Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

Alas, even the best of carbon based life-forms is capable of forgetting the best criteria of all: the criteria of embarrassment.

True. "We know it must be true because it's embarrassing to them"

Problem is one generations' holy stories are the next generations' embarrassing anecdotes.

Yes, the 'criterion of embarrassment' is problematic.

Since the authors of the materials in question are presenting their stories to an audience which has no way to independently verify the claims, anything really 'embarrassing' could be dropped without consequence.

They certainly do not seem to be embarrassed to build anecdotes out of supposed 'prophecies' or to make a hash of Palestinian geography.

Heracles is rather stupid and has anger management issues, and that is 'embarrassing' - should we therefore conclude there must be an historical Heracles? Maybe it's just good writing.

 

[Craig B]

What you “have to should accept is that Paul’s letters unarguably say what I just quoted to you from 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16. What do you claim Paul says in those passages about the origin of his own belief in Christ?

I would accept that the words you say are in Corinthians are indeed in Corinthians if you will say what words. Because we have had disputes about this before and now's a good time to clear them up.

I can't find a reference to a "former earthly body" in the words of Paul you quote. So it doesn't "say that". Can you be specific about the exact phraseology you are paraphrasing as "former earthly"? Paul speaks of "one kind" and "another kind", clearly and undeniably; but "former earthly" I simply can't find in the texts you cite. [This is an ellipsis ... ] Is the expression "former earthly body" in the version you are using? I raise this because you insist that you are reproducing [what Paul's letter actually says.]

 

[eight bits]

embarrassment (CoE), et al.

As tsig points out, what is "embarassing" morphs over time. The poster child for CoE is the baptism of Jesus by Dunker John.

Marcan Jesus, who is bucking only for the Messiah-ship, not for divinity (since he's Jewish, and the Jewish pantheon has a population of exactly one, with no children), gets a celebrity Jewish endorsement, plus the voice of God gives him a dustjacket blurb. There is no embarassment here; this is the cornerstone of the shaky case for the not-so-world-shaking Jesus being the one we've all been waiting for. As for sinfulness, John's batpism is (if Josephus has it right) a sign that you've already achieved rightness with God, not the means by which you achieve it. "Jesus is righteous." That's a boast, not a shameful admission.

As Jesus' ambitions rise in the later Gospels, and Christianity's own baptism becomes ritually efficacious (and a big part of what they sell), the baptism scene is retained and improved. There is a little more small talk, and so we have what "embarrassment" actually predicts, IMO, a song and dance to cover the points that might be "misunderstood." Note that it makes no difference whether the event actually happened or not: it is an established story, and as a story it has its uses (it explains why all Christians go swimming, which is not otherwise obvious).

And then there is John. Jesus is now God. So what happens to the baptism scene? It is dropped, without explanation or apology. What about the marketing finction of the story (you, too, should be baptized)? Jesus approves of what Dunker John is doing, even if he doesn't feel the need for a swim himself. And the big name Jewish endorsement? That's become Jesus and John endorsing each other - and ends with Jesus moving on to more important matters.

We could have a few laughs with the other criteria, too, but CoE is, I think, the epitome of absurdity. Now, if our boy Bart had said "Look, we need a filter for all these earth-toned Gospel stories. Patently self-serving BS should be treated with scepticism, and we'll only look twice at the rest" then we'd have something to discuss (beginning with if any of it is isn't self-serving, then why is it there at all?). But no, these "criteria," which are at best filters, Bart treats as touchstones - if a pericope passes the test(s) then we are supposedly certain that it is true - on pain of insulting professional historians and their Method.

Now, that's embarrassing, or it should be.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]We could have a few laughs with the other criteria, too, but CoE is, I think, the epitome of absurdity. Now, if our boy Bart had said "Look, we need a filter for all these earth-toned Gospel stories. Patently self-serving BS should be treated with scepticism, and we'll only look twice at the rest" then we'd have something to discuss (beginning with if any of it is isn't self-serving, then why is it there at all?). But no, these "criteria," which are at best filters, Bart treats as touchstones - if a pericope passes the test(s) then we are supposedly certain that it is true - on pain of insulting professional historians and their Method.

Now, that's embarrassing, or it should be.

What you're describing as a filter system sounds a great deal like the colour-coded approach used by the Jesus Seminar, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Belz...]

