Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]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.

Indeed.
I live in a village where not being seen at Mass is as close to atheism as it gets.

[ . . . ]
You’d probably prefer a fifty page rundown on Christianity’s first two centuries, not forgetting the ‘Jesus evolution’ traceable through the numerous gospels, Epistles, Proverbs, Sayings, Apocalypses, Revelations, and Acts, but not today.

On the other hand, you may well prefer:

Christianity is different from all those other religions, and Jesus is different from all those other dying-and-rising sons of gods.

There are more elements of Paul and the Gospels that make more sense if there was a real Jesus.

Lots of real historical people are unattested until generations later, or not at all.

You can’t invent a whole man in just one generation of story telling.

Nice one.
I've been reading some of those 2nd and third century church fathers this last weekend. A fascinating insight into human nature, to be sure.

[ . . . ]It's known that some early apologists admitted their dying-and-rising son of a god resembled the stories of other 'pagan' ones. What was obvious to people who lived in a 'pagan' culture is less obvious to those of us immersed in a christian culture.

Good point.

 

[JaysonR]

How much data are you expecting to find in a footnote?

That's the point; it should not have been a footnote.

Let's say that I write a review of the sum of your position from your posts here and in the footnote I write:
Due to the texts in question being clearly relevant unto the cultures in which produced them and adhered to them, that over time with the emergence of the field of anthropology and western falling out of devout allegiance to western-oriented views of history, that more scholars have risen who approach the subject from an anthropological perspective and that such have not had the traditional view of textual or theological arguments alone. The results have been a great rise of interest in the social context of these texts, and a shakeup of historical assumptions and methods toward a more cultural and anthropologically sound model of their history. The changes due to this anthropological excitement have so radically altered our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity, that non-anthropological work, even by great scholars, should always be held in some suspicion as less rigorous and less informed than work done through anthropology.

Does the requirement of evidence for my assertion suddenly become suspended because I made it a footnote?
Would not several in this thread point out that I should not create such dismissive comments lacking evidence as a footnote?

If you have serious questions about the opinions of a living historian, you can ask. I suspect if you were to ask Dr Carrier about the foundations of his opinion he'd happily supply you with the reasoning behind the statement.

Obviously the choice is there to learn whether it is an opinion supported by reasoning, or to simply assume the worst possible construction on it.

I have no problem reading what he wrote and understanding it.

Anyone whose first language is English can see for themselves Carrier does not 'dismiss' (as in 'not even addressing') pre-1960s scholarship - that is a 'fascinating interpretation' placed on it by persons who seem to prefer their own paraphrases for the actual text.

Good, then I can make the above claim in italic and you will not feel dismissed.

You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

It is not an opinion. You wrote that one of your perceptions of this critique was that it was a "blunt instrument to attack Carrier".

I have outlined the invalidity of your argument, regardless of whether I agree with Carrier that our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity have been radically altered since the post-WWII period.

That was never in question.
The critique has nothing to do with time, but to do with the reason Carrier cited as the cause; lower and middle social class superiority due to a lack of traditional elite class inferiority in regards to scientific rigor.

I stated in my critique that there is always a normal percent change of information becoming more available over time, and therefore more complete conclusions being reached; this is normal.
It was Carrier's comment that asserted that the change over time within this period in question was directly related to United States political policy permitting a lower class of citizen, who lacked higher class misconceptions, academic enterprise and therefore all prior academics, even the great ones, should be inherently considered with suspicion.

It was not asserted that all works be taken with suspicion; just those before this alleged superior lower class academic infusion era.

I'm just pointing out how Carrier is being damned for a paraphrase of his footnote.

Carrier is not being damned, and he was not paraphrased; he was being quoted:
"(vii) 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. "

 

[DougW]

I'd settle for an understanding of the cultural context of Second Temple Judaism and the types of cults and sects that existed at that time.

I'd settle for the probability that one of the many "Messianic" pretenders who was executed by the Romans and/or their Jewish collaborators had a group of followers who rationalised their "Messiah's" failure to live up to expectations by turning an execution into a "sacrifice".

I think a good case could be made for the "Teacher of Righteousness" in the DSS being at least one source for the HJ.

I don't know why you think Jesus isn't considered Historically evidenced by just about every Professional Historian in the world who has looked into the subject. Carrier is the only exception that I know of, and he apparently has a low opinion of other Scholars and a very high opinion of himself.

ETA: I don't know why you think anyone would need to invent a failed Messiah, when the Jews were producing plenty of real failed Messiahs from at least the time of Judas The Galilean, up until the fall of the Temple.

I think most scholars wish for a better understanding of first-century culture and its confused mass of sectarian dogmas, claims, fantasies, cults and sects etc, Brainache. Some scholars may pretend otherwise, but documentation for most of that century is scarcer than hen’s teeth, and we actually know very little of early Christian communities and beliefs.

I believe that Ehrman describes first-century Judaism, mentioning the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots etc, all in aid of then being able to conclude that Jesus must have been one of the historical apocalyptic messianic pretenders executed by the Romans etc. Well, anything is possible, but it’s not scholarship! Just because one is able to juggle Jesus into a particular, half-plausible historical background, doesn’t prove that he actually existed.

As I see it, the problem with the Teacher of Righteousness resides in the fact that none of the second century religious writings, right up to the canonical gospels’ historized version of Jesus mention him – he might just as well not have existed. In other words, the same problem, with nothing to connect him to the development of Jesus as displayed by extant manuscripts.

