-jx9te]

@@ceceroxy2227 Sin is just a theological concept in the Bible just as Haram is just a theological concept in the Quran. They don't exist in real life.

[@levyy_012]

@@ceceroxy2227 what's sin lmao

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@EJ-jx9te ya thats the fairy tale I want, no such thing as sin.

[@NovaSaber]

I don't see how the difference between "Matthew made stuff up" and "Matthew honestly believed someone else who made stuff up" is even relevant here. Jesus riding two donkeys, for example, is 100% some nonsense made by someone who was trying to fit a prophecy they misread. WHO made it up is secondary; it's still deliberately false propaganda, not something that was believed by the first to say it.

[@EvilXtianity]

_"Jesus riding two donkeys, for example, is 100% some nonsense made by someone who was trying to fit a prophecy they misread."_ On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? On an ass and a colt. Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon. Matthew 21:5-7 On a colt. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. Mark 11:7 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. Luke 19:35 On a young ass. And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon. John 12:14

[@Ansatz66]

It probably _was_ believed by the first to say it, because the first to say it was probably a Christian who was dedicated to the believe that Jesus must have fulfilled certain prophecies. That person was probably convinced that Jesus must have had two donkeys simply because that's what the prophecy seemed to say, and so when he or she told that story to other people it wasn't even a lie. Just look at how religious people today will happily invent details to harmonize their beliefs and they'll seriously believe that their invented details must be true.

[@mouthpiece200]

@@Ansatz66 It was a lie from the very start. The prophecies were written into the story from the beginning.

[@HolyKoolaid]

There are plenty of stories about Jesus that are likely pure fiction, both Bart and I agree on that. That doesn't mean that there wasn't a Galilean dude with disciples who taught in parables and was executed for claiming to be Gods anointed - all are details that are entirely ordinary/natural all are multiply attested within the first century of his life and all fit with the historical context of the time.

[@Ansatz66]

@@HolyKoolaid : Even so, all our multiple attestations to the existence of Jesus come from a cult dedicating to worshiping Jesus. It's exactly like having multiple attestation from within the cult of Isis for the existence of Isis. For all we know Isis might even be a real goddess, but in terms of reliable history that sort of attestation shouldn't count for anything. A cult will believe whatever random thing they decide to believe, and Jesus was the very core of their belief system, so claims about Jesus are the least trustworthy thing that early Christians could possibly write about. Trusting early Christians about the existence of Jesus would be like trusting early Mormons about the existence of the golden plates. Golden plates and apocalyptic preachers are things that can easily exist, but we should know better than to trust a cult to accurately report about the objects of their worship.

[@pvthitch]

When I was a boy in The 60s, Superman appeared in Action Comics, Superman Comics, World's Finest, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen, Justice League and Adventure Comics (as Superboy.) That's a lot of manuscripts!

[@MrMZaccone]

It lately came to my attention that there are at least 2000 graded copies of Amazing Fantasy #15, the first appearance of Spider-Man. His origin is in New York City, a real place, and there are numerous verifiable historical events and characters contained in the stories surrounding him. This can, by no means, be interpreted to claim that Spider-Man is real.

[@unicyclist97]

When Ehrman said that Paul quotes Jesus at the last supper, he forgot to mention that Paul's source for that was a vision, and it was just Jesus talking to the camera like an instructional video, nobody else was there. He anachronistically calls it "The Last Supper" when that's the gospel version, not Paul's version. Paul called it The Lord's Supper, and the whole point of relaying that vision was to justify having a pagan mystery cult communal meal in Judaism. There are a lot of assumptions underlying Ehrman's statements that the casual observer might miss.

[@avoicecalling3455]

The Last Supper was actually the very common Passover meal that all Jews have. There are variations in the last supper like it being held early, or no lamb being present, but those are artistic brushstrokes. Not pagan mystery cult communal meal

[@Uldihaa]

Wasn't what is now called "The Last Supper" a Passover Seder?

[@RogerOThornhill]

Paul never called it the Lord's Supper; he would have called it something like "δείπνο του κυρίου" aka deípno tou kyríou. There are a lot of assumptions underlying your statements that the casual observer might miss and therefore I'm going to use those to dismiss everything you say. You might argue that that's Greek for Lord's Supper and that you only said Lord's Supper so that a 21st Century English speaking lay person would quickly understand what you were referring, and that I'm being petty for "correcting" a shorthand phrase you didn't really get wrong. You'd be right.

[@josiahvonb3426]

Alot of assumptions.

[@fancieme1359]

@@RogerOThornhill you guys sound so smart😂you're making me feel dumb

[@mykhalable9433]

Thomas really needs to do a collab with Jesus sometime.

[@HolyKoolaid]

Let me know when he comes back.

[@mykhalable9433]

@@HolyKoolaid He's probably showing up to swear in Trump and JFK Jr. Great video!

[@JM1993951]

Well, Paul apparently knows his brother. Maybe Paul can lock that down for us.

[@TheDarkness1]

@@HolyKoolaid He's back and a bit more pissed off this time.

[@unicyclist97]

Great work on arranging the interview, asking the right questions in the right way, and fantastic work on the animation!

[@Starcrash6984]

@23:28 "What would you say to push back against that?" Yeah, what a great interview method of "asking the right questions in the right way" through the use of loaded/leading questions. The animation was nice, though, as it always is.

[@janusatthegate6201]

Egyptians carved their history into stone.

[@EvilXtianity]

Correct. I get responses from challenges about why there are no contemporaneous records of Jesus that it was due to lack of paper at the time. Jesus is God, right? Can't God make paper -- or levitate mountains?

[@ThatTrueChristianGuy]

​@@EvilXtianityProbably. Also you could pick 1,000 leaves. The thing is just because you can do something doesn't mean you will.

[@rivertonhigh-v4t]

Precisely. And the narratives of Osiris and Horus (divine birth . . . divine intervention and miracles . . . moral and spiritual guidance . . . cult following . . . suffering, sacrifice, death and resurrection . . . ) correspond with that of Jesus.

[@jessicamilare178]

​@@EvilXtianitythat doesn't work as a historical argument, because historically we are asking whether there existed a man named Jesus who was from Nazareth and got crucified by Pilate around year 30 C.E.

[@jessicamilare178]

​@@rivertonhigh-v4tyou didn't watch the video, did you? That thing about Osiris and Horus is just not true, it was made up by Kersey Graves, Ehrman explains that at 31:10

[@MichaelYoder1961]

Love Dr. Bart. He makes complicated theological history easy to understand and has a great sense of humour

[@Linuleum]

Hopefully when he retires from teaching he will start his own channel on KZbin

[@Linuleum]

Nvmd I see he has one😁

[@glenncurry3041]

Shame he get's it so wrong!

[@dwo356]

@@glenncurry3041 Such as?

[@glenncurry3041]

@@dwo356 The well established criticism of starting with the end goal of assuming Jesus existed therefore he had to be..... While failing to prove actual existence in the first place. We can argue about whether the little girl's hood was red or not, all day long!

[@anthonypc1]

This guy really cracks himself up! XD

[@chrisbrooks4032]

He’s such a dork when he laughs

[@rogue-like4life]

It makes him seem jolly and it also gives him an arrogance that atheists are drawn to... Something tells me that he is using Bearnaise's techniques of persuasion on purpose.

[@rogue-like4life]

@@Phiwell123 I watched the whole video and I didn't find almost any actual examples of his claims. I'll admit that I haven't read his books yet and I only knew he existed about a week ago, but this specific video didn't convince me of anything except that he's a smug dude who laughs about every few seconds.

[@det.bullock4461]

@@rogue-like4life It's very difficult to not come off as smug when talking about silly stuff like this, it's the same when flat-earthers accuse everyone else of being smug. There is literally no reason to believe there wasn't some random dumbass rabbi called Jesus that accidnetally started a new sect, even today we get plenty of scammers and cult leaders whose followers swear they could perform miracles or apparitions even after their death. This belief that Jesus never existed is essentially a shortcircuit between the choice of abandoning cristianity and living with a society which is permeated with it, on one hand one doesn't believe in the religion but on the other can't quite conceive that a normal person could have started a world religion by either accidentally or on purpose being considered divine by its followers so it follows that if religion is false he didn't exist at all.

[@gregcampwriter]

There's another skeptical option: What if Paul made things up? People lie, especially when motivated by religion.

[@BeachsideHank]

"People lie, especially when motivated by religion." And especially the "power" that religion imbues them with; that surpasses the money even.

[@gctcauto]

Or Paul's vision wjere nothing but Hallucinations inspired by reading the Scriptures one to many times before bed.

[@Mike00513]

Although Paul died as a martyr for his faith and liars make poor martyrs.

[@gregcampwriter]

@@Mike00513 Did he? You can prove that?

[@mattm8870]

@@Mike00513 For Martyr to be convincing. You need to show that the person would have known that their beliefs are true or false, that they were killed for there beliefs and that they had a chance to recant. Plus why dont the Martyr of other regions count including Joseph Smith?

[@Never-mind1960]

Setting aside the patent absurdity of the story. How do you distinguish between a mythic personification and an actual person? The real question should be: Is the consensus of a real person based of a full spectrum of fair consideration, or are there natural biases on certain ancient figures? Why do we automatically assume Zeus is mythic, and not Jesus?

[@Ansatz66]

Is this a reference to the tomb of Zeus where supposedly Zeus was buried in Crete after living a life as a mortal king? Supposedly this was a popular idea among Cretans around 600 BC. The difference is that this was just a fringe idea that never caught on. We have no surviving stories about the reign of Zeus as a mortal king, probably because most followers of Zeus hated the idea for obvious reasons. _"Cretans always lie. For the Cretans even built a tomb, Lord, for you. But you did not die, for you are eternal."_ If the cult of Zeus had thrived and preserved traditional stories about the life of Zeus on earth, then we probably wouldn't assume that Zeus was mythic.

[@blorkpovud1576]

OMG, Jesus and Zeus are not even comparable.

[@bme7491]

I believe Dr. Ehrman accepts a rabbi in ancient Palestine running around preaching the apocalypse. What he rejects are the supernatural claims.

[@octem2251]

We have less empirical evidence to support the existence of people like Socrates or Nebuchadnezzar II, yet we assume they existed. Denying the existence of Jesus is more a personal bias rather than historical fact

[@seanmuir2862]

@@octem2251 We have corroboration for both those men, but none for jesus. Try again

[@magnabosco210]

I find it so curious how Ehrman seems to chuckle at every major revelation that seems to come up. Is this some kind of unconscious affectation? Is he trying to downplay the seriousness of what he’s saying? I find myself wondering if the import of his words would “carry more weight” if he delivered it more direct;ly.

[@helenaconstantine]

No, its because the arguments suggesting that there was no historical Jesus are laughably bad.

[@Jephthahs_Daughter]

It comes off to me as high confidence. As if it would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

[@lnsflare1]

@@Jephthahs_Daughter It came off to me like he was just high. My cousin constantly giggles exactly like that after he takes a few puffs, and it's just as distractingly annoying then.

[@blaidencortel]

I was thinking similar. I found his laugh annoying and highly distracting. Also had me wondering if he was nervous because he knows or suspects his arguments are weak.

[@suffist]

@@helenaconstantine You mean the arguments suggesting that there was a historical Jesus are not just laughably bad, they're not even funny. They're nothing but hearsay and hearsay isn't evidence for anything. You have stories, nothing else.

[@ronb8066]

Well, whether mythical or slightly historical does not really matter that much: all those religions, their gods and their holy books are obviously untrue and nonsensical. If one of them were true, we wouldn't have to believe in it, we wouldn't be debating it. It would be self-evident and overwhelming.

[@HkFinn83]

It does matter if you’re studying history. If you’re thinking about theology or whether you or e a Christian or not, no it doesn’t matter.

[@hullie7529]

Why would it be self evident? An ant is not aware of any fish in the sea and they don't even know any sea exists, yet it does and it's not self evident for them. You seem to be implying that the human mind is capable of having all knowledge possible, but that's just a belief based on nothing at all.

