Bart Ehrman’s “Did Jesus Exist?”: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim
——-
Unfortunately, my version does not have numbered pages, nevertheless the quotes are taken directly from his book, word for word!
——-
“Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth is a 2012 book by Bart D. Ehrman, a scholar of the New Testament. In the book, written to counter the idea that there was never such a person as Jesus of Nazareth at all, Ehrman sets out to demonstrate the historical evidence for Jesus’ existence, and he aims to state why all experts in the area agree that ‘whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist’ “ (Did Jesus Exist? [Ehrman book] -Wiki).
——-
1 Bart Ehrman is not only dead wrong but also disingenuous. He writes: “The idea that Jesus did not exist is a modern notion. It has no ancient precedents. It was made up in the eighteenth century. One might well call it a modern myth, the myth of the mythical Jesus.” That is completely bogus! It’s an idea that was held as early as the second century CE, and it was known as Docetism. This was the notion that Jesus did not have a physical body: that he did not come in the flesh!
——-
2 Ehrman’s defense of Jesus’ existence is based on presuppositions and circular thinking. He presupposes that certain literary characters are *obviously* historical figures who must have known Jesus. But this is arguing in a circle because he doesn’t prove their historical existence beyond the literary narrative. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that these are fictional characters that are employed in works of *historical fiction* as, for example, when we are told that Paul the Pharisee is working for the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple who’s a Sadducee, which seems like a total fabrication since Pharisees and Sadducees were bitter rivals.
——-
3 Moreover, the gospels were written in Greek, and most scholars assume that their sources were also in Greek. The writers are almost certainly non-Jews who are copying and quoting extensively from the Greek Old Testament, not the Jewish Bible. They obviously don’t seem to have a command of the Hebrew language, otherwise they would have written their gospels in Hebrew. And most of them, if not all of them, are writing from outside Palestine. By contrast, the presuppositions Ehrman is making do not square well with the available evidence. He’s arguing that Jesus was an Aramaic peasant from the backwaters of Galilee who had 12 Aramaic disciples who were also peasants. He also contends that the oral traditions or the first stories about Jesus began to circulate shortly after his death, and these oral traditions were, according to Ehrman, obviously in Aramaic.
——-
4 But here’s the question. If a real historical figure named Jesus existed in a particular geographical location, which has its own unique language and culture, how does the story about him suddenly get transformed and disseminated in an entirely different language within less than 20 years after his purported death?
——-
5 Furthermore, who are these sophisticated “Greeks” who own the rights to the story, as it were, and who pop out of nowhere, circulating the story as if it’s their own, and what is their particular relationship to this Aramaic community? Where did they come from? And what happened to the Aramaic community and their oral traditions? It suddenly disappeared? Given these inconsistencies, why should we even accept that there were Aramaic oral traditions? If the Aramaic community did not exist, neither did their Aramaic character! That’s the point.
——-
6 Besides, if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied at the feet of Gamaliel, surely we would expect him to be steeped in the Hebrew language. Yet, even Paul is writing in sophisticated Greek and quoting extensively not from the Hebrew Bible (which we would expect) but from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament. Now that doesn’t make any sense at all! All of a sudden, Paul’s literary identity becomes suspect. Since Paul’s community represents the earliest Christian community that we know of, and since his letters are the earliest known writings about Jesus, we can safely say that the earliest dissemination of the Jesus story comes not from Aramaic but from Greek sources!
——-
7 What is more, independent attestation does not necessarily prove the historicity of the story, only its popularity. For example, if Dan Brown writes a piercing novel that captures the popular imagination, just because other writers copy the story and begin to give it their own unique expression doesn’t mean that the story in and of itself is based on historical fact. The same principle should hold true with the New Testament gospels that were widely copied by noncanonical works, and which were not in themselves historically-reliable accounts to begin with.
——-
8 All other mentions, from the second to the fourth centuries, seem irrelevant not only because of their lack of proximity to the purported events (being based neither on eyewitnesses nor firsthand accounts), but also because of inaccurate information. For example, consider Eusebius’ criticism of Papias, who claimed that Matthew wrote in Hebrew (an assertion that has been dismissed by scholars). Or how about Papias’ so-called “sources of knowledge about Jesus” in which he mentions some of the latter’s important disciples in order to impress his audience (a claim that seems highly unlikely because the original apostles would not have been around by then). These tales, of course, play right into Eusebius’ playbook of creating fictional accounts that lead back to the so-called “original” apostles and to the alleged historical Jesus. However, we’re simply reading Papias through Eusebius’ lens. Let’s not forget that Eusebius himself had created so many fables and legends about the martyrs and apostles, and had been criticised as historically unreliable and biased, not to mention that he was too-far removed from the purported events, writing in the 4th century of the Common Era.
