Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Belz...]

But once people began to look critically at this stuff, it could only inevitably lead to some abandoning the idea of Jesus as a messiah at all.

Doesn't this play against the idea that somehow, current-day Jesus scholars are biased Christians; If the study of the texts and contexts leads one away from faith ?

 

[IanS]

I was asking you to pretend to believe as I outlined and then consider the ramifications of Jesus' bones.

Not simply logic a reasoning around the issue through pointing out Paul was evident first, then the Gospels so really the Gospels are errant and Paul's non-physical Jesus is accurate, etc....

That's great, but that's not what a Sunday-standard Christian works off of.
So I was asking you to think from that perspective; to confine yourself to the only option being that the Gospels came first, Paul later, that there was a physical Resurrection as per the various Christian Creeds, and that what the Gospels account is fact, and that an empty tomb is empty for the physical departure of your Christ Lord your Savior and access for eternal life.

From that perspective, pretend I just walked up and showed you a disease ridden femur in a 1st c CE box which contained the inscription, "Here lies Jesus, son of Joseph, the Anointed and Crucified." or some other form of rather specific text, and pretend that it really was Jesus' bones.

Now what do you think the response is going to be?
Cheer? Elation?

Jayson - yes, I know what you are asking. But I think I have explained at some length why your premise simply cannot work. It will get very boring for all of us if I keep repeating the same answer.

So just extremely briefly -

- the premise is an impossible one in the first place. No scientist, anthropologist, historian/whoever could ever positively identify any human remains as those of Jesus. That’s impossible.

So the very first thing is that any Christians who wanted to reject any such finding, could, and would, very easily just point out that the claim is impossible.

But more generally - when and if Christians in general believe that the bible tells them Jesus was physically resurrected in the same human body, there is a huge credibility gap the instant they proceed to saying that he subsequently appeared to people as an airborne spiritual vision. Because that requires an unexplained supernatural miracle.

So between the dead body being put in the tomb and the airborne spiritual vision appearing, an unexplained miracle has to happen. And within that supernatural credibility gap Christians can insert any miraculous interpretation they want. If they want to say a human body was both present and not present at the same time, then they can just say that … since we are talking about a miracle, they can have absolutely any explanation they want.

They could, and certainly would just say that the discovery of any such bones was proof positive that Jesus lived. And after he lived, he miraculously became a holy spirit ... which is what he really was all along.

 

[Craig B]

So between the dead body being put in the tomb and the airborne spiritual vision appearing, an unexplained miracle has to happen. And within that supernatural credibility gap Christians can insert any miraculous interpretation they want. If they want to say a human body was both present and not present at the same time, then they can just say that … since we are talking about a miracle, they can have absolutely any explanation they want.

They could, and certainly would just say that the discovery of any such bones was proof positive that Jesus lived. And after he lived, he miraculously became a holy spirit ... which is what he really was all along.

But that's not what they mainly do say, and it would cause serious problems.

However, the problem in the resurrection isn't so much in agreeing that Jesus rose but in how He rose. Unfortunately, cults attack the resurrection of Christ and reinterpret it in different ways thereby denying His physical resurrection. We must ask if Jesus rose from the dead in the very same body He died in, or did He rise in a spirit body that was not flesh and bones? The answer to this question is vital. It separates true Christians from false systems. Therefore, here is the correct doctrine of Christ's resurrection; I consider it so important that it must be set off by itself as a statement of truth:

"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

http://carm.org/jesus-resurrection-was-physical If you had read the gospels you would be acquainted with the intense physicality of the risen Jesus related in gJohn.

20:24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” 28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

He has supernatural powers, and can appear in locked rooms, but he is solidly physical, with a real body accessible to contact with other people. If his wounds are walking about, his bones are walking about. He can even cook and dish out food.

21:12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.

 

[eight bits]

CraigB

CARM is not perched on the leading edge of Christian scholarship. You do notice that their "explanation" is that Jesus rose in the same body, which was a different body.

If you had read the gospels you would be acquainted with the intense physicality of the risen Jesus related in gJohn.

I was especially acquainted with the intensely physicality of the passage through locked doors.

He has supernatural powers, and can appear in locked rooms, but he is solidly physical, ...

I can see now why CARM's explanation sat so well with you.

with a real body accessible to contact with other people.

And that's the key - he can interact with people, but not other physical objects. But we are drifting from the original problem: does the process of resurrection have leftovers?

