Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

I must address this claim of consensus because it seems to be used as propaganda to cover the very weak argument for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

Not only is there no consensus among Academics but those who argue for an historical Jesus have NOT conceded who their Jesus was .

How in the world could there be a consensus among Academic when as we speak so-called historicists do not know which Jesus was the historical Jesus?

The claim of consensus must be laid to rest as worthless rhetoric.

The historical Jesus of Nazareth is a product of imagination and varies from Scholar to Scholar.

In other words, the historical Jesus of Nazareth is a Myth--a character with no corroborative historical evidence or value.

What are you looking for in this consensus? How detailed do you think it should be?

For the last while we've been discussing whether or not he even existed. We have established that even if we can say nothing else about him, almost all Historians agree that there was a Jewish Preacher around whom the stories grew.

What do you want? His hat size?

A non-flesh and blood Jesus, doesn't fit what we already know about that time and place. Maybe Carrier's new book (due out next Feb. Check your bookstores) will bring something new. We have to wait and see.

While you're waiting, read his blog:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

 

[tsig]

But aren't you one of the people saying that Jesus never existed? It is very easy to say that Jesus never existed. It is much more difficult to fit that idea into the rest of what we know about the time and place.

The Jesus Myth idea only works if you ignore the rest of what we know. If you have a good reason why everything we know is wrong, present it.

If you don't have any good reason for thinking that everything we know is wrong, why should anyone listen to you?

I see you have not read any of my posts. All I have asked for is evidence of Jesus existence.

Once again with the Jesus Myth thing, you seem to be completely occupied wrestling with those Mythers to the exclusion of arguing with those posters who are actually here.

 

[The Norseman]

Which Jesus existed? Where, when? What historical source of antiquity mentioned this supposed historical character??

Jesus of the Bible could not have existed as described. An "historical" Jesus appears to be an invention-a myth-- without a shred of actual evidence.

Please, state the biography and source of the historical Jesus because Bible Jesus was a myth.

This is the important message to take away.

Quoting Richard Carrier (since he is an actual Historian speaking about an historical Jesus):

"I won't recount the whole history of historical Jesus research here, as that has been done to death already. Indeed, accounts of the many “quests” for the historical Jesus and their failure are legion, each with their own extensive bibliography. Just to pick one out of a hat, Mark Strauss summarizes, in despair, the many Jesuses different scholars have “discovered” in the evidence recently. Jesus the Jewish Cynic Sage. Jesus the Rabbinical Holy Man (or Devoted Pharisee, or Heretical Essene, or any of a dozen other contradictory things). Jesus the Political Revolutionary or Zealot Activist. Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet. And Jesus the Messianic Pretender (or even, as some still argue, Actual Messiah). And that's not even a complete list. We also have Jesus the Folk Wizard (championed most famously by Morton Smith in Jesus the Magician, and most recently by Robert Conner in Magic in the New Testament). Jesus the Mystic and “Child of Sophia” (championed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and John Shelby Spong). Jesus the Nonviolent Social Reformer (championed by Bruce Malina and others). Or even Jesus the Actual Davidic Heir and Founder of a Royal Dynasty (most effectively argued in The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor, who also sees Jesus as a kind of ancient David Koresh, someone who delusionally, and suicidally, believed he was sent by God and charismatically gathered followers...). There are even recent versions of Jesus that place him in a different historical place and time, arguing the Gospels were mistaken on when and where Jesus actually lived and taught. Or that conclude astonishing things like that he arranged his own execution to effect a ritual sacrifice to magically cleanse the land. We even get confused attempts to make Jesus everything at once (or half of everything at once, since most theories are too contradictory to reconcile), for instance insisting we should understand him to have been “a prophet in the tradition of Israel's prophetic figures…a teacher and rabbi, or subversive pedagogue of the oppressed…a traditional healer and exorcist, a shamanistic figure…[and] a reputational leader who brokers the justice of Yahweh's covenant and coming reign,” whatever that means.
This still isn't even a complete list. As Helmut Koester concluded after his own survey, “The vast variety of interpretations of the historical Jesus that the current quest has proposed is bewildering.” James Charlesworth concurs, concluding that “what had been perceived to be a developing consensus in the 1980s has collapsed into a chaos of opinions.” The fact that almost no one agrees with anyone else should compel all Jesus scholars to deeply question whether their certainty in their own theory is really even warranted, since everyone else is just as certain, and yet they should all be fully competent to arrive at a sound conclusion from the evidence. Obviously something is fundamentally wrong with the methods of the entire community. Which means you cannot claim to be a part of that community and not accept that there must be something fundamentally wrong with your own methods."​

(all footnote references were removed by me to ease reading.)

