The Big Debate -- Price versus Ehrman

[abaris]

The problem there is that there is no evidence that jesus ever did or said anything.  No matter how many times Ehrman raves that "there must have been" he is wrong.  Jesus is no more necessary to xtianity than Quetzalcoatl was to the Aztecs.

I don't agree with his work, since he's dead wrong on his methodology as far as critical reception of his sources are concerned. He doesn't seem to know the first thing what the definition of history was back then as compared to our contemporary term. But I agree on one thing. There probably were tales making the rounds at the campfires of the trading routes. But we all know how such tales grow into something entirely different when told by a sufficient number of people. That's how myths always were created. Since there are no original sources in Roman records, it's impossible to know if the man actually existed, if they boiled several preachers into one mythological character or if none of them ever walked the earth. That there are absolutely no Roman records speaks for itself. A man challenging the jewish (appointed by the Romans) authority and thereby challenging Roman order in an entire province should have left at least some footprints in history. Apart from the whole narrative of the trial not adding up as compared to Roman law and Roman trial procedures. For starters, a rebel against Rome would have faced a very swift death without the Barnabas option.