What do you think?
Rate this book
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
Large numbers of atheists, humanists, and conspiracy theorists are raising one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion: "Did Jesus exist at all?" Was he invented out of whole cloth for nefarious purposes by those seeking to control the masses? Or was Jesus such a shadowy figure—far removed from any credible historical evidence—that he bears no meaningful resemblance to the person described in the Bible?
In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.
In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.
Audiobook
First published March 20, 2012
About the author
Bart D. Ehrman
111 books1,879 followersBart Denton Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 285 reviews
July 3, 2013
Probably not the best idea to be annoying a sky god on the evening before I begin a flight to London – I do understand that, but so be it.
When I was growing up I was told by my atheist father that there was no evidence that Jesus had ever existed. I was told all of the texts that concerned Jesus (the gospels and so on) were all written about 100 years after he had, supposedly, died. There was also no evidence of anyone called Pontius Pilate – the whole thing, in every detail, was completely made up.
It seems this was a rather overstated view of the record of an historical Jesus. After reading this book I would have to say that I’m convinced there was certainly a first century Palestinian Jew called Jesus who had a number of followers, was executed and virtually certainly ‘existed’.
Now, there is quite a spectrum here. At the far end – the end my father talked to me about when I was about 11 – there, in fact, was no Jesus at all. At the other end of that spectrum there is the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. Admitting that there was likely to have been some guy called Jesus as a three dimensional, walking, talking, breathing man in no way forces one to move very far along the spectrum towards many of the other beliefs people have about this historical personage.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting book – not least because it explains the problems of establishing ‘historical truth’. It demonstrates the various methods that can be used to test the veracity of historical statements. Examples would be useful here.
In one of the gospels – I think it might have been Mark, but I can’t check now – Jesus is brought into Jerusalem riding on the backs of both a donkey and a baby donkey. That is, the author has him straddled over two animals as he enters the holy city. He does this to fulfil a prophecy. Do we believe this actually happened? Well, belief is an odd thing – people believe all sorts of crazy things (the moon landing didn’t happen, 9/11 was a CIA plot and Gilligan finally got off the island), but believing something isn’t enough to confirm it as true. The fact this story ‘serves a purpose’ (that is, having Jesus fulfil a prophecy) doesn’t have to mean it didn’t happen, but it would have to make you wonder.
Naturally enough, I’m going to need a bit more than hearsay evidence before I start believing any miracles happened and I am really going to need some pretty heavy duty evidence before I start believing the hard core religious story around Jesus – you know, the one where he impregnated his own mother so that he could be born of a virgin so as to understand compassion so as to be able to forgive us for our sins in one of our ancestors eating an apple. I’m not sure what sort of proof I would really need to start believing such a story, but I would have to be quite something.
What this book is certainly not trying to do is to prove that that Jesus – the water walking, wine making, leprosy curing third of God Jesus – existed.
The best of this book is the discussion at the end where he seeks to say what we can say with quite some certainty about Jesus. That he was born in Nazareth seems pretty well certain. This is well attested in all our sources and is odd enough that it virtually has to be true. It seems to have been a one horse hick town – if you were going to make up a place for the son of God to be born, you probably wouldn’t make up there.
We know he upset people in his ministry and that he was nailed to a cross. We also know he probably believed the end of the world was within months of him dying. That he thought that by his dying he would be forcing God’s hand to step in and end this wicked world.
Where this book was particularly interesting was at the end – the stuff about Jesus’s beliefs about the nearly immediate end of the world and what was likely to replace this world really do make fascinating reading. Firstly, it seems Jesus probably believed that demons had taken over the world in recent times. You see, there were quite a few holy people – people who were following the commandments – and yet, the Jews were under the yoke of the Roman Empire and were being humiliated. Their belief in God ought to have been enough to allow them to rule the world – but instead they were being ruled over. How could this be the case? Well, perhaps demons had control of the world at present and God was busy with other things. But soon God would get back to looking after his creation and he would smite these demons and bring about a new order – a new world – cleansed of all people who were effectively doing the work of the devil.
Anyone who was successful in this world – a world run by demons – obviously wasn’t going to be successful in the next world. They would be sent to the eternal flames. Nothing like a bit of eternal punishment to make one feel righteous. And those who have been last in this world, would be first in the next.
This explains why Jesus called on his followers to abandon their families and to give all they have to the poor – he believed the world was going to end almost immediately and that only those who had sought to help those on God’s side – the poor, the weak, the botched and bungled – would see the newer and better world.
Now, it is fairly traditional for atheist types like me to say that despite not believing that Jesus was the Son of God, his message is something we can endorse. I’m not sure I really can do that. Two thousand years later, the world doesn’t really look like it is about to end.
However, what I do like about Jesus is that he disliked shows of wealth amidst poverty – can’t disagree with him there. He also didn’t like seeing the sick and poor humiliated. The world is a better place because Jesus believed these things, I think – and would be an even better place if more of his followers believed that stuff too.
I didn’t mind this book – I think I would recommend the other books of his I have read before this one, but this one is good too. And incredibly interesting.
When I was growing up I was told by my atheist father that there was no evidence that Jesus had ever existed. I was told all of the texts that concerned Jesus (the gospels and so on) were all written about 100 years after he had, supposedly, died. There was also no evidence of anyone called Pontius Pilate – the whole thing, in every detail, was completely made up.
It seems this was a rather overstated view of the record of an historical Jesus. After reading this book I would have to say that I’m convinced there was certainly a first century Palestinian Jew called Jesus who had a number of followers, was executed and virtually certainly ‘existed’.
Now, there is quite a spectrum here. At the far end – the end my father talked to me about when I was about 11 – there, in fact, was no Jesus at all. At the other end of that spectrum there is the idea that Jesus is the Son of God. Admitting that there was likely to have been some guy called Jesus as a three dimensional, walking, talking, breathing man in no way forces one to move very far along the spectrum towards many of the other beliefs people have about this historical personage.
Nonetheless, this is an interesting book – not least because it explains the problems of establishing ‘historical truth’. It demonstrates the various methods that can be used to test the veracity of historical statements. Examples would be useful here.
In one of the gospels – I think it might have been Mark, but I can’t check now – Jesus is brought into Jerusalem riding on the backs of both a donkey and a baby donkey. That is, the author has him straddled over two animals as he enters the holy city. He does this to fulfil a prophecy. Do we believe this actually happened? Well, belief is an odd thing – people believe all sorts of crazy things (the moon landing didn’t happen, 9/11 was a CIA plot and Gilligan finally got off the island), but believing something isn’t enough to confirm it as true. The fact this story ‘serves a purpose’ (that is, having Jesus fulfil a prophecy) doesn’t have to mean it didn’t happen, but it would have to make you wonder.
Naturally enough, I’m going to need a bit more than hearsay evidence before I start believing any miracles happened and I am really going to need some pretty heavy duty evidence before I start believing the hard core religious story around Jesus – you know, the one where he impregnated his own mother so that he could be born of a virgin so as to understand compassion so as to be able to forgive us for our sins in one of our ancestors eating an apple. I’m not sure what sort of proof I would really need to start believing such a story, but I would have to be quite something.
What this book is certainly not trying to do is to prove that that Jesus – the water walking, wine making, leprosy curing third of God Jesus – existed.
The best of this book is the discussion at the end where he seeks to say what we can say with quite some certainty about Jesus. That he was born in Nazareth seems pretty well certain. This is well attested in all our sources and is odd enough that it virtually has to be true. It seems to have been a one horse hick town – if you were going to make up a place for the son of God to be born, you probably wouldn’t make up there.
We know he upset people in his ministry and that he was nailed to a cross. We also know he probably believed the end of the world was within months of him dying. That he thought that by his dying he would be forcing God’s hand to step in and end this wicked world.
Where this book was particularly interesting was at the end – the stuff about Jesus’s beliefs about the nearly immediate end of the world and what was likely to replace this world really do make fascinating reading. Firstly, it seems Jesus probably believed that demons had taken over the world in recent times. You see, there were quite a few holy people – people who were following the commandments – and yet, the Jews were under the yoke of the Roman Empire and were being humiliated. Their belief in God ought to have been enough to allow them to rule the world – but instead they were being ruled over. How could this be the case? Well, perhaps demons had control of the world at present and God was busy with other things. But soon God would get back to looking after his creation and he would smite these demons and bring about a new order – a new world – cleansed of all people who were effectively doing the work of the devil.
Anyone who was successful in this world – a world run by demons – obviously wasn’t going to be successful in the next world. They would be sent to the eternal flames. Nothing like a bit of eternal punishment to make one feel righteous. And those who have been last in this world, would be first in the next.
This explains why Jesus called on his followers to abandon their families and to give all they have to the poor – he believed the world was going to end almost immediately and that only those who had sought to help those on God’s side – the poor, the weak, the botched and bungled – would see the newer and better world.
Now, it is fairly traditional for atheist types like me to say that despite not believing that Jesus was the Son of God, his message is something we can endorse. I’m not sure I really can do that. Two thousand years later, the world doesn’t really look like it is about to end.
However, what I do like about Jesus is that he disliked shows of wealth amidst poverty – can’t disagree with him there. He also didn’t like seeing the sick and poor humiliated. The world is a better place because Jesus believed these things, I think – and would be an even better place if more of his followers believed that stuff too.
I didn’t mind this book – I think I would recommend the other books of his I have read before this one, but this one is good too. And incredibly interesting.
May 7, 2024
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
My opinion had always been that you don't have to believe Jesus was the Son of God to believe he was a real historical figure who lived and died.
One of these things does not have to equal the other.
I wasn't sure who was even asking this question, but this was one of those books that I found after falling down a rabbit hole. I read The Case for Christ and one of the things Lee Strobel "debunked" was that Jesus never existed. I was like, oh? is this a thing people are actually saying?, and I decided to check into it.
Hence, this book.
Ehrman is an agnostic professor of the New Testament who undertakes the task of pointing out why most historians believe the probability that Jesus actually walked the earth was high.
In doing so, he sets out to disprove the mythicists who claim that Jesus wasn't a real person but only concocted later on as a mystic figure to head Christianity.
And I think he did.
Turns out there really aren't that many people claiming Jesus wasn't a historical figure.
As I originally thought, it's kind of a stupid thing to postulate. And as long as I'm throwing my personal 2 cents in, I think it's mainly done by angry atheists.
Who hurt you, honey?
I get the frustration, but coming up with and promoting cockamamie theories like this isn't helpful. You're becoming the very kind of person that you don't like.
I'm not sure who would be interested in this because it's kind of a niche subject, but I thought it was a very well-done book for the layperson on this subject matter.
Recommended. If you're into this kind of thing.
My opinion had always been that you don't have to believe Jesus was the Son of God to believe he was a real historical figure who lived and died.
One of these things does not have to equal the other.
I wasn't sure who was even asking this question, but this was one of those books that I found after falling down a rabbit hole. I read The Case for Christ and one of the things Lee Strobel "debunked" was that Jesus never existed. I was like, oh? is this a thing people are actually saying?, and I decided to check into it.
Hence, this book.
Ehrman is an agnostic professor of the New Testament who undertakes the task of pointing out why most historians believe the probability that Jesus actually walked the earth was high.
In doing so, he sets out to disprove the mythicists who claim that Jesus wasn't a real person but only concocted later on as a mystic figure to head Christianity.
And I think he did.
Turns out there really aren't that many people claiming Jesus wasn't a historical figure.
As I originally thought, it's kind of a stupid thing to postulate. And as long as I'm throwing my personal 2 cents in, I think it's mainly done by angry atheists.
Who hurt you, honey?
I get the frustration, but coming up with and promoting cockamamie theories like this isn't helpful. You're becoming the very kind of person that you don't like.
I'm not sure who would be interested in this because it's kind of a niche subject, but I thought it was a very well-done book for the layperson on this subject matter.
Recommended. If you're into this kind of thing.
June 25, 2017
I'm a huge fan of Bart Ehrman. I've learned more from reading his pop-history books than the work of any other individual author, and I've found him to be a fascinating and engaging writer. I have looked forward to every single book he's released in the last 10 years, eagerly awaiting the day it's available and devouring it.
Because of my admiration for Ehrman and his work, it brings me a great deal of pain to admit that "Did Jesus Exist?" is Ehrman's worst book, at least of those I've read. And it's not his "worst book" in the way that "Eyes Wide Shut" is Kubrick's "worst movie" where even the worst output of a visionary is better than average. Did Jesus Exist? is a bad book. I hate it.
Let me first set the stage. I am nonreligious but a big fan of historical, evidence-based information about religion and Christianity in general. Most importantly, I have always taken it for granted that Jesus was a real human being who actually lived. I've never considered myself a mythicist, in that I've never taken the position or even taken seriously the position that Jesus is pure myth.
So Ehrman's central thesis, that Jesus really did exist, did not strike me as particularly controversial, and I largely found myself wanting to read it not on the strength of its premise, but on the strength of its writer. I hoped Ehrman would quickly prove Jesus existed and then move on to more interesting topics for consideration.
The book starts off on the wrong foot, with an absolute barrage of ad hominem attacks. Ehrman lists a number of mythicists and dismisses their arguments out of hand, on the grounds that they do not have his academic credentials. This infuriated me - Ehrman is far too smart to rely on these kinds of silly ad hominem attacks, why did he devote almost an entire chapter to them? If these mythicists' claims are bunk, simply address their claims, there is no need to also argue that they are unqualified to make these arguments. What's more, these claims aren't even accurate - I'm not familiar with many mythicists, but I do know the name of one person Ehrman singles out: Richard Carrier. Ehrman claims that Carrier's degree is in "classics" which is not even true, Carrier has a degree in early Christian history.
Listening to Ehrman academically urinate on his opponents in such a personal attack set an awful tone for the rest of the book. It made Ehrman seem unsure of his own claims, relying not just on the strength of his arguments but on the weakness of his opponents, and it put a bad taste in my mouth. There's little I hate more than a terrible argument in favor of a position with which I agree.
Ehrman discusses the burden of proof, arguing that we should assume Jesus existed, and place the burden of disproof on deniers. This is nonsense, and it's one of the favorite arguments of the religious to require nonbelievers disprove the existence of God. Jesus's existence is not the default assumption - it's been MY personal default assumption simply because I assumed sufficient evidence existed but I was unaware of it, but Ehrman arguing that this is the scientific perspective is baloney. Ehrman reluctantly accepts that, though he believes the burden of proof truly rests with mythicists, he's willing to indulge them and pretend the burden is on him, at least for the duration of the book. If that's the position you're taking for the book, why bother with paragraphs arguing that you shouldn't have to prove it anyway? Again, it stinks of Ehrman's lack of confidence in his position.
The book goes on to present, broadly, a number of mythicist positions, then attempt to dismantle them one by one. What was so stunning about this portion of the book was that, nearly every single time, I found the straw-man version of a mythicist position relatively compelling, and was let-down by Ehrman's attempt to destroy it, finding each one full of fallacies and unconvincing arguments.
For example, Ehrman more or less acknowledges that virtually no mention is made of Jesus outside of the bible itself, which I found surprising and made me somewhat more sympathetic to the mythicist view. But then he proceeds to provide poor reasons why one should not require Jesus to be mentioned outside of the Bible, and that we can use the Bible as evidence alone. That's extremely unconvincing considering the sheer number of problems the Bible has as a historical volume, which Ehrman acknowledges but argues around. In particular, he argues that, while we don't have any writings of people who knew Jesus, we have writings from an author who quotes someone who claims to "know people who know the apostles or companions of them." Know people who know the apostles or companions of them? So that's Jesus->Apostles->Companions->People who know them->First Author->Quoting Author? I find that source pretty much useless.
After each fairly well-presented mythicist view, Ehrman proceeds to take the reader through a series of mental gymnastics to argue against it. Each time, Ehrman's arguments are less convincing than the version of the mythicist view he presented before it. At one point, Ehrman admits that not a single author of any New Testament books knew or even claimed to know Jesus personally (pretty damning), but then argues that Paul claims to have met James (Jesus's brother) and Peter (Jesus's best friend). How do we know that Paul actually met them? Because he claimed to, and he insisted, in the passage describing meeting them, that he wasn't lying.