[@whitechocolate2567]

It is self evident and overwhelming for those who have ears to listen to God

[@Kelis98]

@@whitechocolate2567 Except there is nothing there cause god doesn’t exist I have ears and I hear nothing and I never did even when I did believe

[@Dominus_Augustus]

Debate between Dr. Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman needs to happen.

[@penandsword4386]

Bart Ehrman debated Dr Robert Price. When the issues got interesting ... Ehrman flaked off. Dodged. Dipped out. Would not face any real resistance head on. That was the day I lost respect for Dr Ehrman and his historical Jesus model.

[@justin2308]

@@penandsword4386 Ehrman is not a man for debate, that’s for sure. Choosing to go up against an opponent that way when it doesn’t really suit him was foolish.

[@dbunds]

I think the next logical step is to have Dr. Richard Carrier on to present his views.

[@mohammmedbaileys3461]

Bart Erhman failed to impress me with his “knowledge” on the matter, laughing the issues off wasn’t a convincing intellectual answer. I wanted cogent analysis but he was all over the place in his responses

[@esthersmith3056]

@@mohammmedbaileys3461 if you listen to what he says when he laughs off particular ideas -- like all gospels being predominantly copied from mark -- he does explain why he's laughing the ideas off. "the literal text, frankly, is in itself counter-evidence; john isn't copied from mark because the text of john doesnt really contain much text from mark" is fine by itself. sure, he could have gone into literally every single topic in more detail -- because this is an hour-long casual conversation that moves between a large number of topics, not an academic paper. you can go read an academic paper if that's what you want.

[@stylis666]

@@esthersmith3056 Yes, but he also laughs off the idea that the whole of christianity is plagiarized from earlier myths by saying the resurrection idea was never about a human coming back to Earth. That's like saying that almond eyed grey skinned aliens wasn't taken from earlier stories because they had completely different motives and plotlines, oh and by the way, this is also strong evidence that they exist, because you can't make that up (which he literally did with his example). In all fairness to Ehrman on that matter, the questions are amazingly stupidly phrased. The thing we want to know is if the religion has any original ideas and can't just be a logical next step in the natural progression of the evolution of stories. Virgin births was a common theme for demigods and other heroes with supernatural powers. Guess in which gospel it's mentioned. Spoiler: it isn't in Mark, where Jesus isn't a demigod yet. Resurrection was normal for (demi)gods. Blood sacrifice was normal. Human sacrifice was even a common theme in the old testament. Then all the celebrations and symbolism, all taken from other customs, religions, etc., with one exception: using a torture/execution device as a symbol, which is a natural result of mashing together different god myths like virgin birth, resurrection, blood sacrifice. Just because there's no recording of how all these common themes were threaded together into a story doesn't mean there's anything new in it. That would be like writing a melody and then claiming you invented new notes because no one used both the combination of the exact same notes in this exact same order, when you know that every note and even every step from one note to another has been used before and it probably came about by the memory of different note combinations that the writer had specific associations with and just mixed up the associations to create a new narrative. Ehrman also laughed away the birth in Nazareth, when it's mentioned in the gospels with references to old testament "prophecies" where a Nazarene(which is a religious group) will be scoffed and sacrificed. "You can't make that up." Well, you would if that increases your reliability and you want to make your messiah seem humble and coming from a lower class of people and you need him to be a son of man, which was awkwardly changed to son of a r*93 victim who should've been stoned to death for adultery, but you also would if that reinforces the narrative of him fulfilling prophecies where he's said to be a Nazarene and you don't know that's not someone from Nazareth.

[@lhurst9550]

@@mohammmedbaileys3461 Yes I agree, I don't trust someone that laughs that much. (instead of presenting the actual argument)

[@mickmccrohon]

@@mohammmedbaileys3461 Do you believe Jonah lived inside a whale? Convince me.

[@PaulThompsonPaulyWog]

I've read several of Dr. Ehrman's books. This is the first time I've seen him interviewed. Very enlightening! I've heard arguments about the existence of Jesus and always wondered where they stemmed from. This interview has shed some much needed light on the subject. Thanks so much. Now I want to read Heaven And Hell.

[@Omgirrl]

Have you read "Forged"? If not, do it! Most clarifying.

[@PaulThompsonPaulyWog]

@@Omgirrl That was actually the first book I read by Dr. Ehrman. After that I was hooked.

[@2msvalkyrie529]

Swedenborg 👍👍👍 !

[@hypervious8878]

Bart Ehrman is quite a character! Well done for scoring such a fascinating interview with him.

[@bowbowbowman7617]

Really surprised to hear Ehrman straight out state that all the gospels and books in the new testament are "individual sources", but are copying from each other, quite often verbatum. Also settling on the idea that theres all these other sources that the gospels took from, but without any evidence, and relying solely on the "probability" of it and ignoring that they couldve easily embelished. He had no issue to claim mythicists are just making stuff up but wont entertain the idea for the changes from mark to matthew/luke. Theres a growing belief that there wasnt an alternate source that matthew and luke took from, but one just copied the other and mark. Then theres the idea of Jesus being an amalgamation of many people, which Ehrman dismisses outright, because "none of the other jesuses had the same beliefs". It didnt have to be the talking points, beliefs or actions of another jesus, just another person that wanted to attribute it to their jesus.

[@avoicecalling3455]

If you read the biblical narrative (old testament) everything that the Jesus of the old testament says and does is carefully linked. Everything Jesus says is practically quoted from the Hebrew scriptures. Nobody made anything up. Its all very grounded. From a scholarly perspective, Jesus is figuratively the word become flesh

[@bowbowbowman7617]

@@avoicecalling3455 thats fitting your messiah to match the scriptures, does not make it independant accounts, and does not prove authenticity. The hebrews scriptures said that the messiah was __________, so the writers of the new testament made sure their messiah __________.

[@avoicecalling3455]

@@bowbowbowman7617 so much more is going on than just trying to make it fit. I'm speaking strictly from Paul's letters and the four gospels. Strictly literary. A first look at these books and maybe you say "oh theyre just trying to make Jesus be this messiah guy." But if you actually be a good reader and engage in the text, they're doing surprising things with the narrative. One way maybe you can learn what the writers are doing is to read Luke and then read John as if John is an artistic retelling of Luke. He works with all of these running metaphors and weaves in these seemingly unimportant stories that when in context with the other literary devices, really start tracking. Follow the water metaphor, and see how John takes Jesus's dead body and now water comes out of him. It's not some weird old testament promise, its a running metaphor throughout the story that culminates. The other stories don't have anything about water coming out of him. Wouldn't make sense outside of John's Gospel

[@bowbowbowman7617]

@@avoicecalling3455 if anything, youre making my point that these are not independent sources and heavily rely upon / inspired by the previous gospel/sources. A harry potter fan fiction can have beautiful metaphors that wouldnt make sense if youve only read the canon books, but do if you read a specific other fanfic. It doesnt add any truth to it. The contradictions between the gospels also take away the validity of any of their statements. To be clear; Im not advocating the mythicist viewpoint here, Im just targetting those specific arguements of Ehrmans, because the dont really hold creedance

[@tom_curtis]

Ehrman does not say the individual gospels are "individual sources". He says that the sources New Testament scholars have conjectured for the gospels are individual sources. Thus the conjectured Q source (essentially the material common between Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark) is considered a unique source. So is Mark, M (the material in Matthew found in neither Mark nor Luke) and L (the material in Luke found in neither Mark nor Matthew). To that he adds the Gospel of Thomas, the writings of Paul, and the (again conjectured) various sources of John. All of these conjectured sources (except Mark and Paul's writings) are controversial, and some very controversial, so I think Ehrman overstates his case; but significantly less so than do the mythicists (who IMO exhibit all of the scholarly integrety of Q-Anon).

[@Bob-of-Zoid]

Sorry, but I just don't get why Dr. Bart doesn't just say that the evidence for Jesus's existence is purely anecdotal, as well as second hand for the most part, nor do any of the stories line up with each other. It's not backed up by any contemporaries during his lifetime who wrote about much less significant characters than Jeebus supposedly was, and even early christians split into a bunch of sects because they couldn't agree on the story of this Jeesy guy... Josephus was borne after the Jeez supposedly died, and so also got his info second hand... Sorry, but sometimes the lack of evidence, or the supposed evidence being all over the place and incoherent is great evidence that the whole story is just completely made up! I have to agree with the likes of Richard Carrier, who stand on the side of doubt, and say we just don't know. To me the whole story reeks of people so longing for change, they latched onto this Messiah story from the bible, and tried to fabricate one, and since their every attempt to convince people with their grifters failed, they tried to get around it by making one up that happened in the past, so that people couldn't conclusively deny it! Shit the new testament looks hastily written at best, as if they needed a story bad, and ASAP, so they threw out a rough draft, handed it to anyone who could write, grabbed whatever they got, and compiled it! Back then with there being plenty of people who couldn't read, and only hand written texts that were too rare to let everyone handle, it was enough to have one, and tell others what it said and what it means, and never let anyone touch it! Shit, they still do just that today because it's so freaking silly if you just read it without "Guidance". Just say it Bart: There is no good evidence Jesus ever existed. See, it's not that hard.

[@brianalmeida1964]

I agree but his job teaching Biblical Studies at University of Carolina at Chapel Hill depends upon him maintaining a historical Jesus viewpoint. I believe over 90% of New Testament Scholars have to sign an affidavit stating they will not question or teach against the historicity of Jesus before being employed by major Universities!

[@VaughanMcCue]

@Robert English You have put up a great response to Bart's "story", and I felt what Brian Almeida has suggested makes good sense. His comment is not a good argument but certainly seems to be the only explanation. I was disappointed in the R.M. Price vs Bart debate, and I can only think Dr Price was not in the best of health. He does not fling Ad Homs about and conducts himself with the utmost dignity, and being laughed at was hurtful. Back to the evidence(s)

[@lainymag6450]

He said at the very start. History itself is often based on more anecdotal evidence than we would initially think. Rarely is there complete forensic evidence left from 2000 years ago. Historcal consensus is triangulated.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@lainymag6450 Language is strangulated to make it fit, including those who disagree. Contortions abound.

[@mariomario1462]

Get him and Richard carrier to debate

[@bicameralmind6785]

I think we'd all love to see that, but I'm not holding my breath.

[@oscarg7460]

Ehrman fears Carrier.

[@blorkpovud1576]

@@oscarg7460 no. He just doesn't take him seriously.

[@randalltufts3321]

He would publicly destroy him and his laughing off of facts that have been located. He won't look for the evidence because that would ruin his career. Just like all the other apologists. Your right. Carrier sends fools like him to the bottom.because he has the facts and the footnotes. He would never agree to debate him.

[@blaidencortel]

Exactly what I was thinking. I think Carrier makes a far better argument that no human Jesus existed. This guy seems to think we should take the Gospels or the Pauline letters seriously because they CLAIM to have spoken with people who SUPPOSEDLY knew Jesus.

[@RickReasonnz]

You got the animation for Br Dart's chuckles perfect! Love your interviews, you ask really good questions and are so engaged with your guests. Nicely done.

[@BrentBeaver68]

So, different people writing about a person after the fact, with only hearsay and zero contemporary corroboration, proves their existence? So, King Arthur and Robin Hood must exist by this standard, no?

[@JM1993951]

The Atheist response of comparing the Bible as a source for Jesus to a comic book as a source for a superhero is cliched at this point and I try not to use it all the time because it’s expected and unfairly dismissed, but it’s still enough to show why Erhman’s logic is flawed and lazy.

[@HkFinn83]

No, like the Professor explains patiently to you lot again and again, you follow the practices and require the standards of evidence of the historian of that period.

[@Mike00513]

Ok so you must believe Alexander the Great was a myth because our primary sources are 300+ years removed from his life. You also must believe Emperor Nero was invented because we have no surviving contemporary accounts and our primary sources comes from Tacitus and Suetonius writing 55 years after the fact, and Dio Cassius 150 years after the fact. And you must believe The Jewish High Priest Caiaphas was myth as well because our only textual sources for him are the New Testament and Josephus. Decades removed from his life. They must have just been hearsay accounts to right? You shouldn’t apply a double standard because your against Jesus.