It’s unfortunate that Ehrman has to resort to such types of “evidence” to try to defend Jesus’ historicity. It would be quite gullible for any scholar to simply accept Eusebius’ account of Papias at face value.
According to the Jesus Seminar, which comprised a large group of approximately 50 critical biblical scholars, we don’t really know what Jesus said. Why would someone from one century later (like Papias) know what Jesus said? Then why doesn’t he also tell us what Jesus looked like? Or what language he spoke? Why didn’t the companions of the apostles not disclose this information to him?
——-
9 Then Ehrman quotes a devotional homily written by Ignatius of Antioch, which is probably inspired by the gospels and therefore has no historical value whatsoever, and concludes: “Ignatius, then, provides us yet with another independent witness to the life of Jesus.”
——-
10 Ehrman aims to prove the historical Jesus by referencing 1 Clement. But how does 1 Clement prove the historicity of Jesus? How can a letter from Rome, composed more than 60 years after Jesus’ purported death, demonstrate Jesus’ actual existence? Once again, we have a devotional piece based possibly on some type of “Scripture.” But in the absence of hard evidence and eyewitness testimony, 1 Clement is useless as evidence for the historical Jesus. Yet Ehrman writes:
“Here again we have an independent witness not just to the life of Jesus as a historical figure but to some of his teachings and deeds. Like all sources that mention Jesus from outside the New Testament, the author of 1 Clement had no doubt about his real existence and no reason to defend it.”
With all due respect, that’s a lame statement and there’s no excuse for a scholar of such caliber to be making these types of blunders.
——-
11 Ehrman then employs a speech from the Book of Acts:
“Men of Israel, hear these Words. Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God through miracles and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, just as you know, this one was handed over through the hand of the lawless by the appointed will and foreknowledge of God, and you nailed him up and killed him; but God raised him by loosing the birth pangs of death” (2:22–24).
Question: according to this passage, how was Jesus handed over to them for crucifixion? Answer: “by the appointed will and foreknowledge (προγνώσει) of God.” In other words, the passage seems to indicate that it’s a prophecy that hasn’t happened yet.
Besides, we don’t even know if these speeches in Acts are made-up stories or if they coincide with actual reality, especially since 2 Tim. 2.17-18 argues that the resurrection hasn’t happened yet. Similarly, 2 Thess. 2.1-3 argues that Jesus hasn’t come yet.
——-
12 Dr. Ehrman then quotes from 1 Peter:
“For you were called to this end, because Christ suffered for you, leaving an example for you that you might follow in his steps, who did not commit sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth, who when reviled did not revile in return, while suffering uttered no threat, but trusted the one who judges righteously, who bore our sins in his body on the tree, in order that dying to sin we might live to righteousness, for by his wounds we were healed” (2:21–24).
And yet if you read 1 Peter 1.20 in the original Greek there is absolutely no way that Jesus could have existed in Antiquity:
“He was marked out before the world was made, and was revealed at the final point of time” (NJB).
Similarly, 1 Jn 2.28 places the “revelation” of Christ in eschatological categories:
“And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he is revealed [φανερωθῇ] we may have confidence and not be put to shame before him at his coming.”
By the way, to be “revealed” means for the first time; it’s a first-time disclosure (for further details see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/187927555567/why-does-the-new-testament-refer-to-christs
That’s why, according to Lk 17.30, the Son of Man has not yet been revealed:
“it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.”
——-
13 Then Ehrman quotes 2 Peter:
“For not by following sophistic myths have we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of the majesty of that one. For when we received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was brought to him by the magnificent glory, ‘this is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,’ we heard this voice that was brought from heaven to him, for we were on the holy mountain” (1:16–18).
What Ehrman fails to tell you is that the following verse, 2 Pet. 1.19, indicates that these were not historical events but rather experiences of visions and auditions that pointed to a future-eschatological prophecy:
“So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed.”
Then Ehrman goes on to say that “Even the book of Revelation, with all its bizarre imagery and fantastic apocalyptic views, understands that Jesus was a real historical figure. For this author he was one who ‘lived’ and who ‘died’ (1:18).” Yet Ehrman fails to mention that in the Book of Revelation Jesus is said to be born in the end-times, as a contemporary of the final empire on earth which is depicted as a seven-headed dragon with ten horns (Rev. 12.1-5). Moreover, the testimony to Jesus in the Book of Revelation is said to be prophetic, not historical! Compare Rev. 19.10d:
“For the testimony [to] Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (NRSV).