I very much doubt that bona fide historians consider Jesus to be historical, as already said. How could they, insofar there doesn’t exist a shred of secular evidence by which to do so?

It’s of course also up to those who posit an historical Jesus to provide the appropriate substantiation. In fact, assuming Jesus did exist, they ought to have it made, a lone, authentic gossipy Roman letter attesting to Jesus existence is sufficient to blow all the opposition, together with centuries of contrary scholarship, out of the water. While we remain bereft of such evidence though, we can only go by the best information and argumentation available, and so far it doesn’t point at any historical person.

One could argue, as many have, that the historical Jesus was but an illiterate, insignificant preacher, one who went unmentioned and unnoticed by all those who were literate, but this hardly tallies with the turmoil and upheaval he’s said to have caused, or someone hailed as the founder of a new world religion.

It’s also hardly a question of needing to invent an imaginary Messiah, even if the Jews had plenty of real failed ones. Merely a matter of drawing the most viable conclusion possible from whatever information is available, obviously.

Gnosticism, a pre-Christian religious movement, seems to me much the best bet, with a Gnostic Jesus the progenitor of the second century’s historized one, narrative theology playing its part.

Doherty places Jesus in a celestial realm, and he maybe right, but according to many in the first century also, the soul or spirit of Jesus had gone below to a place called hades, under or beneath the earth (not that they didn’t believe in heavenly realms as well), and the resurrection here was the calling back of the soul to earth, and its ascension to heaven.

By the way, and I’m only mentioning Ehrman as an illustration of the quality of modern, twenty-first century modern scholarship, with both Doherty and Carrier in fact asserting dates not all that different (nor ignoring countless Wikipedia and other Internet articles offering equally bizarre misinformation), and in that you obviously rate it over those nineteenth century scholars

Vridar’s Neil Godfrey on how the gospels are most commonly dated and why:

“From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145:

Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons . . . .

I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era . . . .

[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.

It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce . . . That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.

There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.

If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.

John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.”

I won’t even discuss Erhman’s above ‘reasoning’, but there actually doesn’t exist a single bona fide reference to the canonical gospels before the early 170s, and even this is merely an oblique reference to the Gospel of John.

On the previous page it was shown that Justin Martyr, hailing from around the middle of the second century, was still blissfully unaware of them, and the best available evidence suggests that they were in fact written between the years 170 and 180. In 185 or so, even the first church historian Hegesippus hadn’t yet heard of them, still favoring the Gospel of the Hebrews.

I might also note that Mark’s priority, erroneous or not, was first proposed as far back as 1786, and that the ongoing obsession over the ‘Q document’ first began in 1838.

 

[tkmikkelsen]

Yes, indeed. The above is almost exactly what I have tried to point out in all these various HJ threads (actually for some years now!). I.e. - I don’t know whether there ever was a real human 1st century preacher named Jesus or not. There might have been. But the religious writing in the gospels and Paul’s epistles is not by any means reliable as evidence showing any such person was ever known to anyone who wrote any of those gospels and letters.

Not only is all of that devotional religious writing thoroughly discredited by it’s constant claims of the supernatural, which renders those writers highly unreliable as accurate recorders of historical fact. But even worse (if that is possible), we don’t have any original writing from any of those people anyway! All we have is devotional copyist writing, which in it’s extant relatively complete and useable form (i.e. the copies which have actually been used to reconstruct the quotes everyone here is relying upon and which bible scholar like Bart Ehrman are also relying upon), apparently dates from around the 4th-6th century and later in the case of the gospels, and from around 200AD in the case of Paul’s letters.

And since Bart Ehrman and his books (one of them) is actually the title subject of this thread, it is perhaps also worth pointing out that whilst Ehrman has repeatedly stressed that it is utterly “certain” that Jesus “definitely” existed (and those quoted words are his), and also that quote “practically every properly trained scholar on the planet” agrees with his views on Jesus, the evidence that Ehrman cites to support that “certainty” actually boils down yet again to nothing more than the same hopelessly unreliable late copyist writing of devotional gospels and letters in the NT (Ehrman also discusses non-biblical sources such as Tacitus and Josephus, but iirc it’s fair to say that he admits that for various reasons they are so unreliable that they are of little use as credible evidence of the existence of Jesus … e.g. because in their extant copyist forms they are only known from 1000 years or so after the events, and because most scholars agree they have been substantially altered in the copying).


So although I think this is an important subject with far reaching implications in terms of continuing Christian belief today, I do agree that people should not be getting so worked up about it. And in particular, people should not be getting so worked up about the fact that sceptics are quite correctly pointing out that whereas for most of the past 2000 years almost everyone accepted without question what the church has always insisted upon as the certainty of Jesus and his deeds, it is now very clear that the evidence for that claimed certainty of Jesus is very shaky indeed, to put it mildly.

One of the things that struck me when reading Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exists", was that he completely omitted to mention that in Europe, the scholars are much more open to the Jesus myth theory and that it has existed in Europe since the late 18th century.

In Europe scholars with very sceptical view on the historical Jesus are employed as professors at big universities. Most notably is Thomas L. Thompson (famous for having his dissertation rejected by the later Pope Benedict XVI on the grounds that it went against Catholic theology) with his whole Copenhagen school of biblical minimalism, which in it's nature is sceptical of how much we can actually know of Jesus, if any at all. Thompson and his colleague Philip Davis from Sheffield University have both been highly critical of Ehrman's outbursts against those that raise the question of the historical Jesus. These two and their peers in Europe are not acknowledged at all by Ehrman in his book, as if European scholarship does not exist at all.
Another famous sceptic from Europe on the historicity of Jesus is Irish Dominican priest Thomas Brodie. He has also somehow escaped the attention of Ehrman.