True. "We know it must be true because it's embarrassing to them"

You're the only one who says this.

 

[IanS]

I would accept that the words you say are in Corinthians are indeed in Corinthians if you will say what words. Because we have had disputes about this before and now's a good time to clear them up.

You already said yourself that we have had those two passages quoted over 100 times here. And I just gave you the full references to both of them.

Originally Posted by Craig B
I can't find a reference to a "former earthly body" in the words of Paul you quote. So it doesn't "say that". Can you be specific about the exact phraseology you are paraphrasing as "former earthly"? Paul speaks of "one kind" and "another kind", clearly and undeniably; but "former earthly" I simply can't find in the texts you cite. [This is an ellipsis ... ] Is the expression "former earthly body" in the version you are using? I raise this because you insist that you are reproducing [what Paul's letter actually says.

You appear to be mixing up two completely different conversations again - “former earthly body” is not a quote that I attributed to Paul’s letters. What that post of mine said was that people were discussing a “former earthly body” when talking here about whether or not Jesus was supposed to have been resurrected in the same body as he had before crucifixion … Paul’s letter, which I quoted, makes abundantly clear that Paul says it was not the same body. None of which has anything to do with the present discussion of 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

What you're describing as a filter system sounds a great deal like the colour-coded approach used by the Jesus Seminar, correct me if I'm wrong.

Agreed. I think that a filter is what the JS'ers were going for.

And assuming that the mission of historical inquiry is broader than providing a historical floor under religion, filtering is great idea. Stuff that gets caught in the filter is "the early history of Christianity," proto-Christians caught in the act of busily making and remaking their story, giving us insights into the timing, geography, political concerns, etc. - the things that Bart Ehrman at his best writes about.

 

[Craig B]

You appear to be mixing up two completely different conversations again - “former earthly body” is not a quote that I attributed to Paul’s letters. What that post of mine said was that people were discussing a “former earthly body” when talking here about whether or not Jesus was supposed to have been resurrected in the same body as he had before crucifixion … Paul’s letter, which I quoted, makes abundantly clear that Paul says it was not the same body. None of which has anything to do with the present discussion of 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16.

Well here is the relevant statement from you.

Jayson, this is becoming quite ridiculous. You appear to be in denial lol. ... Look; that is not "my take of it"! It's what Paul's letter actually says.

Does the letter say that or not?

I am not at this juncture arguing about what any current day Christian group (large or small) claims to believe. Does Paul’s letter clearly and undeniably say that Christ was raised a spiritual form and that any former earthly body of the flesh specifically could not enter heaven. Does it say that or not?

 

[dejudge]

...And then there is John. Jesus is now God. So what happens to the baptism scene? It is dropped, without explanation or apology.

Your statement is blatant propaganda--complete mis-information. The baptism of Jesus was NOT dropped at all in gJohn.

gJohn mentions John the Baptist and that he was SENT to BAPTIZE.

It should be obvious that gJohn attempted to confirm the story that AFTER Jesus was baptized the Holy Spirit bird descended upon him which was the SIGN that Jesus was the Son of God.

In gJohn, John the Baptist is depicted as a direct WITNESS to Baptism event with Jesus and the Holy Ghost bird.

John 1:32 KJV

And John bare record , saying , I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

John 1:34 KJV

And I saw , and bare record that this is the Son of God.

I find it extremely frightening that even though gJohn is known and is easily accessible to posters that you can make such erroneous claims.

It is clear that the author of gJohn did not drop the Baptism of Jesus at all or else he would not need to introduce John the Baptist as a Witness of events at the Baptism of Jesus.

Mark 1

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened , and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him.

It is a fallacy that the Baptism of Jesus in the NT was embarrassing when it was the very event which occurred at Baptism which was the Sign that Jesus was the Son of God.

 

[tsig]

You're the only one who says this.

Really?

The criterion of embarrassment is a critical analysis of historical accounts in which accounts embarrassing to the author are presumed to be true because the author would have no reason to invent an embarrassing account about himself. Some Biblical scholars have used this criterion in assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.[1]



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

 

[IanS]

Well here is the relevant statement from you.