Any HJ promoters in this thread care to pick out of this hat which precise Jesus they're rooting for? Which Jesus does this "consensus of historians" all agree on that Brainache, Stone, et al are talking about?

 

[Brainache]

This is the important message to take away.

Quoting Richard Carrier (since he is an actual Historian speaking about an historical Jesus):
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733

"I won't recount the whole history of historical Jesus research here, as that has been done to death already. Indeed, accounts of the many “quests” for the historical Jesus and their failure are legion, each with their own extensive bibliography. Just to pick one out of a hat, Mark Strauss summarizes, in despair, the many Jesuses different scholars have “discovered” in the evidence recently. Jesus the Jewish Cynic Sage. Jesus the Rabbinical Holy Man (or Devoted Pharisee, or Heretical Essene, or any of a dozen other contradictory things). Jesus the Political Revolutionary or Zealot Activist. Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet. And Jesus the Messianic Pretender (or even, as some still argue, Actual Messiah). And that's not even a complete list. We also have Jesus the Folk Wizard (championed most famously by Morton Smith in Jesus the Magician, and most recently by Robert Conner in Magic in the New Testament). Jesus the Mystic and “Child of Sophia” (championed by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and John Shelby Spong). Jesus the Nonviolent Social Reformer (championed by Bruce Malina and others). Or even Jesus the Actual Davidic Heir and Founder of a Royal Dynasty (most effectively argued in The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor, who also sees Jesus as a kind of ancient David Koresh, someone who delusionally, and suicidally, believed he was sent by God and charismatically gathered followers...). There are even recent versions of Jesus that place him in a different historical place and time, arguing the Gospels were mistaken on when and where Jesus actually lived and taught. Or that conclude astonishing things like that he arranged his own execution to effect a ritual sacrifice to magically cleanse the land. We even get confused attempts to make Jesus everything at once (or half of everything at once, since most theories are too contradictory to reconcile), for instance insisting we should understand him to have been “a prophet in the tradition of Israel's prophetic figures…a teacher and rabbi, or subversive pedagogue of the oppressed…a traditional healer and exorcist, a shamanistic figure…[and] a reputational leader who brokers the justice of Yahweh's covenant and coming reign,” whatever that means.
This still isn't even a complete list. As Helmut Koester concluded after his own survey, “The vast variety of interpretations of the historical Jesus that the current quest has proposed is bewildering.” James Charlesworth concurs, concluding that “what had been perceived to be a developing consensus in the 1980s has collapsed into a chaos of opinions.” The fact that almost no one agrees with anyone else should compel all Jesus scholars to deeply question whether their certainty in their own theory is really even warranted, since everyone else is just as certain, and yet they should all be fully competent to arrive at a sound conclusion from the evidence. Obviously something is fundamentally wrong with the methods of the entire community. Which means you cannot claim to be a part of that community and not accept that there must be something fundamentally wrong with your own methods."​

(all footnote references were removed by me to ease reading.)

Any HJ promoters in this thread care to pick out of this hat which precise Jesus they're rooting for? Which Jesus does this "consensus of historians" all agree on that Brainache, Stone, et al are talking about?

I've already described mine. Look it up.