It seems to me that it is too big a step for Ehrman to admit that all his study points towards a very shadowy Jesus, as if it is too much for him to admit that the first part of his life was based on a lie (Ehrman was, if not deeply religious, then a very religious born-again Christian)

 

[DougW]

Originally Posted by IanS:

"Yes, indeed. The above is almost exactly what I have tried to point out in all these various HJ threads (actually for some years now!). I.e. - I don’t know whether there ever was a real human 1st century preacher named Jesus or not. There might have been. But the religious writing in the gospels and Paul’s epistles is not by any means reliable as evidence showing any such person was ever known to anyone who wrote any of those gospels and letters."

To say the least, Ian.

 

[Brainache]

I think most scholars wish for a better understanding of first-century culture and its confused mass of sectarian dogmas, claims, fantasies, cults and sects etc, Brainache. Some scholars may pretend otherwise, but documentation for most of that century is scarcer than hen’s teeth, and we actually know very little of early Christian communities and beliefs.

I believe that Ehrman describes first-century Judaism, mentioning the Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots etc, all in aid of then being able to conclude that Jesus must have been one of the historical apocalyptic messianic pretenders executed by the Romans etc. Well, anything is possible, but it’s not scholarship! Just because one is able to juggle Jesus into a particular, half-plausible historical background, doesn’t prove that he actually existed.

As I see it, the problem with the Teacher of Righteousness resides in the fact that none of the second century religious writings, right up to the canonical gospels’ historized version of Jesus mention him – he might just as well not have existed. In other words, the same problem, with nothing to connect him to the development of Jesus as displayed by extant manuscripts.

I very much doubt that bona fide historians consider Jesus to be historical, as already said. How could they, insofar there doesn’t exist a shred of secular evidence by which to do so?

It’s of course also up to those who posit an historical Jesus to provide the appropriate substantiation. In fact, assuming Jesus did exist, they ought to have it made, a lone, authentic gossipy Roman letter attesting to Jesus existence is sufficient to blow all the opposition, together with centuries of contrary scholarship, out of the water. While we remain bereft of such evidence though, we can only go by the best information and argumentation available, and so far it doesn’t point at any historical person.

One could argue, as many have, that the historical Jesus was but an illiterate, insignificant preacher, one who went unmentioned and unnoticed by all those who were literate, but this hardly tallies with the turmoil and upheaval he’s said to have caused, or someone hailed as the founder of a new world religion.

It’s also hardly a question of needing to invent an imaginary Messiah, even if the Jews had plenty of real failed ones. Merely a matter of drawing the most viable conclusion possible from whatever information is available, obviously.

Gnosticism, a pre-Christian religious movement, seems to me much the best bet, with a Gnostic Jesus the progenitor of the second century’s historized one, narrative theology playing its part.

Doherty places Jesus in a celestial realm, and he maybe right, but according to many in the first century also, the soul or spirit of Jesus had gone below to a place called hades, under or beneath the earth (not that they didn’t believe in heavenly realms as well), and the resurrection here was the calling back of the soul to earth, and its ascension to heaven.

By the way, and I’m only mentioning Ehrman as an illustration of the quality of modern, twenty-first century modern scholarship, with both Doherty and Carrier in fact asserting dates not all that different (nor ignoring countless Wikipedia and other Internet articles offering equally bizarre misinformation), and in that you obviously rate it over those nineteenth century scholars

Vridar’s Neil Godfrey on how the gospels are most commonly dated and why:

“From Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, pp. 144-145:

Even though it is very hard to date the Gospels with precision, most scholars agree on the basic range of dates, for a variety of reasons . . . .

I can say with relative certainty — from his own letters and from Acts — that Paul was writing during the fifties of the common era . . . .

[H]e gives in his own writings absolutely no evidence of knowing about or ever having heard of the existence of any Gospels. From this it can be inferred that the Gospels probably were written after Paul’s day.

It also appears that the Gospel writers know about certain later historical events, such as the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 ce . . . That implies that these Gospels were probably written after 70.

There are reasons for thinking Mark was written first, so maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce.

If Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source, they must have been composed after Mark’s Gospel circulated for a time outside its own originating community — say, ten or fifteen years later, in 80 to 85 ce.

John seems to be the most theologically developed Gospel, and so it was probably written later still, nearer the end of the first century, around 90 to 95 ce.”

I won’t even discuss Erhman’s above ‘reasoning’, but there actually doesn’t exist a single bona fide reference to the canonical gospels before the early 170s, and even this is merely an oblique reference to the Gospel of John.

On the previous page it was shown that Justin Martyr, hailing from around the middle of the second century, was still blissfully unaware of them, and the best available evidence suggests that they were in fact written between the years 170 and 180. In 185 or so, even the first church historian Hegesippus hadn’t yet heard of them, still favoring the Gospel of the Hebrews.

I might also note that Mark’s priority, erroneous or not, was first proposed as far back as 1786, and that the ongoing obsession over the ‘Q document’ first began in 1838.

That's a lot of words.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/

For you to peruse a Historian who has drawn a link between the DSS and early Christianity.

Or you could try this book:

"James The Brother Of Jesus and The dead Sea Scrolls"
http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Dead-Scrolls/dp/0985599138

 

[IanS]

Your analysis of intentions is inappropriate and out of place.


I will decide what I think on that issue, thank you!


Your questions are rhetorical. They don't deserve any answer.


Then don't try to answer them!