Originally Posted by IanS
Jayson, this is becoming quite ridiculous. You appear to be in denial lol. ... Look; that is not "my take of it"! It's what Paul's letter actually says.

Does the letter say that or not?

I am not at this juncture arguing about what any current day Christian group (large or small) claims to believe. Does Paul’s letter clearly and undeniably say that Christ was raised a spiritual form and that any former earthly body of the flesh specifically could not enter heaven. Does it say that or not?

Yes. And so, what?

Are you claiming that Paul’s letter (I quoted it earlier) does not say that an earthly human body could not enter heaven, and that in resurrecting from the dead the earthly body would be raised as a spiritual form necessary to enter heaven?

By all means go ahead and quote the relevant passages from Paul yourself.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

It is clear that the author of gJohn did not drop the Baptism of Jesus at all or else he would not need to introduce John the Baptist as a Witness of events at the Baptism of Jesus.

John expands something that Mark placed at 1:10, during the Marcan baptism of Jesus, clearing up the pronoun ambiguity (so, it is DJ who sees the spirit descend; interesting). Unlike Mark, John doesn't place DJ's theophany at Jesus' baptism. That works out nicely, because there is no baptism of Jesus in John.

Don't be frightened. Although there is no reason to think Mark misunderstood the term Son of God to mean having a divine parent, otherwise, we seem to agree that there is little or no cause for embrrassment about the event in those books where it appears.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha


Agreed. I think that a filter is what the JS'ers were going for.

And assuming that the mission of historical inquiry is broader than providing a historical floor under religion, filtering is great idea. Stuff that gets caught in the filter is "the early history of Christianity," proto-Christians caught in the act of busily making and remaking their story, giving us insights into the timing, geography, political concerns, etc. - the things that Bart Ehrman at his best writes about.

Yes.
BE at his best is well worth reading.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


John expands something that Mark placed at 1:10, during the Marcan baptism of Jesus, clearing up the pronoun ambiguity (so, it is DJ who sees the spirit descend; interesting). Unlike Mark, John doesn't place DJ's theophany at Jesus' baptism. That works out nicely, because there is no baptism of Jesus in John.

Again, it is a failure of logic to argue that gJohn does not mention the Baptism when it mentions the most significant event which occurred ONLY when Jesus was baptized in the Gospels.

All the Canonised Gospels do mention that a Holy Ghost bird descended upon Jesus and it was at that time Jesus was declared to be the Son of God.

Plus, no writer of antiquity who used gJohn claimed Jesus was not baptized or that it was an embarrassment.

The Son of God would be identified by the Holy Ghost Bird.

 

[Craig B]

You already said yourself that we have had those two passages quoted over 100 times here. And I just gave you the full references to both of them.

You appear to be mixing up two completely different conversations again - “former earthly body” is not a quote that I attributed to Paul’s letters. What that post of mine said was that people were discussing a “former earthly body” when talking here about whether or not Jesus was supposed to have been resurrected in the same body as he had before crucifixion … Paul’s letter, which I quoted, makes abundantly clear that Paul says it was not the same body. None of which has anything to do with the present discussion of 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16.

No. You stated that Paul "actually" said "former earthly body". And you keep saying that no "interpretation" of Paul is required, because

Jayson, this is becoming quite ridiculous. You appear to be in denial lol. ... Look; that is not "my take of it"! It's what Paul's letter actually says.

Does the letter say that or not?

And I'm saying that it does not "actually" say that; and that you are indeed giving us your "take". Also you were being quite cheeky to Jayson. Then you say it all yet again as if it wasn't clear enough the first time.

I am not at this juncture arguing about what any current day Christian group (large or small) claims to believe. Does Paul’s letter clearly and undeniably say that Christ was raised a spiritual form and that any former earthly body of the flesh specifically could not enter heaven. Does it say that or not?

It doesn't say it, since you ask. That's merely your "take" or interpretation.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Again, it is a failure of logic to argue that gJohn does not mention the Baptism when it mentions the most significant event which occurred ONLY when Jesus was baptized in the Gospels.

Except for John, which has no baptism of Jesus for the event to occur during. That is an observation, not an argument.

Narrative elements which the mutually dependent synoptic authors grouped together, the more independent John separated. He kept what he liked, and dropped other business (the baptism, the voice from heaven), as he saw fit.