——-
14 Ehrman then quotes from the Book of Hebrews:
“Jesus appeared in ‘these last days’ (1:2).”
But that is an incorrect interpretation. The Greek implies that Jesus’ appearance takes place ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν (in the last days), not in Antiquity.
More explicit and quite unambiguous is Hebrews 9.26b:
“he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself.”
Studies in Greek reveal that the phrase “at the end of the age” always refers to the future-eschatological time of the end (cf. Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; Mt. 24.3; Mt. 28.20). Once again, all these verses are indicating a prophecy, not a historical event from the past. In particular, Hebrews 9.26b explicitly states that Jesus will die for the redemption of sins “at the end of the age,” or “in the end of the world” (KJV)!
——-
15 At this point of the discussion, Dr. Ehrman sets out to demonstrate Paul’s testimony to Jesus:
“The reality is that, convenient or not, Paul speaks about Jesus, assumes that he really lived, that he was a Jewish teacher, and that he died by crucifixion. The following are the major things that Paul says about the life of Jesus. First, Paul indicates unequivocally that Jesus really was born, as a human, and that in his human existence he was a Jew. This he states in Galatians 4:4: “But when the fullness of time came, God sent his son, born from a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law….”
The problem is that Ehrman doesn’t understand Greek, nor is he a trained exegete, so he misses the point entirely!
In fact, according to Gal. 4.4 and Eph. 1.9-10, Jesus will be incarnated in “the fullness of time”, or at the end of the age! The Greek phrase τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρόνου (the fullness of time) means when time reached its fullness or completion. And Eph. 1.9-10 clearly demonstrates that it refers to the end-times and the final consummation!
Then Ehrman goes on to talk about the brothers and sisters of the Lord in order to show that Jesus was a real historical person who was surrounded by siblings. However, this proves nothing, not only because these may simply be literary stories that meet the authors’ objectives but also because it can be shown that these are not actual biological blood-relatives of Jesus (see my article: https://eli-kittim.tumblr.com/post/611675702018883584/was-james-the-brother-of-jesus-given-that
——-
16 After this, Ehrman mentions the resurrection and tries to show that “after Jesus was raised on the third day, ‘he appeared to Cephas and then to the twelve’ (1 Corinthians 15:5).” But what Ehrman doesn’t tell you is that these were visions of a prophecy that would take place at the end of the age! In Acts 10.40-41 we are told that Jesus’ resurrection is only visible “to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God” (προκεχειροτονημένοις; NASB). Nor does Ehrman tell you that Paul uses the word “eschaton,” which is a reference to the “last days,” as if he were talking about a prophecy. At any rate, Paul says ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων which could be translated “last then of all” or “at the end of all” “as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me” (1 Cor. 15:8). But the way Paul explains it, his use of the word καμοί (also to me) connotes “in the same way or manner,” which lends credence to the idea that Christ had appeared to him as he had to others: that is to say, by way of visions (cf. Gal. 1.15-16; Acts 9.3-5).
——-
17 Ehrman concludes:
“Finally, Paul is quite emphatic throughout his writings that Jesus was crucified. He never mentions Pontius Pilate or the Romans, but he may have had no need to do so.”
But again, as we will see, there are 2 things to consider, here. First, Paul is not referring to a historical event but to a tradition (to a prophecy) that was handed down to him and which he in turn delivered on to us (the readers/believers). Second, a close reading reveals that Christ didn’t die according to the historical record but rather “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” This is a crucial point. Jesus did not die a historical death, according to past history; rather he died κατὰ τὰς γραφάς, according to the *prophetic writings* that were handed down to Paul:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15.3-4).
And it is for this reason that Paul “never mentions Pontius Pilate or the Romans,” precisely because they’re irrelevant to the *prophetic writings*!
——-
18 Finally, it doesn’t really matter how many sayings of Jesus Paul (or anyone else) reiterates because they’re irrelevant in proving Jesus’ historicity. Why? Because Paul claims that his gospel is not of human origin: “I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1.12). The point is that all these sayings of Jesus may have come by way of revelation and not from a historical Jesus!
——-
Conclusion
Ehrman should know better. There were quite a few early-Christian, Gnostic sects that held to a Docetic belief, namely that Jesus did not exist in physical form. This idea was certainly not invented in the 18th century.