The fact is that the NewTestament nowhere presents a mechanism for Jesus' resurrection. The hypothetical discovery of bones would give that question some urgency for believers.

We already know how people react to one piece of "evidence" for the resurrection, the Shroud of Turin ("corroborated" by another cloth, but let's stay with the Shroud). For our purposes, we needn't distinguish between those who "believe in" the shroud and those who think only that its authenticity is seriously possible. We can invoke the principle of "revealed preference" to include the officialdom of the Roman Catholic Church among the serious possibilists, since they tolerate the display of the thing in consecrated space, and have in the recent past devoted scarce papal resources to its promotion.

The "theory" of the shroud is that at the very beginning of the process, resurrection-initiation caused a sudden and irreversible molecular change in nearby organic material. If we grant that theory, then we must consider that the process of resurrection is a potential hazard for nearby living creatures. This will not be a problem at the end of days' general resurrection, since evrybody will be fixed up. It is however, a potentially critical problem for responsible special resurrection - how to accomplish the task without endangering people and livestock.

The Gospels do agree on one thing: the tomb would be a lousy choice for a place to work undisturbed. People come and go like a train station, and in Matthew, there are soldiers stationed outside. A reasonable first step, then, is to remove the corpse from the tomb and take it somewhere where the work can proceed safely. Perhaps the transport is accomplished using that ThruDaDoors technique you admire in John, but maybe they just open the door.

As already discussed, if there are leftovers, they can be returned to the tomb (or placed anywhere convenient). The tomb is in play, however, since it is already booked. Note that in no canonical version of the story does anybody check, or suggest that anybody else check, the tomb after Jesus' body is first sighted. We don't know that there were not leftovers. If there were, we don't know where they were first placed, but there is nothing in the canon that excludes placing them where they should go, and where provision for them has been arranged.

 

[IanS]

But that's not what they mainly do say, and it would cause serious problems.

We are not talking about what you or I think Christians may say right now. We are talking about they could say if, as Jayson proposes, the impossible happened and somebody proved that the bones of Jesus had been found. In which case Christians have any number of very easy responses to claim whatever they wished (that’s the nature of miracles … you can make any claim you want to).

 

[Craig B]

CraigB

CARM is not perched on the leading edge of Christian scholarship.

So what? Were talking about general belief.

You do notice that their "explanation" is that Jesus rose in the same body, which was a different body.

No. Same body. That is the thing that is stressed. Glorified, perhaps, but the same body. That is the important thing as the passage makes clear.

I was especially acquainted with the intensely physicality of the passage through locked doors.

Tricks like that are attributed to saints, whose status as physical human beings is not questioned. If, as I say, the wounds were real (and they have to be to meet Thomas's objection) then the body and bones are equally real.

I can see now why CARM's explanation sat so well with you.

And that's the key - he can interact with people, but not other physical objects.

Absolutely and unambiguously false, as some Sea of Galilee tilapia might tell you if Jesus hadn't cooked them on a fire and made a breakfast of them in Chapter 21.

But we are drifting from the original problem: does the process of resurrection have leftovers?

The loaves and fishes did.

The fact is that the NewTestament nowhere presents a mechanism for Jesus' resurrection. The hypothetical discovery of bones would give that question some urgency for believers.

Quite so, because it is inconsistent with normative Christian belief.

We already know how people react to one piece of "evidence" for the resurrection, the Shroud of Turin.

Irrelevant. Jesus' body resurrected, according to Christian doctrine. His clothing or shroud didn't. It stayed dead.

 

[eight bits]

CraigB

So what? Were talking about general belief.

There is nothing "general" about CARM's approach to Fundamentalist Protestant apologetics.

No. Same body.

Let me refresh your recollection:

"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

The very same and very different. As I said.

Glorified, perhaps, but the same body.

Now you're doing it. Apparently, CARMthhik is contagious.

That is the important thing as the passage makes clear.

I see that in addition to different ideas about "emptiness," we also have different notions of clarity.

Whatever thought CARM is trying to express, the mainstream issues are typically physicality and preservation of personhood. Consider that many Nicene Christians, including Catholics these days, practice cremation. It follows that they believe that new parts will be fabricated as needed. Crappy, disease-ridden and door-barring bones would seem to be prime candidates for fabrication de novo.

Absolutely and unambiguously false, as some Sea of Galilee tilapia might tell you if Jesus hadn't cooked them on a fire and made a breakfast of them in Chapter 21.