Ehrman acknowledges that Paul failed to quote much of anything Jesus had to say, even when the quotation was directly relevant to the point he was trying to make (again, pretty damning), but then handwaves over it without much of any satisfying explanation. Consistently, the mythicist view is the more convincing, and I wasn't even a mythicist when I started reading the book! Ehrman's argumentation is so bad in this book that he actually managed to convince me of the exact OPPOSITE point of view from the one he was arguing, as I was left with a sense of "really? If these are the best arguments for a historical Jesus, maybe the mythicists are right" after nearly every section.
It is not until about halfway through the book, in Chapter 6, that Ehrman finally makes an argument that I found pretty convincing. It goes like this: the Jewish people had a set of expectations about the Messiah, none of which included him suffering and dying on a cross (the interpretations of Old Testament writings that argue that the messiah was always meant to suffer are real stretches). But Christians argued that, against expectation, Jesus was the Messiah. Christians had a very hard time convincing Jews that the concept of a suffering Messiah was reasonable, in fact, it was the biggest hurdle to converting Jews at the time. So if Jesus was going to be more-or-less made up, why not make him up to be consistent with expectation, which would make proselytization easier. In other words, there MUST have been a man named Jesus who actually WAS executed, because Christians went through so much effort to coalesce the notions of the Messiah with the fact that the person they claimed to be the Messiah suffered and died on a cross. This effort indicates Jesus really was a man, since they had to admit that their claimed Messiah was executed, it must have been because everyone knew it.
Similarly, the Messiah was predicted to be born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke both contain stories of Jesus birth, and both give different accounts of why Jesus, who was born to a couple from Nazareth, found himself born in Bethlehem. The Gospel of Luke tells a story about a huge census that required Mary and Joseph return to Bethlehem to and Mary just happened to give birth while they were at it (an account for which there is no historical evidence), while Matthew gives an account of King Herod forcing Mary and Joseph to flee from their home, which resulted in Jesus being born in Bethlehem. If Jesus was pure myth, he would have just been invented to have been from Bethlehem, as the ancient scriptures predicted. The fact that Matthew and Luke both had to come up with unbelievable, credulity-straining (contradictory) stories explaining why a person from Nazareth was the messiah indicates that they had to explain away why Jesus must still be the messiah despite evidence to the contrary for ancient people. In other words, there must have ACTUALLY been a man named Jesus who everyone knew was from Nazareth to make Matthew and Luke jump through such hoops to smooth over the plot hole.
I found these arguments quite convincing since they show believers making sense of historical facts that everyone at the time knew, indicating that they must have been true. These arguments closed the book on the matter for me. I cannot fathom why it took 6 chapters for Ehrman to finally make a convincing argument for the historicity of Jesus, or why it was preceded by pages upon pages of elitist, ad hominem attacks on his opponents.
Perhaps most infuriating is that, as soon as Chapter 6 concludes, Ehrman is BACK AT IT. The remainder of the book is a much more detailed look at very specific mythicist claims, rather than the general claims he so thoroughly failed to debunk in Chapters 1-5. And once again, Ehrman provides the mythicist argument, which is relatively convincing (or at least thought-provoking) then makes incredibly poor arguments against it. I'm about halfway through Chapter 7 as I write this, and I can barely stand the idea of wading through the second half of the book if it's just a repeat of the embarrassing arguments from the first half. I had hoped he'd move on and into more interesting territory, but it appears that Ehrman wishes to go even deeper in the areas he's already been.
I don't know if I'll be able to make it all the way through the book like this, every session is a struggle not to give up and read something else. I'm writing my review now because I have a hunch that I will soon abandon this book, and I wanted to write my thoughts down while they are fresh in my mind.
I suspect that Ehrman would not care what I have to say about the book. If the first chapter is any indication, his level of disdain for those who lack his qualifications is palpable, and I hold no degrees of any sort in history. I'm just a fan of his work who had high hopes for this book.
It is worth mentioning though, that if Ehrman's book is so bad, that it fails to convince a reader who ALREADY AGREED WITH HIM that he was correct, and in fact made that reader far more sympathetic to the opposing view, I cannot imagine how entirely unconvincing it must be for those who already consider themselves mythicists. If your attempt to convince those who are on your side to stay there sends them running for the opposition, I'd say your attempt is about as monumental a failure as one could conceive.
As I said, I'm a huge fan of Ehrman's, and I look forward to his next book with the same excitement as I have with every other book of his. This book is the oozing pimple on his otherwise unblemished writing career. I cannot think of a single soul I'd recommend this book too, and I hope Ehrman's next brings a return to form for him.
UPDATE: I did wind up finishing the book eventually. The good news is that the book actually does get substantially better. After 2 more god-awful dissections of mythicist claims, Part III of the book begins, which essentially asks "now that we know Jesus existed, what can we know about what he said and what he did". This part of the book is far, far, far more interesting and engaging than the rest of it. It almost seems like Ehrman simply needed to prove Jesus existed to look at this material, but then why devote 2/3rds of a book to get to the real interesting stuff? In fact, why talk about it at all, why not just operate on the premise of "assuming Jesus existed..." or "if Jesus existed, what can we say about him?" I recognize that this answer is that this is a personal mission for Ehrman, but as I've said earlier he does a crummy job with that part.
The actual discussion of what we can be confident Jesus said and did, and how he was an apocalyptic Jew who had and espoused certain supernatural beliefs is actually quite interesting. In fact, it really warrants a book all of its own. In fact, it did! That book is called "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium" and it is by none other than Bart D. Ehrman.
It's kind of disturbing that the best part of this book was when Ehrman recycled material from a (much better) book he wrote eleven years ago, but I have to acknowledge that its inclusion does make the book much better by the end.
Because of my admiration for Ehrman and his work, it brings me a great deal of pain to admit that "Did Jesus Exist?" is Ehrman's worst book, at least of those I've read. And it's not his "worst book" in the way that "Eyes Wide Shut" is Kubrick's "worst movie" where even the worst output of a visionary is better than average. Did Jesus Exist? is a bad book. I hate it.
Let me first set the stage. I am nonreligious but a big fan of historical, evidence-based information about religion and Christianity in general. Most importantly, I have always taken it for granted that Jesus was a real human being who actually lived. I've never considered myself a mythicist, in that I've never taken the position or even taken seriously the position that Jesus is pure myth.
So Ehrman's central thesis, that Jesus really did exist, did not strike me as particularly controversial, and I largely found myself wanting to read it not on the strength of its premise, but on the strength of its writer. I hoped Ehrman would quickly prove Jesus existed and then move on to more interesting topics for consideration.
The book starts off on the wrong foot, with an absolute barrage of ad hominem attacks. Ehrman lists a number of mythicists and dismisses their arguments out of hand, on the grounds that they do not have his academic credentials. This infuriated me - Ehrman is far too smart to rely on these kinds of silly ad hominem attacks, why did he devote almost an entire chapter to them? If these mythicists' claims are bunk, simply address their claims, there is no need to also argue that they are unqualified to make these arguments. What's more, these claims aren't even accurate - I'm not familiar with many mythicists, but I do know the name of one person Ehrman singles out: Richard Carrier. Ehrman claims that Carrier's degree is in "classics" which is not even true, Carrier has a degree in early Christian history.
Listening to Ehrman academically urinate on his opponents in such a personal attack set an awful tone for the rest of the book. It made Ehrman seem unsure of his own claims, relying not just on the strength of his arguments but on the weakness of his opponents, and it put a bad taste in my mouth. There's little I hate more than a terrible argument in favor of a position with which I agree.
Ehrman discusses the burden of proof, arguing that we should assume Jesus existed, and place the burden of disproof on deniers. This is nonsense, and it's one of the favorite arguments of the religious to require nonbelievers disprove the existence of God. Jesus's existence is not the default assumption - it's been MY personal default assumption simply because I assumed sufficient evidence existed but I was unaware of it, but Ehrman arguing that this is the scientific perspective is baloney. Ehrman reluctantly accepts that, though he believes the burden of proof truly rests with mythicists, he's willing to indulge them and pretend the burden is on him, at least for the duration of the book. If that's the position you're taking for the book, why bother with paragraphs arguing that you shouldn't have to prove it anyway? Again, it stinks of Ehrman's lack of confidence in his position.
The book goes on to present, broadly, a number of mythicist positions, then attempt to dismantle them one by one. What was so stunning about this portion of the book was that, nearly every single time, I found the straw-man version of a mythicist position relatively compelling, and was let-down by Ehrman's attempt to destroy it, finding each one full of fallacies and unconvincing arguments.
For example, Ehrman more or less acknowledges that virtually no mention is made of Jesus outside of the bible itself, which I found surprising and made me somewhat more sympathetic to the mythicist view. But then he proceeds to provide poor reasons why one should not require Jesus to be mentioned outside of the Bible, and that we can use the Bible as evidence alone. That's extremely unconvincing considering the sheer number of problems the Bible has as a historical volume, which Ehrman acknowledges but argues around. In particular, he argues that, while we don't have any writings of people who knew Jesus, we have writings from an author who quotes someone who claims to "know people who know the apostles or companions of them." Know people who know the apostles or companions of them? So that's Jesus->Apostles->Companions->People who know them->First Author->Quoting Author? I find that source pretty much useless.
After each fairly well-presented mythicist view, Ehrman proceeds to take the reader through a series of mental gymnastics to argue against it. Each time, Ehrman's arguments are less convincing than the version of the mythicist view he presented before it. At one point, Ehrman admits that not a single author of any New Testament books knew or even claimed to know Jesus personally (pretty damning), but then argues that Paul claims to have met James (Jesus's brother) and Peter (Jesus's best friend). How do we know that Paul actually met them? Because he claimed to, and he insisted, in the passage describing meeting them, that he wasn't lying.
Ehrman acknowledges that Paul failed to quote much of anything Jesus had to say, even when the quotation was directly relevant to the point he was trying to make (again, pretty damning), but then handwaves over it without much of any satisfying explanation. Consistently, the mythicist view is the more convincing, and I wasn't even a mythicist when I started reading the book! Ehrman's argumentation is so bad in this book that he actually managed to convince me of the exact OPPOSITE point of view from the one he was arguing, as I was left with a sense of "really? If these are the best arguments for a historical Jesus, maybe the mythicists are right" after nearly every section.
It is not until about halfway through the book, in Chapter 6, that Ehrman finally makes an argument that I found pretty convincing. It goes like this: the Jewish people had a set of expectations about the Messiah, none of which included him suffering and dying on a cross (the interpretations of Old Testament writings that argue that the messiah was always meant to suffer are real stretches). But Christians argued that, against expectation, Jesus was the Messiah. Christians had a very hard time convincing Jews that the concept of a suffering Messiah was reasonable, in fact, it was the biggest hurdle to converting Jews at the time. So if Jesus was going to be more-or-less made up, why not make him up to be consistent with expectation, which would make proselytization easier. In other words, there MUST have been a man named Jesus who actually WAS executed, because Christians went through so much effort to coalesce the notions of the Messiah with the fact that the person they claimed to be the Messiah suffered and died on a cross. This effort indicates Jesus really was a man, since they had to admit that their claimed Messiah was executed, it must have been because everyone knew it.
Similarly, the Messiah was predicted to be born in Bethlehem. Matthew and Luke both contain stories of Jesus birth, and both give different accounts of why Jesus, who was born to a couple from Nazareth, found himself born in Bethlehem. The Gospel of Luke tells a story about a huge census that required Mary and Joseph return to Bethlehem to and Mary just happened to give birth while they were at it (an account for which there is no historical evidence), while Matthew gives an account of King Herod forcing Mary and Joseph to flee from their home, which resulted in Jesus being born in Bethlehem. If Jesus was pure myth, he would have just been invented to have been from Bethlehem, as the ancient scriptures predicted. The fact that Matthew and Luke both had to come up with unbelievable, credulity-straining (contradictory) stories explaining why a person from Nazareth was the messiah indicates that they had to explain away why Jesus must still be the messiah despite evidence to the contrary for ancient people. In other words, there must have ACTUALLY been a man named Jesus who everyone knew was from Nazareth to make Matthew and Luke jump through such hoops to smooth over the plot hole.
I found these arguments quite convincing since they show believers making sense of historical facts that everyone at the time knew, indicating that they must have been true. These arguments closed the book on the matter for me. I cannot fathom why it took 6 chapters for Ehrman to finally make a convincing argument for the historicity of Jesus, or why it was preceded by pages upon pages of elitist, ad hominem attacks on his opponents.
Perhaps most infuriating is that, as soon as Chapter 6 concludes, Ehrman is BACK AT IT. The remainder of the book is a much more detailed look at very specific mythicist claims, rather than the general claims he so thoroughly failed to debunk in Chapters 1-5. And once again, Ehrman provides the mythicist argument, which is relatively convincing (or at least thought-provoking) then makes incredibly poor arguments against it. I'm about halfway through Chapter 7 as I write this, and I can barely stand the idea of wading through the second half of the book if it's just a repeat of the embarrassing arguments from the first half. I had hoped he'd move on and into more interesting territory, but it appears that Ehrman wishes to go even deeper in the areas he's already been.
I don't know if I'll be able to make it all the way through the book like this, every session is a struggle not to give up and read something else. I'm writing my review now because I have a hunch that I will soon abandon this book, and I wanted to write my thoughts down while they are fresh in my mind.
I suspect that Ehrman would not care what I have to say about the book. If the first chapter is any indication, his level of disdain for those who lack his qualifications is palpable, and I hold no degrees of any sort in history. I'm just a fan of his work who had high hopes for this book.
It is worth mentioning though, that if Ehrman's book is so bad, that it fails to convince a reader who ALREADY AGREED WITH HIM that he was correct, and in fact made that reader far more sympathetic to the opposing view, I cannot imagine how entirely unconvincing it must be for those who already consider themselves mythicists. If your attempt to convince those who are on your side to stay there sends them running for the opposition, I'd say your attempt is about as monumental a failure as one could conceive.
As I said, I'm a huge fan of Ehrman's, and I look forward to his next book with the same excitement as I have with every other book of his. This book is the oozing pimple on his otherwise unblemished writing career. I cannot think of a single soul I'd recommend this book too, and I hope Ehrman's next brings a return to form for him.
UPDATE: I did wind up finishing the book eventually. The good news is that the book actually does get substantially better. After 2 more god-awful dissections of mythicist claims, Part III of the book begins, which essentially asks "now that we know Jesus existed, what can we know about what he said and what he did". This part of the book is far, far, far more interesting and engaging than the rest of it. It almost seems like Ehrman simply needed to prove Jesus existed to look at this material, but then why devote 2/3rds of a book to get to the real interesting stuff? In fact, why talk about it at all, why not just operate on the premise of "assuming Jesus existed..." or "if Jesus existed, what can we say about him?" I recognize that this answer is that this is a personal mission for Ehrman, but as I've said earlier he does a crummy job with that part.
The actual discussion of what we can be confident Jesus said and did, and how he was an apocalyptic Jew who had and espoused certain supernatural beliefs is actually quite interesting. In fact, it really warrants a book all of its own. In fact, it did! That book is called "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium" and it is by none other than Bart D. Ehrman.
It's kind of disturbing that the best part of this book was when Ehrman recycled material from a (much better) book he wrote eleven years ago, but I have to acknowledge that its inclusion does make the book much better by the end.
May 9, 2012
I wasn't really looking to be persuaded about this book's titular question, hadn't ever really doubted it before, just wanted to learn some stuff. Not only did I learn very little, but this guy tipped me toward skepticism about the existence of the historical Jesus when before reading it I'd assumed it as fact. That's how slipshod his methodology is, how circular his reasoning, how thin and flimsy his sourcing. I mean really -- Q, M, & L prove such-and-such a point, when Q, M, & L are hypothetical sources that don't actually exist! Paul really met Jesus's brother because he double-dare swears he did. And on and on. Plus, as several online commentators have pointed out in the heated polemics that have broken out in response to this book, Ehrman makes many mistakes of fact and interpretation. The writing is mind-numbingly mediocre and self-referential to boot, and OMG the repetitiveness is over the top.