My position is different to Ehrman's position. You are discussing with me, not with Ehrman.


I don't care whether you agree with Bart Ehrman or not!


My point is that your maximalist position about what we can consider a reliable document in ancient texts blocks any discussion about the content of Pauline epistles.


Who decided it was anything called a "maximalist position"? YOU! It's you who is creating your own beliefs!


1. Have you asserted that we don’t know who has writing the Pauline epistles nor in what date between the First and the Second Centuries? Yes or not? Of course, yes.


Yes. We definitely do not know who wrote any of those letters, nor at what date, nor what any original versions may have once said. That is an unarguable fact.


2. Have you maintained in this forum that a document is only valid when we know the author and its date -similar to legal criteria? Yes or not? Of course, yes NO!


NO! I have never said that all. Where on earth did you get that idea? You are projecting your own erroneous biased beliefs into what I say.


3. Have you assert that “we cannot know what any original writing actually said” (referred to the Pauline epistles)? Yes or not? Of course, yes.


Yes, certainly - we cannot know what was said in non-existent documents. Do you disagree with that? Do you claim that we can know whether or not any original writing from Paul ever included the words " ...save James ... the lords brother"? How do you know "Paul" ever wrote those actual words in a non-existent document?


Then, if we want continue discussing the problem of Jesus’ existence we can either let aside the Pauline epistles as irrelevant documents or reconsidering your criteria of dating. To deny any reliability to a document and to pretend continuing to discuss on this basis is illogical.


Who ever denied any reliability use for what was written in much later copies said to be copies of letters once written by Paul? I never said they were of zero use and had to be totally dismissed. I asked you if you wanted to chuck them out entirely on the basis that the extant copies are unreliable as detail in the relevant words such as " ... the lords brother".



The Plato’s letters are pertinent here because they raise a similar problem to the authenticity than Pauline epistles. We don’t know the author of extant manuscripts and his date is very distant of Plato's time. And the solution that philosophers and historians give to this problem is very different as yours about Pauline epistles. I understand you feel uncomfortable with this and you try to avoid it. But I hope you find better pretexts than claiming that Plato doesn't speak of Jesus. I find this a silly answer, sincerely. (I'm sorry if "silly" is too hard in English. I was searching for something similar to "tontería" in Spanish).



Nobody cares about Plato. We are not debating whether Plato actually existed. We are debating what evidence exists to show that Jesus existed. And much later copies of Paul’s letters are being presented by the HJ side as their best evidence that Paul knew that Jesus existed, because in a copy from c.200AD (and possibly much later), one sentence ends with the never again repeated remark ".... the lords brother" - that is said by Ehrman (for example) to be "certain" proof that Paul had met the actual human brother of a living human Jesus ...

... but as explained here at least 100 times now (literally 100 times!) - there are multiple reasons to doubt both what that word "brother" actually meant at the end of that sentence, and also to question whether or not it was ever originally written by Paul in any letter at all.

 

[dejudge]

Doherty places Jesus in a celestial realm, and he maybe right, but according to many in the first century also, the soul or spirit of Jesus had gone below to a place called hades, under or beneath the earth (not that they didn’t believe in heavenly realms as well), and the resurrection here was the calling back of the soul to earth, and its ascension to heaven.

Doherty is dead wrong. The NT Canon is about the Bodily Resurrection of the Son of God AFTER he was Killed by the Jews.

It is claimed People were Bodily raised from the dead in the NT like Lazarus.

The Pauline Jesus was God Creator, the Lord from heaven, and was seen by over 500 persons in 1 Corinthians after he was Killed by the Jews.

Doherty has completely misrepresented the Jesus character in the Pauline Corpus with his cosmic Pauline Christ.

The Pauline Jesus was God Incarnate who RAISED from the dead.

Doherty has it upside down and back to front.

 

[Belz...]

One of the things that struck me when reading Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exists", was that he completely omitted to mention that in Europe, the scholars are much more open to the Jesus myth theory and that it has existed in Europe since the late 18th century.

Gee, I wonder why that is.

 

[David Mo]

. Have you maintained in this forum that a document is only valid when we know the author and its date -similar to legal criteria? Yes or not? Of course, yes NO!

Dear Ian:

I hope the next examples will be enough to prove that you have a dangerous lost of memory …

The plain and very simple fact is - the bible is inherently unreliable in the first place and should never be trusted in any measure at all, for all the same reasons that anonymous hearsay evidence like that is never allowed in any democratic court (because it’s far below the standard required even to be read to a jury for any consideration at all).

The standard of evidence required in a law court (jury trial) is, however, only that what is offered as “evidence”, should not be merely unsupported hearsay, and certainly cannot be any anonymous claim of hearsay from unknown anonymous sources who cannot be traced. And that most definitely IS the same standard that we MUST adopt as the very minimum in any historical case, including the case of Jesus.

… or I have studied in a Bulgarian Institute instead of an English one.

Certainly, it is very difficult to me when I am discussing with someone that speaks English when I’m writing in Bulgarian. But if I am writing in English and you too, please explain me how it is possible to write a sentence and to say after that you hadn’t wrote it.

PS: I am sorry if I put a bit of humour on this. Only Talibans never laugh. But do not confuse the irony with a lack of seriousness. It is the seriousness with other less arid means.

 

[proudfootz]

That's the point; it should not have been a footnote.