[@75wildman]

My thinking leans toward myth. Even if he is a real person, the things he supposedly did are greatly exaggerated.

[@muticere]

I wouldn't be surprised if he's an amalgam of various revolutionaries and thinkers of the time.

[@SnakeAndTurtleQigong]

Agreed

[@LucioFercho]

I believe Jesus existed because his story is too dumb to have been made up, anyone could have invented a better narrative than "my god got crucified, but the body disappeared". The guy must have existed and got a gruesome and pathetic end... then a bunch of stuff got made up and tacked on.

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

@@muticere I think he is an amalgamation and think it's pretty obvious. He sounds like the Egyptian and the story is too similar for me to not think that he wasn't constructed from different stories. I also don't find Josephus to be supportive evidence for Jesus but an amalgamation.

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

@@jjphank ummmmmmm yes we have. Your God doesn't exist

[@bulwinkle]

It strikes me as telling that those inveterate record keepers, the Romans, seem to have entirely missed events that reportedly occurred in Judea in biblical times.

[@suffist]

Especially Pilate killing Jesus and his two cohorts. Where are those records? "Well excuse me? It does say so in the bible." So it must be true, because their god is in fact, "The Truth". (lol) See how this works?

[@bulwinkle]

@@suffist yeah, they are a lot like phlat erfers. They deny scientific knowledge to maintain their beliefs.

[@suffist]

@@bulwinkle Know what else is interesting? Their version of 'truth' is actually the opposite of the actual truth. They've co-opted two words. The word truth & the word fool. Their word truth means the opposite & their word fool means the opposite. But try telling them that. lol

[@Mewse1203]

Yes! Not only that but they have a single Roman source they use as Evidence that Jesus existed...and the author (Tacitus)was born 20 years after Jesus supposedly died. This despite the fact that the evidence is that there were "Christians" in Rome in 64 AD and they were distinguishable from Jews. That's great, but even if true, that doesn't mean Jesus existed or was crucified. It just means that they BELIEVED it to be true. And this was written by a guy who was 9 years old in 64 AD.

[@suffist]

@@Mewse1203 lol, one of their 4 favourites. Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay. Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account. Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts. Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

[@nori_tutor]

"Open up so I can save you." - Save me from what? "From what I'm about to do with you if you don't open it up."

[@alananimus9145]

I like bart but listening to him on this is so frustrating because he doesn't engage. I feel like i am reading the "of course moses existed" arguments all over again. I don't care what the conclusion is but don't strawman.

[@helenaconstantine]

No. he pointed out the evidence. Paul knew Peter and James. All of the different New testament documents (Q, Mark, etc.) would have to be involved in some kind of conspiracy to portray the same fabricated character, Josephus knew of Jesus as a historical figure, etc.

[@JM1993951]

@@helenaconstantine who else knew Peter and James. Did anyone really know “Paul”?

[@alananimus9145]

@@helenaconstantine What evidence did he point out? Seriously timestamp please. As far as Josephus let's grant that he thought Yeshua ben Yosef was a real person. Josephus was born in 37 CE. His brief comment about an obscure founder of an obscure Jewish sect says nothing about if Yeshua was an actual person. Joseph, Yeshua, and James were all extremely common names (if you disagree please say so). We also know you couldn't throw a stone without hitting a Messiah/Christ in Jerusalem at the time. How unbelievable is it that the James and Yeshua mentioned by Josephus and the Jesus from the bible are unrelated? Both Orthodox and Catholic theology state that Mary remained a virgin and the arguments for her virginity go way back. Or let me put it this way if I told you about the baptist preacher "Mathew the brother of Mark" that's not really a great descriptor. Even if you knew the city he lived in that still wouldn't narrow it down. As to the grand conspiracy idea... No. You actually wouldn't need a grand conspiracy. We don't have the early Christian writings. What we do have is the preserved texts of the Greek Diaspora Jews. If you study the theological development of something such as eastern and western Buddhism you can see how things get twisted pretty quickly even within the local native culture. Getting from "Ned Ludd is a fictional person meant to convey a message" to "Ned Ludd was a real guy" is easy. It would have been easier back then. The texts we have are second and third hand accounts and no where do we have a first hand account of a physical Jesus. When you throw into that the *fact* that if there was a Yeshua ben Yosef he was most likely dumped into a mass grave the entire story starts to unravel. Translating a sky Jesus theology to another culture could easily see him being taken out of the sky and placed on earth. Just look at the other major theological shifts that occurred in the process of translating the religion.

[@Augfordpdoggie]

the best evidence for Jesus not existing, is the fact that no one recorded anything about Jesus from the time he was alive

[@billyhw99]

So the best evidence for your position is an argument from silence?

[@rickmarshall5419]

I agree. Jesus was a demigod to these people, so why wait so many years to doctor or to hint at his existence.

[@rivertonhigh-v4t]

Jesus must have existed. The best evidence for this is the plethora of other, well-known and well-documented personas with virtually identical characteristics, such as divine birth . . . divine intervention and performing miracles . . . moral and spiritual guidance . . . cult following . . . suffering, sacrifice, death, martyrdom and resurrection . . . This includes Osiris and Horus from Egyptian Mythology; Adonis, Dionysus, Orpheus, Heracles (Greek Mythology), Ba'al (Canaanite religion), Attis (Phrygia), Tammuz and Inanna (Babylonia); the Roman Romulus; Mithras (Roman-Iranian Mysteries) all centuries BC.

[@rickmarshall5419]

@@rivertonhigh-v4t This false and Dr. Richard Carrier addresses all of these claims as well as proposed evidence piece by piece. I would encourage you to watch his lectures and debates on this topic. He also has a site with tons of information if you are interested.

[@thelyrebird1310]

What I'd like to know is what historical evidence do we have for Paul/Saul and the disciples?

[@suffist]

The same as Jesus probably! More hearsay I would presume.

[@JM1993951]

How can we take the word of a character whose existence is as dubious as the subject of said character’s writing?

[@EvilXtianity]

Paul and Josephus were the same person- Both Paul and Josephus were Roman citizens. Both Paul and Josephus were Pharisees. Both spent time as Roman prisoners. Paul was originally named Saul | Titus Flavius Josephus was formally Joseph ben Matityahu. Paul was a former persecutor of Christians | Josephus had been an enemy of Rome. Paul said that circumcision was not required for Gentile Christians | Josephus maintained that non-Jews did not require circumcision in order to stay among Jews. Paul was "caught away to the third heaven" | Josephus had prophetic dreams. Paul made a defense of Christianity before Agrippa II | Josephus appealed to Agrippa II to attest the truth of what he had written in his history of the Roman/Jewish wars. Both had a friend named Epaphroditus. Both of them were Pharisees. Both were hellenistic Jews. Both are known for their literary works, and both produced their works with upper-class Koine greek. Josephus tells that he knows many ancient dramas. In Acts, there's an episode that narrates Paul's conversion; and the saying "hard to kick against the goad", which has its origin in a drama (written by Jospehus himself?), is used. Paul (paulos) means "small". Josephus mentions Mathhias Curtus as his forefather. Curtus means "small". Paul was in his famous shipwreck when he was on his way to Rome. Josephus also mentions that he was shipwrecked when on his way to Rome. Both were in Rome during the well-known fire in 63/64 AD. Paul spent two years in inprisonment in Caesarea when waiting for his trip to Rome. Josephus was inprisoned for two years during the Jewish war in 67-69 AD and he was apparently kept in Caesarea. He too ended up in Rome. Paul disappears into desert for three years after the Damascus incident. Josephus mentions that he had been in the desert with a hermit named Banus for a period of three years when he was young. After the Jewish war, Josephus became a traitor in the eyes of the Jews, and he lived in Rome, apparently for reasons of safety, and wrote his apologies. Paul became a traitor and a "renegade of the law" in the eyes of the Jews; and there were many attempts to kill him.

[@EvilXtianity]

None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus, they were all written anonymously, none were written within 50 years of the purported time of Jesus, and they all were copied from each other (Matthew and Luke plagiarized about 90% of Mark). Jesus was supposedly put on trial twice, yet there is no record of that. The Bible states that Jesus was recognized as God at birth and met with King Herod and wise men and when they left, Herod ordered the slaughter of all the children in and around Bethlehem age two years old and under, but there are no contemporaneous records of any of that. It was claimed that Jesus fed a crowd of 5,000 with a few loaves of bread and two fish and then afterwards, somehow, there were twelve baskets and all of the were filled with bread... yet none of them documented it. Whichever city Jesus went to, everyone who touched his clothes were healed, but there are no contemporaneous records of that either. Not even when he made mud with his spit and rubbed in into the eyes of a blind man to cure him. It was even written that Jesus made a dead person (Lazarus) become undead. Yet, none of that was documented in any way. The governor (Pilate) supposedly interrogated Jesus twice, but there are no contemporaneous records of that either. After the supposed resurrection of Jesus, there was three hours of complete darkness, a great earthquake, all the graves opened and the corpses rose out and walked into town and appeared to "many" -- yet, there are no contemporaneous records of any of that. According to the Bible, Jesus was recognized at birth by the entire region as the prophesied messiah and was greeted by the King Herod as the literal god who created the universe and he was running around all over the place for thirty years performing miracles -- yet, no one memorialized any of that in any way. Jesus himself left no archaeological evidence of any kind, such as artifacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. Wouldn't you think if a baby was recognized as God at birth and met with the king and this God was walking around town for thirty years, performing miracles and raising the dead, that someone would have noticed and documented it?

[@suffist]

@@EvilXtianity It's funny how the 3 Maji never wrote about meeting the son of a god, and the star in the East was seen by nobody and there are no Roman records of Pilate killing anyone called Jesus or his two cohorts. It's all just stories with mostly fictional characters with some real stuff thrown in from the times. Like King Herod, & Pontius Pilate.

[@rloomis3]

Very interesting discussion, and I really appreciate the fact that your knowledge of and familiarity with the subject allowed you to ask highly relevant and probing questions.

[@blaidencortel]

Good point because he asked great questions.

[@austinapologetics2023]

Yeah, HK is not very familiar with these subject

[@rloomis3]

@@austinapologetics2023 Pardon me if I'm skeptical of such an evaluation from someone with "apologetics" right there in his username.

[@austinapologetics2023]

@@rloomis3 well that would just be a genetic fallacy. It would be wrong of me to dismiss HK because his username is a term used in reference to people who gullibly believe in religious claims. But this isn't my assessment, many have pointed out his errors. In his series titled "nothing fails like Bible History" he knowingly uses outdated scholarship that is no longer true or relevant and misrepresents his opponents. For example he called an egyptologist who is also a Christian named David Faulk a creationist which is objectively not true and Faulk made it clear himself that he wasn't and yet HK never corrected himself.

[@rloomis3]

@@austinapologetics2023 Is it a fallacy to assume that, if your username is an honest representation of your stance on issues relating to Christianity, then of course you're going to take exception to any argument that doesn't support the party line of the religion?

[@Elkator955]

It might be important for scholars, and hobby arguers. But if we are real, I've seen the story of John Smith, I've seen the rise of Scientology. All you need is one lucky con man. Jesus was probably real, a real con man with a politician's smile. A human can be very inconsistent in their teaching. People of power, even small circles of power often turn into hypocrites.

[@rloomis3]

*Joseph Smith

[@Ansatz66]

Or maybe Paul was the con man and Jesus was Paul's Moroni. Or more likely, Paul took a legend about a crucified messiah and blew it up into a full religion.

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

@@Ansatz66 We'll never know for certain, but I find the "spiritual vision" Savior inserted into history for the benefit of new converts and outsiders (many references to inner teachings for those who can see and hear) most likely. Paul's success in spreading an interesting cult was fascinating, and I suspect it was tailored to his audience.

[@dande3139]

Jesus is a VERY reliable tool for con men.