February 13, 2024
Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" is a thought-provoking exploration of the historical evidence surrounding the existence of Jesus Christ.
Ehrman, a renowned New Testament scholar, presents a compelling case for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, countering the arguments of mythicists and atheists who suggest otherwise.
One of the strengths of Ehrman's book is his clear and accessible writing style. He adeptly navigates complex historical and theological concepts, making them understandable to readers with varying levels of expertise.
Additionally, Ehrman provides a thorough examination of the primary sources, including biblical texts and other ancient documents (which he quotes), offering readers a comprehensive overview of the evidence for Jesus' existence. This can be briefly summarized as several general descriptions about who Jesus was and what he preached: he was crucified, he had brothers, and he was born in a lowly rural hamlet called Nazareth, among other interesting facts.
Once given these and other historical facts that we can say with some degree of certainty that happened, the original picture of Jesus is crystal clear in his apocalyptic context:
*TRIGGER WARNING* The real Jesus is not the same as that of the Far-Right Conservative Fundamentalists. He was not born of a virgin, he didn't perform any miracles, he didn't see himself as God, and he didn't predict his death, and many more facts that one has to thank Ehrman for sharing in such a comprehensive language, even if it means hurting the feelings of apologists and Fundamentalists.
However, while Ehrman's arguments are persuasive, and I consider them a life-saving lecture, the book is not without its flaws. One notable issue is the occasional and rather bothersome elephant in the room, Ehrman's character. If Ehrman doesn't believe most if not all of Jesus' original teachings, then why would he spend his life researching Christianity? Ehrman is aware of this nonsense when he says:
"Many people can't understand why I would teach the Bible in a university setting if I don't believe in the Bible" (p. 94).
Many of the reasons Ehrman gives are not very good. Enough to say that if I see myself surrounded by people who are outspoken Neo-pagans (which I do since I live in Mexico), does that mean it's rational for me to study a Ph.D. in Mexican Native religion, to then spend 20 or more years of my life reading and teaching about pagan beliefs which I have nothing in common with and disagree with completely? No, it doesn't, at least for me. It doesn't make any sense to dedicate your entire life to the study and teaching of any religion or philosophy if you don't actually agree with it or practice it in any way. Sure you can do so, as Gregory B. Sadler does, a Ph.D. in philosophy and self-proclaimed "Stoic" who enjoys attending death metal concerts dressed like a 16-year-old teen. Do you see my point?
Furthermore, some readers may find Ehrman's dismissal of the Christian faith as superficial and ironic. In his last chapter, Ehrman opens up about being finally recognized and accepted by the American Humanist Society. A small group of atheists and agnostics whom he believed would share many of his own beliefs. For example, the belief that Christians "promote ignorance" in educational institutions, as well as "do damage to human lives" through sponsoring slavery and denying people the possibility of gay love, among other things. All of these beliefs are held by Ehrman without too much justification, and he thought that being accepted in this small group would mean finding some justification for his beliefs, but he was wrong. There he found many angry, myth-based, conspiracy arguments against Jesus' existence and Christianity as a whole. This led Ehrman to conclude that: "Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious agenda. They are not doing history, they are doing theology" (p. 338). And so, Erhman wrote the book as a response to such conspiracy groups.
Despite these criticisms, of course, "Did Jesus Exist?" remains a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the importance of the life of Jesus. Ehrman's expertise and engaging writing style make it a worthwhile read for anyone interested in exploring the evidence for Jesus' existence. While not without its limitations, the book serves as an accessible introduction to a complex topic, encouraging readers to critically evaluate the evidence for themselves. Let me tell you that, if you do let the evidence guide you, you will discover that many of the arrogant affirmations put forward by the Far-Right Fundamentalists and apologists are unwarranted and have no historical basis whatsoever.
Overall, I would recommend "Did Jesus Exist?" to readers seeking a comprehensive overview of the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, with the only condition that they approach it with a critical eye and a willingness to engage with alternative viewpoints. While not perfect, Ehrman's book offers valuable insights into one of the most important lives in all of human history.
Ehrman, a renowned New Testament scholar, presents a compelling case for the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, countering the arguments of mythicists and atheists who suggest otherwise.
One of the strengths of Ehrman's book is his clear and accessible writing style. He adeptly navigates complex historical and theological concepts, making them understandable to readers with varying levels of expertise.
Additionally, Ehrman provides a thorough examination of the primary sources, including biblical texts and other ancient documents (which he quotes), offering readers a comprehensive overview of the evidence for Jesus' existence. This can be briefly summarized as several general descriptions about who Jesus was and what he preached: he was crucified, he had brothers, and he was born in a lowly rural hamlet called Nazareth, among other interesting facts.
Once given these and other historical facts that we can say with some degree of certainty that happened, the original picture of Jesus is crystal clear in his apocalyptic context:
*TRIGGER WARNING* The real Jesus is not the same as that of the Far-Right Conservative Fundamentalists. He was not born of a virgin, he didn't perform any miracles, he didn't see himself as God, and he didn't predict his death, and many more facts that one has to thank Ehrman for sharing in such a comprehensive language, even if it means hurting the feelings of apologists and Fundamentalists.
However, while Ehrman's arguments are persuasive, and I consider them a life-saving lecture, the book is not without its flaws. One notable issue is the occasional and rather bothersome elephant in the room, Ehrman's character. If Ehrman doesn't believe most if not all of Jesus' original teachings, then why would he spend his life researching Christianity? Ehrman is aware of this nonsense when he says:
"Many people can't understand why I would teach the Bible in a university setting if I don't believe in the Bible" (p. 94).
Many of the reasons Ehrman gives are not very good. Enough to say that if I see myself surrounded by people who are outspoken Neo-pagans (which I do since I live in Mexico), does that mean it's rational for me to study a Ph.D. in Mexican Native religion, to then spend 20 or more years of my life reading and teaching about pagan beliefs which I have nothing in common with and disagree with completely? No, it doesn't, at least for me. It doesn't make any sense to dedicate your entire life to the study and teaching of any religion or philosophy if you don't actually agree with it or practice it in any way. Sure you can do so, as Gregory B. Sadler does, a Ph.D. in philosophy and self-proclaimed "Stoic" who enjoys attending death metal concerts dressed like a 16-year-old teen. Do you see my point?
Furthermore, some readers may find Ehrman's dismissal of the Christian faith as superficial and ironic. In his last chapter, Ehrman opens up about being finally recognized and accepted by the American Humanist Society. A small group of atheists and agnostics whom he believed would share many of his own beliefs. For example, the belief that Christians "promote ignorance" in educational institutions, as well as "do damage to human lives" through sponsoring slavery and denying people the possibility of gay love, among other things. All of these beliefs are held by Ehrman without too much justification, and he thought that being accepted in this small group would mean finding some justification for his beliefs, but he was wrong. There he found many angry, myth-based, conspiracy arguments against Jesus' existence and Christianity as a whole. This led Ehrman to conclude that: "Their agenda is religious, and they are complicit in a religious agenda. They are not doing history, they are doing theology" (p. 338). And so, Erhman wrote the book as a response to such conspiracy groups.
Despite these criticisms, of course, "Did Jesus Exist?" remains a valuable contribution to the ongoing debate surrounding the importance of the life of Jesus. Ehrman's expertise and engaging writing style make it a worthwhile read for anyone interested in exploring the evidence for Jesus' existence. While not without its limitations, the book serves as an accessible introduction to a complex topic, encouraging readers to critically evaluate the evidence for themselves. Let me tell you that, if you do let the evidence guide you, you will discover that many of the arrogant affirmations put forward by the Far-Right Fundamentalists and apologists are unwarranted and have no historical basis whatsoever.
Overall, I would recommend "Did Jesus Exist?" to readers seeking a comprehensive overview of the historical evidence for Jesus' existence, with the only condition that they approach it with a critical eye and a willingness to engage with alternative viewpoints. While not perfect, Ehrman's book offers valuable insights into one of the most important lives in all of human history.
December 9, 2018
Some parts were quite good and helpful. Other parts were quite bad and harmful.
Like "virtually every expert on the planet" Bart Ehrman believes Jesus existed, arguing from the fact that we have 7 independent Gospel sources (referring to "Q" and other source material for the Gospels) plus at least 10 other witnesses (such as Hebrews, Clement, Papias, Tacitus, Josephus) to the historical Jesus. His view of Jesus, however, is the one that Albert Schweitzer advocated. Jesus, in his judgment, was merely an apocalyptic prophet in the first-century Judaism. Though Ehrman agrees with Schweitzer's conclusion, he, interestingly, argues that most scholars would disagree with how Schweitzer arrived at it.
There were several parts of this book, which I think were quite good and helpful (Ehrman predicted this is how many Christians would respond to this work). What I found particularly helpful was Ehrman's refutation of myths that the mythicists (those doubting the existence of a historical Jesus) believe. One big one is that "The Romans were renowned for keeping careful records of all their activities, especially legal proceedings, making it surprising that there is no record of Jesus being tried by Pontius Pilate or executed." Ehrman responds, "If Romans were careful record keepers, it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone who lived in the first century." He adds, that we literally have one author whose works have survived from first century Roman Palestine, and he is Josephus (I would add: not including some of the New Testament books). Ehrman also takes on the ridiculous notion that because books in the Bible are written with a religious bias they cannot be used for historical study. He compares it to ignoring early accounts of the American Revolution because they were written by Americans. Ehrman puts a death nail into a lot of speculation by demonstrating that Christianity was not drummed up by adopting the pagan practice of worshipping dying and rising gods. He states, "There is no unambiguous evidence that any pagans prior to Christianity believed in dying and rising gods..."
There were several parts of his book, which I think were quite bad and harmful. His criteria of "disimialrity" is terrible. He argues that stories that serve the Christian movement are defacto unreliable. Holding this criterion renders the Biblical Jesus, the Jesus of Christianity, to be an impossibility prior to any research. To hold this criterion, one must simply assume that the Jesus of Scriptures is false. Scholarship, in this case, is merely the application of methodological skepticism to sources. Ehrman speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he talks about text-critical issues as well. On one page he hits some rhetorical home runs by revealing that we do not have the original writings of the New Testament, only copies of copies that differ (so who knows what they wrote?). Then on the next page, he says the differences between manuscripts are mostly quite innocuous and do not render it impossible to know what the original writer said. Ehrman's belief that the earliest Christology was a low Christology fails to do a close reading of Scripture. Jesus is understood to be YHWH in Mark and the earliest Christology was the highest Christology (Richard Bauckhman and Richard Hays have made this clear). There are several other places that I find objectionable. Throughout the entire work, Ehrman takes shots at those who believe the Scriptures are reliable and true, consistently comparing them to ignorant mythicists.
In the end, I found the book quite helpful. Ehrman is a lucid and entertaining writer, even though he gloats about himself a little much.
Like "virtually every expert on the planet" Bart Ehrman believes Jesus existed, arguing from the fact that we have 7 independent Gospel sources (referring to "Q" and other source material for the Gospels) plus at least 10 other witnesses (such as Hebrews, Clement, Papias, Tacitus, Josephus) to the historical Jesus. His view of Jesus, however, is the one that Albert Schweitzer advocated. Jesus, in his judgment, was merely an apocalyptic prophet in the first-century Judaism. Though Ehrman agrees with Schweitzer's conclusion, he, interestingly, argues that most scholars would disagree with how Schweitzer arrived at it.
There were several parts of this book, which I think were quite good and helpful (Ehrman predicted this is how many Christians would respond to this work). What I found particularly helpful was Ehrman's refutation of myths that the mythicists (those doubting the existence of a historical Jesus) believe. One big one is that "The Romans were renowned for keeping careful records of all their activities, especially legal proceedings, making it surprising that there is no record of Jesus being tried by Pontius Pilate or executed." Ehrman responds, "If Romans were careful record keepers, it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone who lived in the first century." He adds, that we literally have one author whose works have survived from first century Roman Palestine, and he is Josephus (I would add: not including some of the New Testament books). Ehrman also takes on the ridiculous notion that because books in the Bible are written with a religious bias they cannot be used for historical study. He compares it to ignoring early accounts of the American Revolution because they were written by Americans. Ehrman puts a death nail into a lot of speculation by demonstrating that Christianity was not drummed up by adopting the pagan practice of worshipping dying and rising gods. He states, "There is no unambiguous evidence that any pagans prior to Christianity believed in dying and rising gods..."
There were several parts of his book, which I think were quite bad and harmful. His criteria of "disimialrity" is terrible. He argues that stories that serve the Christian movement are defacto unreliable. Holding this criterion renders the Biblical Jesus, the Jesus of Christianity, to be an impossibility prior to any research. To hold this criterion, one must simply assume that the Jesus of Scriptures is false. Scholarship, in this case, is merely the application of methodological skepticism to sources. Ehrman speaks out of both sides of his mouth when he talks about text-critical issues as well. On one page he hits some rhetorical home runs by revealing that we do not have the original writings of the New Testament, only copies of copies that differ (so who knows what they wrote?). Then on the next page, he says the differences between manuscripts are mostly quite innocuous and do not render it impossible to know what the original writer said. Ehrman's belief that the earliest Christology was a low Christology fails to do a close reading of Scripture. Jesus is understood to be YHWH in Mark and the earliest Christology was the highest Christology (Richard Bauckhman and Richard Hays have made this clear). There are several other places that I find objectionable. Throughout the entire work, Ehrman takes shots at those who believe the Scriptures are reliable and true, consistently comparing them to ignorant mythicists.
In the end, I found the book quite helpful. Ehrman is a lucid and entertaining writer, even though he gloats about himself a little much.
April 1, 2012
Not too long ago, I was asked in a religious forum whether I believe Jesus really existed. I said yes, I'm 99% sure. I meant precisely that: I'm a numbers guy, and I estimate the odds that Jesus never existed to be somewhere around one chance in a hundred. After presenting a parallel (a Bible historian who is forced to make sense of his research in light of a nonexistent Jesus would be a bit like a research biologist who shows up to work one day and is told that evolution is a lie) I gave an example of the type of argument that I find most convincing. If Jesus were a made-up figure, wouldn't the made-up stories be a bit more self-serving? Instead, for example, the Gospels tell about Jesus submitting to baptism for his sins by a competitor, a man we know from historical reports DID exist: John the Baptist. How did this whole embarrassing episode get written into the story, if it weren't literally true?
The truth is, I didn't know what to say in the forum. I would have to write a book to detail all the reasons Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
Thankfully, the book has been written, and by precisely the right person: Bart Ehrman, the controversial Bible-belt professor who has no qualms about speaking his mind regarding the myths which DO exist in the Bible.
It's not that Ehrman has no vested interest in the topic. He does. He's been teaching about the Historical Jesus for a couple decades, and he'd have to eat some serious crow if it turns out no such person existed. It's that Ehrman doesn't find it necessary to play by the rules of an apologist, defending conservative Christianity. He can play dirty. For example, in arguing that the Jesus story is more than a myth similar to other legends of a dying and rising god, Ehrman is free to point out the obvious: The guys who first wrote about Jesus never in their wildest dreams thought Jesus was God. That theology came later.
I do feel Ehrman overstates his case a bit. Well, he under appreciates the opposing case, I should say, and cops a bit of an attitude as he does. When the mythicists point out that something smells fishy with all the midrash in the New Testament, I found Ehrman's that-don't-prove-nuthin stance a little lame. But when he gets around to presenting the arguments for Jesus' existence, the book is superb.
Four stars for an important counter-balance in a debate that has become more heated than I would have thought. And I'm still right where I was before: 99% sure.
The truth is, I didn't know what to say in the forum. I would have to write a book to detail all the reasons Bible scholars believe Jesus existed.