Let's say that I write a review of the sum of your position from your posts here and in the footnote I write:

Due to the texts in question being clearly relevant unto the cultures in which produced them and adhered to them, that over time with the emergence of the field of anthropology and western falling out of devout allegiance to western-oriented views of history, that more scholars have risen who approach the subject from an anthropological perspective and that such have not had the traditional view of textual or theological arguments alone. The results have been a great rise of interest in the social context of these texts, and a shakeup of historical assumptions and methods toward a more cultural and anthropologically sound model of their history. The changes due to this anthropological excitement have so radically altered our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity, that non-anthropological work, even by great scholars, should always be held in some suspicion as less rigorous and less informed than work done through anthropology.

Does the requirement of evidence for my assertion suddenly become suspended because I made it a footnote?

As I have pointed out, if this is of genuine interest to you it is a line on inquiry you could easily pursue by asking the author. Just as I am free to ask you to elucidate points which I may feel stand in need of further explication.

That anyone should instead substitute a much more extreme wording and meaning to Carrier's remark is patently absurd.

Would not several in this thread point out that I should not create such dismissive comments lacking evidence as a footnote?

Indeed, several might even ask by what rationale you arrived at such a conclusion. Would those who jump to conclusions be 'more right' than those who make an effort to fully understand your views?

I have no problem reading what he wrote and understanding it.

Nor have I - which is why I prefer what Carrier wrote as a superior indication of his meaning to paraphrases that change the import of his actual words.

Good, then I can make the above claim in italic and you will not feel dismissed.

I suppose if I were a theologian writing about anthropology I might feel a bit miffed.

It is not an opinion.

The matter of opinion (thanks for asking) was whether you disagreed with Carrier that the study of history has undergone a change since WWII due in part to a new demographic entering academic fields.

You wrote that one of your perceptions of this critique was that it was a "blunt instrument to attack Carrier".

It is my opinion (and we may disagree) that attributing 'dismissal' to Carrier is going much too far, that it is imprecise (in that sense being 'blunt') and an uncharitable interpretation. Carrier dismissed nothing.

And to append to an off-hand reaction to Carrier's remark the epigram:

What next, a reversion to Eugenics?

... does make it seem rather like an attack - veering toward a Godwinism.

... regardless of whether I agree with Carrier that our base of evidence and our understanding of antiquity have been radically altered since the post-WWII period.

That was never in question.

If we agree on this, then perhaps Carrier's caution about uncritically accepting scholarship from an earlier era with radically different bases etc. would be warranted.

The critique has nothing to do with time, but to do with the reason Carrier cited as the cause; lower and middle social class superiority due to a lack of traditional elite class inferiority in regards to scientific rigor.

Interestingly, Carrier does not use either word in his remarks - nothing about 'superiors' or 'inferiors'.

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.

But you seem to agree that at least things are different in the period in question. Perhaps even agree that the models and methodologies have improved. Your bone of contention is attributing any part of this change (positive, negative, or neutral) to a change in sensibilities brought in by a new demographic.

I stated in my critique that there is always a normal percent change of information becoming more available over time, and therefore more complete conclusions being reached; this is normal.

It was Carrier's comment that asserted that the change over time within this period in question was directly related to United States political policy permitting a lower class of citizen, who lacked higher class misconceptions, academic enterprise and therefore all prior academics, even the great ones, should be inherently considered with suspicion.

It was not asserted that all works be taken with suspicion; just those before this alleged superior lower class academic infusion era.

So the word here 'before' would seem to indicate a certain time element.

Carrier is not being damned, and he was not paraphrased; he was being quoted:

"(vii) 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. "

You'll notice in that quote that the word 'dismiss' does not occur.

That is what I object to - persons who on the thinnest pretext changing what the author wrote, changing the meaning, and then substituting that pseudograph as if it were really Carrier's opinion.

 

[proudfootz]

One of the things that struck me when reading Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exists", was that he completely omitted to mention that in Europe, the scholars are much more open to the Jesus myth theory and that it has existed in Europe since the late 18th century.

In Europe scholars with very sceptical view on the historical Jesus are employed as professors at big universities. Most notably is Thomas L. Thompson (famous for having his dissertation rejected by the later Pope Benedict XVI on the grounds that it went against Catholic theology) with his whole Copenhagen school of biblical minimalism, which in it's nature is sceptical of how much we can actually know of Jesus, if any at all. Thompson and his colleague Philip Davis from Sheffield University have both been highly critical of Ehrman's outbursts against those that raise the question of the historical Jesus. These two and their peers in Europe are not acknowledged at all by Ehrman in his book, as if European scholarship does not exist at all.

Another famous sceptic from Europe on the historicity of Jesus is Irish Dominican priest Thomas Brodie. He has also somehow escaped the attention of Ehrman.

It seems to me that it is too big a step for Ehrman to admit that all his study points towards a very shadowy Jesus, as if it is too much for him to admit that the first part of his life was based on a lie (Ehrman was, if not deeply religious, then a very religious born-again Christian)

It does seem that Ehrman either really does have a black-and-white view of things or simply prefers to present the case in such terms.

Perhaps he wanted to rush out the book before doing adequate research on this aspect of christian origins with which he seems to be unfamiliar.

 

[dejudge]

We can see that the ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was unknown to other authors of the NT and had ZERO influence on their writings.

The NT Canon contains 13 Epistles attributed to Paul, 1 Gospel attributed to Mark and 13 other books.

The 13 Epistles in the NT attributed to Paul consume about 2033 verses.

The Gospel in the NT attributed to Mark consumes about 687 verses.

Let us ignore or remove those 13 Epistles attributed to Paul.

What do we have left?

Examine the other 14 books in the Canon.