Really? Putting aside that the entirety of chapter 21 is widely held not to be an original part of John, we're at 21: 13? The verb is lambanei - not necessarily manhandling; shows, receives (there is a coal-fire prepared by unknown means - it's there when the living humans land).

The loaves and fishes did.

OK. If we take John's version of that, then we have precedent that supernatural orgnaization of organic matter from some kind of starter material can leave remains. How does this help your case?

Quite so, because it is inconsistent with normative Christian belief.

Normative? Are we supposed to take sides in, if you will excuse the pun, the internicene struggle? I have already said that there will be winners and losers.

Irrelevant. Jesus' body resurrected, according to Christian doctrine. His clothing or shroud didn't. It stayed dead.

That has nothing to do with the argument I made.

 

[dejudge]

I was using “quest” in the widest sense of “search for something”. The word was specified in the Twentieth Century as the search for historical Jesus as a reply both to materialist neo-Hegelians (Bauer, Strauss, Feuerbach) and bultmannians. Before this, the existence of Jesus was accepted as a non questionable fact. If someone would cast doubt on this subject he risked to finish on the stake or similar.

Your statement is a blatant fallacy. Christians of antiquity did QUESTION the nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

In fact, many Christian writers like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, Eusebius and Augustine discussed the Multiple versions of Jesus believed by Jesus cults.

See "Against Heresies", "Refutation of All Heresies", "On the Flesh of Christ", "Dialogue with Trypho", "Against Marcion"

1. Some even claimed Jesus existed WITHOUT birth.

2. Some claimed Jesus was 100% God.

3. Some claimed Jesus was 100% God and 100% man.

Examine Augustine's "Contra Faustum2.

1. Faustus said: Do I believe the gospel? Certainly.
Do I therefore believe that Christ was born? Certainly not.
It does not follow that because I believe the gospel, as I do, I must therefore believe that Christ was born.

Since at least the 2nd century Christians claimed the Historical Jesus was actually the Son of the God of the Jews , born of a Ghost and a Virgin and had NO human father.

The quest for an historical Jesus began around the 18th century and have had MULTIPLE FAILURES.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus is the academic effort to use historical methods to provide a historical portrait of Jesus.[1] Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase...

There is an on-going quest for an HJ because NO evidence for an HJ has ever been found.

Jesus of Nazareth has no known contemporary history and cannot be found in any writings outside of Apologetics until the 2nd century or later.

 

[Craig B]

@ eight bits

It's better to give the quote at somewhat greater length. My emphasis.

However, the problem in the resurrection isn't so much in agreeing that Jesus rose but in how He rose. Unfortunately, cults attack the resurrection of Christ and reinterpret it in different ways thereby denying His physical resurrection. We must ask if Jesus rose from the dead in the very same body He died in, or did He rise in a spirit body that was not flesh and bones? The answer to this question is vital. It separates true Christians from false systems. Therefore, here is the correct doctrine of Christ's resurrection; I consider it so important that it must be set off by itself as a statement of truth:

"Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected, physical body was a glorified, spiritual body. The spiritual body is not merely "spirit." The spiritual body is the resurrected, glorified, physical body."

Complete with bones, I have no doubt.

 

[IanS]

@ eight bits

.
. <snipped for brevity>
.

It's better to give the quote at somewhat greater length. My emphasis. Complete with bones, I have no doubt.

If Christians already believe that the body of Jesus suffered real physical wounds such as nail holes and spear holes, then finding remains that show signs of bone disease etc. would be just more of the same physical injury that you say they all believe anyway. So that would (to repeat) just be their proof positive that Jesus was a real person just as they had always said.

 

[JaysonR]

So the very first thing is that any Christians who wanted to reject any such finding, could, and would, very easily just point out that the claim is impossible.
...
They could, and certainly would just say that the discovery of any such bones was proof positive that Jesus lived. And after he lived, he miraculously became a holy spirit ... which is what he really was all along.

This would require more effort in solving an obstacle than is currently employed today where no effort is required as the absence of the remains is already accounted for and plays to the religion's favor.

I am not claiming that it would end Christianity; only that it would require address and that address would not be small - let alone would the opponents to Christianity let the situation just slide by. No, the opponents (such as Sam Harris, or his kin) would drive the point in repeatedly.

Even in your account, the imagined Christian has to change stance and excuse away the evidence rather than embrace it as proof of some form outright.