Thankfully, the book has been written, and by precisely the right person: Bart Ehrman, the controversial Bible-belt professor who has no qualms about speaking his mind regarding the myths which DO exist in the Bible.
It's not that Ehrman has no vested interest in the topic. He does. He's been teaching about the Historical Jesus for a couple decades, and he'd have to eat some serious crow if it turns out no such person existed. It's that Ehrman doesn't find it necessary to play by the rules of an apologist, defending conservative Christianity. He can play dirty. For example, in arguing that the Jesus story is more than a myth similar to other legends of a dying and rising god, Ehrman is free to point out the obvious: The guys who first wrote about Jesus never in their wildest dreams thought Jesus was God. That theology came later.
I do feel Ehrman overstates his case a bit. Well, he under appreciates the opposing case, I should say, and cops a bit of an attitude as he does. When the mythicists point out that something smells fishy with all the midrash in the New Testament, I found Ehrman's that-don't-prove-nuthin stance a little lame. But when he gets around to presenting the arguments for Jesus' existence, the book is superb.
Four stars for an important counter-balance in a debate that has become more heated than I would have thought. And I'm still right where I was before: 99% sure.
December 31, 2015
Bart did a rather bad job of establishing a historical Jesus. Some of the arguments he rallied were sound, but they were not conclusive. He also brought into the fray some horrible, horrible logic and reasoning. He also misrepresented the so called "mythicists". The book did contain some interesting slivers of knowledge, so I think it deserves a 2/5 rating.
October 24, 2021
Spoiler alert: all the evidence clearly points to Jesus actually having existed. Not that he was anything like we imagine, since he’s been reinvented for the 21st century, but nonetheless, there was a man Jesus crucified two millennia ago.
January 29, 2013
Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York: HarperOne, 2012). $26.99, 361 pages.
A small but prolific group of agnostics and atheists argues that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Many of them are cranks and conspiracy theorists. A few of them are scholars, though generally not with expertise in the relevant fields of New Testament studies. They refer to themselves as “mythicists,” i.e. people who believe that Jesus was a myth.
In Did Jesus Exist?, Bart D. Ehrman refutes the core thesis of mythicism by providing a careful historical argument for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Like the mythicists, Ehrman is not a Christian. He describes himself as “an agnostic with atheist leanings.” Unlike the vast majority of mythicists, however, Ehrman has relevant expertise in New Testament studies and the history of early Christianity.
Ehrman divides his argument into three parts: First, he outlines the evidence for the existence of Jesus from a variety of sources, both outside and within the New Testament (chapters 2–5). Second, he responds to specific mythicist claims, showing that they are “weak and irrelevant” (chapter 6), or, if relevant, nevertheless “not persuasive” (chapter 7). Third, he identifies criteria for establishing “historically accurate” traditions about Jesus (chapter 8): “contextual credibility,” “multiple attestation,” and “dissimilarity.” On the basis of those criteria, he concludes that the historical Jesus was an “apocalyptic prophet” (chapter 9).
As an evangelical Christian, my response to Did Jesus Exist? is ambivalent. On the one hand, I agree with Ehrman’s argument that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and I find his refutation of mythicism persuasive. On the other hand, I disagree with his conclusions about what we can reasonably infer about the historical Jesus based on available evidence. Or rather, I believe that we can reasonably infer more about the historical Jesus than he does. But that is an argument for another day. For today, it is sufficient to thank Ehrman for his yeoman work in refuting “the Jesus myth.”
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
A small but prolific group of agnostics and atheists argues that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. Many of them are cranks and conspiracy theorists. A few of them are scholars, though generally not with expertise in the relevant fields of New Testament studies. They refer to themselves as “mythicists,” i.e. people who believe that Jesus was a myth.
In Did Jesus Exist?, Bart D. Ehrman refutes the core thesis of mythicism by providing a careful historical argument for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Like the mythicists, Ehrman is not a Christian. He describes himself as “an agnostic with atheist leanings.” Unlike the vast majority of mythicists, however, Ehrman has relevant expertise in New Testament studies and the history of early Christianity.
Ehrman divides his argument into three parts: First, he outlines the evidence for the existence of Jesus from a variety of sources, both outside and within the New Testament (chapters 2–5). Second, he responds to specific mythicist claims, showing that they are “weak and irrelevant” (chapter 6), or, if relevant, nevertheless “not persuasive” (chapter 7). Third, he identifies criteria for establishing “historically accurate” traditions about Jesus (chapter 8): “contextual credibility,” “multiple attestation,” and “dissimilarity.” On the basis of those criteria, he concludes that the historical Jesus was an “apocalyptic prophet” (chapter 9).
As an evangelical Christian, my response to Did Jesus Exist? is ambivalent. On the one hand, I agree with Ehrman’s argument that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and I find his refutation of mythicism persuasive. On the other hand, I disagree with his conclusions about what we can reasonably infer about the historical Jesus based on available evidence. Or rather, I believe that we can reasonably infer more about the historical Jesus than he does. But that is an argument for another day. For today, it is sufficient to thank Ehrman for his yeoman work in refuting “the Jesus myth.”
P.S. If you found this review helpful, please vote “Yes” on my Amazon.com review page.
January 6, 2015
This book is packed with interesting and useful information. Unfortunately, the Arrogance and unnecessarily confrontational style of the author really get in the way. Perhaps he has spent too much time in online debates on this subject; read as a collection of forum posts in an online discussion, it would be fine. As an informative nonfiction book, however, this style of writing is much less to my taste.
March 7, 2021
The question has always facinated me not only about Jesus but also Moses and Mohammed. Bart Ehrman is a great 🏫scholar and I love his story telling style.
March 28, 2019
Awkward timing to read this so close to Easter...
One star docked off because I think too much time was spent on mythicist theories.
Bravo, Mr. Ehrman, as always.
One star docked off because I think too much time was spent on mythicist theories.
Bravo, Mr. Ehrman, as always.
November 4, 2014
Remarkably easy-to-read and interesting account of the accumulated (by Ehrman and many others, but mostly by Ehrman, who self-refers almost to the point of annoyance) evidence of the actual, historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This stuff is usually very dense, very academic, and a real snooze if written badly. But Ehrman--an intelligent person, versified in ancient Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and an acknowledged (and, truth be told, self-acknowledged) expert in ancient Christianity and Judaism, and a distinguished, award-winning professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Religious Studies--is also a gifted writer. He has written over twenty-five books, including five NYT bestsellers. His gift is that his prose sounds like he's talking right to you, or leaning on a lectern, facing his students. He's right there in front of you, talking with you, not to you, and not down to you. His writing is conversational, not pompous.
And it's thorough. Exhaustively so. Unlike a lot of writers of this stuff, he backs up every single assertion, all the time. And he has the obvious knowledge to back it all up, too. I've read a lot of this kind of thing--lots of Ehrman, but also Vermes, Eisenman, Theiring (who can get a bit hysterical and unsubstantiated), many of the Dead Sea Scrolls guys, etc.--but Ehrman is by far the most lucid, the most investigative, the most historical, the most thorough--and the easiest to read. No small feat, that.
And he says things you can (usually) look up on your own. Some of the things he points out have been rocking around my noggin for some time, and yet other things--sometimes head-slappingly simple--were brought to my attention here, and I feel the fool for not thinking of them myself.
Like what? Well, among the many things:
--Did Mark, Luke, John and Matthew really write the Gospels with their names on them? I've thought "No," for a very long time, and I've had good reasons, all of them via literary analysis (all backed up by Ehrman). But he also throws in a little common sense, such as:
* The four Gospels were written by different people who were not followers of Jesus, scattered throughout the lands, forty to sixty years after Jesus died.
* According to the Gospels themselves, Mark was the secretary of Peter, and Luke, a physician, travelled with Paul. So what they give us is second-hand information, at best. They were written independently, though the later ones definitely had the earlier ones (including a few--Q, L and M--that have not survived) around, and borrowed heavily from them, sometimes verbatim.
* Most Gospel manuscripts that have survived were copied about one thousand years after the original copies. And they are written in highly-educated, upper-class Greek. Jesus and his disciples did not speak Greek. His disciples certainly could not write in Greek.
* In fact, they may not have been able to read and write at all. As Ehrman points out, many studies have shown that literacy in the ancient Middle East was about 10%, max. And in Palestine it may have been as low as 3%. And who would that 3% be? The nobility. The rich. The people who had the money and the time to be educated. And who were the disciples? Fisherman. Jesus himself was a laborer, a tekton--one who works with his hands. (This could also mean a blacksmith or a stonemason, but the general consensus is that he was a carpenter.) As such a person, he would've not built wooden cabinets or buildings, but simpler things for a poverty-stricken town like Nazareth--yokes for oxen, or gates. At any rate, there would not have been much time or money for any of the disciples to read or write. Jesus may--and only may--have been able to read a bit because he clearly knew his Old Testament, since he often quoted it verbatim.
* The Gospels are often contradictory of each other, and are often historically inaccurate. For example, was Jesus born in Bethlehem, or Nazareth? Constantly Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth," or, more simply, "the Nazarene." But according to Luke--and only Luke--Caesar Augustus imposed a tax on "all the world", and so everyone in the Roman Empire had to take part in a census so they'd be registered to pay this tax. And so Joseph, a direct descendant of the ancient King David, and Mary had to trek to Bethlehem, and that's where Jesus was born. In a manger, visited by the three Magi. You know the story. But, turns out, there is no record (and the ancient Romans kept lots of records) of Augustus imposing a tax. Luke claims the census happened "when Quirinius was the governor of Syria," and while, of course, Herod was king. But, turns out, Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. And, for all that, how logical is it that everybody in the Roman Empire had to stop what they were doing, and trek perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles to go to a place where their ancient ancestors were born over a thousand years ago? That doesn't make any sense at all, does it? But Luke, and only Luke, says it did. Why? Micah, an Old Testament prophet, said the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and Jesus wasn't. This bothered Luke, and so he fixed it. There's a lot of that kind of thing here.
* The Gospels have obviously been altered by the many hundreds of scribes who have copied them. One clear example is the story of the woman being stoned to death by the crowd. Jesus tells them to knock it off, "lest he who is without sin cast the first stone." This is one of my favorite Gospel stories, but there's a problem. Out of all the thousands of Gospel manuscripts and fragments throughout history, it is only found in John--and only from about the Middle Ages to today. Older manuscripts of John's Gospel do not have the story.
And there's hundreds of more examples. But does any of that prove that Jesus didn't really exist? Nope. Of course not. If I mess up a fact about JFK's life, does that mean JFK didn't exist? The point is, though, that Ehrman argues for the historical existence of Jesus, since there's apparently a growing legion of people who do not believe Jesus ever existed--the so-called "Mythicists." (That Jesus was just a myth, get it?) I also believe that Jesus existed, just not in the incantation presently popular in America, especially in the South. What I call "Joel Osteen's Jesus." (You can look that reference up. When you do, ask yourself, Could that be what Jesus really wanted?)
Ehrman is an agnostic, as am I, sometimes. I think. I sort of vary back and forth between believing and being an agnostic. I'm never an atheist. Anyway, this is fascinating reading. It's set up as an argument against the Mythicists, but the real meat of the book is in his evidence of Jesus's existence, and the vast, incredible number of ways--99 % of it via literary analysis and his knowledge of ancient manuscripts and ancient Judaism and Christianity, and 1% sheer common sense--in which he proves it.
Considering our current political / educational / religious American society (and how did it get to be that our laws and our education are tied into an uneasy, un-Constitutional hybrid of these three?), this is a work that deserves--and desperately needs--to be read.
And it's thorough. Exhaustively so. Unlike a lot of writers of this stuff, he backs up every single assertion, all the time. And he has the obvious knowledge to back it all up, too. I've read a lot of this kind of thing--lots of Ehrman, but also Vermes, Eisenman, Theiring (who can get a bit hysterical and unsubstantiated), many of the Dead Sea Scrolls guys, etc.--but Ehrman is by far the most lucid, the most investigative, the most historical, the most thorough--and the easiest to read. No small feat, that.
And he says things you can (usually) look up on your own. Some of the things he points out have been rocking around my noggin for some time, and yet other things--sometimes head-slappingly simple--were brought to my attention here, and I feel the fool for not thinking of them myself.
Like what? Well, among the many things:
--Did Mark, Luke, John and Matthew really write the Gospels with their names on them? I've thought "No," for a very long time, and I've had good reasons, all of them via literary analysis (all backed up by Ehrman). But he also throws in a little common sense, such as:
* The four Gospels were written by different people who were not followers of Jesus, scattered throughout the lands, forty to sixty years after Jesus died.
* According to the Gospels themselves, Mark was the secretary of Peter, and Luke, a physician, travelled with Paul. So what they give us is second-hand information, at best. They were written independently, though the later ones definitely had the earlier ones (including a few--Q, L and M--that have not survived) around, and borrowed heavily from them, sometimes verbatim.
* Most Gospel manuscripts that have survived were copied about one thousand years after the original copies. And they are written in highly-educated, upper-class Greek. Jesus and his disciples did not speak Greek. His disciples certainly could not write in Greek.
* In fact, they may not have been able to read and write at all. As Ehrman points out, many studies have shown that literacy in the ancient Middle East was about 10%, max. And in Palestine it may have been as low as 3%. And who would that 3% be? The nobility. The rich. The people who had the money and the time to be educated. And who were the disciples? Fisherman. Jesus himself was a laborer, a tekton--one who works with his hands. (This could also mean a blacksmith or a stonemason, but the general consensus is that he was a carpenter.) As such a person, he would've not built wooden cabinets or buildings, but simpler things for a poverty-stricken town like Nazareth--yokes for oxen, or gates. At any rate, there would not have been much time or money for any of the disciples to read or write. Jesus may--and only may--have been able to read a bit because he clearly knew his Old Testament, since he often quoted it verbatim.
* The Gospels are often contradictory of each other, and are often historically inaccurate. For example, was Jesus born in Bethlehem, or Nazareth? Constantly Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth," or, more simply, "the Nazarene." But according to Luke--and only Luke--Caesar Augustus imposed a tax on "all the world", and so everyone in the Roman Empire had to take part in a census so they'd be registered to pay this tax. And so Joseph, a direct descendant of the ancient King David, and Mary had to trek to Bethlehem, and that's where Jesus was born. In a manger, visited by the three Magi. You know the story. But, turns out, there is no record (and the ancient Romans kept lots of records) of Augustus imposing a tax. Luke claims the census happened "when Quirinius was the governor of Syria," and while, of course, Herod was king. But, turns out, Quirinius did not become governor until ten years after Herod died. And, for all that, how logical is it that everybody in the Roman Empire had to stop what they were doing, and trek perhaps hundreds or thousands of miles to go to a place where their ancient ancestors were born over a thousand years ago? That doesn't make any sense at all, does it? But Luke, and only Luke, says it did. Why? Micah, an Old Testament prophet, said the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and Jesus wasn't. This bothered Luke, and so he fixed it. There's a lot of that kind of thing here.
* The Gospels have obviously been altered by the many hundreds of scribes who have copied them. One clear example is the story of the woman being stoned to death by the crowd. Jesus tells them to knock it off, "lest he who is without sin cast the first stone." This is one of my favorite Gospel stories, but there's a problem. Out of all the thousands of Gospel manuscripts and fragments throughout history, it is only found in John--and only from about the Middle Ages to today. Older manuscripts of John's Gospel do not have the story.
And there's hundreds of more examples. But does any of that prove that Jesus didn't really exist? Nope. Of course not. If I mess up a fact about JFK's life, does that mean JFK didn't exist? The point is, though, that Ehrman argues for the historical existence of Jesus, since there's apparently a growing legion of people who do not believe Jesus ever existed--the so-called "Mythicists." (That Jesus was just a myth, get it?) I also believe that Jesus existed, just not in the incantation presently popular in America, especially in the South. What I call "Joel Osteen's Jesus." (You can look that reference up. When you do, ask yourself, Could that be what Jesus really wanted?)