We would have NOTHING left to remind us of the Pauline Revealed Gospel. We would NOT see even a single verse about Paul's teachings in the remaining books.

It is clearly demonstrated that the Pauline Corpus played ZERO role in the development of the Jesus story and cult.

The very Jesus character in the remaining books do NOT even teach his supposed Revealed Gospel to Paul.

Now, remove or ignore the single writing attributed to Mark.

What do we have left in the remaining 13 books of the NT.

The writing attributed to Matthew contains virtually 100% of the Gospel according to Mark with word for word verses.

The writing attributed to Luke contains more than 50 % of the Gospel according to Mark with word for word verses.

The evidence is overwhelming.

The writing attributed to Mark was used in the early development of the Jesus story and cult--Not the Pauline Corpus.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is historically and theologically bogus.

The ENTIRE Pauline Corpus was primarily fabricated in attempt to historicise the fiction characters, like Jesus, Peter and James, in the fiction called Gospels.

 

[IanS]

Originally Posted by David Mo
" Have you maintained in this forum that a document is only valid when we know the author and its date -similar to legal criteria? Yes or not? Of course, yes! "

Dear Ian:

I hope the next examples will be enough to prove that you have a dangerous lost of memory …


Originally Posted by IanS
The plain and very simple fact is - the bible is inherently unreliable in the first place and should never be trusted in any measure at all, for all the same reasons that anonymous hearsay evidence like that is never allowed in any democratic court (because it’s far below the standard required even to be read to a jury for any consideration at all).

Originally Posted by IanS
The standard of evidence required in a law court (jury trial) is, however, only that what is offered as “evidence”, should not be merely unsupported hearsay, and certainly cannot be any anonymous claim of hearsay from unknown anonymous sources who cannot be traced. And that most definitely IS the same standard that we MUST adopt as the very minimum in any historical case, including the case of Jesus.



… or I have studied in a Bulgarian Institute instead of an English one.

Certainly, it is very difficult to me when I am discussing with someone that speaks English when I’m writing in Bulgarian. But if I am writing in English and you too, please explain me how it is possible to write a sentence and to say after that you hadn’t wrote it.

PS: I am sorry if I put a bit of humour on this. Only Talibans never laugh. But do not confuse the irony with a lack of seriousness. It is the seriousness with other less arid means.

Right, well in that case, if you think that your statement and mine are the same, then it does appear that you have indeed been studying at the Bulgarian Institute of misunderstood English.

Here is your statement -

“Have you maintained in this forum that a document is only valid when we know the author and its date -similar to legal criteria? Yes or not? Of course, yes!”


And here are the two statements that you quoted from me, and which you are claiming are the same as your statement above -

Originally Posted by IanS
The plain and very simple fact is - the bible is inherently unreliable in the first place and should never be trusted in any measure at all, for all the same reasons that anonymous hearsay evidence like that is never allowed in any democratic court (because it’s far below the standard required even to be read to a jury for any consideration at all).

Originally Posted by IanS
The standard of evidence required in a law court (jury trial) is, however, only that what is offered as “evidence”, should not be merely unsupported hearsay, and certainly cannot be any anonymous claim of hearsay from unknown anonymous sources who cannot be traced. And that most definitely IS the same standard that we MUST adopt as the very minimum in any historical case, including the case of Jesus.



According to your statement, I had said that “a document”, ie “any” document, “is only valid when we know the author and its date”.

Neither of my two statements claim that any “document is only valid when we know the author and its date “. My statements do not talk about what is, or is not, “valid" (whatever that term might mean in any such context … “valid" for what purpose?). And they do not say we must know the actual date and the actual author in order for any such document to have a “valid” use for some purpose.

What my statements say is only that, as in a court of law where testimony is offered before a jury as “evidence” of a particular claim, that the testimony must be reliable as to it’s source and veracity. It cannot be something like anonymous hearsay claims made by unknown unavailable witnesses, because that sort of claim is inherently unreliable in the extreme. And in the case of the gospels, that extremely unreliable anonymous hearsay writing is further rendered seriously lacking in credibility by their constant untrue claims of Jesus being witnessed performing physically impossible acts. That is just not credible as testimony, and as a source that writing is unreliable in the extreme.

It is not a matter of any part of such testimony being “valid”, whatever that adjective means in this context. It’s simply a question of whether the gospel testimony is reliable and credible as evidence of a human Jesus offered by a reliable witness making credible claims of something which the writer could personally ever know.

As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread - Paul’s letters fall into a slightly different category to the gospels. Because they are at least claimed to have been written by a known person (“Paul”) whose reliability and veracity can be investigated, at least in principle. Though when we do try to enquire after Paul’s credibility, and/or the credibility of much later copies produced under his name, it turns out that even Paul’s letters, whilst not rendered so obviously and inherently unreliable and non-credible by constant miracle claims, are nevertheless still far too unreliable and lacking credibility, for all the numerous reasons explained here at least 50 times before in this thread.

There might be a “valid” reason for trying to determine something from both Paul’s letters and from the gospels, e.g. in terms of what people in that region believed as a matter of messianic faith in the 1st-2nd century. It may be valid in telling us something about that. And it might even be a “valid” pursuit to attempt to ascertain some historical details about the time and place in which the stories were written; e.g. were they actually written in Egypt? Who were the ruling officials at that time? Etc.

But what the gospels in particular are not good enough for, is to be presented as if they were a reliable source of any of their authors knowing anything about a living human Jesus. And what Paul’s letters are similarly not good enough for, is to be presented as a reliable account of Paul knowing a living Jesus either ... and if comes to that, also not as a reliable account of Paul ever knowing anyone else who actually knew a living Jesus.

