Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[stevea]

As someone very tired of seeing this thread rise to the active list - let me pose a few questions and points.

1/ Who cares ?

It is obvious that an anti-Roman movement called christianity came at of the ME in that era and influences the world even today. It seems quite likely that, like all political movements, there was a leader or leaders and promoters. Does it matter for practical purposes if the claimed leader called "Jesus" was actually a composite of several leaders ? Does it matter that admirers have made outlandish attributions for this leader ?

The motive force behind this thread seems to be anti-christian zealots uncomfortable with diversity of opinion.


2/ Stay on topic ?

It is excruciatingly clear that many elements from other religions and myths and claims of miracles were attributed to the Jesus character. These have absolutely no bearing on whether a single historical character was foundational to the movement. Any rational skeptical person should have massive objections to claims of about rising from the dead or multiplying bread&fish, but that has no bearing on whether there was an historical character at the center of this movement.

3/ Where is the evidence ?

All historical evidence (which is not much) and all "lore" and a common understanding of political movements points to the idea of a single foundational character for christianity. Where is there any evidence of an invented character or else an amalgam of several characters ? All of the strange attributions to this character make it hard to refute a claim of invention, but the existence of the movement implies some sort of leader/founder is extremely probable. Maybe I missed it in the past 200 pages - but 99% of posts seem pointless and/or off topic, so you'll forgive if I've missed it.

 

[JaysonR]

An interesting post,DougW.
Off to investigate those authors.

ETA
I see they're all 19th century or early 20th century writers.

Quite; that was Doug's point, more or less; that the outline and notion for recognizing the oddities, absences and asymmetries in a variety of manners have been around for quite some time.

 

[pakeha]

Quite; that was Doug's point, more or less; that the outline and notion for recognizing the oddities, absences and asymmetries in a variety of manners have been around for quite some time.

Of course you're right.
It's just that I'm puzzled by the lack of repercussion these eminent writers have had on mainstream biblical scholarship, a hundred years on.

 

[DougW]

Interesting point, pakeha.

In fact, some of those writers did have a major impact in their own time, whereas subsequent authors, especially the more recent ones, seem keen to ignore their existence and exhaustive works altogether.

It would be rather foolish and counterproductive for today’s book-selling authors to admit that it’s all been said before, only better?

Richard Carrier (in his review of Doherty):

“I might add to his postscript on how history changed around 1960 (p. 294): due to the G.I. Bill and other changing resources and sensibilities, by that year hundreds of new scholars had entered all fields, including history and biblical studies, from the middle and lower classes, for the first time flooding academia with men who did not have the traditional elite education and sensibilities. The result was a great rise of interest in social history, against the mainstays of intellectual, political, and military history, and a shakeup of historical assumptions and methods toward a more critical and scientifically rigorous model. Both changes so radically altered our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity, that earlier work, even by great scholars, should always be held in some suspicion as less rigorous and less informed than work done since.”

Poppycock!

The works by many of the early scholars were painfully rigorous and detailed. They needed to be, for they not only risked their academic careers and reputations, but also faced immense opposition and public scorn.

 

[IanS]

Of course you're right.
It's just that I'm puzzled by the lack of repercussion these eminent writers have had on mainstream biblical scholarship, a hundred years on.

I don't suppose many biblical scholars have much regard for what anyone thinks or writes outside of their own academic circle. In Did Jesus Exist, for example, iirc Bart Ehrman starts off by saying he was completely unaware that there were any educated authors who seriously questioned the existence of Jesus. And that book was only published last year! Though I’m not too sure we can take Ehrman seriously when he says that … he surely must know very well that for well over a century, very many academics (& others) have written to highlight how weak the claimed evidence of Jesus really is.

Iirc, Hector Avalos, who we briefly talked about earlier, says in his book that the entire field of university biblical studies really arose as support for Christian religious belief. And that whilst today the ties are not as close as they originally were, nevertheless bible studies as an academic field remains quite closely connected with support for Christianity and the Christian church. I don’t know if he is right about that of course, or to what extent that situation still exists. Though it is of course true, as Avalos again highlights, that almost all bible studies academics entered the field with very strong Christian religious beliefs, and most within the field probably continue to be practicing Christians. In which regard it is entirely unlike any other field of impartial academic university research.