[@mouthpiece200]

There is ZERO evidence he existed. Zero, zilch, nada, none. Every word of his life story is about the fulfilling of some prophecy or other.

[@Nickidemic]

Often here, Bart laughed in response to a difficult question saying "no scholar takes it seriously" ...they do though. He claimed that people are making an exception when trying to question the very existence of Jesus, when he himself used the example of the cult of Iris "you wouldn't look for the historical existence of Iris, she's a god!" -- Why can't we use this logic for Jesus! He said he was a god! If we don't even attempt to see if Iris was a real person, why are we so deadset on not questioning if Jesus was a real person? This quote is pretty emblematic of what I see as Bart's failing: "nobody in the ancient world denied that Jesus existed" - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's how that response goes, now isn't it? We can't make an exception for Jesus, Bart. I think if biblical historians outwardly argued that Jesus was a mythical person, funding for biblical research would dry up. I don't mean to be dismissive. But the ones with an agenda are the ones giving the believers what they want.

[@dande3139]

I was surprised at how often this was his response. That's usually the response you get from an unreliable source; laugh and call your opposition stupid.

[@MultiJade]

"Why can't we use this logic for Jesus! He said he was a god!" Bart Ehrman's theory si that Jesus never claimed to be a god and that this was a later interpretation by his followers. You can agree or disagree with this, but it is a key part of his argument.

[@EvilXtianity]

_"..."nobody in the ancient world denied that Jesus existed" - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."_ More importantly, no one during the purported time of Jesus ever asserted that God was walking around town for thirty years performing miracles.

[@JM1993951]

The thing is, for Bart to eat and have a roof over his head…..he kind of needs to make an exception for Jesus.

[@fredericdouglas3574]

It is very disappointing to see Bart Ehrman resort to laughing and making inconsistent arguments here. His books have been eye-opening, instructive, and promoting a common sense view of the New Testament. His interview here leans in the opposite direction.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

Of course Jesus never existed , even Paul never puts him here on Earth but in a spiritual realm , Philo of Alexandria , born twenty years before Jesus and died twenty years after Jesus , never mentions him and he was a religious scholar that was aware of the 'Savior' craze during his lifetime .

[@unicyclist97]

And Philo did come up with a magical character very similar to Jesus, and quotes a passage where the unquoted next line says his name is Jesus.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@unicyclist97 Like saying his name was John today , Jesus being very common at that time .

[@didymus3348]

"even Paul never puts him here on Earth but in a spiritual realm" Galatians 4:4 "But when the time had fully come, God sent His Son, *born of a woman, born under the law,*" Romans 1:3: "regarding His Son, who *was a descendant of David according to the flesh*" Not sure why you people are so desperate to deny Jesus' historicity. You're as bad as creationists in this regard.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

@@didymus3348 Because he doesn't exist outside of the gospels , stories written by anonymous authors and no original documents but copies of copies of copies . Check out Kenneth Humphrey's Jesus Never Existed .

[@didymus3348]

@@liberalinoklahoma1888 would you admit you were wrong about Paul not placing Jesus on earth?

[@tim-climber84]

I feel like he strawmans good myth theories and disregards the cultural influences at the time. I think Carrier has a far more convincing perspective. The shorter Jesus reference is the son of Damneus who went on to further his political career. The longer passage is completely out of context of the surrounding passages, so, again, I have yo side with Carrier on this one. Also, the fact that no Christian quotes him until the fourth century.

[@blaidencortel]

Bingo! I wrote a similar comment as I find Carrier way more persuasive. The Pauline Letters and the Gospels, by themselves, cannot be taken seriously as an argument the Jesus was even a real dude. Why does this guy disregard all the other cultural influences of the wider eastern Mediterranean? I’m wondering if he’s so dismissive because he knows how damning they are to his argument.

[@JM1993951]

Erhman has carved out a niche for himself as a non-believer who is willing to say Jesus existed. Don’t underestimate the staying power that staking out this position affords him. The problem is that the “evidence” that convinces Bart is no more convincing than the evidence that convinces believers.

[@rG1vZ]

True but i think he made valid points on some mythicist beliefs and asking for literary sources and evidence. To me it looks like Jesus was a real person but it is his deeds and claims that is in question

[@tim-climber84]

@@rG1vZ for me, it’s the fact that Phylo of Alexandria was writing a lot Jewish angelology and in it is a Jesus who is the first born of god and god’s high priest. The Jewish people were ripe for a dying and rising god syncretism. As for Paul, the fact that he puts others’ resurrection visions on the same level of his and doesn’t seem to indicate any knowledge of a pre-resurrection Jesus interacting with people makes it more likely to me that there wasn’t a physical Jesus. Early Christians debated the historical Jesus too actually, so it’s not something to be harrumphed the way Erhman does.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@rG1vZ I think we need to read and understand what a specific claimant believes rather than take it from someone who has a vested interest in misquoting. We could find one we would dismiss because their methodology was faulty, and their conclusion is still fitting. ChristInsanity could be accurate, but some of the youtube cheer squad, like Daft-listen-to-me-Dorky-dorkins, ensure the superstition is easy to dismiss. If born of a woman is enters the realm of compelling as evidence, then I am born of a horse because my mother nags me to grow up and get out of her basement and find a job.

[@fred_derf]

The people who don't question the existence of jesus also don't question the existence of Moses or Noah.

[@HolyKoolaid]

I questioned both and think Jesus probably existed as a Galilean apocalyptic teacher but Noah and Moses probably didn't exist at all.

[@unicyclist97]

But Bart is fully aware that Moses and Noah didn't exist. I think your logic doesn't work.

[@fred_derf]

@@unicyclist97, writes _"But Bart is fully aware that Moses and Noah didn't exist. I think your logic doesn't work."_ OK, Mr. Overly Pedantic. When I said "The people" I was speaking generally and did not intent it to be an absolute statement.

[@natew.7951]

Obvious lie, good look for the mythicists. (Almost no historical scholar thinks Moses or Noah were real people, yet they almost all believe that Jesus was) When you say such clear falsehoods it's hard to take mythicists seriously.

[@fred_derf]

@@natew.7951, writes _"historical scholar"_ Please quote the portion of my post where I specified "historical scholars".

[@gerardhermus8297]

Though being the first to admit that I'm not a Biblical scholar, I'm more convinced by Richard Carrier's analysis. Carrier's analysis using religious / cultural context is very convincing to me. Like Sing-contest shows, or scripted reality shows, back then virgin birth, resurrection deities were all the rage. Plus you just have to look at how meme's spread across the internet to get a fair understanding of human intrinsic desire to participate in a cultural fad. So, a tribe saw the cultures around them having a grandiose story about mythical saviors and they adopted it to create a savior tailored to their culture. Sprinkle perceived religious corruption into the mix, add some Roman suppression and you will end up with a story similar to what the new testament describes. Also, again not a historian or scholar, but I'm totally unconvinced with " X people wrote about him so he must have existed". Just as an example, I'm sure that the Warhammer universe has many separate authors writing about characters within that universe. That doesn't make it true and I sure hope that future historians don't think that it could have been because separate writers wrote about the same characters with some main background story consistency.

[@blaidencortel]

YES, thank you! I find Carrier’s arguments against the historicity of Jesus are far more compelling than this guy. The idea we should accept the Pauline Letters and the Gospels as a valid source because they claim to have known people who supposedly hung out with Jesus seems like an awful stretch to me. Your Warhammer reference is hilarious yet cogent. The Emperor Protects!

[@EvilXtianity]

@@blaidencortel _"...the Pauline Letters and the Gospels as a valid source because they claim to have known people who supposedly hung out with Jesus..."_ Paul only asserted to have seen a bright light. None of the Gospels were written by a witness to Jesus, and they were all written after 70 AD (and copied from each other).

[@kathryngeeslin9509]

The brother of Jesus may or may not have been a biological brother or a religious brother; are we not all to be brothers and sisters in Christ (if one believes). And I have heard miraculous stories of a Russian incarnation and countless others. I know the internet speeds the spread, but I would have thought it would slow the changes (a la "telephone" or "whispers") but it doesn't. Modern authors legally state "based on no real persons living or dead", yet admit their characters are indeed amalgamations of people they know. Jesus or Yeshua being a common name and preacher a common occupation and crucifixion a common end, I will not claim impossibility for the combination, but I definitely lean toward the mythic position (not that it matters to me beyond a curiosity), and certainly consider the totality of "his" biography mythic. Carrier makes excellent sense to me.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@kathryngeeslin9509 _"The brother of Jesus..."_ According to the Bible, Jesus had four brothers and at least one sister.

[@gerardhermus8297]

@@kathryngeeslin9509 Well put. Though as a biologist, I'd say that we do indeed all share common ancestors and we could colloquially describe that as being brothers and sisters. No religion needed to make that claim. Regarding the telephone game, we just have to look at the crazy amount of pandemic misinformation that is spread right now. The telephone game premise is as applicable as ever. The problem being that nobody checks the other persons source, all stories evolve via misquotes. The most juicy misquotes have the best chance of surviving and making offspring of their own. I believe there are even modern examples of a people who were attributed healing powers.. which they themselves fervently denied. Yet, those stories kept on going. I fail to remember the name of the person, but I think it was in Africa that a small cult started around this premise. And there are many cults to pick from otherwise. All of them based on aggrandizing one persons abilities. We might even be looking at an innocent person who didn't want part of it, but simply became the center point of a cult.

[@claybfx]

I like Ehrman on everything but this subject. I think his reasons for dismissing scholarship on this matter simply don't meet the appropriate level of scrutiny.

[@lungfish]

As for why Paul would say he knew James and Peter: First, Paul is invested in selling this myth, and is a major builder of it. His motive is Hellenistic reform of Judaism, e.g. abolishing circumcision and providing an immortal soul. He does this by telling of a Messiah that taught what he wants. He wants to claim the Messiah was real to sell his vision. I think James and Peter were likely real people, but it is possible they were complicit, being deceptive about their relationship with Jesus to add credibility to the story. Everyone is a "brother of Jesus" after all (Matt 12 48). But Mark was the first to flesh out the details of the narrative in traditional mythic fashion, based on Paul, four decades after Jesus supposedly lived, likely in the immediate wake of the Siege of Jerusalem.

[@alanw505]

In order for Jesus to have floated on a cloud into heaven would require the complete breakdown of the immutable laws of physics. End of story.

[@chipjohnson9283]

Magic!! 😆

[@lnsflare1]

I mean, technically speaking even if that happened and His existed, all that would mean is that we don't have a succulently comprehensive understanding of the laws of physics to understand how that happened. Now the Apologists just need to provide any actual proof that it ever happened in the first place.

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

Acts 1:9 is the funniest gag in the whole book. Belief in Ptolemaic cosmology in the 21st Century is hilarious.

[@JeyPeyy]

The laws of physics as we know them are drawn from observations, we can't be sure they're immutable even if it seems very likely.

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

@Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus supposedly had a functioning human body. It would have been subject to lack of atmospheric pressure and radiation. Whoever wrote Acts had no idea about these facts. The author believed in Ptolemaic cosmology, seven crystal spheres, etc. Now you will claim another miracle, n'est-ce pas?

[@DriverGuy23]

I have no doubt that some dude named Jesus existed, just like there are many guys names Jesus today. But, the dude named Jesus with superpowers is just a fairy tale, nothing more.

[@kathybrem880]

There was no ‘J’ during that time period

[@jessicamilare178]

​@@kathybrem880"Jesus" is just the English version of "Yeshua" (in Aramaic) or "Iesous" (in Greek).

[@dande3139]

"Reading the sources", there were the Docetics (2 John), who were a sect of Christians who did not believe Jesus came in the flesh, but came in spirit only. It was a VERY early Christian dispute, Dr Ehrman did not address. Not to mention ALL the greco-Roman influences into Christianity.

[@derekgoncz7970]

They still thought he lived as a spirit the same way you and I do just without a physical body. Docetism is different from mythicism.

[@hylomorpher]

​@@derekgoncz7970 Correct. Docetists think that Jesus lived a human life on earth but that his human body was an illusion. That differs from mythicism, which claims that Jesus never lived on earth.