 

[JaysonR]

As I have pointed out, if this is of genuine interest to you it is a line on inquiry you could easily pursue by asking the author. Just as I am free to ask you to elucidate points which I may feel stand in need of further explication.

That anyone should instead substitute a much more extreme wording and meaning to Carrier's remark is patently absurd.

I have not substituted his remarks. I have remarked upon them.
You have pointed out, yes; I see no reason that I must do that in order to be able to remark and critique his words on here.

Should not everyone in this thread write to Ehrman instead?

Indeed, several might even ask by what rationale you arrived at such a conclusion. Would those who jump to conclusions be 'more right' than those who make an effort to fully understand your views?

They may or may not; the point here is whether it belonged as a note. Clearly it belongs as more - for you continue to request that I elicit such length from Carrier.

Nor have I - which is why I prefer what Carrier wrote as a superior indication of his meaning to paraphrases that change the import of his actual words.

I changed none of his words, nor relied on a paraphrase.
I remarked, critiqued, and commented.

I suppose if I were a theologian writing about anthropology I might feel a bit miffed.

Quite to the opposite.
The comment that I formed by using the note from Carrier dismisses any person who is not an anthropologist in the same manner as Carrier's note mutes the value of pre-1960's academia through social class plea.

The matter of opinion (thanks for asking) was whether you disagreed with Carrier that the study of history has undergone a change since WWII due in part to a new demographic entering academic fields.

Again, that was never in question.
To suggest that nothing ever changes is absurd.

It is my opinion (and we may disagree) that attributing 'dismissal' to Carrier is going much too far, that it is imprecise (in that sense being 'blunt') and an uncharitable interpretation. Carrier dismissed nothing.

Yes he did. To be dismissive in the manner the term was used is to treat the content or individuals in question without the proper respect or attentiveness; to disregard.

Outlining that by default one should be more cautious of work pre-1960's due to one social class being alleged to be more rigorous than another is dismissive to all content written by that isolated social class.

And to append to an off-hand reaction to Carrier's remark the epigram:

What next, a reversion to Eugenics?

... does make it seem rather like an attack - veering toward a Godwinism.

No it does not.
A reversion (to reverse) of Eugenics would be to be inherently bias against the upper class echelon in favor of the lower and middle class; which was exactly what was described.

If we agree on this, then perhaps Carrier's caution about uncritically accepting scholarship from an earlier era with radically different bases etc. would be warranted.

That goes without need of statement.
All content should be read with caution and suspicion; including Carrier's.

That does not mean that Carrier's notion, that the lower and middle classes are inherently more scientifically rigorous than the upper class who have traditionally less critical sensibilities, is sound.

So the word here 'before' would seem to indicate a certain time element.

Yes; and the reasoning is flawed.
There is no inherent greatness of social classes which causes them to differ in interest of scientific rigor within higher education; as has been charged.

As Doug noted; the scientific model was rather favored pre-1960 for quite some time; regardless which class any given publication came from.

You'll notice in that quote that the word 'dismiss' does not occur.

That is what I object to - persons who on the thinnest pretext changing what the author wrote, changing the meaning, and then substituting that pseudograph as if it were really Carrier's opinion.

When I state that it was dismissive; that is a description of the nature of the type of comment that it was.

Just as someone may state that someone's comments were antagonistic, inviting, sympathetic, or any other adjective one wishes to use to express the sense of the comments.

It is not a perversion of any form to write such, and is rather normal.

And yes; his comments are, by their very form of the outline, dismissive comments.

The question isn't whether they were dismissive, but whether they are accurate in being so, or whether they go too far by too ambiguous of a reason.

 

[pakeha]

[ . . . ]In Europe scholars with very sceptical view on the historical Jesus are employed as professors at big universities. Most notably is Thomas L. Thompson (famous for having his dissertation rejected by the later Pope Benedict XVI on the grounds that it went against Catholic theology) with his whole Copenhagen school of biblical minimalism, which in it's nature is sceptical of how much we can actually know of Jesus, if any at all. Thompson and his colleague Philip Davis from Sheffield University have both been highly critical of Ehrman's outbursts against those that raise the question of the historical Jesus. These two and their peers in Europe are not acknowledged at all by Ehrman in his book, as if European scholarship does not exist at all.
Another famous sceptic from Europe on the historicity of Jesus is Irish Dominican priest Thomas Brodie. He has also somehow escaped the attention of Ehrman.

It seems to me that it is too big a step for Ehrman to admit that all his study points towards a very shadowy Jesus, as if it is too much for him to admit that the first part of his life was based on a lie (Ehrman was, if not deeply religious, then a very religious born-again Christian)

Thanks for that summary of European skeptical scholars, tkmikkelsen.

 

[proudfootz]

To suggest that nothing ever changes is absurd.

Of course they change. And it is because of these changes that precaution should be taken and not presume scholarship of another era is the same as modern day scholarship.

It is not to dismiss it. No one - Carrier least of all - has said anything about pre-1960s scholarship being without value, or something to be disregarded or ignored.

Yes he did. To be dismissive in the manner the term was used is to treat the content or individuals in question without the proper respect or attentiveness; to disregard.

Outlining that by default one should be more cautious of work pre-1960's due to one social class being alleged to be more rigorous than another is dismissive to all content written by that isolated social class.

These are two non-identical ideas.

Carrier seems to suggest being cautious and give extra attentiveness to using scholarship from an earlier era.