City of Angels isn't Der Himmel über Berlin, it's a remake - a different film, by a different auteur, that reworks earlier characters and situations for a different audience. It isn't a failure of logic that there is no Berlin Wall for Nicholas Cage to bleed next to; it is a choice.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


Except for John, which has no baptism of Jesus for the event to occur during. That is an observation, not an argument.

Your statement is a fallacy.

It is observed that the author of gJohn stated that John the Baptist WITNESSED the Holy Ghost bird descending upon Jesus which is an event that occurred at the Baptism of Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

Your statement is a fallacy.

It is observed that the author of gJohn stated that John the Baptist WITNESSED the Holy Ghost bird descending upon Jesus which is an event that occurred at the Baptism of Jesus.

Dejudge, some gospels have things in them that other gospels don't have. (Like the genealogies and the magic birth stories) To Mark Jesus was a person, who could be baptised by another person. Fine. To John, Jesus was co-creator of the universe. So he couldn't get baptised by a hairy desert-dwelling locust-devouring preacher. Could he? So John omits the baptism. You can't say: event A and event B happen together in one gospel. Only event B is mentioned in another gospel. That means event A is really mentioned in the other gospel too, because they are mentioned together in the previous one. That's silly.

These differences from one gospel to another are very important, and things can be learned from them. Like for example that the gospels weren't all written together by hoax forgers in the fourth century, even if the first extant complete texts were written in that century.

 

[IanS]

No. You stated that Paul "actually" said "former earthly body". And you keep saying that no "interpretation" of Paul is required, because And I'm saying that it does not "actually" say that; and that you are indeed giving us your "take". Also you were being quite cheeky to Jayson. Then you say it all yet again as if it wasn't clear enough the first time. It doesn't say it, since you ask. That's merely your "take" or interpretation.

As I just said to you, you are mixing up two completely different discussions. I explained that to you above. Here again is what I said to you above -

You appear to be mixing up two completely different conversations again - “former earthly body” is not a quote that I attributed to Paul’s letters. What that post of mine said was that people were discussing a “former earthly body” when talking here about whether or not Jesus was supposed to have been resurrected in the same body as he had before crucifixion … Paul’s letter, which I quoted, makes abundantly clear that Paul says it was not the same body. None of which has anything to do with the present discussion of 1 Corinthians. 15:3–8 and Galatians 1:11-16.

When you earlier said that you wanted to interpret certain passages in Paul’s letters, which passages were you referring to? Quote which passages you were referring to please. Because what I said to you was that those particular two passages needed no such interpretation.

The passage I was discussing with Jayson is a different passage.

Jayson had earlier offered me a passage from Corinthians quoting it as saying Christ was “physically raised”, but the passage he named does not say “physically” at all. And, on the contrary, further down in that same letter Paul says that human bodies are not raised in their former living state, but are instead raised as spiritual forms, because he says that is the only form allowed to enter the kingdom of God. The passage very clearly explains that, and I quoted it to Jayson in detail before.

Please quote the two completely different passages that you are now talking about, and please quote and recap the actual response as it was to the argument which Jayson was trying to make by proposing what is actually the physically impossible discovery of the bones of Jesus vs. how you are now trying to conflate that discussion with a different discussion I just had with you where I said that two entirely different passages in two of Paul’s letters were so clear that no “interpretation” from you was required. And indeed, they cannot be “interpreted”, as you keep claiming, to mean the complete opposite of what they clearly say.

 

[zugzwang]

No. You stated that Paul "actually" said "former earthly body". And you keep saying that no "interpretation" of Paul is required, because And I'm saying that it does not "actually" say that; and that you are indeed giving us your "take". Also you were being quite cheeky to Jayson. Then you say it all yet again as if it wasn't clear enough the first time. It doesn't say it, since you ask. That's merely your "take" or interpretation.

I'm not sure which phrase is being referred to here, but my memory (from when I used to discuss these things as a Christian), is that statements like 'flesh and blood shall not enter the kingdom of heaven', do not refer to a 'former earthly body'. Similarly, references to a 'spiritual body' and an 'imperishable body' do not refer to a purely spiritual body.

Thus when Paul says 'you are not in the flesh, you are in the spirit', he is not saying that people are non-physical. But I'm not sure what IanS means by 'former earthly body'.