[@ThePsychoticnut]

"It could be that Luke's copying Matthew or Matthew's copying Luke but there are very very good reasons to think that's ain't happening." Such as?

[@helenaconstantine]

If you look at the specific parallel passages, trying to reconcile the tiny differences often suggest a third text--this is verified in the case where they both follow Mark, changing that text in slightly different ways, and is good evidence that both Mt and Lk follow a third document Q rather than one the other.

[@EvilXtianity]

Matthew and Luke plagiarized about 90% of Mark en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels

[@danvee3928]

Such as.... It won't fit my narrative. Evangelicals are the main audience for my books. Better no piss them off.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@@danvee3928 better not piss off evangelicals? That’s literally ALL Bart has done for the last two decades haha

[@Iamwrongbut]

To the OP, I’d look up Mark Goodacre’s views on Q and the synoptic problem. He has a lot of good points he makes isn’t he research he has done.

[@godlikemonolith]

Bad framing of the counter argument reducing it to its most basic concept to a straw man it isn’t good debate even if the evidence points towards the validity of the position.

[@djfrank68]

I’m no PhD or scholar and I’m certainly not as smart as Dr Ehrman. However I just can’t get on board with some of the conclusions he comes. I don’t dispute his facts, but don’t always agree with the way he interprets them.

[@JM1993951]

His comment “they KNEW he existed”, referring to whoever wrote the gospels and other historians of the time is very problematic. How do we know who THEY were or what they knew? How can a source prove Jesus’ existence when we can’t even prove the source’s existence, identification, and time period? It smacks of confirmation bias. He can’t be doing it just for the book sales and lecture fees. I’m genuinely curious (and concerned) why an historian would accept such weak “evidence”.

[@305thief8]

Jesus being born of a woman?? Him having a brother? His brother is mentioned by Josephus and other sources...Jesus appearing amongst the disicples??? I believe Bart even said Jesus preaches among you guys??? If so how is that not convincing??

[@bolanmoonward3483]

@@305thief8 Which woman? Paul doesn't specify, but uses poetic language, which is common in mythical development. Some think that "brother" for James, in Paul, was an honorific. Without the "who was called Christ", the context of the arrest of James should lead to the view that the Jesus of whom he was brother was a previous high priest, Jesus son of Sie (IIRC). Since the appearance of Jesus Christ to Paul must have been a vision (hallucination), it seems quite reasonable that appearances to others were of the same nature. For Bart to take the appearances claimed by Paul to be evidentiary, he'd have to believe in the resurrection, which, as I understand, he does not. I'm suspecting a hypocritical double standard on his part, despite his contributions to the field of the History of Christianity.

[@Kev_Partner]

Wait a minute - mythicists don't claim that Paul wasn't talking about a "real" person when he was telling stories in his letters, what they claim is that when Paul talks about meeting Jesus' resurrected body, he didn't mean that it was an actual zombie but that it was a vision. So, Paul is, therefore, not a witness.

[@hamiltoncox7651]

This video is titled "The historical verdict on Jesus" as if the case is closed. This is one man's opinion, not the definitive verdict on the issue. The good Doctor uses the New Testimate as his historical source. Other scholars claim that these sources have little to no validity and do not make a case for a historical Jesus. As an example, he puts a great deal of faith in the historicity of Acts whereas other scholars believe it is cribbed from Josephus.

[@EvilXtianity]

"As an example, he puts a great deal of faith in the historicity of Acts whereas other scholars believe it is cribbed from Josephus." Paul and Josephus were the same person- Both Paul and Josephus were Roman citizens. Both Paul and Josephus were Pharisees. Both spent time as Roman prisoners. Paul was originally named Saul | Titus Flavius Josephus was formally Joseph ben Matityahu. Paul was a former persecutor of Christians | Josephus had been an enemy of Rome. Paul said that circumcision was not required for Gentile Christians | Josephus maintained that non-Jews did not require circumcision in order to stay among Jews. Paul was "caught away to the third heaven" | Josephus had prophetic dreams. Paul made a defense of Christianity before Agrippa II | Josephus appealed to Agrippa II to attest the truth of what he had written in his history of the Roman/Jewish wars. Both had a friend named Epaphroditus. Both of them were Pharisees. Both were hellenistic Jews. Both are known for their literary works, and both produced their works with upper-class Koine greek. Josephus tells that he knows many ancient dramas. In Acts, there's an episode that narrates Paul's conversion; and the saying "hard to kick against the goad", which has its origin in a drama (written by Jospehus himself?), is used. Paul (paulos) means "small". Josephus mentions Mathhias Curtus as his forefather. Curtus means "small". Paul was in his famous shipwreck when he was on his way to Rome. Josephus also mentions that he was shipwrecked when on his way to Rome. Both were in Rome during the well-known fire in 63/64 AD. Paul spent two years in inprisonment in Caesarea when waiting for his trip to Rome. Josephus was inprisoned for two years during the Jewish war in 67-69 AD and he was apparently kept in Caesarea. He too ended up in Rome. Paul disappears into desert for three years after the Damascus incident. Josephus mentions that he had been in the desert with a hermit named Banus for a period of three years when he was young. After the Jewish war, Josephus became a traitor in the eyes of the Jews, and he lived in Rome, apparently for reasons of safety, and wrote his apologies. Paul became a traitor and a "renegade of the law" in the eyes of the Jews; and there were many attempts to kill him.

[@missironmouse]

@@EvilXtianity this is an incredible parallel

[@Keira_Blackstone]

@@missironmouse it's cherry picking in order to create a conspiracy theory about someone who's been dead for 2 thousand years. I would expect if you actually looked at the full body of their actions, there would be a massive number of differences not listed here. it's selectively choosing fact to support a specific narrative- much like religion does.

[@EvilXtianity]

@@Keira_Blackstone _"...a conspiracy theory about someone..."_ :-)))

[@scottlee6534]

@@Keira_Blackstone oh yeah? Well you've never seen Paul and Josephus in the same room at the same time. Discount that one.

[@beamoscrilla7691]

I’d like to hear a Richard carrier interview or even debate with Bart

[@stephengasaway3624]

I love that in the beginning, you listed 6 mythicists... 5 doctors, professors, authors... and GE. I'm pretty sure GE is astonished to be listed amongst such storied company.

[@KaitlynChloe]

He was confused why he was up there and not someone like Dr. Raphael Lataster who has a peer reviewed book on this actual subject…

[@navigario]

Always nice to see your channel. Concerning "mysticism", today, the man to beat is Dr. Carrier. Dr. Ehrman needs to address Dr. Carrier's thesis in a scholar way and not disqualifying him. Ask Dr. Ehrman to debate Dr. Carrier and not to avoid him. It's getting awkward to see falatious arguments from Dr. Ehrman like comparing mysticism vs historicity with creationism vs evolution. Thanks for your channel.

[@navigario]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJezp4N_d9mJrrc

[@navigario]

Actually, there is another guy. I didn't know... Dr. Raphael Lataster. kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHTMpIlsnbygaKc

[@unicyclist97]

Dr Lataster is evaluating the opposing arguments rather than making one of his own. He is very good at pointing out the logical flaws though.

[@nriqueog]

A basic understanding on how the Romans used Religion to keep control over their conquered territory will show anyone with an open mind that Jesus is purely mythical.

[@grantcarpenter6685]

I question Bart Ehrman's certainty that a historical Jesus existed. He kept laughing and claiming the existence of a historical Jesus was obvious, but he provided no substantive historical evidence to corroborate this, apart from some fanciful accounts of Roman polytheists declaring their hatred of Jesus. How does Ehrman even know that they never doubted the claims of the Christians?

[@miyojewoltsnasonth2159]

@Grant Carpenter That's a good point.

[@JaimeNyx15]

I'd consider Tacitus and Josephus (not a polytheist, btw) pretty substantial sources, and I'd hardly call their works "fanciful accounts". And they clearly did doubt Christian claims of Jesus's divinity; it's just interesting that they don't doubt the dude lived.

[@grantcarpenter6685]

@@JaimeNyx15 1) The Testimonium Flavianum is likely a 4th century forgery from Eusebius, considering it was written in 4th century Latin. 2) Tacitus was referring to someone named Chrestus, which doesn't necessarily add up to a historical Jesus.

[@JaimeNyx15]

@@grantcarpenter6685 1) That's not a widely accepted assertion. Eusebius originally wrote the response in Koine Greek, for one thing (just like Josephus's works), and a great deal of the text is seen as appropriately Josephan in style. There are definitely Christian interpolations at the very least, as Bart said, but calling it entirely a forgery is contentious, at the very least. 2) Tacitus called the leader "Christus", actually. The "e" was in "Chrestianos", which he was calling Christians. Not an uncommon variant of their name in the early days. And we know Christians existed in that time, so the idea that Nero burned a bunch of Christians that were actually following some random other guy named Christus who was also crucified by Pontius Pilate is a bit far-fetched. I'd need another reference to this other supposed Christus guy who isn't Jesus to entertain that notion. Imo, Occam's razor is that he was just referring to Jesus.

[@pmtoner9852]

I find Bart's argument of Jesus' historicity based on academic inertia less than convincing. The entrenched academia made the same arguments for Moses Historicity in the 1970's and that has been thoroughly debunked.

[@MendicantBias1]

Moses is a critical character in the Old Testament. Since it is almost certain he did not exist it shouldn’t be surprising other biblical characters were invented to serve a purpose. Paul and early Christians needed a real Jesus, not just some spacelord battling the devil. Hence the gospels as historical fiction that euhemerized Jesus as a man in history.

[@byorg8174]

Keep clutching your pearls and believing in nonsense....

[@pmtoner9852]

@@byorg8174 ??

[@mildredmartinez8843]

I recently attended the Faithless Forum which you and other atheists organized. It was terrific event and i had the opportunity to interact with many wonderful people. I want to thank you personally for the gracious help you afforded me. One suggestion for the next forum would be to allow some time for attendees to interact on a more personal level with the speakers. Time could be allotted for small groups to convene with some speakers in a smaller setting. I commend you for your work and hope to see you at the next FF.

[@reeseexplains8935]

Wow. This is amazingly researched and well done. Congrats on getting Bart Ehrman on your channel. I have read two of his books and there very scholarly and informative

[@cbmacs]

Ehrman's pre-2012 books are scholarly and informative, not so much his book in the last 9-10 years

[@papasitoman]

Please explain how.

[@benjamindover5676]

@@cbmacs Really? I don't think they hold up very well at all. That is why he gets that nervous laugh when called out on his misinformation.

[@mrmaat]

44:10 Ehrman sounds like a Christian apologist when he uses the criterion of embarrassment. Jesus came from Nazareth because one of the main themes of the gospels is that of the Last becoming the First, the least being the greatest, humble origins to apotheosis. It actually makes more sense for the narrative to be mythical given the thematic structure.

[@natew.7951]

But Matthew and Luke tried very hard to pretend that Jesus DIDN'T come from Nazareth. They both made up different birth stories to pretend that he was born in Bethlehem. His being from Nazareth clearly was at odds with the story they wanted to tell.

[@unicyclist97]

Jesus was associated with Nazareth because of a "prophecy" calling him a "Nazorean", which doesn't actually mean "from Nazareth". It's pure myth.

[@natew.7951]

@@unicyclist97 exactly. Matthew knew that Jesus was from Nazareth so he made up a prophecy to explain it.

[@fudgeweasel]

He sounds remarkably like an apologist for a hell of a lot of this video.

[@proudfootz]

@@natew.7951 - There are different stories about Jesus because people writing about that character were free to write whatever they wanted to.

[@unicyclist97]

Ehrman said we have "a dozen sources that are independent of each other" How did he establish this independence? Are they independent in the same way that A West Side Story is independent of Romeo and Juliet?

[@Mike00513]

That is a loaded question.

[@unicyclist97]

@@Mike00513 of course it isn't. There's a clear "yes" or "no" option. What did you think was loaded about it?

[@benjalucian1515]

Erhman is lying.