A reversion (to reverse) of Eugenics would be to be inherently bias against the upper class echelon in favor of the lower and middle class; which was exactly what was described.

My mistake - when you wrote 'a reversion *to* Eugenics' I thought you were trying to make some other point. As if class were somehow genetic in nature, or something.

That goes without need of statement.
All content should be read with caution and suspicion; including Carrier's.

But aren't you arguing that 'reading with caution and suspicion is dismissive'? That is all Carrier is suggesting.

Now you suggest everything should be dismissed in that sense?

That does not mean that Carrier's notion, that the lower and middle classes are inherently more scientifically rigorous than the upper class who have traditionally less critical sensibilities, is sound.

I don't think Carrier is making any such argument. It appears you're getting rather too involved with this misrepresentation of his remarks.

Yes; and the reasoning is flawed.

There is no inherent greatness of social classes which causes them to differ in interest of scientific rigor within higher education; as has been charged.

As Doug noted; the scientific model was rather favored pre-1960 for quite some time; regardless which class any given publication came from.

I haven't the special mojo that enables me to read all that into Carrier's remarks.

When I state that it was dismissive; that is a description of the nature of the type of comment that it was.

The type of 'dismissive' Carrier seems to have in mind is the 'read with care and caution' that you seem to agree with and not the 'disregard' kind.

Just as someone may state that someone's comments were antagonistic, inviting, sympathetic, or any other adjective one wishes to use to express the sense of the comments.

It is not a perversion of any form to write such, and is rather normal.

And yes; his comments are, by their very form of the outline, dismissive comments.

The question isn't whether they were dismissive, but whether they are accurate in being so, or whether they go too far by too ambiguous of a reason.

Of course there is nothing in Carrier's remarks which fit the description:

someone doesn't even see a valid reason to address prior propositions and wipes them out full-hand

The above 'assessment' is nonsense on stilts.

Carrier dismisses nothing in the sense you are suggesting.

 

[DougW]

That's a lot of words.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/

For you to peruse a Historian who has drawn a link between the DSS and early Christianity.

Or you could try this book:

"James The Brother Of Jesus and The dead Sea Scrolls"
http://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Dead-Scrolls/dp/0985599138

You obviously offered the Eisenman links tongue in cheek, Brainache, with his scribbling miles removed from Carrier’s today’s ‘more critical and scientifically rigorous model”.

Insofar this thread is meant to about Bart Ehrman, one whose writings similarly strike me as anything but rigorous, critical, or scientific, maybe I shouldn’t be contributing here at all! If one can’t say something nice, say nothing?

Besides, he’s not here to defend himself. Suffice to say that if any of those Dutch Radicals like Pierson, Loman, van Manen, or Bolland, had produced works the quality of Ehrman’s, I dare say they would have been laughed out of their professorial or academic positions; probably wouldn’t have gotten them to begin with. Only my opinion, of course.

And with fine works about like that of Robert Price on Paul, and others, neither does it do to tar all modern scholars with the same brush. Still when people like Doherty and Carrier date the canonical gospels well nigh up to a century before they actually emerged, I can’t help but wonder about their other conclusions as well – even more so when they start quoting Paul to support their arguments!

 

[dejudge]

As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread - Paul’s letters fall into a slightly different category to the gospels.

The Pauline Corpus is in a far worse position than the Gospels. There is no claim by the authors of the Gospels that they were writing the truth.

It was the Pauline writers who repeatedly claim they were NOT lying when it is obvious that they were.

For example, the author of gMark, did not state that he was a Witness that God raised Jesus from the dead--it was A Pauline writer who made the false claim.

It was the Pauline writers who lied when they claimed they conferred with NON-historical beings [without flesh and blood] for the revelation of Jesus the Son of God.

In fact, if the Pauline writers were brought before a court they would most likely be charged with perjury.

 

[Brainache]

You obviously offered the Eisenman links tongue in cheek, Brainache, with his scribbling miles removed from Carrier’s today’s ‘more critical and scientifically rigorous model”.

Insofar this thread is meant to about Bart Ehrman, one whose writings similarly strike me as anything but rigorous, critical, or scientific, maybe I shouldn’t be contributing here at all! If one can’t say something nice, say nothing?

Besides, he’s not here to defend himself. Suffice to say that if any of those Dutch Radicals like Pierson, Loman, van Manen, or Bolland, had produced works the quality of Ehrman’s, I dare say they would have been laughed out of their professorial or academic positions; probably wouldn’t have gotten them to begin with. Only my opinion, of course.

And with fine works about like that of Robert Price on Paul, and others, neither does it do to tar all modern scholars with the same brush. Still when people like Doherty and Carrier date the canonical gospels well nigh up to a century before they actually emerged, I can’t help but wonder about their other conclusions as well – even more so when they start quoting Paul to support their arguments!

On the contrary, I am dead serious about Eisenman. You could try reading my thread on the subject:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

I think he makes a very good case. His credentials are impeccable and he did a lot to open up the field of Dead Sea Scrolls Scholarship. He can be a bit belligerent and dismissive of other Bible Scholars, but I'm not sure that he is totally unjustified in that, given the way he has been vilified by some.

I haven't read any of Ehrman's books, but he does seem a bit too credulous when it comes to the gospel stories, from what I have seen in various quotes and videos etc.

I can't take Price seriously as an advocate for a Mythical Jesus, given that in the late nineties he changed his opinion on that and he acknowledged that the HJ probably existed.

Doherty and Carrier are clutching at straws with their "celestial Jesus" idea, which is a load of bollocks IMO.