Ehrman is an agnostic, as am I, sometimes. I think. I sort of vary back and forth between believing and being an agnostic. I'm never an atheist. Anyway, this is fascinating reading. It's set up as an argument against the Mythicists, but the real meat of the book is in his evidence of Jesus's existence, and the vast, incredible number of ways--99 % of it via literary analysis and his knowledge of ancient manuscripts and ancient Judaism and Christianity, and 1% sheer common sense--in which he proves it.
Considering our current political / educational / religious American society (and how did it get to be that our laws and our education are tied into an uneasy, un-Constitutional hybrid of these three?), this is a work that deserves--and desperately needs--to be read.
May 15, 2022
4.5 stars. If you want to know what the historical evidence is for Jesus, what is commonly mistaken as historical evidence but in fact is not, or what is occasionally put forward as evidence against a historical Jesus and why it's lacking, then this is the book to read. NT scholar Bart Ehrman writes very accessible books and is one of the world's leading experts. I've read multiple books by him and this one is just as good as the others. He walks you through the criteria used by historians to validate historical events. Events 2,000 years ago are not perfectly known, but a spectrum of likelihood can be generated.
Ehrman looks at all of the writings we have from the first hundred years following Jesus' death. Presumably, the further from the actual life of Jesus the less reliable the source. Unfortunately, there is no source of any kind that mentions Jesus during his lifetime. We have nothing from Jesus himself, so all of the evidence comes secondhand from decades after his death (and all we have are copies of those documents, no originals). Another way of getting at the historical fact is seeing which sources were telling the same story independently (meaning they didn't rely on or copy each other). Spoiler, Jesus most likely existed and was born in Nazareth (not Bethlehem). He most likely was an apocalyptic preacher (god was coming to save his people soon), and he probably was crucified by the Romans for sedition. There is substantial historical evidence supporting all of these major events.
Ehrman does dive deeper into other events from the life of Jesus and discusses how they pass or fail the various criteria for validating something as historical. It is interesting to read and understand these things, and to separate them from what is theological--meaning, they have value from a religious standpoint but are not likely historical or at least cannot be validated as such. As always, Ehrman discusses all of these things in a very respectful way, never disparaging religious believers or non-believers.
Ehrman looks at all of the writings we have from the first hundred years following Jesus' death. Presumably, the further from the actual life of Jesus the less reliable the source. Unfortunately, there is no source of any kind that mentions Jesus during his lifetime. We have nothing from Jesus himself, so all of the evidence comes secondhand from decades after his death (and all we have are copies of those documents, no originals). Another way of getting at the historical fact is seeing which sources were telling the same story independently (meaning they didn't rely on or copy each other). Spoiler, Jesus most likely existed and was born in Nazareth (not Bethlehem). He most likely was an apocalyptic preacher (god was coming to save his people soon), and he probably was crucified by the Romans for sedition. There is substantial historical evidence supporting all of these major events.
Ehrman does dive deeper into other events from the life of Jesus and discusses how they pass or fail the various criteria for validating something as historical. It is interesting to read and understand these things, and to separate them from what is theological--meaning, they have value from a religious standpoint but are not likely historical or at least cannot be validated as such. As always, Ehrman discusses all of these things in a very respectful way, never disparaging religious believers or non-believers.
October 3, 2019
I'm a big Bart Ehrman fan. I've read several of his books. I think he's a great scholar and a good writer. That said, this wasn't my favorite work of his. I'll start with the strengths.
Ehrman is a self-described agnostic with atheist tendencies. I say this because it makes him a completely neutral Christological investigator. He has no agenda one way or the other in regard to the question of a historical Jesus. He is instead a historian, his conclusions driven by where the evidence leads. To this end, I think his arguments are 100% convincing that there was in fact a historical Jesus - that is, a 1st Century Jewish man who preached some stuff and was ultimately executed under Pontius Pilate. There is both secular attestation and internal evidence within the Gospels (and apocrypha) to support this conclusion. Of course, the Gospels and the apocryphal texts are not particularly reliable historical sources, but they do hold some historical value. As for the divinity of Jesus and him being the Son of God and so forth, well, Ehrman does not hold this view. But he has some interesting stuff to say about how Jesus as a divine figure was shaped by members of the early Christian movement.
As for the negative, it really boils down to this book being a reactionary treatise against the mythicists - i.e. people who believe Jesus was not a historical figure and was instead a myth. I've read some work of mythicists, notably The Jesus Mystery by Peter Gandy, and while they have thought provoking things to say, their arguments ultimately amount to conspiracy theories, which is to say that the thrust of their cases are rooted in speculation rather than historical evidence. Like most conspiracy theories, It seems to me that the mythicist view is a fringe one, held by a small number of people. And I think this is simply because the historical evidence strongly suggests the existence of a historical Jesus. And I don't think it's very complicated. But Ehrman positions himself very defensively in his attack on mythicist views. While this does not weaken his own case whatsoever, it just seems kind of petty, like someone who's kind of lowering themselves to the level of an inferior opponent. Ehrman repeatedly invokes scholarly consensus and his own education as reasons to accept his conclusions over that of the mythicists. And of course he's right to do this. His education and knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek and so forth are necessary to understanding the Bible historically (most mythicists are not formally educated, nor do they read Hebrew or Greek). So I can see why Ehrman would be annoyed by all the noise some mythicists make. But his defensiveness just comes off a little petty. And the first half of the book is very repetitive.
Despite all this, I love Ehrman's work. I will probably read all his books. He and Elaine Pagels are the best New Testament scholars out there, at least in terms of communicating their ideas to a lay audience. Though Pagels holds a special place in my heart because she's interested in Gnosticism and I got to see her give a talk in Dallas and get my book signed. If all things are equal between two authors, the one who has personally signed my copy of their book will always win!
Ehrman is a self-described agnostic with atheist tendencies. I say this because it makes him a completely neutral Christological investigator. He has no agenda one way or the other in regard to the question of a historical Jesus. He is instead a historian, his conclusions driven by where the evidence leads. To this end, I think his arguments are 100% convincing that there was in fact a historical Jesus - that is, a 1st Century Jewish man who preached some stuff and was ultimately executed under Pontius Pilate. There is both secular attestation and internal evidence within the Gospels (and apocrypha) to support this conclusion. Of course, the Gospels and the apocryphal texts are not particularly reliable historical sources, but they do hold some historical value. As for the divinity of Jesus and him being the Son of God and so forth, well, Ehrman does not hold this view. But he has some interesting stuff to say about how Jesus as a divine figure was shaped by members of the early Christian movement.
As for the negative, it really boils down to this book being a reactionary treatise against the mythicists - i.e. people who believe Jesus was not a historical figure and was instead a myth. I've read some work of mythicists, notably The Jesus Mystery by Peter Gandy, and while they have thought provoking things to say, their arguments ultimately amount to conspiracy theories, which is to say that the thrust of their cases are rooted in speculation rather than historical evidence. Like most conspiracy theories, It seems to me that the mythicist view is a fringe one, held by a small number of people. And I think this is simply because the historical evidence strongly suggests the existence of a historical Jesus. And I don't think it's very complicated. But Ehrman positions himself very defensively in his attack on mythicist views. While this does not weaken his own case whatsoever, it just seems kind of petty, like someone who's kind of lowering themselves to the level of an inferior opponent. Ehrman repeatedly invokes scholarly consensus and his own education as reasons to accept his conclusions over that of the mythicists. And of course he's right to do this. His education and knowledge of Hebrew and Koine Greek and so forth are necessary to understanding the Bible historically (most mythicists are not formally educated, nor do they read Hebrew or Greek). So I can see why Ehrman would be annoyed by all the noise some mythicists make. But his defensiveness just comes off a little petty. And the first half of the book is very repetitive.
Despite all this, I love Ehrman's work. I will probably read all his books. He and Elaine Pagels are the best New Testament scholars out there, at least in terms of communicating their ideas to a lay audience. Though Pagels holds a special place in my heart because she's interested in Gnosticism and I got to see her give a talk in Dallas and get my book signed. If all things are equal between two authors, the one who has personally signed my copy of their book will always win!
March 28, 2012
I was introduced to the author a few years ago via The Great Courses DVDs. Brett, my parents and I went to a Religions of the World course about 4 years ago where we watched a few of these courses and I became fascinated with the author. Since then Brett has read a few of his books and my parents have seen him speak in person. When I saw this book on the TLC Tour list I had to sign up.
With such a sensitive and heavy topic as this book carries, one might expect the text to be overpowering in scholarly weight, but I found this book easy to read. I did read it slowly, primarily because I was trying to absorb his words and the sources – keeping a sense of the timeline. I also kept reading parts out loud to Brett when I came across an interesting tidbit or perspective. These pages contained A LOT of information that ranged from the proof for a historical Jesus to information on the early years of Christianity. It's a really hard book to review because of the sheer volume of information it contained.
As an Atheist I was very interested in the subject and I was not let down. On a personal level, I found the sources reliable given the sheer age of such documents. He handles the Bible and Gospels with respect, but doesn't hide from actually critiquing them for merit on the topic at hand. I highly recommend this book for anyone - religious or not.
With such a sensitive and heavy topic as this book carries, one might expect the text to be overpowering in scholarly weight, but I found this book easy to read. I did read it slowly, primarily because I was trying to absorb his words and the sources – keeping a sense of the timeline. I also kept reading parts out loud to Brett when I came across an interesting tidbit or perspective. These pages contained A LOT of information that ranged from the proof for a historical Jesus to information on the early years of Christianity. It's a really hard book to review because of the sheer volume of information it contained.
As an Atheist I was very interested in the subject and I was not let down. On a personal level, I found the sources reliable given the sheer age of such documents. He handles the Bible and Gospels with respect, but doesn't hide from actually critiquing them for merit on the topic at hand. I highly recommend this book for anyone - religious or not.
November 9, 2013
If you are looking for a book tht weighs both arguments, analyses the strengths and weaknesses of both the hisoricist position and the mythicist position, this is not it. If you are looking for a book, that uses the evidence to determine if Jesus was a historical figure, this is not it. If you are looking for a book that uses the fact honestly and relies on valid logical thinking to show that Jesus was historical, this is not even that. If you want to know why even secular historians accept Jesus as a historical figure, this is the book for you.
Just be aware that it does not address mythicist argument in anything other than the most superficial and dismissive manner and that frequently the logic is circular, using an assumption that Jesus would have said something to show that as he said it, he must have existed. Be very wary any time he claims mythicists say something, that their reasoning is just because something is convenient or that no one else agrees. You can't assume any of these things are true. Time and again, he dismisses the mythicist argument because it is obviously false or his interpretation is obviously correct, without giving the matter any thought.
He also seems very limited in his knowledge of ancient history, culture and other religions and makes sweeping statements, such as "no Jew ever thought that the Messiah would be God", backing it up with no more than "this is a Christian idea not a Jewish one" and a few examples of what some Jews are known to have expected, apparently not realizing he failed to defend his argument.
Problems abound through all chapters, those on the historical sources and evidence from outside the gospels being particularly poorly reasoned, frequently just asserting that something I evidence of Jesus, with no thought to alternate explanations and no consideration of how well they mythicist argument fits. There are far too many problems to detail, so I will give a few examples from just the first chapter
One problem, is that much of the first chapter is basically "Argument from nuh-huh". He mentions what a mythicist claims, then says "this isn't true", without either saying why they believe it, or why they are wrong. It makes it hard to judge if he is correct, especially as I know that some of the statements he makes are suspect at best
About Acharya M
1) In the earliest traditions…he was not known as a divine being at all
Does he mean the Pauline epistles, or some reconstructed version of Mark with the divine parts stripped? From what he writes later, it seems he is reconstructing an earlier tradition based on the bits he thinks the people who knew Jesus would hae believed
2) Justin quotes from Mathew, Mark and Luke
I had heard that he didn't make any quotes that are directly from the known gospels, but if I hadn't read your review, I'd probably have taken it at face value. As it is, I did follow it up and saw her defence. It seems fairly likely that the gospels hadn't firmly taken on their names, but that I not the same thing
3) The gospels were written at the end of the first century and we have physical proof: One fragment of a Gospel Manuscript dates to the early second century –
This I think is the fragment of John dated to around 125AD. Leaving aside how confident we really can be of this dating, he seems to be pushing the dating a little too strongly. It may be possible to argue that the other gospels clearly pre-date John, so if John can be shown to be pre 150AD, they must be as well, but this doesn't come through here.
4) Numerous fragmentary manuscripts that date from the 2nd and 3rd century This to contradict her claim that they were written centuries later
Even this claim I didn't feel confident on, so I looked it up and it does seem to be mostly correct though including the 2nd century may be pushing it. Probably enough to refute the "gospels were written hundreds of years after the events claim", though without seeing what the actual claim was, I would still feel doubtful. However if he had bothered to research what she actually thinks, he would have seen she date them to around 170-180 AD. It may be that her reasoning is terrible but pretending that she puts them much later than that, and pretending there is good physical evidence for them being earlier is both dishonest and incompetent
5) The penis nosed statue
Coming at the end of the list of things she gets wrong, and with the extra phrase "Except in books like this which love to make things up" The plain reading is that he wasn't aware of it. Even if I was to be charitable, and assume he meant the statue exists, but it isn't Peter, it is still a fail as Murdock claims this is not what she meant (and if I am going to be charitable about Ehrman's poor and confusing writing, I would think I owe her the same)
There are similar problems with his treatment of Freke and Gand, Robert Price and Earl Doherty, who has an extensive rebuttal to not only what Ehrman claims about him, but to all of the book. Just one example would be Ehrman's bizarre claim that the scholars Doherty quotes don't agree with him that Christ was mythical, but a Doherty points out, he doesn't even imply they do and is quite clear he is using their work to support his idea. No one would read it and think "Oh, these people all agree about a mythical Christ". It does seem likely this was only included to make the uninformed and uncritical reader regard Doherty as untrustworthy.
Just be aware that it does not address mythicist argument in anything other than the most superficial and dismissive manner and that frequently the logic is circular, using an assumption that Jesus would have said something to show that as he said it, he must have existed. Be very wary any time he claims mythicists say something, that their reasoning is just because something is convenient or that no one else agrees. You can't assume any of these things are true. Time and again, he dismisses the mythicist argument because it is obviously false or his interpretation is obviously correct, without giving the matter any thought.
He also seems very limited in his knowledge of ancient history, culture and other religions and makes sweeping statements, such as "no Jew ever thought that the Messiah would be God", backing it up with no more than "this is a Christian idea not a Jewish one" and a few examples of what some Jews are known to have expected, apparently not realizing he failed to defend his argument.
Problems abound through all chapters, those on the historical sources and evidence from outside the gospels being particularly poorly reasoned, frequently just asserting that something I evidence of Jesus, with no thought to alternate explanations and no consideration of how well they mythicist argument fits. There are far too many problems to detail, so I will give a few examples from just the first chapter
One problem, is that much of the first chapter is basically "Argument from nuh-huh". He mentions what a mythicist claims, then says "this isn't true", without either saying why they believe it, or why they are wrong. It makes it hard to judge if he is correct, especially as I know that some of the statements he makes are suspect at best
About Acharya M
1) In the earliest traditions…he was not known as a divine being at all
Does he mean the Pauline epistles, or some reconstructed version of Mark with the divine parts stripped? From what he writes later, it seems he is reconstructing an earlier tradition based on the bits he thinks the people who knew Jesus would hae believed
2) Justin quotes from Mathew, Mark and Luke
I had heard that he didn't make any quotes that are directly from the known gospels, but if I hadn't read your review, I'd probably have taken it at face value. As it is, I did follow it up and saw her defence. It seems fairly likely that the gospels hadn't firmly taken on their names, but that I not the same thing
3) The gospels were written at the end of the first century and we have physical proof: One fragment of a Gospel Manuscript dates to the early second century –
This I think is the fragment of John dated to around 125AD. Leaving aside how confident we really can be of this dating, he seems to be pushing the dating a little too strongly. It may be possible to argue that the other gospels clearly pre-date John, so if John can be shown to be pre 150AD, they must be as well, but this doesn't come through here.