[@himarkburdett9378]

In the times of Herod there were many people crucified who claimed they were sent from God. And Jesus was a very common name then so when you talk about Jesus which one do you mean? So is it impossible that more than one Jesus was crucified? Quite possible that stories of different Jesus's got merged together and added to.

[@Onwaxwings]

Did the letter j even exist then? I though the letter was fairly newer

[@JM1993951]

That’s as much as I’m willing to concede given the “evidence”. Most “evidence” is just taking the word of the authors; authors who are quite mysterious themselves. The magic is obviously nonsense. But it is exceedingly difficult to believe that all of the compiled writings are about one man.

[@suffist]

There are no Roman records of Pilate killing anyone named Jesus, or his two cohorts. It says so in the bible, nowhere else.

[@emptyhand777]

@@suffist - are there any records of Pilate releasing prisoners, like he supposedly did with Barabas? Was this a tradition as the Gospels claim?

[@suffist]

@@emptyhand777 Nope! As I said, it only says so in the bible. The tomb is nonsense too. We all know what the Romans did with the crucified. They were left to rot where they were crucified as an example. Especially poor carpenters who tell everyone to throw everything they own away and to follow them. This whole taken down after three days and resurrecting has more to do with prophecy than actual truth. It's nothing but a story in an old book. That's been proved wrong on much about everything it says. Not just about Jesus, but everything we now know about the natural world around us, and the now known universe. It's just plain wrong and can be proved so!

[@obamatime1634]

Bart hardly being able to take these mythisist questions seriously is the highlight of my day thus far.

[@zachfinemusic]

This is one of the most interesting South Park episodes I’ve seen.

[@eddieking2976]

Still would like to see Dr. Erhman debate Dr. Carrier.

[@van-hieuvo8208]

"Why would anybody make it up?" is a monstrously stupid question. The only honest answer is "I don't know". They're not alive so I can't ask them, and I'm not gonna pretend I know why they made it up. The only thing I can do is guess, and your guess of the resurrection is as good as my guess that it did not happen. I cannot take apologists seriously because they only have ridiculous arguments like this.

[@druidriley3163]

Agree. Best answer is "Why not?" People make up stuff all the time about everything.

[@unicyclist97]

At 17:18 Ehrman makes a series of rapid-fire false claims that evaporate when you look at what the original context and wording was.

[@unicyclist97]

"Paul quotes Jesus" Paul's cited sources: Visions and scripture. Not an argument for historicity. "He knows Jesus' disciple Peter" This is false. He knows the apostle Peter. Ehrman is anachronistically confusing a fictional character from the gospels with Paul's real rival. "He knows Jesus' brother James" This is false. Ehrman is anachronistically assuming that the fictional James from the gospels is the same James that Paul met when he went to see Peter. The regular Christian James that Paul said was not an apostle. It takes a leap of faith to turn brother James the Christian into a literal birth sibling of Jesus, something Paul never even implied was possible. "He talks about Jesus being born of a woman" This is false. Paul didn't say "born" and explicitly said it was an allegory. Ehrman himself is the one who publicly demonstrated the Christians guiltily trying to change the wording of this passage. "He had disciples" This is false. Paul never even used the word. Ehrman should be ashamed for spreading this direct and obvious lie. "He was a a Jew" Irrelevant as both mythicism and historicity fit this prophetic requirement. "He ministered to Jews" Did he? Where? When? What did he do? How did Paul know?

[@michaelcallahan4180]

Yeah it really is baffling. It's almost like he didnt read that 700 page mythicist book "twice" He's a creature of the ivory tower. Love some of his work but it's all authority mongering and acceptance of traditional views when it comes to biblical criticism proper, he only ever rolls up his sleeves when he's weeding out copyist errors from a thousand manuscript fragments. Everything else he opines on is traditional

[@unicyclist97]

@@michaelcallahan4180 he didn't even read it once. Such a shame when he could have learned so much.

[@jonfromtheuk467]

@@unicyclist97 feel free to write a book - Bart is big enough to attract counter arguments to intrigue a myriad of publishers in the same way anti Dawkins people sell books.

[@Thagomizer]

Tell me you haven't read Paul without telling me you haven't read Paul.

[@Will-uu9kh]

Bart has to do a better job with the Epistles than “read them”. Dr carrier’s research into Paul has shown rather convincingly that they do not reliably show Paul representing an earthly Jesus. All of the points he mentioned are addressed and countered in Dr Carrier’s book, David Fitzgerald’s book, and some other scholarship as well. Also, mythicists have not invented or interpolated any additional deities in their work. I didn’t like Bart’s misrepresentation of their case.

[@AnthroJoe]

Richard Carrier would be taken more seriously by his peers if he were less prone to knee-jerk ad-hominem-ladened tirades whenever he is criticized. Carrier is NOT a Paulist. His study of Paul is iconoclastic to say the least. I am being charitable here. His views are not taken seriously by specialists. The way for him to gain credibility is to publish more. He cannot continue to cite one relevant book and one relevant article for the rest of his career. And he has to actually care about the opinions of his peers for his arguments to stick. The mythicist position does not have a single unified refutation of the historical consensus. Carrier (for all his faults) knows this, and competently refutes most of the howlers.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

It appears that Jesus can be anything you want him to be. Just like God.

[@unicyclist97]

To be fair, Bart has no idea what Carrier's case is as he refuses to read it. His ignorance is self-inflicted.

[@Will-uu9kh]

@@AnthroJoe well put. I would say though that Carrier’s position on Paul isn’t unique. Alvar Ellegard came to the same conclusion 20 years ago. Albeit his take on Jesus is Historicist in a way, though Bart would no doubt try to chuckle his way through Ellegard’s book too. I don’t think it’s fair either to call Carrier’s research iconoclast. If he is being honest about his intentions, his research was only aimed at finding any evidence for the historical Jesus. Just because his conclusions are contrary to the norms doesn’t mean that he had malicious intent with his research. He is a trained historian after all. Have you read Carrier’s books? At least on the historicity of Jesus? It at the very least presents a case that deserves a challenge. For it to go unanswered makes it seem all the more impressive. Finally, Carrier is hardly prone to tirades one must give the man credit on that. Certainly no more than Bart. Dr. Ehrman disrespects the lot of them any chance he gets. Anything he’s done on mythvision is evidence of that.

[@AnthroJoe]

@@unicyclist97 Ehrman has no obligation to read an obscure figure's small contributions to a discipline. Carrier has nothing but disparage him, and Ehrman knows the general opinion of Carrier among his peers. Price at least has a respectable BODY of work. He earned the respect of his peers even if they disagree with him. Carrier has published one or two relevant things and is primarily an online atheist activist who engages in flame wars with critics. And mythicism is not rooted in his primary training, but is a hobby horse Joel, what do you think Carrier's most significant contribution is that Ehrman unfairly ignores?

[@glennthompson1971]

isn’t it interesting as kids we were told the gospels were factual accounts of jesus, written in his time. and most people live their whole lives never questioning this “fact”. why aren’t schools required to teach that the first gospels were written 40-65 years after his supposed death?

[@benjalucian1515]

Schools aren't supposed to teach religion. Better question, why aren't churches teaching this?

[@unicyclist97]

65 is pretty low for an upper bound, given Luke's use of the Antiquities.

[@timeshark8727]

While is it very likely that the Jesus stories were based on 1 or more real people, it is absolutely hilarious watching Christians try, and often fail, to support the claim that Jesus existed. The evidence for Jesus' existence is amazingly poor.

[@ryeclansen7371]

Regarding the comments made on Paul here; If the chronology of Paul as presented here, being present at the stoning of Stephen a couple of years after Jesus’ death, and before that being a Pharisee, and being converted on the road to Damascus a few years later, then writing his letters in the 50’s, is true then Paul must have been a contemporary of Jesus. Paul claims to have been a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a leader of Jews. Studied at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). He had been given authority to persecute the Christians. He could not have come out of nowhere (Tarsus) and then suddenly risen to the top. If Paul was who he said he was (and what Luke makes him out to be) he must have been around Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, no matter how you figure it. As a young, ardent Pharisee he must have run into Jesus, maybe even had an argument, witnessed Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, been there at the cleansing of the temple, the trial, the crucifixion -been aware of the empty tomb, etc. He must have met people like Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, etc. Strange that he never refers to any of these encounters. Paul could have said something like this, “Yeah, I was around Jerusalem when the Roman guards reported about the angel coming down and rolling away the stone.” It seems like Paul knows absolutely nothing biographical of Jesus. Also, his account of post resurrection witnesses differs from the gospels. Strange! If you insist on that time-line for the epistles, Paul must have been around at the time of Jesus, but he knows nothing about him, other than what was revealed to him in his hallucination.

[@lfelssordnry]

“Must have” does a lot of heavy lifting in your reply.

[@dalelatter1103]

Acts is considered to be fiction. Just compare the timeline differences between acts and epistles of Paul. No road to Damascus in Paul's writings.

[@jamesboswellii2034]

@@dalelatter1103 I wonder then why Paul mentioned returning "to Damacus" soon after talking about his conversion experience (see Galatians 1:17 .

[@dalelatter1103]

@@jamesboswellii2034 I should have said "no road to Damascus experience mentioned by Paul".

[@jamesboswellii2034]

@@dalelatter1103 So why did Paul mention Damascus there at all then?

[@Superwoodputtie]

This was a really good interview. I liked how you pushed back at certain points and flushed out the nuance. Very cool.

[@Raptor302]

"Who writes about Julius Ceasar except someone interested in Julius Ceasar?" Who writes about Superman except for some interested in Superman? Seems like a bit of a tautology.

[@danvee3928]

Forgot to mention how prepared you were for this conversation. Toe to toe with dr. Ehrman. My verdict: I am convinced that Jesus was a myth.

[@HITMAN-bz3ri]

So both Islam and Christianity are both wrong? 🤔

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@HITMAN-bz3ri What a surprise. Why leave there?

[@danvee3928]

@@HITMAN-bz3ri Islam is as fake as a 3 dollar bill. A mix of the Bible and other existing philosophies.

[@exzoro8193]

@@HITMAN-bz3ri There are serious scholarships that doubt muhammad's existence. The term "praised one" (muhammad) was the epithet for jesus in early "islam"; and early islam(s) itself was non trinitarian christianity according to the research/theory.

[@HITMAN-bz3ri]

I never believe in Islam anyway!😅

[@kamitrex]

I can't be the only one who thinks your closing music is a banger

[@flipflopski2951]

Bart Ehrman starts off with a fallacious argument... A fictional story doesn't get any less fictional if the story was placed in time eight years ago or eight hundred years ago.

[@Iamwrongbut]

This comment is fallacious. It assumes that the story is fictional to begin with, instead of looking at the evidence first and then deciding what parts of it are fictional or historical.

[@psilosydetrusenses4125]

@@Iamwrongbut I don’t think he made any assumption in this comment.

[@flipflopski2951]

@@Iamwrongbut When people walk on water and snakes and donkeys talk you should assume the stories are fictional.

[@Iamwrongbut]

@@flipflopski2951 those stories, yes. But what about Jesus coming from Nazareth like Bart mentioned?

[@flipflopski2951]

@@Iamwrongbut No town of Nazareth ever existed in the first century. The word Nasoraean meaning a Jewish sect was mistranslated and thought to be a town Jesus was from. The town was later invented by Christians... See how the bible works... not inerrant, not factual... a load of rubbish.

[@kevinswanson6439]

I understand that these alleged refences to Jesus SoG from Josephus are not found in the oldest manuscripts of his Antiquities of the Jews. And then the old problem of early Christian writers confessing that it is a great thing to lie for the Lord.

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

And when you read the surrounding paragraphs they do not make sense

[@benjamindover5676]

Josephus the author of "Antiquity of the Jews" was the earliest mentioned and he wasn't born for years after the supposed death of jesus. Also, even Christian apologists admit there are no sources given and that the passages mentioned are a fraud. Early church fathers wrote letters to each other discussing Josephus in the 3rd century and they never mention this paragraph. If there was any mention of Jesus in Antiquities you can be certain they would have discussed it thoroughly. This paragraph didn't show up until centuries later.