 

[Brainache]

I don't suppose many biblical scholars have much regard for what anyone thinks or writes outside of their own academic circle. In Did Jesus Exist, for example, iirc Bart Ehrman starts off by saying he was completely unaware that there were any educated authors who seriously questioned the existence of Jesus. And that book was only published last year! Though I’m not too sure we can take Ehrman seriously when he says that … he surely must know very well that for well over a century, very many academics (& others) have written to highlight how weak the claimed evidence of Jesus really is.

Iirc, Hector Avalos, who we briefly talked about earlier, says in his book that the entire field of university biblical studies really arose as support for Christian religious belief. And that whilst today the ties are not as close as they originally were, nevertheless bible studies as an academic field remains quite closely connected with support for Christianity and the Christian church. I don’t know if he is right about that of course, or to what extent that situation still exists. Though it is of course true, as Avalos again highlights, that almost all bible studies academics entered the field with very strong Christian religious beliefs, and most within the field probably continue to be practicing Christians. In which regard it is entirely unlike any other field of impartial academic university research.

Won't somebody please think of the Jews!?...

Yes there are Jewish Bible Scholars too. Why aren't they prominent in the "No HJ" crowd?

 

[JaysonR]

Interesting point, pakeha.

In fact, some of those writers did have a major impact in their own time, whereas subsequent authors, especially the more recent ones, seem keen to ignore their existence and exhaustive works altogether.

It would be rather foolish and counterproductive for today’s book-selling authors to admit that it’s all been said before, only better?

Richard Carrier (in his review of Doherty):

“I might add to his postscript on how history changed around 1960 (p. 294): due to the G.I. Bill and other changing resources and sensibilities, by that year hundreds of new scholars had entered all fields, including history and biblical studies, from the middle and lower classes, for the first time flooding academia with men who did not have the traditional elite education and sensibilities. The result was a great rise of interest in social history, against the mainstays of intellectual, political, and military history, and a shakeup of historical assumptions and methods toward a more critical and scientifically rigorous model. Both changes so radically altered our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity, that earlier work, even by great scholars, should always be held in some suspicion as less rigorous and less informed than work done since.”

Poppycock!

The works by many of the early scholars were painfully rigorous and detailed. They needed to be, for they not only risked their academic careers and reputations, but also faced immense opposition and public scorn.

That comment is also just flat out the poorest form of reasoning and academic publication elitism.

To properly suggest that concept, Carrier would need to show scores of redacted cases regarding all forms of academia that suddenly took a dive since the 1960's, and that such were by direct hands of those who were from specifically middle and lower classes of society, and would equally need to show how middle and lower class society individuals who go through higher education and subsequently into an academic field are inferior by default of their social class than someone of a higher social class economically.

What next, a reversion to Eugenics?

 

[dejudge]

Poppycock!

The works by many of the early scholars were painfully rigorous and detailed. They needed to be, for they not only risked their academic careers and reputations, but also faced immense opposition and public scorn.

Your post may be Poppycock!! Many of the works on HJ were purely sensational and un-evidenced.

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

By late 19th century, hundreds of Lives of Jesus were written. Some of these were purely sensational: They were not produced because any new data had appeared, but because some people read and interpreted the gospels in new ways.

1][2] These stories of the Lives of Jesus were often romanticized, highly psychological or included new elements which did not appear in any of the gospels or other historical documents..

 

[JaysonR]

That has nothing to do with Doug's critique of Carrier's invalid dismissal of the entire academic field post-1960's.

Noting Carrier's invalid remark does not inherit a conclusion of an historical Jesus, nor does it inherit a conclusion that all propositions for an historical Jesus are valid; nor invalid.
It simply points out that Carrier's treatment of the entire academic field in that comment was invalid, for not only does it dismiss arguments for an historical Jesus, it also dismisses arguments against an historical Jesus...further, it also dismisses any work not even related to the subject of Jesus that has been done since the 1960's.

 

[Brainache]

That comment is also just flat out the poorest form of reasoning and academic publication elitism.

To properly suggest that concept, Carrier would need to show scores of redacted cases regarding all forms of academia that suddenly took a dive since the 1960's, and that such were by direct hands of those who were from specifically middle and lower classes of society, and would equally need to show how middle and lower class society individuals who go through higher education and subsequently into an academic field are inferior by default of their social class than someone of a higher social class economically.

What next, a reversion to Eugenics?