4) Numerous fragmentary manuscripts that date from the 2nd and 3rd century This to contradict her claim that they were written centuries later
Even this claim I didn't feel confident on, so I looked it up and it does seem to be mostly correct though including the 2nd century may be pushing it. Probably enough to refute the "gospels were written hundreds of years after the events claim", though without seeing what the actual claim was, I would still feel doubtful. However if he had bothered to research what she actually thinks, he would have seen she date them to around 170-180 AD. It may be that her reasoning is terrible but pretending that she puts them much later than that, and pretending there is good physical evidence for them being earlier is both dishonest and incompetent
5) The penis nosed statue
Coming at the end of the list of things she gets wrong, and with the extra phrase "Except in books like this which love to make things up" The plain reading is that he wasn't aware of it. Even if I was to be charitable, and assume he meant the statue exists, but it isn't Peter, it is still a fail as Murdock claims this is not what she meant (and if I am going to be charitable about Ehrman's poor and confusing writing, I would think I owe her the same)
There are similar problems with his treatment of Freke and Gand, Robert Price and Earl Doherty, who has an extensive rebuttal to not only what Ehrman claims about him, but to all of the book. Just one example would be Ehrman's bizarre claim that the scholars Doherty quotes don't agree with him that Christ was mythical, but a Doherty points out, he doesn't even imply they do and is quite clear he is using their work to support his idea. No one would read it and think "Oh, these people all agree about a mythical Christ". It does seem likely this was only included to make the uninformed and uncritical reader regard Doherty as untrustworthy.
May 7, 2013
Did Jesus exist? As noted New Testament scholar and admitted agnostic with atheist leanings, Bart D. Ehrman writes in his excitingly readable book, Did Jesus Exist? – The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, the answer is a strong yes. Ehrman is quick to point out that despite what debunkers of the historical Jesus would have you believe, the overwhelming majority of scholars believe such a person did in fact exist. And these scholars include a fair number of agnostics, atheists and skeptics. The author is not just presenting the case of a myopic fundamentalist theological position. This is the work of a noted historian respected in his field.
Bart D. Ehrman’s book is not apologetics. He takes the reader with great lucidity through the methodologies used by New Testament scholars and historians (sometimes dubbed the historical method) that allow them to reach the conclusion that Jesus existed. Whether or not the miracles or resurrection took place is another matter, and as Ehrman points out, before you can discuss these things you need to establish that such a person did exist in the first place. Again this work is not theology and it’s not apologetics. It’s a discussion of the historical method applied to the question of Jesus of Nazareth
I’m an atheist and something of a mythicist when it comes to Christianity and the story of Jesus the Christ. However, unlike many debunkers of Christianity, I find it completely reasonable and plausible that there was an historical person on whose shoulders the traditions of the majority of the extant Christianities is based on, however loosely that may actually be. It’s the mythical claim that said historical person rose from the dead after being dead for 3 days and the attendant theology that has emerged from that highly implausible assertion is where I part company with Jesus and his followers.
Ehrman is honest about the limits of the historical evidence. He understands that we are missing the clichéd smoking gun that archeology and other disciplines have not been able to provide. He also understands the problems and limitations of what we do have. This discussion is no “ignore the man behind the curtain” chicanery of much of what passes for scholarship in conservative circles.
I’ve always found the allegation that the early church fabricated the historical Jesus to be rather strange. Given what we know of the economic, political and religious realities of First Century Palestine simply dismissing Jesus as a fictional character takes the special brand of temerity usually exhibited by the conspiracy theorist and paranoiac. Most of the mythicist's work available to the general reader is written by non-professionals in the fields of scholarship necessary to weigh in on the subject. In fact many of the authors are not scholars at all and the wild conclusions they often draw make this apparent.
These are points that Ehrman employs to his advantage. However, he is a little too quick to dismiss the mythicist’s viewpoint even though he does offer begrudging respect for Robert Price ( the one scholar he allows that actually possesses the credentials required to make his opinions worth considering) and Richard Carrier ( a personal favorite of mine), who is credentialed at least in parallel disciplines. Nonetheless, not all mythicist material is pure conspiracy nincompoopery. However, what Ehrman does do is offer some cogent counterarguments to a few of the more common arguments presented against the historicity of Jesus.
Finally, even though scholars have not conclusively proven that Jesus of Nazareth is a man of history, Did Jesus Exist?, demonstrates that it is not only reasonable to believe he was real, history is not nearly as silent on the matter as is often supposed. This is a great book for the skeptic and the atheist. Most Christians should be able to read it as well. It’s the fundamentalist and the mythicists who will have the most trouble putting their biases aside to consider the contributions this book makes to the general public on the subject of Jesus’ existence.
Bart D. Ehrman’s book is not apologetics. He takes the reader with great lucidity through the methodologies used by New Testament scholars and historians (sometimes dubbed the historical method) that allow them to reach the conclusion that Jesus existed. Whether or not the miracles or resurrection took place is another matter, and as Ehrman points out, before you can discuss these things you need to establish that such a person did exist in the first place. Again this work is not theology and it’s not apologetics. It’s a discussion of the historical method applied to the question of Jesus of Nazareth
I’m an atheist and something of a mythicist when it comes to Christianity and the story of Jesus the Christ. However, unlike many debunkers of Christianity, I find it completely reasonable and plausible that there was an historical person on whose shoulders the traditions of the majority of the extant Christianities is based on, however loosely that may actually be. It’s the mythical claim that said historical person rose from the dead after being dead for 3 days and the attendant theology that has emerged from that highly implausible assertion is where I part company with Jesus and his followers.
Ehrman is honest about the limits of the historical evidence. He understands that we are missing the clichéd smoking gun that archeology and other disciplines have not been able to provide. He also understands the problems and limitations of what we do have. This discussion is no “ignore the man behind the curtain” chicanery of much of what passes for scholarship in conservative circles.
I’ve always found the allegation that the early church fabricated the historical Jesus to be rather strange. Given what we know of the economic, political and religious realities of First Century Palestine simply dismissing Jesus as a fictional character takes the special brand of temerity usually exhibited by the conspiracy theorist and paranoiac. Most of the mythicist's work available to the general reader is written by non-professionals in the fields of scholarship necessary to weigh in on the subject. In fact many of the authors are not scholars at all and the wild conclusions they often draw make this apparent.
These are points that Ehrman employs to his advantage. However, he is a little too quick to dismiss the mythicist’s viewpoint even though he does offer begrudging respect for Robert Price ( the one scholar he allows that actually possesses the credentials required to make his opinions worth considering) and Richard Carrier ( a personal favorite of mine), who is credentialed at least in parallel disciplines. Nonetheless, not all mythicist material is pure conspiracy nincompoopery. However, what Ehrman does do is offer some cogent counterarguments to a few of the more common arguments presented against the historicity of Jesus.
Finally, even though scholars have not conclusively proven that Jesus of Nazareth is a man of history, Did Jesus Exist?, demonstrates that it is not only reasonable to believe he was real, history is not nearly as silent on the matter as is often supposed. This is a great book for the skeptic and the atheist. Most Christians should be able to read it as well. It’s the fundamentalist and the mythicists who will have the most trouble putting their biases aside to consider the contributions this book makes to the general public on the subject of Jesus’ existence.
July 22, 2015
A very eye opening book that addresses whether there was a historical Jesus, stating that of the scholarly consensus vs. an emerging mythicist camp. I see Bart Ehrman as a bit inconvenient for both atheists and Christians because he does not have nearly the agenda seen in many writings. I felt the closing ten pages was an excellent summary of what I have always felt with regards to his meeting with other humanists at a convention and comparing it with modern day mythicists. He explains the independent sources, canonical and non-canonical, to argue for what passes the criteria of the historical Jesus, what may have been made up later, the evolution of Jesus from a few years to decades to hundreds and now thousands of years. I tend to like an author and scholar that is not side-serving unless that side is the truth, and I feel Ehrman tries to do the historical Jesus justice. The debunking of mythicist books over the past couple hundred years is very strong, and it looks as if Ehrman tries to give credit to those with relevant degrees, but he like any historian is looking for some facts and sources, not just made up opinions of what would be convenient to make Jesus disappear.
November 1, 2022
Very cool book. An avowed agnostic, the author makes a strictly historical case for Jesus existing. It’s seems like one of those books that would piss everyone off, and that is my kind of book
May 27, 2012
This is a decent primer into the reasons the majority of New Testament scholars believe in the historical personage of Jesus. It's a very basic book, but accomplishes it's goal of debunking the various claims put forth by "mythicists" who see Jesus as just a myth, and not ever a flesh and blood man. This book does not prove (or even argue) that Jesus was the "Son of God," it simply argues that he was an apocalyptic prophet.
I've enjoyed Ehrman's books for the better part of ten years, but wow, his ego has nearly become a runaway train. Throughout the book Ehrman drones on and on about his college classes and how they are filled with Evangelical Christians who disagree with many of his views. Such an observation would have been fine once, but it's repeated about ten times. Yes, Mr. Ehram, we get that you are on TV sometimes and you get awards, and people disagree with you, and some love you, but it's not really important to the subject at hand.
Three stars because the book does what it sets out to do, minus two stars for being a bit self-serving.
October 29, 2012
A thorough destruction of the claims of the Mythicists from someone who has studied the Jesus question for most of his adult life. Caveat: The Jesus of history that Ehrman claims existed is the same one that Albert Schweitzer described a hundred years earlier: Jesus was a self-appointed apocalyptic preacher. Ehrman dodges the resurrection question - dodges is perhaps a little strong, as it is not the subject of this book. But it is a question that demands an explanation - hopefully in an upcoming book. We shall see.
September 13, 2018
Very thorough analysis explaining Ehrman’s opinion for the factual historical fact that Jesus did exist, as an apocalyptic Jew. Bringing both support from the scriptures and external books, and explaining why different mythicists’ opinions are wrong, there are some repetitive arguments and info. But overall very informative and interesting read.
July 13, 2022
An excellent excellent book. Just about everything Ehrman says makes perfect sense. The only problems are minor typos and editorial errors of that type, and they are all very minor.
Spoiler: Yes Jesus did exist. No, the Modern Christian Version(s) of Jesus did not exist.
Spoiler: Yes Jesus did exist. No, the Modern Christian Version(s) of Jesus did not exist.
December 17, 2014
Molto interessante.
Ben argomentato, anche se, a volte, lascia perplesso.
Nel complesso mi ha convinto.
Di quelli letti sull'argomento è il migliore.
Ben argomentato, anche se, a volte, lascia perplesso.
Nel complesso mi ha convinto.
Di quelli letti sull'argomento è il migliore.
January 25, 2021
Bullet Review:
Fascinating and insightful read. Somehow it struck that perfect balance of readability and good research. Recommended.
Fascinating and insightful read. Somehow it struck that perfect balance of readability and good research. Recommended.
February 19, 2019
Ehrman argues with lots of convincing arguments that Jesus did exist with the main evidence being from the New Testament but also from other sources, e.g. Josephus, Tacitus.
April 6, 2014
I’m going to talk a bit about some murderers in Detroit, Jesus, and a couple of books I recently read that I think are just awesome.
MURDER
So, the murderers.
Let me start by asking this question: can you establish the truth in a court of law?
Is that what the judge and jury are deciding? The Truth, with a capital T?
Think about Tommy and Ray Highers, brothers from Detroit. They were convicted of murder. Open and shut case. No parole. They were two nasty buggers that shot a man down over some dope.
But then twenty-five years later (last year, in fact) they were back in court because new evidence had come to light that undermined the original conviction. For the curious, this awesome Dateline episode reveals the amazing way the evidence came to light and what happened because of it: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/full-.... Watch it. You’ll be happy you did.
So the Truth. Capital T. Can you establish that in a court of law?
No.
What the justice system does is try to determine which story about the evidence available is the most convincing.
It’s about telling and judging stories.
There are many types of evidence folks use when telling their stories. Some of it is very strong. Some is so unreliable, like hunches and hearsay, that the court won’t even allow it to be presented.
Whatever the evidence, the fundamental nature of this is that you can often tell a number of different stories using the same set of data, the same evidence. Sometimes the stories are variations with minor differences. Sometimes the stories are radically different.
It’s like having only some of the pieces of a 100 piece puzzle. You look at the four, twenty, or thirty pieces you have and imagine what the rest of the puzzle looks like. And then you invent something that seems reasonable.
You invent it.
And if that story meets certain standards of proof, then our system allows the authorities to take certain actions. If the standard of a “reasonable suspicion” is met, it allows a police officer to stop someone. If the standard of “probable cause” is met, a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, an officer can arrest you. If a jury in a criminal case decides the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” an even higher standard of proof, then the justice system authorizes the authorities to sentence the defendant.
But at no time does the system seek to establish the absolute truth, the truth with a capital T. It only seeks to establish some level of probability that the story being told about the evidence is true.
All of this is made more complex because what’s “reasonable” is based on other people’s opinion. We have guidelines and rules to help folks be “reasonable.” But reasonableness is still affected by culture, background, history, etc.
It’s still opinion.
OTHER PUZZLES
What other realm of knowledge works like the justice system and consists of inventing stories about missing parts of the puzzle?
Well, history does.
In fact, if you think about it, history is what courts do. The processes and principles guide everyone involved in how they go about telling the stories that make up that specific type of history.
Non-court historians are limited just like lawyers, judges, and juries: they have no means of establishing the absolute truth.
They can’t use science. Science requires you conduct experiments and reproduce results. But how is a historian going to reproduce the same events? What, they’re going to get Lincoln shot all over again and let the rest of us watch it? Dang, John Wilkes Booth did shoot the man. We all saw it happen down in the lab.
Sure, they can use science to date a manuscript, or determine what something is made of, or establish some other fact. But all science is doing is providing facts about the pieces of the puzzle you have. About the claims the evidence makes.
But science can’t fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle. It can’t tell the story. The historian has to invent the story that makes the pieces all make sense.
And then the rest of us determine if that story, that sketch of the full puzzle, is reasonable.
But that isn’t all there is to it.
STANDARDS OF PROOF
Think about conspiracy theories like the ones that claim that the US government perpetrated the 9/11 bombings. Conspiracy theorists are practicing history. They are inventing a story that seems to fit the evidence available to them.
But what happens when you have only five or ten pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle? What happens when you don’t thoroughly vet the evidence? What happens when someone screws around with the evidence? And I’m not just talking about tampering or invalidating it by thoughtless handling (contaminating DNA, for example). Folks with the best intentions have biases. In fact, we all have biases that lead us to include and exclude various pieces of evidence based on whether they support or oppose the ideas we want to believe.
Jonathan Haidt explains these biases in his excellent book The Righteous Mind. He explains that with things we want to believe, we often use the standard of “Can I Believe It”? We look for anything at all that would allow us to believe our position. If we find it, even if it’s flimsy, we discount all the other evidence that may point another way and conclude we have met the burden of proof for our view.
For things that we don’t want to believe, we often use the standard of “Must I Believe It”? When falling prey to this bias, we look for anything at all that would undermine the thing we don’t want to believe, even if that evidence is flimsy. If we find it, we ignore all the other evidence, even if there’s a mountain of it pointing another way, and claim we have met the necessary burden of proof.
In court there are all sorts of procedures and standards that need to be followed to help us avoid invalidating evidence or falling prey to our biases. Those procedures and standards don’t remove all risk. But they do remove a lot.
Which court system would you want to be processed through? The current American justice system or the medieval witch trials?
Oh, for sure I’d want to be someone accused of witchcraft back when a claim of “I saw her as a witch in my dream” was admissible, as was the test of poking a mole on the accused’s body with a needle to see if said witch flinched enough. I’d be so happy to go back to the days when a confession obtained by torture was incontrovertible evidence.
So when practicing history, it’s important to have some guidelines, some rules to establish which bits of evidence are more likely (not guaranteed, but more likely) to be reliable. And it’s important that when folks tell their story, they not only share the evidence, but also all the assumptions they’re making.