——-
Ehrman also misinterprets certain clearly fictional characters as if they were historical figures, and therefore confuses historical fiction with biography (cf. Acts 9.1-2). Here’s a case in point. Besides the fact that the High priest of the Jerusalem Temple was a Sadducee, who wouldn’t be normally working with a Pharisee, he had absolutely no jurisdiction in Damascus. So what’s Paul doing there persecuting Christians? This is odd because the Christians were hardly a threat compared to the Romans at that point in time. So what’s Paul doing chasing them all the way to Syria? Nothing in the story seems historically accurate or probable. In fact, all the elements of this story spell *fiction,* not fact!
——-
And why are the earliest New Testament writings in Greek? That certainly would challenge the Aramaic hypothesis. How did the Aramaic oral tradition suddenly become a Greek tradition within less than 20 years after Jesus’ supposed death? That kind of thing just doesn’t happen over night. It’s inexplicable, to say the least.
——-
Moreover, who are these “Greeks” who took over the story from the earliest days? And what happened to the alleged Aramaic community? Did it suddenly vanish, leaving no traces behind? It might be akin to the Johannine community that never existed, according to Dr. Hugo Mendez. It sounds more like a conspiracy of sorts.
——-
And if Paul was a Hebrew of Hebrews who studied under Gamaliel, what is he doing quoting from the Greek Old Testament? Why are his epistles not in Aramaic or Hebrew? By the way, these are the earliest writings on Christianity that we have. They’re written roughly two decades or less after Christ’s alleged death. Which Aramaic sources are they based on? And if so, why the need to quote the Septuagint? Or to record his letters in Greek? The Aramaic hypothesis doesn’t hold up.
——-
Finally, the quite obvious interpolations in the works of Josephus and Tacitus are conceded by many Biblical scholars. Many works were actually collaborations rather than corroborations. For example, Pliny the Younger corresponded with Tacitus, demonstrating that their accounts cannot be deemed as independent attestations. And the various non-canonical offshoots can not be used as evidence to prove historicity but rather how *popular* a story was. The various legendary elements were seemingly fused with historical figures and geographical locations to give the writings a sense of verisimilitude, as any good fictional story should do. Dan Brown is a master novelist who always adds such historical elements to his stories. Similarly, it would be stretching credulity to take these clearly fictional and non-canonical stories——whose authorship, production, and dissemination is itself dubious——and turn them into historiographical facts.
——-
And I hardly fit the mould of those mythicists to whom Ehrman’s criticism is directed:
“Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by ‘myth’ and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence” (Did Jesus Exist? [Ehrman book] - Wiki).
First, I am not a mythicist; I’m an ahistoricist. That is to say, I do not believe that the story of Jesus is a *myth.* I believe it is a *prophecy* (cf. Heb. 9.26b; 1 Pet. 1.20; Rev. 19.10d)!
In other words, I don’t believe that the story of Jesus is a “mythological” motif, based on preexisting pagan myths, or that he never existed and never will. Rather, I believe that the New Testament evidence supports the notion that the Jesus-story is based on “revelations” (Gal. 1.11-12) and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19).
Second, I am not “really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.” On the contrary, I have a high Christology and hold to a high view of Scripture. So, I don’t have an axe to grind. I actually believe in Christ, and I also believe that the Bible is the word of God. I’m just able to look at all the facts dispassionately, without any biases or presuppositions, and follow the facts wherever they may lead.
——-
All in all, I find Ehrman’s defence rather weak, and his arguments quite ineffective. In fact, the lack of archeological and interdisciplinary evidence for the existence of Jesus, coupled with the lack of eyewitness reports and firsthand accounts, seems to point in the opposite direction than Ehrman would have us believe. Not to mention that he seems to be unfamiliar with Koine Greek, ultimately mistranslating and misinterpreting the text!
——-
I’ll close with the words of a world-class Bible scholar and highly respected textual critic. Kurt Aland——who’s a world-renowned textual scholar, having founded and directed the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster, Germany, and who was one of the chief editors of the Nestle-Aland - Novum Testamentum Graece (the critical edition of the New Testament)——went so far as to question the historicity of Jesus:
“If the … epistles were really written by the apostles whose names they bear, and by people who were closest to Jesus … then the real question arises … was there really a Jesus?” “Can Jesus really have lived if the writings of his closest companions are filled with so little of his reality … so little in them of the reality of the historical Jesus …” “When we observe this——assuming that the writings about which we are speaking really come from their alleged authors——it almost then appears as if Jesus were a mere PHANTOM…“
(“A History of Christianity,” Vol 1, by Kurt Aland, p. 106 - emphasis added).