Your provided imagined Christian just reshaped a rather radical belief system of the Christian theological grant to the authority of salvation, in that a very large reason that the physical remains being brought back and taken up in the likes of Elijah (that is, physically ascended to Heaven) is quite regularly outlined as important because the resurrection of the physical body is part of the domain ownership of what authority the salvation of Jesus has.

Craig used CARM before, and I find no fault in doing so:
"The resurrection of Jesus is so important that without it Christianity is false."

But let's just check around and see what some others think:
"The physical resurrection of Christ is the cornerstone of our faith. Without it, Christianity crumbles.
...
Furthermore, the confessions of Christianity are replete with references to the physical resurrection of the Redeemer. Cyril of Jerusalem proclaimed, "Let no heretic ever persuade thee to speak evil of the Resurrection. For to this day the Manichees say that the resurrection of the Savior was phantom-wise, and not real.""
http://www.jesus.org/death-and-resu.../did-jesus-physically-rise-from-the-dead.html

"Virtually all Christians believe in the resurrection of Jesus – it should be all Christians, but there are some people who self-identify as Christians who do not actually believe in the physical resurrection of Christ. Obviously, such people are not actually Christians – the physical resurrection of Christ is of paramount importance in Christianity. As Saint Paul says, if Christ was not resurrected our faith is in vain (I Corinthians 15:14) – if Christ did not actually die and was not physically raised from the dead, how can our sins be forgiven by the death of Christ?"
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/6i.htm

"Jesus made a special appearance to Mary Magdalen and to another or other women. The women clung to the feet of Jesus as if to make sure He was real; they did not wish to let Him go. This Gospel detail shows the reality of Our Lord's, risen body, which was not a "ghost" or an apparition. It a real, physically tangible body."
http://www.catholictreasury.info/lord2.php

"PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
...
643 Given all these testimonies, Christ's Resurrection cannot be interpreted as something outside the physical order"
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a5p2.htm

"The Resurrection of Christ has much in common with the general resurrection; even the transformation of His body and of His bodily life is of the same kind as that which awaits the blessed in their resurrection. But the following peculiarities must be noted:

Christ's Resurrection is necessarily a glorious one; it implies not merely the reunion of body and soul, but also the glorification of the body.
Christ's body was to know no corruption, but rose again soon after death, when sufficient time had elapsed to leave no doubt as to the reality of His death.
Christ was the first to rise unto life immortal; those raised before Him died again (Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 15:20).
As the Divine power which raised Christ from the grave was His own power, He rose from the dead by His own power (John 2:19; 10:17-18).
Since the Resurrection had been promised as the main proof of Christ's Divine mission, it has a greater dogmatic importance than any other fact. "If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain" (1 Corinthians 15:14)."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm

"The Bible tells us that when Jesus returns to earth, he will physically raise all those who have died, giving them back the bodies they lost at death."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/resurrection-of-the-body

"...the belief in Jesus' physical resurrection remains the single doctrine most accepted by Christians of all denominational backgrounds."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Resurrection_and_Redemption


This could continue for quite some time, but the basic point is that it is rather central to the general Christian theology.

 

[dejudge]

..He has supernatural powers, and can appear in locked rooms, but he is solidly physical, with a real body accessible to contact with other people. If his wounds are walking about, his bones are walking about. He can even cook and dish out food.

How illogical!! Jesus could NOT have been solidly physical if he can appear in locked rooms.

The very same NT which stated he WALKED through locked doors ALREADY introduced Jesus as the Logos, God Creator in John 1.

When will your belief that fairy tales are sources of history end?

Please read John 1. The FIRST verse
Jesus was from the Beginning.

 

[Craig B]

If Christians already believe that the body of Jesus suffered real physical wounds such as nail holes and spear holes, then finding remains that show signs of bone disease etc. would be just more of the same physical injury that you say they all believe anyway. So that would (to repeat) just be their proof positive that Jesus was a real person just as they had always said.

And what happened to this Jesus with wounds? He and the wounds went up to heaven. If you ever read the gospels you'll find out they say that. If they find the remains of a crucified Jesus on earth, then he wasn't resurrected and he didn't ascend to heaven. That's the big deal. A crucifixion victim was discovered in 1968. http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=11&Issue=1&ArticleID=6 But he wasn't of much interest to Christians because he had not got up and come back to life after the crucifixion; his remains were still lying there. You really should read the gospels. I entreat you to do so in order to learn something about Christian belief.

 

[IanS]

And what happened to this Jesus with wounds? He and the wounds went up to heaven.

But that requires an unexplained miracle to happen. Dead human bodies don't float in the air speaking to people and don't drift off through the clouds to heaven.