Once again with feeling from Richard Carrier on the probability of a HJ:

Note that the first estimate leaves a respectable probability that Jesus existed–it’s merely more likely that he didn’t, not anywhere near certain. And that may well be correct, if my biases are strong and thus my a fortiori estimates (estimates against myself) more accurate. But even if we embrace the other end of my margin of error, we are still not looking at certainty. 1 in 12,000 sounds like certainty, but it’s actually nowhere near. Just ask yourself: would you get into a car that had a 1 in 12,000 chance of exploding right then? If your answer is yes, then you are bad at math.
Supernatural miracles, and disembodied minds, and blood magic, have odds of millions or billions or even trillions or quadrillions to one against. So why would you hang your case against Christianity on a mere 1 in 12,000? You can make a far better case against that religion by granting historicity and then showing the odds against it are trillions to one. The additional reduction in the probability that Christianity is true that is added by calculating-in the possibility Jesus didn’t exist is relatively so minuscule it’s honestly not worth troubling yourself over (the more so as no Christian will accept estimates that get you to 1 in 12,000 without first having already given up their faith…so the most you can hope for is to get them to that measly 1 in 3, and even that won’t be likely, and it’s weak tea anyway).

Because he is so much more certain of his Myth Jesus.

 

[jhunter1163]

It came to pass that there was bickering and incivility in R&P, such that none could abide. And the cries of the afflicted rose unto the report button, and reached the ears of the MOD. And the MOD appeared in his wrath before the posters in R&P, and they were amazed and sore afraid. And the MOD raised his staff and proclaimed unto the posters, "Behold, I am the MOD, and I say unto thee, be not uncivil, and repent of thy bickery ways, lest thou be smitten with the Cards of Yellow and cast into Suspendatoria, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth." And the posters repented; and the MOD saw that it was good.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[The Norseman]

I've already described mine. Look it up.

No, I'm not going to look it up. You spend lots of time posting snide remarks and thinly-veiled attacks; you can certainly take the time to repost which Jesus you think is the real one. Or maybe just not post at all. Anyway, hope to agree with you in another thread on JREF sometime.

Because he is so much more certain of his Myth Jesus.

Non-response noted.

 

[dejudge]

I've already described mine. Look it up.

Your statement is extremely odd. Are you not agnostic on the existence of an historical Jesus?

What could you possibly know of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? Surely you are not certain and have no real evidence for what you write about an historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman has already stated that the New Testament is not credible and no apologetic sources wrote about Jesus of Nazareth--not even Nazareth.

 

[dejudge]

How does an admitted Agnostic like Brainache help the argument for Bart Ehrman's historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth? Something is radically wrong when an admitted Agnostic writes about an historical Jesus of Nazareth of whom he has no known knowledge or credible evidence of his existence.

 

[Brainache]

No, I'm not going to look it up. You spend lots of time posting snide remarks and thinly-veiled attacks; you can certainly take the time to repost which Jesus you think is the real one. Or maybe just not post at all. Anyway, hope to agree with you in another thread on JREF sometime.

I don't subscribe to any of those. Have you heard of Robert Eisenman?
http://www.roberteisenman.com/

I think he makes a compelling case. I have started outlining one aspect of it in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267096

It is an ongoing thing that I add to as I get the urge.

I think Jesus was a Zealot. I think Paul was a Herodian.

Non-response noted.

What? By pointing out that there is no such thing as certainty from anyone on this? Not even Carrier?

OK.

Your statement is extremely odd. Are you not agnostic on the existence of an historical Jesus?

I think it more likely than not that there was a Jewish preacher around whom the stories grew. Is that what you mean?

What could you possibly know of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? Surely you are not certain and have no real evidence for what you write about an historical Jesus.

I think it's likely that he was a "Nazorean" preacher. Not from Nazareth.

Bart Ehrman has already stated that the New Testament is not credible and no apologetic sources wrote about Jesus of Nazareth--not even Nazareth.

Good thing we aren't talking about the Gospel Jesus then, isn't it?

 

[Brainache]

How does an admitted Agnostic like Brainache help the argument for Bart Ehrman's historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth? Something is radically wrong when an admitted Agnostic writes about an historical Jesus of Nazareth of whom he has no known knowledge or credible evidence of his existence.

Please stop calling me that. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in the Gospels. Why is that hard to understand?

 

[dejudge]

Please stop calling me that. I'm an Atheist. I don't believe in the Gospels. Why is that hard to understand?

