Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

That's quite a piece of "guilt by association" verbalisation you give us there. Ehrman is "like" a practicing priest because both he and the priest study scriptural texts. Mmmm.

No it's not “quite a piece of "guilt by association".

Ehrman is well known to be something of an exception amongst Bible Scholars because he has openly said that in more recent years he has come to be an agnostic, and iirc says that he is now even bordering on being atheist.

Though others in his profession seem to have, at certain times, actually been Catholic priests. Dominic Crossan is a well known example.

But if we are talking about “association”, then the “association” that Ehrman has with others like Crossan, is that iirc - in both cases they were devout Christian theists from an early age, studied religious biblical issues in their youth, went directly into university continuing their religious Christian beliefs, took further studies and degrees in theological institutes etc., and ended up with a career lecturing and writing about their belief in the historicity of Jesus.

So the “association” is that almost all these individuals have of course spent much of their younger lives as devout theists, and then spent almost all the rest of their lives totally immersed in NT bible studies.

 

[Foster Zygote]

What lies.

I NEVER claimed Bart Ehrman was a Fundamentlist.

I never said that you did. Your former religious upbringing obviously didn't afford you much in the way of reading comprehension.

Bart Ehrman is an admitted BIBLE Believer.

1. Ehrman himself claimed he BELIEVES Paul in the BIBLE.

2. Ehrman himself claimed Jesus in the BIBLE CERTAINLY existed.

3. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was Baptized.

4. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

5. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE contains INDEPENDENT historical sources for his Jesus.

6. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus was a PREACHER.

7. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

And there you go with the same pathetic argument all over again. It's like asking a detective if he believes a witness's testimony, and having him say, "Parts of it, but most of it is false and/or mistaken", and then turning around and saying, "He believes his testimony!".

It is clear that, to you, the only acceptable position to take is that every aspect of the New Testament is false. You can't abide someone saying, "Most of it is false, but there seem to be a few kernels of truth regarding certain persons and events". To you, the only acceptable position is one just as extreme as that of a fundamentalist believer, but in the opposite direction, yet no less viscerally based.

By the way, remember when I said that what you don't say tells as much or more than what you do say? I know that you haven't read Ehrman's book the same way I know you used to be a Christian believer.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Though others in his profession seem to have, at certain times, actually been Catholic priests. Dominic Crossan is a well known example.

You're doing it again. Crossan left the priesthood in the late 1960s. You are using a form of argumentum ad hominem. What about dejudge? He used to be a Christian. Is his position to be dismissed because he used to believe Christian dogma?

 

[Craig B]

So the “association” is that almost all these individuals have of course spent much of their younger lives as devout theists, and then spent almost all the rest of their lives totally immersed in NT bible studies.

And that's supposed to make Ehrman "like" a practicing priest, is it?

 

[Brainache]

And that's supposed to make Ehrman "like" a practicing priest, is it?

It is a puzzling thing to me that we should reject the opinions of experts, because they are experts.

Presumably, the people we should be listening to are people who haven't extensively studied the NT texts in question...

Is that the idea?

 

[dejudge]

I never said that you did. Your former religious upbringing obviously didn't afford you much in the way of reading comprehension.

I never said Bart Ehrman was a fundamentalist. I said Bart Ehrman Believes the Bible.

Bart Ehrman claims the Gospels in the Bible contain the history of his Jesus. See "Did Jesus Exist?".

Bart Ehrman is an admitted BIBLE Believer.

1. Ehrman himself claimed he BELIEVES Paul in the BIBLE.

2. Ehrman himself claimed Jesus in the BIBLE CERTAINLY existed.

3. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was Baptized.

4. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it claims Jesus was crucified under Pilate.

5. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE contains INDEPENDENT historical sources for his Jesus.

6. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus was a PREACHER.

7. Ehrman BELIEVES the BIBLE where it is claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth.

See "Did Jesus Exist?" by Bart Ehrman.

And there you go with the same pathetic argument all over again. It's like asking a detective if he believes a witness's testimony, and having him say, "Parts of it, but most of it is false and/or mistaken", and then turning around and saying, "He believes his testimony!".

Bible Believers do NOT have to believe all of the Bible.

Catholics, Protestants, Seventh Day Adventists, many Liberal Christians, Fundamentalists and HJers BELIEVE the Bible where it is claimed Jesus did exist even though it stated he was God Creator, the Son of God BORN of a Ghost.