The way I read Carrier, he was saying that standards have become more rigorous since the 60's, not less so.

He is saying that the influx of more Scholars has led to a more scientific style of scholarship in History etc, as opposed to the more devout scholars of previous ages.

I still think that either way it is poppycock, or possibly even codswallop...

 

[proudfootz]

As someone very tired of seeing this thread rise to the active list - let me pose a few questions and points.

1/ Who cares ?

It is obvious that an anti-Roman movement called christianity came at of the ME in that era and influences the world even today. It seems quite likely that, like all political movements, there was a leader or leaders and promoters. Does it matter for practical purposes if the claimed leader called "Jesus" was actually a composite of several leaders ? Does it matter that admirers have made outlandish attributions for this leader ?

The motive force behind this thread seems to be anti-christian zealots uncomfortable with diversity of opinion.

This is just absurd. The Jesus depicted in the gospels is pro-Roman. Pay your taxes, go the extra mile, don't make waves, etc. In real life, the Romans would have every reason to back a preacher who preached as Jesus is depicted to have preached.

Attributing the defense of Jesus to 'anti-christian zealots' is also absurd. Apparently you haven't read anything here, or if you did were unable to understand it.

2/ Stay on topic ?

It is excruciatingly clear that many elements from other religions and myths and claims of miracles were attributed to the Jesus character. These have absolutely no bearing on whether a single historical character was foundational to the movement. Any rational skeptical person should have massive objections to claims of about rising from the dead or multiplying bread&fish, but that has no bearing on whether there was an historical character at the center of this movement.

But the great majority of the material under scrutiny here - the miraculous, etc - does have a great deal to do with why this literature was written.

Since the bible is being cited as evidence for the existence of a man called Jesus (or a man named Adam, or Noah, or Job for that matter) the context withing which the unremarkable few verses are embedded matter a great deal.

3/ Where is the evidence ?

All historical evidence (which is not much) and all "lore" and a common understanding of political movements points to the idea of a single foundational character for christianity.

This assumption is fine so far as it goes. We may as well posit an historical Abraham of Moses to 'explain' the existence of Judaism, and an 'historical Gabriel' or an 'historical Moroni' to explain Islam and Mormonism, too.

But, as you point out - where is the evidence?

Where is there any evidence of an invented character or else an amalgam of several characters ?

The plainly stated word of Paul - thought to be the earliest named author of Jesus literature - that he got his ideas from literature and the occasional vision.

All of the strange attributions to this character make it hard to refute a claim of invention, but the existence of the movement implies some sort of leader/founder is extremely probable. Maybe I missed it in the past 200 pages - but 99% of posts seem pointless and/or off topic, so you'll forgive if I've missed it.

Yes, I think you missed it. But it takes only a few moments reflection to see where you have assumed too much and not considered the evidence thoroughly.

 

[JaysonR]

That's because of a typo on my part (sorry for the confusion):

To properly suggest that concept, Carrier would need to show scores of redacted cases regarding all forms of academia that suddenly took a dive (as in the publication stances of prior era took a dive in greater count than any other generation to generation percent change in accuracy due to greater information over time) since the 1960's, and that such were by direct hands of those who were from specifically middle and lower classes of society (meaning; this demographic alone accounts for the redactions), and would equally need to show how middle and lower class society individuals who go through higher education and subsequently into an academic field are superior by default of their social class than someone of a higher social class economically.

The following comment:
It simply points out that Carrier's treatment of the entire academic field in that comment was invalid, for not only does it dismiss arguments for an historical Jesus, it also dismisses arguments against an historical Jesus...further, it also dismisses any work not even related to the subject of Jesus that has been done since the 1960's.

Was by extrapolation; for if we dismiss that which was before simply because it was before, and only accept that which came after (since we have no actual sociological data to back his claim, this is what is taking place), then likewise, everything done since the 60's is inherently to be dismissed just as easily by the same argument in exchange for that which we just now publish.

It inherently creates a position of the last publisher is the higher authority for no other reason than being later because there is no data to support the idea proposed that lower and middle class demographics of the 60's were inherently more capable than a high class demographic preceding it.

Heck; he doesn't even bother to cite how many that gained a GI bill went on to the field of Biblical Historian, or historian in general; nor does he then compare this against any value of individuals over the same period who did not have a GI bill that went on into the like field.

There's literally no data at all; it's just a whim of a comment from what appears to be his general gut sense of things.