In any event, now you have also admitted that don't believe in the Gospels please state where you got your information for your Jesus?

You are compounding your problems.

You are an admitted Atheist, an agnostic on the historical Jesus who does not believe in the Gospels but have written a description of an HJ.

Your HJ description must be far worse than that of Ehrman.

 

[Brainache]

You publicly admitted in this thread that you were Agnostic on the historical Jesus so I find it extremely strange that you now claim you wrote about an HJ.

In any event, now you have also admitted that don't believe in the Gospels please state where you got your information for your Jesus?

You are compounding your problems.

You are an admitted Atheist, an agnostic on the historical Jesus who does not believe in the Gospels but have written a description of an HJ.

Your HJ description must be far worse than that of Ehrman.

You have me confused with someone else. I never said that I am agnostic on the HJ.

I am an Atheist.

I don't believe in the Gospels.

I got my information on Jesus by reading learned works by Historians and, yes a couple of "Bible Scholars".( I usually stopped when they got into the Theology.) Amongst other places.

I think the HJ was part of the general trend against the Herodian ruling class and Rome which lasted from around the year 4 CE until the destruction of the Temple around 70 CE. I don't want to go into detail here, as the thread isn't about my ideas.

A lot went on during that time, it is a fascinating period of History, you should check it out some time.

 

[The Norseman]

I do appreciate your polite response, by the way.

I don't subscribe to any of those... I think Jesus was a Zealot. I think Paul was a Herodian...

I thought Carrier included that in the third sentence of my quote above? "...Jesus the Political Revolutionary or Zealot Activist..."

I will see about getting some of Robert Eisenman's work to peruse; but does he make a distinction between Jesus the Zealot and Jesus the Zealot Activist? To me, they are one and the same.

What? By pointing out that there is no such thing as certainty from anyone on this? Not even Carrier?

OK.

It addressed a point which was never made by me, which is that someone keeps talking about absolute certainty in this thread. IanS does continue to point out that some of the major HJ players actually do discuss HJ as definitely existing. I think that's why it's continually mentioned -- this so-called consensus of historians do NOT actually have the same Jesus in mind when they, individually, proclaim an ACTUAL corporeal Jesus.

That is the thrust of my quoting of Richard Carrier; an actual Historian is commenting on the fragmented field of HJ theories and suppositions and there is no actual consensus, which has been argued ad nauseum in these threads.

I think it more likely than not that there was a Jewish preacher around whom the stories grew. Is that what you mean?

Not to speak for another JREF member or even yourself, but maybe it'd be more precise for you to say you simply believe in a Jesus the Zealot and not continue to compound the confusion by then throwing in some other vagaries such as "a Jewish preacher". As I have shown, there are many, many different and some contradictory ideas of what "a Jewish preacher" really means.

I think it's likely that he was a "Nazorean" preacher. Not from Nazareth.

Is that then a Nazorean Zealot that you believe existed?

Good thing we aren't talking about the Gospel Jesus then, isn't it?

Other than the gospels -- and I am earnest about this question; no gotchas here -- what evidence convinced you that Jesus described outside of the gospels was a Nazorean Zealot preacher?

 

[Brainache]

I do appreciate your polite response, by the way.

I try, but sometimes some people make it difficult. (not you).

I thought Carrier included that in the third sentence of my quote above? "...Jesus the Political Revolutionary or Zealot Activist..."

I will see about getting some of Robert Eisenman's work to peruse; but does he make a distinction between Jesus the Zealot and Jesus the Zealot Activist? To me, they are one and the same.

They are big thick books full of little technical nuances concerning that and many other related questions. There were Zealots, and then there were Zealots, does that help?

It addressed a point which was never made by me, which is that someone keeps talking about absolute certainty in this thread. IanS does continue to point out that some of the major HJ players actually do discuss HJ as definitely existing. I think that's why it's continually mentioned -- this so-called consensus of historians do NOT actually have the same Jesus in mind when they, individually, proclaim an ACTUAL corporeal Jesus.

That is the thrust of my quoting of Richard Carrier; an actual Historian is commenting on the fragmented field of HJ theories and suppositions and there is no actual consensus, which has been argued ad nauseum in these threads.