It is clear that, to you, the only acceptable position to take is that every aspect of the New Testament is false. You can't abide someone saying, "Most of it is false, but there seem to be a few kernels of truth regarding certain persons and events". To you, the only acceptable position is one just as extreme as that of a fundamentalist believer, but in the opposite direction, yet no less viscerally based.

What fallacies!!

HJers are like fundamentalists. HJers BELIEVE the Bible contains the history for Jesus of Nazareth and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

HJers and fundamentalists have Blind Faith in the Bible as an historical source for their Jesus.

I reject the Bible as a historical source for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

 

[dejudge]

It is a puzzling thing to me that we should reject the opinions of experts, because they are experts.

Presumably, the people we should be listening to are people who haven't extensively studied the NT texts in question...

Is that the idea?

Your statement is rather puzzling. You reject the opinion of experts.

You reject Richard Carrier 's [an historian] claim that Jesus was a figure of myth.

You reject Christian Scholars , like Ratzinger and Robert Van Voorst when they argue that the Historical Jesus was a resurrected being.

 

[dejudge]

And yet you claim there isn't any.

Stop lying.

What Lies!!

It is YOU who admitted that you NEVER claimed to have had evidence for an HJ and blatantly contradicted yourself by stating the evidence is Terrible.

1. You have NO EVIDENCE for an HJ.

2. You have NO Terrible evidence for an HJ.

There is EVIDENCE for a GHOST called Jesus.

Ghost stories of Jesus have been RECOVERED and Dated.

Jesus was God Creator and BORN of a Ghost.

I like the EVIDENCE.

 

[David Mo]

Well he is not a “historian” by the usual definition, because he does not have any qualifications in mainstream history as a subject, and he does not teach or conduct research in a university history department.

That's not a "usual" definition. It's a personal definition you use in order to disqualify Christian historians.

Here is a usual definition:

Historian:
“An expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon”. (Oxford dictionary)


I don't think to refute doctrinaire historians is wrong but not with such a priori argument.

Furthermore, neither Earl Doherty nor Richard Carrier are historians according to your definition. Almost all the mythicist historians are practically excluded. For me Earl Doherty is as a historian as Bart Ehrman or G.E.M. de Ste. Croix… at least according to the usual definition of the Oxford dictionary.

 

[IanS]

I see, so Ehrman's branch of study relating to the origins and growth of early Christianity is too specialized for him to be termed an historian. That strikes me as rather like saying that a biochemist isn't an engineer because he's too specialized and doesn't know how to design a suspension bridge.

No it’s not because it’s “too specialized”. It’s because it’s too religious.

History is defined as, "the study of past events", and an historian is defined as, "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon". Ehrman and other secular New Testament scholars would certainly seem to fit that bill.

A “historian” is not merely a student or anyone who is considered by someone to be an “expert” (much as I have complete respect for all students in any level/field of education, and also for the enthusiast commitment of amateur experts in many fields). Students are … “students”, ie yet to be qualified and practicing academic research. And amateurs, however expert, are not “historians”, they are expert amateurs.

What is usually meant by a term like “historian”, or “scientist”, or similar professions, is not an amateur expert or an undergraduate student, and nor in those particular fields does it usually mean anyone working outside of university research at post doctorate level. It almost always means a fully tenured, fully qualified, university lecturing position.

There's an interesting comment on page five of my copy:

"Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced."

Why do you think that is an “interesting” comment?

Because it describes you and dejudge quite well.

It describes me quite well does it? OK, please quote where I have ever supported any “conspiracy theory” of any kind anywhere on any forum anywhere on the entire internet?

Please Quote where I have ever said there is a conspiracy here amongst bible Scholars or anyone else to misrepresent anything about their beliefs in Jesus, God, the bible, Christianity, or any aspect of any part of this.

No, he isn't. Once again we see evidence of your poor reading comprehension. He is describing a certain class of mythicists. Nowhere does he claim that all who doubt the scholarly consensus are "conspiracy theorists". In fact, in the same introduction that dejudge cited, Ehrman states, "These sundry books and articles (not to mention websites) are of varying quality. Some of them rival The Da Vinci Code in their passion for conspiracy and the shallowness of their historical knowledge, not just of the New Testament and early Christianity, but of ancient religions generally and, even more broadly, the ancient world. But a couple of bona fide scholars—not professors teaching religious studies in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D. in the field of New Testament—have taken this position and written about it".."