That's fine and all for a conversation, but it's a terrible premise for outright dismissing scores of propositions.

 

[proudfootz]

I don't suppose many biblical scholars have much regard for what anyone thinks or writes outside of their own academic circle. In Did Jesus Exist, for example, iirc Bart Ehrman starts off by saying he was completely unaware that there were any educated authors who seriously questioned the existence of Jesus. And that book was only published last year! Though I’m not too sure we can take Ehrman seriously when he says that … he surely must know very well that for well over a century, very many academics (& others) have written to highlight how weak the claimed evidence of Jesus really is.

Surely Ehrman's admitted ignorance of the hypothesis that Jesus might be a purely literary figure tells us a great deal about the depth and breadth of his 'scholarship'.

Iirc, Hector Avalos, who we briefly talked about earlier, says in his book that the entire field of university biblical studies really arose as support for Christian religious belief. And that whilst today the ties are not as close as they originally were, nevertheless bible studies as an academic field remains quite closely connected with support for Christianity and the Christian church. I don’t know if he is right about that of course, or to what extent that situation still exists. Though it is of course true, as Avalos again highlights, that almost all bible studies academics entered the field with very strong Christian religious beliefs, and most within the field probably continue to be practicing Christians. In which regard it is entirely unlike any other field of impartial academic university research.

Yes, I think this may factor in to an extent.

Which might explain why Ehrman is able to claim he is the first to attempt a thorough defense of the historicity of Jesus - up until recently it may simply have been assumed.

Face it - all of us in the 'West' have been brought up in a culture that assumes the historicity of Jesus - even people who are atheists, agnostics, Jews, or whatever. We even date things by the supposed year of the birth of this 'Jesus' (and is anybody really fooled by that 'Current Era' dodge? We know what is meant is Anno Domini!).

Look at the date on your computer - 2014 years since the birth of Our Lord.

 

[proudfootz]

That's because of a typo on my part (sorry for the confusion):

To properly suggest that concept, Carrier would need to show scores of redacted cases regarding all forms of academia that suddenly took a dive (as in the publication stances of prior era took a dive in greater count than any other generation to generation percent change in accuracy due to greater information over time) since the 1960's, and that such were by direct hands of those who were from specifically middle and lower classes of society (meaning; this demographic alone accounts for the redactions), and would equally need to show how middle and lower class society individuals who go through higher education and subsequently into an academic field are superior by default of their social class than someone of a higher social class economically.

The following comment:
It simply points out that Carrier's treatment of the entire academic field in that comment was invalid, for not only does it dismiss arguments for an historical Jesus, it also dismisses arguments against an historical Jesus...further, it also dismisses any work not even related to the subject of Jesus that has been done since the 1960's.

Was by extrapolation; for if we dismiss that which was before simply because it was before, and only accept that which came after (since we have no actual sociological data to back his claim, this is what is taking place), then likewise, everything done since the 60's is inherently to be dismissed just as easily by the same argument in exchange for that which we just now publish.

It inherently creates a position of the last publisher is the higher authority for no other reason than being later because there is no data to support the idea proposed that lower and middle class demographics of the 60's were inherently more capable than a high class demographic preceding it.

Heck; he doesn't even bother to cite how many that gained a GI bill went on to the field of Biblical Historian, or historian in general; nor does he then compare this against any value of individuals over the same period who did not have a GI bill that went on into the like field.

There's literally no data at all; it's just a whim of a comment from what appears to be his general gut sense of things.

That's fine and all for a conversation, but it's a terrible premise for outright dismissing scores of propositions.

Yes, it is a throwaway comment, and hardly worth making a fuss over.

Just an off-the-cuff remark from an historian, and not an academic paper in its own right.

Since Carrier is alive anyone who is interested in delving into his remark could inquire into the matter. I'm sure he'd take the time to develop his train of thought in this.

ETA: I missed the bit where Carrier used the word 'dismiss'. I'm afraid we have people mistaking a molehill for a mountain.

 

[JaysonR]

I think it's worth noting when someone doesn't even see a valid reason to address prior propositions and wipes them out full-hand on nothing more than their own sense of the matter on a charge that all previous propositions are inferior by age, or even if one stands by the charge of class.

It's a poor approach to consideration and it implies that multiple approaches (from both sides of the debate) prior were just dismissed outright.