JESUS
Where does Jesus of Nazareth come into all of this?
Well, Jesus has affected the world more than any other person who has lived on it. The stories we tell about him (the history we have practiced about him for the last 2,000+ years) have changed the world. And those stories will continue to affect us, especially folks in Western cultures, on everything from foreign policy to which clothes think are fit to be worn in public.
Who was Jesus? Did he really exist? Was he a god? What did he really teach? Have his teachings been changed?
These are all fundamental questions. And for the last two-hundred years historians have been re-examining the pieces of the puzzle, finding new pieces, and telling new stories to explain it all.
Some of these historians believe in Jesus as a god. Some don’t. Either way, the conversation is fascinating.
I just read three historical books about Jesus that were awesome. AWESOME. Not because I agreed with all of the author’s conclusions, i.e. his stories. I don’t. But because of the way he practiced his history. The way he told his stories. And because what he shared gave me new insights to my stories about Jesus.
The three books, all by Bart D. Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, are:
1. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
2. Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)
3. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
I’ve read the Bible many times, and I’m a believer. Of course, the question is a believer in which story?
What Ehrman so engagingly makes clear is that there have indeed been many stories about Jesus. In fact, the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the writings of Paul (most of the rest of the New Testament) seem to all portray a different man and message. Not only do they say things that flat out contradict each other on some details, but if you look at each book separately, each author seems to have a slightly different take on Jesus.
Furthermore, it appears that what we now have has changed over time. For example, it seems the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the oldest manuscripts. There have been other changes. One of the more notable ones occurs in John 5:7-8.
Our earliest texts say:
“For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
But later texts say:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
Nowhere else in the New Testament do we have anything that states that creedal doctrine so explicitly. Did John write that? Or was the extra material added to make the idea of the trinity scriptural?
And what do we make of the fact that we have no manuscript that dates to anywhere close to when Jesus lived? We have some small fragments of manuscripts with a few verses of John, Revelation, and Matthew dated around 150 AD. But the oldest manuscripts we have that contain the majority of any of the gospels are for the gospels of Luke and John, and these are dated around 200 AD. The oldest manuscripts with the full New Testament are dated around 350 AD.
That’s more than 300 years after Jesus died!
Have you played the game of telephone? Are we sure that the oral traditions that were written down weren’t changed? What happened to the books mentioned in the Bible that we don’t have now? For example, Jude mentions a prophecy of Enoch that we don’t have in our current Bible. Are we sure that the copyists didn’t add to the text like it seems some did to John?
And what about the term “Christ”? It’s actually the Greek word for “messiah” which just means one anointed with oil to perform a special service for god. Christ wasn’t Jesus’s last name. It was a title: Jesus the anointed one.
The anointed ones in those days were kings and prophets and priests. It appears most of the historical sources suggest that a “messiah” to the Jews of that time was someone who would throw off foreign rule and establish the kingdom of Israel as David had. In fact, there were a whole bunch of people who claimed to be messiahs. Here’s a nice list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_M....
Judas Maccabeus was considered a messiah because he threw off Greek rule in 164 BC. But then around 63 BC Israel was taken over by Rome. And Rome wasn’t too keen on revolts, so around 4 BC they crucified Judas the Galilean for claiming to be the messiah, the king of the Jews. Crucifixion, it seems, was the punishment reserved for seditionists. They crucified Jesus and a whole bunch of other guys claiming to be the king of the Jews. And their crimes were written on a board above them, which is why they hung the words “King of the Jews” over Jesus’s head on the cross. Here’s the criminal, and here’s his crime. These other messiahs were not claiming to be a god that came to earth to atone for sins, but anointed by God to throw off foreign rule and establish his earthly kingdom again.
Jesus talks a lot about the kingdom of God. Was Jesus just another one of the seditionists?
Ehrman examines these and many other questions as a historian, providing all sorts of insights.
But the fabulous thing is that he doesn’t just tell his story. He gives his evidence. Exposes his assumptions. And in all three books he explains the guidelines or “rules” historians use to when trying to determine which stories are more likely and which evidence is more reliable.
I was enlightened, challenged, and delighted. I learned things about Jesus’s life and times that have helped me understand what I read in the Bible better.
LIMITS
Of course, the historical method has its limits.
Historians, because they are looking for explanations (stories) that are more probable, automatically select against things that are improbable. They exclude miracles. They exclude any story that says Christ was actually resurrected. They may establish that a lot of folks thought he was resurrected, but they don’t have any methods to establish something like a resurrection actually occurred. And so they ignore it. Historians exclude modern revelation. If someone today were to have a visitation from Jesus as Paul did, the historians would exclude that.
But we all know that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. We all know that sometimes the less likely thing is exactly what occurred.
Historians are looking for what is most probable. Not what actually happened. Because they can’t go back and time and verify their story.
Excluding “improbable” things changes the types of stories the pieces of the puzzle support. For many of us, me included, we do accept evidences many historians don’t as pieces of the puzzle. And because we have these pieces, we’re able to tell different types of stories.
The cool thing about Ehrman is that he explains this. He’s not trying to hide anything. Instead, he’s explaining how to approach the Bible from a historical point of view, and where the principles of the historical method lead him.
And I have found that those methods in his hands have a lot to offer.
If you’re someone who is interested in religion–as a believer, agonistic, or atheist–you will love these books. Ehrman himself was once an ardent believer, but is now agnostic. However, his respect for believers, including other scholars in his field who believe in the divine Jesus, comes through loud and clear. Ehrman has no axe to grind. He is simply sharing the stories of Jesus that make sense to him and many other historians. And he does it in a very interesting and easy-to-read style.
If these books sound like something you want to try, I’d start with Misquoting Jesus, move to Jesus Interrupted, and then finish with Did Jesus Exist? And if you enjoy those, let me recommend two more of Ehrman’s books. The first is The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed, which looks at the discovery and content of a very ancient manuscript that calls itself The Gospel of Judas. The second is Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which explores the variety of Christian faiths that existed in the few hundred years after Jesus’s death.
Happy reading!
MURDER
So, the murderers.
Let me start by asking this question: can you establish the truth in a court of law?
Is that what the judge and jury are deciding? The Truth, with a capital T?
Think about Tommy and Ray Highers, brothers from Detroit. They were convicted of murder. Open and shut case. No parole. They were two nasty buggers that shot a man down over some dope.
But then twenty-five years later (last year, in fact) they were back in court because new evidence had come to light that undermined the original conviction. For the curious, this awesome Dateline episode reveals the amazing way the evidence came to light and what happened because of it: http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/full-.... Watch it. You’ll be happy you did.
So the Truth. Capital T. Can you establish that in a court of law?
No.
What the justice system does is try to determine which story about the evidence available is the most convincing.
It’s about telling and judging stories.
There are many types of evidence folks use when telling their stories. Some of it is very strong. Some is so unreliable, like hunches and hearsay, that the court won’t even allow it to be presented.
Whatever the evidence, the fundamental nature of this is that you can often tell a number of different stories using the same set of data, the same evidence. Sometimes the stories are variations with minor differences. Sometimes the stories are radically different.
It’s like having only some of the pieces of a 100 piece puzzle. You look at the four, twenty, or thirty pieces you have and imagine what the rest of the puzzle looks like. And then you invent something that seems reasonable.
You invent it.
And if that story meets certain standards of proof, then our system allows the authorities to take certain actions. If the standard of a “reasonable suspicion” is met, it allows a police officer to stop someone. If the standard of “probable cause” is met, a higher standard than reasonable suspicion, an officer can arrest you. If a jury in a criminal case decides the defendant is guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt,” an even higher standard of proof, then the justice system authorizes the authorities to sentence the defendant.
But at no time does the system seek to establish the absolute truth, the truth with a capital T. It only seeks to establish some level of probability that the story being told about the evidence is true.
All of this is made more complex because what’s “reasonable” is based on other people’s opinion. We have guidelines and rules to help folks be “reasonable.” But reasonableness is still affected by culture, background, history, etc.
It’s still opinion.
OTHER PUZZLES
What other realm of knowledge works like the justice system and consists of inventing stories about missing parts of the puzzle?
Well, history does.
In fact, if you think about it, history is what courts do. The processes and principles guide everyone involved in how they go about telling the stories that make up that specific type of history.
Non-court historians are limited just like lawyers, judges, and juries: they have no means of establishing the absolute truth.
They can’t use science. Science requires you conduct experiments and reproduce results. But how is a historian going to reproduce the same events? What, they’re going to get Lincoln shot all over again and let the rest of us watch it? Dang, John Wilkes Booth did shoot the man. We all saw it happen down in the lab.
Sure, they can use science to date a manuscript, or determine what something is made of, or establish some other fact. But all science is doing is providing facts about the pieces of the puzzle you have. About the claims the evidence makes.
But science can’t fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle. It can’t tell the story. The historian has to invent the story that makes the pieces all make sense.
And then the rest of us determine if that story, that sketch of the full puzzle, is reasonable.
But that isn’t all there is to it.
STANDARDS OF PROOF
Think about conspiracy theories like the ones that claim that the US government perpetrated the 9/11 bombings. Conspiracy theorists are practicing history. They are inventing a story that seems to fit the evidence available to them.
But what happens when you have only five or ten pieces of a 1,000 piece puzzle? What happens when you don’t thoroughly vet the evidence? What happens when someone screws around with the evidence? And I’m not just talking about tampering or invalidating it by thoughtless handling (contaminating DNA, for example). Folks with the best intentions have biases. In fact, we all have biases that lead us to include and exclude various pieces of evidence based on whether they support or oppose the ideas we want to believe.
Jonathan Haidt explains these biases in his excellent book The Righteous Mind. He explains that with things we want to believe, we often use the standard of “Can I Believe It”? We look for anything at all that would allow us to believe our position. If we find it, even if it’s flimsy, we discount all the other evidence that may point another way and conclude we have met the burden of proof for our view.
For things that we don’t want to believe, we often use the standard of “Must I Believe It”? When falling prey to this bias, we look for anything at all that would undermine the thing we don’t want to believe, even if that evidence is flimsy. If we find it, we ignore all the other evidence, even if there’s a mountain of it pointing another way, and claim we have met the necessary burden of proof.
In court there are all sorts of procedures and standards that need to be followed to help us avoid invalidating evidence or falling prey to our biases. Those procedures and standards don’t remove all risk. But they do remove a lot.
Which court system would you want to be processed through? The current American justice system or the medieval witch trials?
Oh, for sure I’d want to be someone accused of witchcraft back when a claim of “I saw her as a witch in my dream” was admissible, as was the test of poking a mole on the accused’s body with a needle to see if said witch flinched enough. I’d be so happy to go back to the days when a confession obtained by torture was incontrovertible evidence.
So when practicing history, it’s important to have some guidelines, some rules to establish which bits of evidence are more likely (not guaranteed, but more likely) to be reliable. And it’s important that when folks tell their story, they not only share the evidence, but also all the assumptions they’re making.
JESUS
Where does Jesus of Nazareth come into all of this?
Well, Jesus has affected the world more than any other person who has lived on it. The stories we tell about him (the history we have practiced about him for the last 2,000+ years) have changed the world. And those stories will continue to affect us, especially folks in Western cultures, on everything from foreign policy to which clothes think are fit to be worn in public.
Who was Jesus? Did he really exist? Was he a god? What did he really teach? Have his teachings been changed?
These are all fundamental questions. And for the last two-hundred years historians have been re-examining the pieces of the puzzle, finding new pieces, and telling new stories to explain it all.
Some of these historians believe in Jesus as a god. Some don’t. Either way, the conversation is fascinating.
I just read three historical books about Jesus that were awesome. AWESOME. Not because I agreed with all of the author’s conclusions, i.e. his stories. I don’t. But because of the way he practiced his history. The way he told his stories. And because what he shared gave me new insights to my stories about Jesus.
The three books, all by Bart D. Ehrman, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, are:
1. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
2. Jesus Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them)
3. Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
I’ve read the Bible many times, and I’m a believer. Of course, the question is a believer in which story?
What Ehrman so engagingly makes clear is that there have indeed been many stories about Jesus. In fact, the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) and the writings of Paul (most of the rest of the New Testament) seem to all portray a different man and message. Not only do they say things that flat out contradict each other on some details, but if you look at each book separately, each author seems to have a slightly different take on Jesus.
Furthermore, it appears that what we now have has changed over time. For example, it seems the last twelve verses of Mark were not in the oldest manuscripts. There have been other changes. One of the more notable ones occurs in John 5:7-8.
Our earliest texts say:
“For there are three that bear record, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
But later texts say:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
Nowhere else in the New Testament do we have anything that states that creedal doctrine so explicitly. Did John write that? Or was the extra material added to make the idea of the trinity scriptural?
And what do we make of the fact that we have no manuscript that dates to anywhere close to when Jesus lived? We have some small fragments of manuscripts with a few verses of John, Revelation, and Matthew dated around 150 AD. But the oldest manuscripts we have that contain the majority of any of the gospels are for the gospels of Luke and John, and these are dated around 200 AD. The oldest manuscripts with the full New Testament are dated around 350 AD.
That’s more than 300 years after Jesus died!
Have you played the game of telephone? Are we sure that the oral traditions that were written down weren’t changed? What happened to the books mentioned in the Bible that we don’t have now? For example, Jude mentions a prophecy of Enoch that we don’t have in our current Bible. Are we sure that the copyists didn’t add to the text like it seems some did to John?
And what about the term “Christ”? It’s actually the Greek word for “messiah” which just means one anointed with oil to perform a special service for god. Christ wasn’t Jesus’s last name. It was a title: Jesus the anointed one.
The anointed ones in those days were kings and prophets and priests. It appears most of the historical sources suggest that a “messiah” to the Jews of that time was someone who would throw off foreign rule and establish the kingdom of Israel as David had. In fact, there were a whole bunch of people who claimed to be messiahs. Here’s a nice list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_M....
Judas Maccabeus was considered a messiah because he threw off Greek rule in 164 BC. But then around 63 BC Israel was taken over by Rome. And Rome wasn’t too keen on revolts, so around 4 BC they crucified Judas the Galilean for claiming to be the messiah, the king of the Jews. Crucifixion, it seems, was the punishment reserved for seditionists. They crucified Jesus and a whole bunch of other guys claiming to be the king of the Jews. And their crimes were written on a board above them, which is why they hung the words “King of the Jews” over Jesus’s head on the cross. Here’s the criminal, and here’s his crime. These other messiahs were not claiming to be a god that came to earth to atone for sins, but anointed by God to throw off foreign rule and establish his earthly kingdom again.
Jesus talks a lot about the kingdom of God. Was Jesus just another one of the seditionists?
Ehrman examines these and many other questions as a historian, providing all sorts of insights.
But the fabulous thing is that he doesn’t just tell his story. He gives his evidence. Exposes his assumptions. And in all three books he explains the guidelines or “rules” historians use to when trying to determine which stories are more likely and which evidence is more reliable.
I was enlightened, challenged, and delighted. I learned things about Jesus’s life and times that have helped me understand what I read in the Bible better.
LIMITS
Of course, the historical method has its limits.
Historians, because they are looking for explanations (stories) that are more probable, automatically select against things that are improbable. They exclude miracles. They exclude any story that says Christ was actually resurrected. They may establish that a lot of folks thought he was resurrected, but they don’t have any methods to establish something like a resurrection actually occurred. And so they ignore it. Historians exclude modern revelation. If someone today were to have a visitation from Jesus as Paul did, the historians would exclude that.
But we all know that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. We all know that sometimes the less likely thing is exactly what occurred.
Historians are looking for what is most probable. Not what actually happened. Because they can’t go back and time and verify their story.
Excluding “improbable” things changes the types of stories the pieces of the puzzle support. For many of us, me included, we do accept evidences many historians don’t as pieces of the puzzle. And because we have these pieces, we’re able to tell different types of stories.
The cool thing about Ehrman is that he explains this. He’s not trying to hide anything. Instead, he’s explaining how to approach the Bible from a historical point of view, and where the principles of the historical method lead him.