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

@@benjamindover5676 yeah I don't know why Bart is ignoring that

[@EvilXtianity]

@@benjamindover5676 _"Josephus the author of "Antiquity of the Jews" was the earliest mentioned and he wasn't born for years after the supposed death of jesus."_ Pilate wrote nothing about Jesus. Herod wrote nothing about Jesus. Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD (and was likely Paul). The earliest manuscripts do not mention Jesus. Mara bar Scarpion wasn't born until 50 AD. Tacitus wasn't born until 56 AD. Suetonius wasn't born until 69 AD. Lucian wasn't born until 125 AD.

[@benjamindover5676]

@@EvilXtianity I'm gonna jack that. Pilate wrote nothing about Jesus. Herod wrote nothing about Jesus. Josephus wasn't born until 37 AD (and was likely Paul). The earliest manuscripts do not mention Jesus. Mara bar Scarpion wasn't born until 50 AD. Tacitus wasn't born until 56 AD. Suetonius wasn't born until 69 AD. Lucian wasn't born until 125 AD

[@Nai61a]

I don't think one would dismiss a document because its author was a Christian, but one might dismiss it if its intention was to proselytise, if it was setting out to persuade the reader/hearer to believe what the author believes. At the very least, it should cause deep scepticism.

[@michaeldeaton]

You could have a mystery cult that worshiped the Christ. You could have real people's actions which are culled to frame a story that historicizes the Christ character as a "real historical figure". You could have Paul be a very charismatic opportunistic liar who takes over said cult and, in the process of rebranding the faith for mass popular consumption, helps expand the mystery cult's appeal. You could have members of this cult, later on, historicizing the myths in order to help spread the faith or make it more palatable/relatable to (At the time) modern audiences. And if you had all that, you would have a mythological figure, based on real actions taken by real actors, historicized after the fact, and everything would fit plausibly with both historicist (non religious) and mythicist positions consistently. The point is that however it came about, magic wasn't involved, just human ingenuity, greed, and lust for power.

[@avoicecalling3455]

You don't really get Myths do you? Study some Freud or Jung. Maybe listen to folk songs and learn how they develop. Actually read the Bible. Read how it is very comfortable appropriating popular stories to tell a larger tale.

[@Gopherzooka]

@@avoicecalling3455 did.... you read what he wrote at all or just the first sentence?

[@michaeldeaton]

@@Gopherzooka No he clearly didn't read or comprehend anything I actually said. Clearly.

[@AshleyOlivia90]

Thank you for your work! 🙏🏻 enjoying this one so far! I’ve personally gone back and forth on my position on a historical Jesus.

[@JacobP81]

I'm kinda doing the same thing; going back and forth on was he a real person or not. I don't think he had magic powers though.

[@AshleyOlivia90]

@@JacobP81 same! There’s some historical tidbits which is more than most people alive at that time so I struggle lol

[@blitzwinters5687]

Obviously, I'm no scholar, but my general opinion leans toward the stories of Jesus that we have today being a combination of amalgamating multiple people and legend building.

[@tom_curtis]

I don't think that is plausible. Paul twice refers to brothers of Jesus in passages that are undoubtedly authentic, and almost impossible to interpret other than as a reference to actual physical brothers. That is sufficient to establish the historicity of a Jesus who Paul worshiped, and attempted to serve. Granted that there have been legendary accretions regarding that Jesus, but for there to be such legendary accretions, the original Jesus must have been noteworthy enough to attract fame (otherwise why would the legends accrete around his name?). Consequently, I think we can be reasonably sure that there was a man called Yeshua or Yehoshua in Palestine, who in his late twenties or early thirties, began a preaching mission in Palestine which attracted a number of dedicated followers; and that after three years of such preaching, he was executed in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate by means of crucifixion. I even suspect he was a faith healer; and that the majority of the teaching found in the synoptic gospels found its source in him.

[@blitzwinters5687]

@@tom_curtis Except that Paul was written well after the fact. And also, it's entirely possible that he's referencing brothers of just one of the people whose stories got combined. On top of that, I can't say I agree that it's impossible to interpret it in any way other than actual familial brothers. I want to make it clear: I think the stories we have of Jesus now are stories of multiple people that have been combined into one. That at least one of them might have had one or more brothers is hardly evidence that that's not the case.

[@tom_curtis]

@@blitzwinters5687, Paul's earliest epistle was written circa 50 AD, and most likely 48 AD. By his own account in that epistle (Galations) he had persecuted Christians for their belief, but then converted. Then, three years after he converted, he went to Jerusalem (Galations 1:18). A further fourteen years after that (or just possibly, fourteen years after the conversion), he went up to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus (Galations 2:1). Based on Acts 12, he left Jerusalem at about the time Herod Agrippa died (ie, 44 AD). Assuming Jesus died sometime between 27 and 30 AD, that means Paul began persecuting Christians either immediately after Jesus death, or at most three years after his death. It also means that prior to writing Galations, he had 14 (or 17) years of insider knowledge of the beliefs of Christians, including of people who knew Jesus directly (James the Brother of Jesus, and Cephas). On top of that, he must have had some knowledge of Christian beliefs prior to his conversion, or else he would not have been persecuting them. Given this, dismissing Paul's account as "written well after the fact" is facile. It assumes that Paul had no source of knowledge prior to writing whereas he had extensive knowledge, and given that he began his persecution in Jerusalem, may well have been in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion. To dismiss his account on that basis is like dismissing the memoir of a Vietnam vet as evidence of what it was like to fight in Vietnam on the sole basis that it was published twenty years after the war. As to the idea that Jesus was based on several individuals, there is simply no evidence for that. It is merely a convenient fiction to protect prejudices.

[@santosd6065]

Is Bart Ehrman scared of debating Richard Carrier? If so, he should at least read his thesis before trying to debunk it. He comes off like a Christian apologist

[@billyhw99]

Nobody takes Richard Carrier seriously.

[@santosd6065]

@@billyhw99 Well, I can totally understand why. Almost all the Biblical scholars, including the non-theist ones, work for religious institutions and universities. Pretty hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him NOT understanding it. I listened to Ehrman's lectures on the New Testament many times. Its positively dripping with sycophancy and praise for "the real Jesus". His arguments for the historicity of Jesus though are... well... non existent as far as I can tell. He suddenly turns Christian apologetic on that one topic

[@hizzlemobizzle]

Next week we will discuss the Historical Verdict on Cyclops.

[@blaidencortel]

Ok, I LOLed. Well done.

[@utubepunk]

Finally!

[@HolyKoolaid]

Neither of us are arguing for a historical deity; just for a historical apocalyptic cult leader.

[@utubepunk]

@@HolyKoolaid Isn't Cyclops a Titan?

[@hizzlemobizzle]

@@HolyKoolaid I understand. My feeling is that primitive people saw someone who could read and write as almost godlike. So when someone comes along with an imagination and the ability to write fiction the primitives were easy to convince. Isn't it interesting that Paul had such intimate contact with Jesus. It's almost like an author writing himself into his own story. Seems to me that it is more likely a work of fiction. I also doubt the claim that Paul and ancient jews would not have heard of myths from earlier civilizations. It was not uncommon to carry over ancient beliefs and traditions into newly created mythologies to make them palatable to the new converts.

[@bitterskeptic5016]

So. Bart claims sources can't be trusted by age. Then ignores forgery issues to pick the ones he "thinks " are best because they sound good. Uses the bible to prove the bible. A book filled with historical errors and falsehoods. Then says well, most historians agree. Historians from Christian dominate cultures and institutions. I regret watching this. I respected Bart until now. This was probably the most low rent apologetics I have witnessed.

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

Yep , my sentiments exactly. I did not find this discussion impressive at all

[@EvilXtianity]

_"Uses the bible to prove the bible."_ But the Bible is the source of claims Jesus existed, therefore to disprove that the Bible must be challenged. Your statement is illogical and reveal your low educational attainment. Do you believe Jesus existed?

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

@@EvilXtianity I think your misreading what they're saying. He's saying Bert use the Bible to prove the Bible not that he's agreeing with Bart

[@EvilXtianity]

@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite _"He's saying Bert use the Bible to prove the Bible..."_ OK, then that's stupid! :-)))

[@bitterskeptic5016]

@@EvilXtianity my issue is the common argument presented is that very little extrabiblical evidence exists for christ. Bart points out that the documentation is poor. And extrabiblical accounts are either forgery prone or written so far after the fact as to be near worthless. Then proceeds to use a passage argued as forgery as proof because he thinks us sounds accurate and use time line disputed biblical books of unknown authorship to establish proof because he thinks it sounds written honestly. It's poor evidence. It's self established bias. It's a bad argument.and it's all too common. What he did here us what we athiests hear in every argument. It's circular argument based on a book of mythology and appeal to traditions.

[@mrmaat]

Ehrman at 37:50 “He’s (Jesus) not a fertility god. He doesn’t make the corn grow” Jesus: “I am the vine” “I am the bread of life” “I am the true vine” “Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds” “Whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never thirst again.”

[@erichodge567]

You're joking, right. The verses you quoted were a string of pure metaphors.

[@MicheleGardini]

And not one of theese grant more real harvest in exchange for your whorship. Fertility gods are about real, edible food, not metaphorical.

[@JM1993951]

@@erichodge567 true. But he does have a fertility festival in mid April. It definitely appears that they tried to blur the lines a bit with the Jesus character and give him the significance of a fertility god/goddess.

[@mrmaat]

@@MicheleGardini If it’s a Freudian slip, “whoreship” is totally appropriate. It sounds like you’re either ignorant of or conveniently forgetting that according to the Orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist, Jesus IS literally bread and wine.

[@mrmaat]

@@erichodge567 Who decides what is and isn’t metaphorical? See also: Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

[@bjamal336]

Always enjoy Dr Ehrman! Btw, this is the second time today I’ve seen you as a cartoon. Lol

[@uprightape100]

Thanks, Bart.....thanks HK. Love the long form interview.

[@unicyclist97]

Paul talks about Jesus being "born of a woman" says Ehrman. The same Ehrman who exposed the Christian forgers who changed it from "magically created" to "born" because they didn't like the original wording. That's right, it doesn't actually say "born" in Paul's own vocabulary, and Paul even explicitly said that he was using birth from a woman to mean an allegory. There were no literal women in that allegory.

[@EvilXtianity]

Virgin Birth The intentional mistranslation of these verses are not in academic dispute. There are abundant scholarly articles about it. The paper trails and sequence of events is well known and understood. The word used in Hebrew scriptures (Isaiah 7:14) is "almah" ("young woman having reached puberty"). The Hebrew word which could have been used, but wasn't, is "bethulah" ("virgin"). The Septuagint is a version of the Old Testament prepared in the 3rd century BC by Jewish scholars who translated the Hebrew sciptures into Greek for the Greek-speaking Jewish community. In translating for the Septuagint, "almah" was translated into Greek as "parthenos" ("virgin"). Thus, Isaiah's prophecy in the original Hebrew states that the Messiah would be conceived by an "almah" ("young woman"), whereas the Greek translation in the Septuagint version of Isaiah refers instead to a "parthenos" ("virgin"). So, the Gospel of Matthew (Luke copied Matthew's account, Mark and John do not assert a virgin birth) attempted to justify Jesus' divine parentage by tailoring the story of Jesus' conception to match the fulfilment of a prophecy that was never actually made. No Christian denomination adheres to the doctrine of "immaculate conception" or a virgin birth of Jesus. In the entire Christian corpus, the virgin birth is found only in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of John (John 1:45) states that Jesus had both father and mother, "We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth". The earliest Christian writings, the Pauline epistles, do not contain any mention of a virgin birth and assume Jesus' full humanity. The Gospel of Mark has no birth story and states that Jesus' mother had no belief in her son as having been created by a supernatural being, as if she had forgotten the angel's visit. None of the Gospels were written by witnesses to Jesus.