OK. I've seen IanS wave around a Bart Ehrman quote to that effect, but Ehrman knows enough about Ancient History to know that there is no certainty here. If he said that, he was wrong or he has been quoted out of context. What can I say? I'm not Bart Ehrman, I don't even like his videos very much, he has an annoying voice IMO.

Not to speak for another JREF member or even yourself, but maybe it'd be more precise for you to say you simply believe in a Jesus the Zealot and not continue to compound the confusion by then throwing in some other vagaries such as "a Jewish preacher". As I have shown, there are many, many different and some contradictory ideas of what "a Jewish preacher" really means.

I don't want to force my interpretation on anyone else, so I don't say Zealot when I'm talking about the Consensus opinion.

By saying "Jewish Preacher" I mean that the core sayings associated with this (very minimal and tentative) HJ are part of a Jewish Tradition, rather than say Persian or Greek. That's all. That's why there is so much variation amongst scholars, what we do know can fit a multitude of Jesuses (?).

But there is always the chance that something new (I mean old) will be dug up.

Is that then a Nazorean Zealot that you believe existed?

Nazoreans were like John the Baptist, living in the wilderness off what grew naturally. etc They could be very Zealous for the Law.

Other than the gospels -- and I am earnest about this question; no gotchas here -- what evidence convinced you that Jesus described outside of the gospels was a Nazorean Zealot preacher?

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls mostly. They describe the exact person I mean and he is called there "The Teacher Of Righteousness". A lot of Scholars disagree with this idea, for lots of different reasons. The major one I've seen so far is the dating. I'm still hopeful that will sort itself out.

So I'm not just a mindless sheep swallowing the consensus whole. I think there is some pretty dodgy reasoning in there too, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need some kind of Historical method or chaos reigns.

 

[dejudge]

You have me confused with someone else. I never said that I am agnostic on the HJ.

You are correct. You posted what another person claimed.

I am an Atheist.

I don't believe in the Gospels.

I got my information on Jesus by reading learned works by Historians and, yes a couple of "Bible Scholars".( I usually stopped when they got into the Theology.) Amongst other places.

Where did those "Historians" and "Bible Scholars" get their information about Jesus ? From the Bible, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius??

..I think the HJ was part of the general trend against the Herodian ruling class and Rome which lasted from around the year 4 CE until the destruction of the Temple around 70 CE. I don't want to go into detail here, as the thread isn't about my ideas.

A lot went on during that time, it is a fascinating period of History, you should check it out some time.

Why would you think such a thing when there were most likely multiple persons, indeed the Jews, who were against the Herodian ruling class?

Your HJ theory reduces the writings of Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius to rubble.

Please identify what your HJ did. Is your historical Jesus the same as that of Bart Ehrman's?

Ehrman publicly used the Bible for his HJ of Nazareth.

Speculation is completely unacceptable when you have NO known ancient sources for your HJ.

You must know that it is very easy to make stuff up of which there is no evidence at all.

 

[The Norseman]

I try, but sometimes some people make it difficult. (not you).



They are big thick books full of little technical nuances concerning that and many other related questions. There were Zealots, and then there were Zealots, does that help?



OK. I've seen IanS wave around a Bart Ehrman quote to that effect, but Ehrman knows enough about Ancient History to know that there is no certainty here. If he said that, he was wrong or he has been quoted out of context. What can I say? I'm not Bart Ehrman, I don't even like his videos very much, he has an annoying voice IMO.



I don't want to force my interpretation on anyone else, so I don't say Zealot when I'm talking about the Consensus opinion.

By saying "Jewish Preacher" I mean that the core sayings associated with this (very minimal and tentative) HJ are part of a Jewish Tradition, rather than say Persian or Greek. That's all. That's why there is so much variation amongst scholars, what we do know can fit a multitude of Jesuses (?).

But there is always the chance that something new (I mean old) will be dug up.



Nazoreans were like John the Baptist, living in the wilderness off what grew naturally. etc They could be very Zealous for the Law.



Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls mostly. They describe the exact person I mean and he is called there "The Teacher Of Righteousness". A lot of Scholars disagree with this idea, for lots of different reasons. The major one I've seen so far is the dating. I'm still hopeful that will sort itself out.

So I'm not just a mindless sheep swallowing the consensus whole. I think there is some pretty dodgy reasoning in there too, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We need some kind of Historical method or chaos reigns.

Again, I appreciate your answers. I feel like I'm just like everyone else on JREF; I'm here to learn and maybe, if I'm lucky, to teach a little bit.

But I'm trying to suss out a difficult problem. I was raised Lutheran and nominally believed for most of my life. I took it for granted that there was a corporeal Jesus -- I had been told that this was so all of my life, even after I became ignostic. I started reading a few of the "historical Jesus" threads here on JREF and I started to really see that what little evidence there is for ANY HJ is really, really small. So, I began to take the stance of agnosticism, for the lack of a better term. I still don't really care one way or the other -- a corporeal Jesus won't ever affect my life as would a non-corporeal Jesus would.

I simply find the evidence lacking and the more I read about it, the more the HJ camp sounds kinda like "just trust us, it's true."

Now I've happened to be listening to some philosophical stuff unrelated to HJ/MJ, but Socrates jumped out at me. I don't care whether or not the guy Socrates really existed either; whoever made up what he is attributed to have said is about (simplifying it) taking a stand against popular opinion because sometimes popular opinion is wrong. Maybe popular opinion is right in this case. It doesn't come across to me, though, that it passes any real test of evidence.

I've said it before but I really see a lot of guesswork and supposition and theorizing about any HJ and maybe much of it is true. Not enough of it boils down to a probability that there was an actual corporeal Jesus. I have read now a few alternate theories regarding a non-corporeal Jesus and -- to me -- they sound quite plausible, especially considering the time and what we know of how people thought.

Was there a corporeal Jesus? I dunno, but there doesn't have to be one for what occurred to have actually occurred.

 

[Stone]

I suppose I didn't ask the right question. I guess personal opinions in these threads should be put to the side.

My question should have been, which Jesus of the ones listed, do all the Historians agree on?

Fair question. Thank you.

The historians are not all agreed around the margins. That's what makes them serious historians rather than robot drones. But the core of the history is not much disputed.

What emerges from the least disputed textual cites, found in my two previous posts, is a Jesus who is part apocalyptic prophet and part political revolutionary, to use the terms found in your previous post. For many historians, though, it's not just an either/or. What varies is the degree of emphasis. That's where individual interpretation comes in.

Restricting the textual fragments as much as possible, as I did in my previous posts, Jesus still seems to have spoken of social reversal with his "last being first" line, even as he also spoke of a "Kingdom of God". So there we have both implicit apocalypse and radical politics together.

Responsible historians let the textual data guide the resulting model rather than impose the model on sophistic readings of the textual data. There are some unfortunate exceptions, of course, but by and large, letting the textual data guide the model is the prevailing scholarly method. Here, the textual data point to the kind of bifurcated model I describe. So that's the model I view as more likely.

Stone

 

[dejudge]

I simply find the evidence lacking and the more I read about it, the more the HJ camp sounds kinda like "just trust us, it's true."

It is far worse than that. Not only is there is no evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth but some do not even want to entertain any person who exposes the severe weakness of the HJ argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

Even Bart Ehrman declared in "Did Jesus Exist?" that he does not discuss or entertain any discussion about a mythological Jesus in his classes.

 

[tsig]

You publicly admitted in this thread that you were Agnostic on the historical Jesus so I find it extremely strange that you now claim you wrote about an HJ.

In any event, now you have also admitted that don't believe in the Gospels please state where you got your information for your Jesus? You are compounding your problems.

You are an admitted Atheist, an agnostic on the historical Jesus who does not believe in the Gospels but have written a description of an HJ.

Your HJ description must be far worse than that of Ehrman.

The Faith in History as preached by Properly Trained Historians* is boundless.

*i.e. The Consensus.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Do we have evidence that any mythological figure in the period of Antiquity that preceded the period during which putative historical Jesus lived being considered to exist contemporaneously with the people of that era?