And I have found that those methods in his hands have a lot to offer.
If you’re someone who is interested in religion–as a believer, agonistic, or atheist–you will love these books. Ehrman himself was once an ardent believer, but is now agnostic. However, his respect for believers, including other scholars in his field who believe in the divine Jesus, comes through loud and clear. Ehrman has no axe to grind. He is simply sharing the stories of Jesus that make sense to him and many other historians. And he does it in a very interesting and easy-to-read style.
If these books sound like something you want to try, I’d start with Misquoting Jesus, move to Jesus Interrupted, and then finish with Did Jesus Exist? And if you enjoy those, let me recommend two more of Ehrman’s books. The first is The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot: A New Look at Betrayer and Betrayed, which looks at the discovery and content of a very ancient manuscript that calls itself The Gospel of Judas. The second is Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, which explores the variety of Christian faiths that existed in the few hundred years after Jesus’s death.
Happy reading!
October 20, 2020
Well, unfortunately I'm rather livid at the moment because even though I had written I do not have the time or energy for a proper review due to severely bad health and a late time of night, I had just spent 1.5 hours working on the BEGINNING of a review, presumably saving as I went along as I always do. However, I don't know what happened, but the page refreshed and everything was lost -- all of my time and work and I don't have the time or energy to try to recreate that, so I'm very unhappy. As a result, I'm just going to leave a few minor paragraphs or so with apologies... I did want to do it justice.
Normally I'm a fan of Bart Ehrman's, although I don't always agree with him. Unfortunately, I think this is his worst book and I'm shocked he put his name to it. Frankly for the scholar people view him as and he frankly promotes himself to be, he embarrasses himself in his sad efforts to first, trash the credentials of those he opposes in the initial stages of the book, especially as compared to his own "fantastic" academic credentials, which should be beneath him for multiple reasons: 1) it's unnecessary and unprofessional, 2) other people DO have legitimate credentials despite what he thinks, and worse, he misrepresents at least one or more in terms of their specialties proving a lack of validity in facing a scholar of his character and 3) while I don't have time to go into all of his academic background, I doubt he'd love it if people knew the initial fundamentalist "academic" institution where he obtained a three year (?) degree acknowledges on its own website currently that this degree was NOT accredited. Moreover, as someone who over the course of my entire life, have known countless friends, colleagues and family members who attended and graduated from Moody Bible Institute, I can attest to the fact that not one of them were able to find professional employment post-graduation, largely due to their spurious academic "qualifications." This, the vaunted academic "scholar" Bart Ehrman!
As to the book, his arguments are weak and generally beneath his usual standards -- by far -- and do little to convince anyone that he has outdone his "opponents." Indeed, he actually relies on hearsay and speculation, which are hardly convincing in the academic world. (The fact that no New Testament author ever MET Jesus, let alone possibly even met someone who knew him, is a non-issue for Ehrman as his relates that PAUL, of all of them, CLAIMED to have met Peter and James, yet there is not one shred of either independent evidence nor Jewish evidence to confirm that, so all we have to go on is Paul swearing he did, so must have. Good enough, eh? And I jumped off my roof today and flew around town because despite no one seeing and documenting it, I swear I did and thus it's true. Not too different from American fantasies in 2020, where whatever one wishes to believe is apparently true. (Until science proves them wrong. Like every time.) Another little hint is the long acknowledged fact that while no one in the Bible, including the authors of the Gospels, can possibly provide evidence (nor is there independent evidence anywhere) of any sayings of this Jesus, let alone the accuracy of claimed sayings, Paul may have "known" of a couple -- through his debatable vision. Again, we have to take him at his word, and then one must wonder why Paul virtually NEVER refers to Jesus' actual LIFE. If he "knew" him as he claimed, wouldn't he have recorded ... something? No, instead we get post-crucifixion spirit Jesus and the religion Jesus never set out to create while Paul himself did.
Finally, the actual topic of this book -- Did Jesus exist? Well, there are tons of books on the subject, from all angles. And so many areas to cover. And so many Jesus's back then, as apparently not only was it a somewhat common name, but also somewhat common for others claiming that name while additionally claiming to be the Messiah. More importantly, there are so many clues, examples and outright facts to make one legitimately doubt he existed that it's entirely possible to assert with authority that he did not exist -- as a number of people do. A few things before referring to others. It's virtually undisputed that the Gospels were written long after his death, that the authors are unknown (with the names attributed to them generally considered to have been so potentially hundreds of years after they were written), that the authors did not know Jesus nor knew anyone else who knew Jesus and the fact that Jesus and his followers are assumed to have been illiterate and thus Jesus never left one shred of any alleged teachings of his, as well as the fact that each gospel was written in educated Greek while this Jesus would have spoken Aramaic (with some Hebrew translation thrown into the gospels for good measure when it came to the alleged prophecies, most of which have been proven to have been taken out of context, simply wrong or even nonexistent), it's plausible to assert that possibly everything attributed to Jesus, if not virtually all of the gospels themselves, were complete fabrications. Indeed, scholars have had to resort to a hypothetical source they refer to as "Q" (as well as a couple of other such sources) to fill in a ton of blanks, because there is no evidence to support many of the claims made in the gospels, so naturally *someone* *HAD* to know the details and we'll just conveniently call him "Q." There is absolutely no evidence for this Q, let alone independent evidence at that. A million other things aside, in addition to the well-known town of "Nazareth" Jesus came from not yet actually even existing, thus forcing theologians to stretch hard to make other Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Semitic, Arab and eventually Latin translations of words that appeared to be close to "Nazareth" while yet none of them actually meant or were "Nazareth" somehow fit, which REALLY ticks them off due to its inconvenience, ultimately there is literally no independent evidence or mention from the first century (nor virtually any Jewish mention as well, literally) to confirm or even allude to the validity of ANY claims of this Jesus the Jewish Messiah ever existing -- and this in a century famous for its record keeping, particularly by the Romans, if not other peoples and races. Thus there are records on nearly everything and everyone of note throughout the empire, and certainly Judea as well, and among untold numbers of records, there are none of any crucifixion of a Jesus of Nazareth (it wasn't until after 300 CE that Jewish Christian writers and historians began referring in print to a place even called something similar to "Nazareth," while a Greek variant was found sometime after 220 CE. Indeed, no secular reference to such a town was ever found until a 1962 archaeological dig, which traced the inscription found back to around 300 AD -- in Hebrew), none of any mammoth earthquake (let alone any earthquake) on the day of the crucifixion, nor of the temple's curtain being ripped in half (which Jewish historians would surely have documented), NOR any resurrected zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem, nor any huge crowds gathering around any teachers in that general area and by that name, nor of any travels, arrivals and departures of any Oriental "wise men" come to worship the babe -- who was either there within Herod's grasp or in Egypt depending on which gospel one chooses to believe -- nor of any famous miracles, healings and exorcisms by a Jesus in Galilee (a backwater at the time), and certainly no dead people coming back to life. Etc., etc. There is NO independent evidence to back up a shred of this fancy nor any evidence outside of the Bible itself, and the gospels disagree with each other in so many ways that those who believe the book to be the inerrant word of God (how does one combine four different resurrection stories?) must be driven crazy by this and those who find alternate ways of interpretation then are forced to cherry pick!
It's late and I can't continue, so I'll close with some reference material I'm recommending for dear deluded Mr Ehrman, as well as any other readers who may be interested. These are by no means the only resources -- simply ones that come to mind at the moment (although the first is pretty good).
1) Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald.
2) Jesus: Mything in Action, Vol. I (The Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion Book 2) by David Fitzgerald. If I recall -- and it's been awhile -- I think this is the first of a three-book series and this book covers the gospels...
3) Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed by R.G. Price
and an interesting additional book not specifically about Jesus, but really more about the Bible and specifically the Old Testament. It's an archaeological account by two Jewish academics and scientists who seemingly prove the bulk of what we know as the Old Testament -- if true at all -- was never ever written until Israel and Judah had been split as separate kingdoms and Israel had been conquered and taken away and while I don't want to give away all of the spoilers, the gist is these stories appear to be scientifically proven to have not been written until possibly around 700 BCE, thus potentially calling into question basically all we've been taught and all we've been taught to believe and pretty much everything else associated with it and that follows it. Even if you disagree, it's intellectually interesting and a good exercise in (internal) debate.
4) The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
Ultimately, I would only recommend this book to show people additional confirmation of any scientific or literal evidence of the lack of the Biblical Jesus. If you're a theocratic religionist who lacks an open mind, this book won't be for you -- it might serve only to irritate you. If you are interested in this debate, or series of debates, you *may* find this book intriguing, although I would have it pretty low on my reading list. Ultimately Ehrman's worst book and definitely not recommended.
Normally I'm a fan of Bart Ehrman's, although I don't always agree with him. Unfortunately, I think this is his worst book and I'm shocked he put his name to it. Frankly for the scholar people view him as and he frankly promotes himself to be, he embarrasses himself in his sad efforts to first, trash the credentials of those he opposes in the initial stages of the book, especially as compared to his own "fantastic" academic credentials, which should be beneath him for multiple reasons: 1) it's unnecessary and unprofessional, 2) other people DO have legitimate credentials despite what he thinks, and worse, he misrepresents at least one or more in terms of their specialties proving a lack of validity in facing a scholar of his character and 3) while I don't have time to go into all of his academic background, I doubt he'd love it if people knew the initial fundamentalist "academic" institution where he obtained a three year (?) degree acknowledges on its own website currently that this degree was NOT accredited. Moreover, as someone who over the course of my entire life, have known countless friends, colleagues and family members who attended and graduated from Moody Bible Institute, I can attest to the fact that not one of them were able to find professional employment post-graduation, largely due to their spurious academic "qualifications." This, the vaunted academic "scholar" Bart Ehrman!
As to the book, his arguments are weak and generally beneath his usual standards -- by far -- and do little to convince anyone that he has outdone his "opponents." Indeed, he actually relies on hearsay and speculation, which are hardly convincing in the academic world. (The fact that no New Testament author ever MET Jesus, let alone possibly even met someone who knew him, is a non-issue for Ehrman as his relates that PAUL, of all of them, CLAIMED to have met Peter and James, yet there is not one shred of either independent evidence nor Jewish evidence to confirm that, so all we have to go on is Paul swearing he did, so must have. Good enough, eh? And I jumped off my roof today and flew around town because despite no one seeing and documenting it, I swear I did and thus it's true. Not too different from American fantasies in 2020, where whatever one wishes to believe is apparently true. (Until science proves them wrong. Like every time.) Another little hint is the long acknowledged fact that while no one in the Bible, including the authors of the Gospels, can possibly provide evidence (nor is there independent evidence anywhere) of any sayings of this Jesus, let alone the accuracy of claimed sayings, Paul may have "known" of a couple -- through his debatable vision. Again, we have to take him at his word, and then one must wonder why Paul virtually NEVER refers to Jesus' actual LIFE. If he "knew" him as he claimed, wouldn't he have recorded ... something? No, instead we get post-crucifixion spirit Jesus and the religion Jesus never set out to create while Paul himself did.
Finally, the actual topic of this book -- Did Jesus exist? Well, there are tons of books on the subject, from all angles. And so many areas to cover. And so many Jesus's back then, as apparently not only was it a somewhat common name, but also somewhat common for others claiming that name while additionally claiming to be the Messiah. More importantly, there are so many clues, examples and outright facts to make one legitimately doubt he existed that it's entirely possible to assert with authority that he did not exist -- as a number of people do. A few things before referring to others. It's virtually undisputed that the Gospels were written long after his death, that the authors are unknown (with the names attributed to them generally considered to have been so potentially hundreds of years after they were written), that the authors did not know Jesus nor knew anyone else who knew Jesus and the fact that Jesus and his followers are assumed to have been illiterate and thus Jesus never left one shred of any alleged teachings of his, as well as the fact that each gospel was written in educated Greek while this Jesus would have spoken Aramaic (with some Hebrew translation thrown into the gospels for good measure when it came to the alleged prophecies, most of which have been proven to have been taken out of context, simply wrong or even nonexistent), it's plausible to assert that possibly everything attributed to Jesus, if not virtually all of the gospels themselves, were complete fabrications. Indeed, scholars have had to resort to a hypothetical source they refer to as "Q" (as well as a couple of other such sources) to fill in a ton of blanks, because there is no evidence to support many of the claims made in the gospels, so naturally *someone* *HAD* to know the details and we'll just conveniently call him "Q." There is absolutely no evidence for this Q, let alone independent evidence at that. A million other things aside, in addition to the well-known town of "Nazareth" Jesus came from not yet actually even existing, thus forcing theologians to stretch hard to make other Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, Semitic, Arab and eventually Latin translations of words that appeared to be close to "Nazareth" while yet none of them actually meant or were "Nazareth" somehow fit, which REALLY ticks them off due to its inconvenience, ultimately there is literally no independent evidence or mention from the first century (nor virtually any Jewish mention as well, literally) to confirm or even allude to the validity of ANY claims of this Jesus the Jewish Messiah ever existing -- and this in a century famous for its record keeping, particularly by the Romans, if not other peoples and races. Thus there are records on nearly everything and everyone of note throughout the empire, and certainly Judea as well, and among untold numbers of records, there are none of any crucifixion of a Jesus of Nazareth (it wasn't until after 300 CE that Jewish Christian writers and historians began referring in print to a place even called something similar to "Nazareth," while a Greek variant was found sometime after 220 CE. Indeed, no secular reference to such a town was ever found until a 1962 archaeological dig, which traced the inscription found back to around 300 AD -- in Hebrew), none of any mammoth earthquake (let alone any earthquake) on the day of the crucifixion, nor of the temple's curtain being ripped in half (which Jewish historians would surely have documented), NOR any resurrected zombies wandering the streets of Jerusalem, nor any huge crowds gathering around any teachers in that general area and by that name, nor of any travels, arrivals and departures of any Oriental "wise men" come to worship the babe -- who was either there within Herod's grasp or in Egypt depending on which gospel one chooses to believe -- nor of any famous miracles, healings and exorcisms by a Jesus in Galilee (a backwater at the time), and certainly no dead people coming back to life. Etc., etc. There is NO independent evidence to back up a shred of this fancy nor any evidence outside of the Bible itself, and the gospels disagree with each other in so many ways that those who believe the book to be the inerrant word of God (how does one combine four different resurrection stories?) must be driven crazy by this and those who find alternate ways of interpretation then are forced to cherry pick!
It's late and I can't continue, so I'll close with some reference material I'm recommending for dear deluded Mr Ehrman, as well as any other readers who may be interested. These are by no means the only resources -- simply ones that come to mind at the moment (although the first is pretty good).
1) Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald.
2) Jesus: Mything in Action, Vol. I (The Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion Book 2) by David Fitzgerald. If I recall -- and it's been awhile -- I think this is the first of a three-book series and this book covers the gospels...
3) Deciphering the Gospels: Proves Jesus Never Existed by R.G. Price
and an interesting additional book not specifically about Jesus, but really more about the Bible and specifically the Old Testament. It's an archaeological account by two Jewish academics and scientists who seemingly prove the bulk of what we know as the Old Testament -- if true at all -- was never ever written until Israel and Judah had been split as separate kingdoms and Israel had been conquered and taken away and while I don't want to give away all of the spoilers, the gist is these stories appear to be scientifically proven to have not been written until possibly around 700 BCE, thus potentially calling into question basically all we've been taught and all we've been taught to believe and pretty much everything else associated with it and that follows it. Even if you disagree, it's intellectually interesting and a good exercise in (internal) debate.
4) The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
Ultimately, I would only recommend this book to show people additional confirmation of any scientific or literal evidence of the lack of the Biblical Jesus. If you're a theocratic religionist who lacks an open mind, this book won't be for you -- it might serve only to irritate you. If you are interested in this debate, or series of debates, you *may* find this book intriguing, although I would have it pretty low on my reading list. Ultimately Ehrman's worst book and definitely not recommended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 285 reviews