 

[proudfootz]

I think it's worth noting when someone doesn't even see a valid reason to address prior propositions and wipes them out full-hand on nothing more than their own sense of the matter on a charge that all previous propositions are inferior by age, or even if one stands by the charge of class.

It's a poor approach to consideration and it implies that multiple approaches (from both sides of the debate) prior were just dismissed outright.

It's just a footnote and not a thesis. Hardly worth working up a head of steam about.

Rather than speculate needlessly on supposed 'implications' one could easily investigate if one were really serious about this.

If this is just a conveniently blunt instrument to attack Carrier, then never mind.

 

[DougW]

I’m sorry that you’re tired of seeing this thread, stevea, but, then, we all have our likes and dislikes. Who Cares? Judging by the remarkable success of books like The God Delusion and others since, many people care indeed.

I’m anything but anti-Christian, nor a great admirer of those of Richard Dawkins’ ilk. People are entitled to pursue whatever nonsense they wish, and, human nature being what it is, if it’s not religion, they’ll just latch onto some other equally far-fetched, if not an even more harmful ideology or pastime – anything at all that happens to boost or nurture one’s esteem or sense of self.

Then, belief in Jesus or God is predicated on faith, not reason or fact; people believe because they want to believe. Categorically disprove either tomorrow, and I doubt it would make all that much difference to most lip service Christians. Why dispense unnecessarily with what’s become in reality but simply another feel-good life-style aspect?

The sweep of whole civilizations, the history of mankind itself, are integrally intertwined with one kind of religion or another, and if it yet provides comfort to some as well, or serves as a kind of social glue, then who are we to dismiss it?

Doubtlessly there were many promoters - those early church fathers, seemingly deceitful to a man, seem to have done a splendid job. (With some help from that bloody-minded murderer Constantine and with the Empire as its springboard to clinch it, of course!) The evidence very much discounts the notion of any founder or leader named Jesus though.

 

[dejudge]

The plainly stated word of Paul - thought to be the earliest named author of Jesus literature - that he got his ideas from literature and the occasional vision.

Which Paul are you talking about? There may have been at least seven writers under the name of Paul.

1. The earliest Canonised story of Jesus is the short gMark.

2. The Pauline letters were composed AFTER Revelation by John.

3. The Pauline writers knew of gLuke.

4. In fact, the Pauline writers claimed they persecuted those who believed the story of Jesus that he died for our sins and resurrected on the THIRD day..

5. The earliest Canonised stories of Jesus were composed AFTER c 70 CE.

6. Up to c 180 CE and later, Apologetic and non-Apologetic writers knew nothing of the Pauline Corpus but knew stories of Jesus.

7. The Pauline teachings MATCH the Later Synoptic Gospels and gJohn--NOT the short gMark.

8. The Pauline writers claim Jesus was God Creator---Jesus is God Creator ONLY in gJohn.

9. The Pauline writings contain post resurrection visits---post resurrection visits are found the LATER Synoptic Gospels and gJohn.

10. In the Pauline writings Jesus claimed the Ritual of the Eucharists should be carried out in "REMEMBRANCE of Me"--that is found ONLY in the LATER gLuke--NOT the short gMark.

The Entire Pauline Corpus played no role in the early development of the Jesus cult.

 

[DougW]

Many of the works on HJ were purely sensational and un-evidenced, dejuror?

No doubt and it still happens today.

The earlier critical works of Bauer, Straus, the Dutch Radicals and others, resulted in a major backlash, mostly by way of liberal-critical Christology as from around the 1870s.

A whole number of treatises were produced trying to place or rationalize Jesus within his Jewish environment. Trouble is, the more they examined the world in which Jesus is said to have lived, the stranger he seemed, with everything he’s supposed to have thought or did already in earlier literature. The Protestant theologians, which is what they mostly were, in the end retreated more and more into mindless sophistry.

Hartmann and Kalthoff were probably the first to swim against the tide, rejecting this whole approach.

Things aren’t always as simple as you, or Wikipedia, inevitably try to make them.

 

[Brainache]

... The evidence very much discounts the notion of any founder or leader named Jesus though.

Really? All those History Professors teaching that there probably was an HJ must be pretty stupid then.

Can you give us some examples of this evidence please?

I haven't seen any evidence for the cult of a "Celestial Jesus" that Carrier argues for.

You're not pushing that nonsense are you?