[@boblyle8121]

Always look forward to your content!!!

[@inotmark]

It is disingenuous to compare christians writing about jesus with americans writing about Lincoln. Lincoln is a matter of history, Christians approach Jesus as a matter of faith. Etc. This particular critique is not credible, and throws a lot of doubt upon the rest of his diatribes.

[@UlexiteTVStoneLexite]

Especially when we have pictures of Abraham Lincoln

[@lnsflare1]

@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite And Lincoln's own writings, as well as the writings of people who met and interacted with him. And thousands of non-American sources that discuss and interact with Lincoln.

[@blaidencortel]

YES! Great insight!!!

[@JM1993951]

He could’ve at least chosen someone from American history that we don’t have actual photographs of.

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite I have a photo of cheeses with blue eyes, blonde streaked hair, wearing Gucci sandals and D+G spectacles.

[@psilosydetrusenses4125]

He said nobody was saying he didn’t exist but there were whole Christian sects that believed he was like a spirit and never flesh. They weren’t directly disputing the claim but by making their own which is not flesh is people saying he didn’t walk this earth

[@ABarton43]

But they still believed he was a historical person who interacted with people on earth and existed...

[@proudfootz]

Why would anyone have to argue Jesus didn't exist? If someone knocks on your door telling you the good news about Xenu and you just slam the door in your face - you don't write a book about it. All we have from those times are what believers believed, not what anyone else thought about it.

[@ABarton43]

@@proudfootz You are mistaken. there were many critics of Christianity who wrote against them and sought to argue against Christianity. They suggest that Jesus' father was a Roman centurion, that he was a fraud etc etc. See, for example, Celsus and the Talmud. We have near-contemporary, well respected sources that mention Jesus being a historical person, e.g. Tacitus, Josephus.

[@proudfootz]

@@ABarton43 - The Talmud passages thought to refer to Jesus are very late - centuries later. Celsus is 2nd century. In both cases well after anyone would have any reliable information about an Historical Jesus. Trypho in Justin Martyr's work says that christians "invent a Christ for yourselves" which sums up the myth hypothesis. If the mentions of Jesus in either Josephus or Tacitus are authentic it's clear they get their information about what christians believe from christians, so hardly independent sources.

[@ABarton43]

@@proudfootz The Talmud passage I am meaning is the Munich Talmud manuscript of b.San.43a, and dates its sources are dated to around 125 C.E, which states "On the Eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and leading Israel astray.’" It is an accepted early reference to Jesus and is independent of New Testament or Christian sources. As for arguing that Celsus is too late, the time span is the usual one for ancient documents, e.g. the famous general Scipio who rescued Rome from Carthage, he is only mentioned in sources decades to hundreds of years after his life. Alexander the Great who conquered the whole known world and beyond it, apart from some scraps of writings again the references to his life comes centuries later. Mythicists like to use selective, unwarranted skepticism only for Jesus, and place themselves at odds against prevailing historical methodology. Neither Josephus' Ant 20.9. 1, or Tacitus are thought by mainstream scholarship to be inauthentic. As for your presumption that they must have been depending upon Christian stories, why do you insist that is so? Many online atheists use this retort, but it is really not well thought through. Take Tacitus for instance and this from Tim O'Neil: "The first problem with this idea is that Tacitus does not attribute this information to these “Christians” he has just mentioned or imply in any way that he was reporting what they believed about their founder. Furthermore, nothing in what he says about this “Christus” person indicates the information came from Christians or reports about their beliefs about Jesus. On the contrary, both the highly negative tone and the sparse information potentially indicate the exact opposite: a disapproving non-Christian source that was concerned with essential, concrete facts: who this “Christus” was, what happened to him, when and where. There is no reference to any belief he was divine, no mention or hint about any preaching or alleged miracles and no indication of any belief about him rising from the dead. Nothing here indicates a Christian source for any of this information. Unlike modern historians, ancient ones did not footnote their sources or even consistently or regularly note where they received their information. Tacitus is of a type in this respect, though when he does refer to his sources it is clear, first of all, that he researched his work carefully and, secondly, he was a judicious and often sceptical analyst. To begin with, he made his distaste for merely accepting hearsay very clear: “My object in mentioning and refuting this story is, by a conspicuous example, to put down hearsay, and to request that all those into whose hands my work shall come not to catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history.” (Tacitus, Annals, IV.11) He did occasionally refer to things that were “said” to have been the case or were “reported”, but was careful to note this when he did so. For example: “A show of gladiators, given in the name of his brother Germanicus, was presided over by Drusus, who took an extravagant pleasure in the shedding of blood however vile - a trait so alarming to the populace that it was said to have been censured by his father.” (Annals 1.76) Further examples of this noting of what was “said” can be found at Annals II.40, XII.7 and XII.65. Similarly, things which were “reported” or from “popular report” are noted as such. For example: “For the present, however, Britain was in the charge of Suetonius Paulinus, in military skill and in popular report - which allows no man to lack his rival - a formidable competitor to Corbulo” (Annals XIV.29) Other examples can be found at Annals XI.26 and XV.20. So having just mentioned the Christians, it is very likely that Tacitus would have attributed the information about their “Christus” to their “report” or to what they “said” if their ideas about their founder were the basis for his information. But he doesn’t. Likewise, having just said that “the crowd” called the sect “Christians”, it would make sense for Tacitus to attribute his information about “Christus” to them if “popular report” or what was “said” was where he was getting his information. But he doesn’t do this either. The idea that he got his information from what Christians claimed about Jesus, whether directly or from “the crowd”, simply does not fit with the way Tacitus deals with such second hand information or with his attitude to “hearsay”. It also does not fit with his vehemently scornful attitude towards the Christians. This is, after all, a sect he describes in no uncertain terms as “a most mischievous superstition …. evil …. hideous and shameful …. [with a] hatred against mankind” - not exactly the words of a man who regarded its followers as reliable sources about their sect’s founder. It is unlikely that he would blithely report what they had to say without any caveats or even just noting this was what he was doing. All this means that while the idea that he was simply repeating Christian claims is not solidly founded, we still don’t know where he got his information. Some Mythicists make the remarkable claim that, because of this, his reference to Jesus can therefore be totally disregarded. This is, however, absurd. If we totally rejected everything noted in an ancient historian’s text without reference to or indication of a source, we would have to reject about 95% of our source material and abandon the study of the ancient past almost totally. This consequence tends not to bother Mythicist polemicists and online debaters, who are only concerned with making a historian’s reference to Jesus go away, but it should concern any genuine rationalist. As noted above, we do know that Tacitus consulted many sources and was, by ancient standards, a rigorous and sceptical analyst of them. C.W Mendell highlights the way Tacitus handles his sources with due care: In the Histories there are sixty-eight instances in which Tacitus indicates either a recorded statement or a belief on someone’s part with regard to something which he himself is unwilling to assert as a fact; in other words, he cites divergent authority for some fact or motive …. [These] would seem to indicate a writer who had not only read what was written by historians …. but had also talked with eye witnesses and considered with some care the probable truth where doubt or uncertainty existed. …. Tacitius assumes the responsibility of the historian to get at the truth and present it. His guarantee was his own reputation. To make this narrative colorful and dramatic, he felt justified in introducing facts and motives which he might refute on logical grounds or leave uncontested but for which he did not personally vouch. There is no indication that he followed blindly the account of any predecessor” (C.W. Mendell, Tacitus: The Man and his Work, 1957, pp. 201-4) Mendell goes on to note 30 separate instances in the Annals where Tacitus is careful to substantiate a statement or distance himself from a claim or report about which he was less than certain (Mendell, p. 205). We know Tacitus made use of the work of earlier historians, but we also know from his own references to them that he examined primary documentary evidence, including copies of the Acta Diurna - the daily gazette put up in the Forum and other public places - and the records of the Senate. He makes explicit reference to consulting “the registers of the Senate” (Annals XV.74), “the public records” (XII.20) and “the daily register” (III.3), though it is far from clear that any of these sources would have mentioned the execution of Jesus by Pilatus, let alone that Tacitus found and read this obscure notice - it’s not as though the crucifixion of a minor troublemaker would have been of great concern to the Senate or Pilatus’ master Sejanus back in Rome. So while it is possible Tacitus was drawing on an official record or other documentary source, it cannot be said to be likely.

[@unicyclist97]

24:14 about mythicist claims, Ehrman said "we have to look at them". When is he going to do that?

[@pansepot1490]

Already done that years ago. There’s a debate on KZbin about weather Jesus was real between Ehrman and dr Robert Price (who is a mythicist) moderated by Matt Dillahunty.

[@timothyhicks3643]

Also he wrote a whole book on it, “Did Jesus Exist?”. I agree that he doesn’t do a good job of making an argument in this video, but he takes mythicist arguments much more seriously in his book.

[@unicyclist97]

@@pansepot1490 Price has not published an academic defence of mythicism. There is no need to engage with amateur representations. You should focus on the academic arguments.

[@unicyclist97]

@@timothyhicks3643 DJE was published before mythicism had an academic argument. That's why it didn't address mythicism. DJE is also a pop market book, not an academic argument.

[@proudfootz]

@@timothyhicks3643 - I read that book. Not a whole lot of material to base an 'historical Jesus' on.

[@ajhieb]

I can't decide how to feel about Dr. Ehrman. I don't necessarily disagree with anything he says, and I certainly am not in a position to tell him he's wrong about anything, but I have such a hard time taking him seriously because he always seems so goofy when talking about this stuff. I can't think of any videos I've seen him in where he isn't giggling like a schoolboy while he's trying to make what I think are ostensibly serious points.

[@MultiJade]

Its probably a verbal tic

[@doozer2726]

This is my favorite KZbin channel that talks about religion. Well researched, not condescending or mocking, but can still be very funny. Another excellent debate/discussion.

[@sevenlexar]

I've always figured that if Jesus was real, he was just Some Dude that at absolute best, was a bit ahead of his time scientifically (Even though I don't know if THAT has any evidence). That way he'd get some leeway to 'perform miracles' - or rather, do things that would later be blown up as miracles and walking on water, and returning from the dead. Like that thing where everyone repeats a story but adds on just a bit to embellish it more, until the original story or myth is utterly drowning in all the additions.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

A real miracle would be the removal of suffering from God's Perfect Plan. But suffering is the cornerstone of Christianity so we need it.

[@bigdogalldayeveryday]

Do you think Jesus or Trump is a "better" person?

[@norcodaev]

@@bigdogalldayeveryday I can’t believe I’m about to say this since I loathe the man and everything he stands for, but trump🤮. I think trump is a better person than this jesus/god character. Now please excuse me while I go vomit some more…🤢

[@mrmaat]

I’m really surprised that Bart views the testimonium flavianum as authentic, or at least mostly authentic. He’s in the minority here as far as I understand.

[@benjamindover5676]

Right on.

[@ABarton43]

Not really, most surveys point out the majority of scholars accept it is partly authentic.

[@benjamindover5676]

@@ABarton43 Early church fathers wrote letters to each other discussing Josephus in the 3rd century and they never mention this paragraph. If there was any mention of Jesus in Antiquities you can be certain they would have discussed it thoroughly. This paragraph didn't show up until centuries later.

[@ABarton43]

@@benjamindover5676 Firstly, that is a different issue to what the majority of scholars thinks. But to address your side argument, it is not as substantive as you might think: "[early] Christians do not cite Josephus for any thing in the New Testament: not only do they not cite him on James the brother of Jesus or John the Baptist .… Perhaps most surprisingly they do not name Josephus as an authority on King Herod’ …. Christians paid relatively little attention to their history in the second and third centuries. (Whealey “Josephus on Jesus: Evidence from the first millennium” Theologische Zeitschrift 51 (1995), pp. 285-304, pp. 2887-88)"

[@Mike00513]

No partial authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum is actually a consensus view. The idea that it is a wholesale Christian forgery is a fringe view.

[@LusciousLenny]

He lives in the same building as Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny!

[@Memfys]

Always a pleasure to hear Mr. Ehrman speak. Thank you for the interview!