If you are going to invoke miracles, then you can perfectly well say it happens that mortal bones are left to be discovered on earth whilst the spiritual entity speaks from the skies. You can say anything you want if your defence to all logic and all knowledge is to claim "a miracle happened".

So Jesus is both here, and also not here. His dead remains are here, but they are also in a different form alive in heaven. How? It’s a miracle!

 

[JaysonR]

dejudge


That is neither in dispute, nor is it relevant to the matter being discussed, as has already been explained to you.


JaysonR

There may be a problem in your discussion of Jewish attitudes towards incorporeal spirits versus resuurection (a Pharisaic idea, and the Pharisees are who surivive and dominate after the events of 70CE). The earliest documents we have about the issue among Christians are Gentile in authorship, audience or both. Paul does accord the pneuma body corporeal status, but such bodies can fly, for instance, which hardly reflects the body that is typing this messge. Paul's pneuma, then, is neither flesh nor spirit, but something new (or maybe it is that astral body that he can't tell from his own body when he's visiting other planes of existence).

Luke seems to be the earliest to make a "case" for a robust corporeal Jesus (that is, Jesus points out that he has flesh and bones, and has a bite of fish). Even then, John is later willing to settle for "solid to the touch" (so to speak, Mary and Thomas) and able to manipulate objects (the cookout on the beach), but unimpeded by locked doors. One is reminded of the Patrick Swayze character in Ghost, for example, if Jesus were a much quicker learner.

I think this is a recurrence of something which you and I have discussed before: that analysis of what is typical is fraught when applied to something that has been selected for examination because it is exceptional and very likely innovative. Antecedent Jewish thinking about spirits may provide background (for example, as one factor among many that Paul is trying to juggle), but not necessarily guidance to the actual nature of the fielded innovation or exception.

I'm not certain what you are referring to as we have the Talmudic commentaries for one resource from their culture on the matter, then we have the evident and various artifacts to wear to protect against unclean spirits, and we have their ideas of Olam Ha-Ba.

There are going to be differences among the theocratic groupings and such concepts evolve and change shape over time as well; which I highlighted twice.

That does not change the situation regarding the matter of anthropological classification and general description.

Keep in mind; this began when Dejudge interpreted my original comment to say that Hebrew peoples worshipped men as gods, which was not what I was stating.

This tangent actually has nothing to do with the resurrection tangent directly, but openly stated what you just said at the end of your post here:
"the physical resurrection of Jesus has been a pretty big staple of the religion...and carries its roots back to the Hebrew idea that a spirit is a demon and not to be trusted whereas a physical body is divine."

It does not rest anything; it was a comment of where that physical resurrection culture came from - that was all.

 

[Craig B]

But that requires an unexplained miracle to happen. Dead human bodies don't float in the air speaking to people and don't drift off through the clouds to heaven.

If you are going to invoke miracles, then you can perfectly well say it happens that mortal bones are left to be discovered on earth whilst the spiritual entity speaks from the skies. You can say anything you want if your defence to all logic and all knowledge is to claim "a miracle happened".

So Jesus is both here, and also not here. His dead remains are here, but they are also in a different form alive in heaven. How? It’s a miracle!

If you ever read the NT you will discover that it isn't I who say "a miracle happened". It's the NT writers who say it happened. The question is, what miracle? And the answer is: after Jesus died he came alive again and went up into the sky, wounds and all. Bones and all. That's not what I say. It's what the Christians say.

 

[proudfootz]

Doesn't this play against the idea that somehow, current-day Jesus scholars are biased Christians; If the study of the texts and contexts leads one away from faith ?

I don't argue that all bible scholars are christians, just as it's silly to claim scholars who refute the historical Jesus hypothesis are biased.

 

[Craig B]

I don't argue that all bible scholars are christians, just as it's silly to claim scholars who refute the historical Jesus hypothesis are biased.

Is it silly to claim scholars who refute the mythicist position are biased?

 

[Belz...]

I don't argue that all bible scholars are christians, just as it's silly to claim scholars who refute the historical Jesus hypothesis are biased.

An interesting twisting of words, there. I said "biased Christians", not just "Christians". Being a Christian is fine by me, so long as you can be objective in your conclusions.

 

[Craig B]

I don't argue that all bible scholars are christians, just as it's silly to claim scholars who refute the historical Jesus hypothesis are biased.

Is it silly to claim scholars who refute the mythical Jesus hypothesis are biased?