Why are you now quoting something else from Ehrman’s book when you are complaining about the responses I made to an entirely different quote that you previously quoted from Ehrman’s book?

Here is what you previously quoted -

There's an interesting comment on page five of my copy:

"Still, as is clear from the avalanche of sometimes outraged postings on all the relevant Internet sites, there is simply no way to convince conspiracy theorists that the evidence for their position is too thin to be convincing and that the evidence for a traditional view is thoroughly persuasive. Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced."

And here again (below), is what I said to you about THAT above quote which YOU choose to give -

Ehrman is making the utterly absurd and completely untrue claim that everyone who has expressed doubts about the existence of Jesus, is pedalling a “conspiracy theory”.

Notice in that quote, which was YOUR quote from Ehrman’s book, that he specifically includes “Anyone” who rejects what he says is the “overwhelming” evidence…he is talking in that book specifically about what he says is the evidence for Jesus, and saying that evidence is “overwhelming” for the “overwhelming majority of people”. And then he compares anyone who disagrees with that to Holocaust deniers

Again, he hasn't called them that. But I'm sure that he's also aware that neither of them are historians, either. Wells is a professor of German and Ellegård a professor of English. ."

They are/were, senior academics in mainstream objective university subject areas, that are not associated with the devout religious belief in Gods and miracles that shaped the lives of Ehrman and his colleagues.

Nobody has claimed that Well’s is a professional academic Bible Scholar. And it’s a good job he is not. It’s far better that people like Well’s, Ellegard, and others, inc. sceptics here, have PhD’s (and more) in more serious and objective subjects than religious studies.

Let's look at what Ehrman actually wrote, rather than your edited version:

"Anyone who chooses to believe something contrary to evidence that an overwhelming majority of people find overwhelmingly convincing—whether it involves the fact of the Holocaust, the landing on the moon, the assassination of presidents, or even a presidential place of birth—will not be convinced. Simply will not be convinced."

So we see that Ehrman isn't really saying, as you claim, that everyone who is skeptical of the historicity of Jesus is like a Holocaust denier. He does state that there are people among the mythicists who are similarly motivated to those who deny the Holocaust, etcetera. And remember, he's talking specifically about the Internet here. He's talking about people like you and dejudge.

OK, well I have just dealt with that precise point above. But to repeat that - your own quote (which you gave before) specifically has Ehrman saying “Anyone” who disagrees with what he calls “the evidence” is according the his opening words of that sentence which you just omitted a “conspiracy theorist” (see your fuller original quote of that passage where he says “conspiracy theorist”!). And he is talking there in his book which is specifically about the evidence for Jesus … he is talking completely and entirely about any (i.e. “ALL) sceptics who dispute what he claims is the evidence that makes Jesus a “certainty” … and at the end of that quoted sentence he compares all those sceptics to “Holocaust deniers”.

So your quote from Ehrman does in fact say exactly what I said it did/does.

And this has what to do with Ehrman or any of the other secular academic scholars who hold that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was executed and who's life became the foundation for a broad mythology (mythologies, really)?".."

Well I just explained that to you in the previous post, and in some detail. Please re-read the explanation which I already gave to you. Here it is again to help you-

… most people in Christian countries, e.g. in Europe and the USA, grow up with religious studies taught to them in junior schools where they are told about Jesus and the bible as if it was all uncontested certain fact. And most people never have reason to doubt the existence of Jesus, because they never bother to check whether the claims made by the Christian church for the past 2000 years are actually confirmed by reliable evidence.

That's just a pathetic argument. "Ehrman and other scholars study the New Testament. And religious fundamentalists who believe the Bible to be historically true in every sense also "study" the Bible, therefor Ehrman's position is no better logically supported than those of fundamentalist believers." You know full well that Ehrman isn't referring to people like James Dobson or Bob Jones when he refers to New Testament scholars.

Well this is the same thing again from you yet again. I just explained the answer to that. Here it is again -

And if Ehrman actually means Bible Scholars like himself when he refers to “the overwhelming majority”, then as I just explained above - Bible scholars are most definitely a very specific and unique group of academics who almost always turn out to have a lifelong background totally immersed in religious belief and religious studies as just about the only thing that most of them have ever done in their entire lives. … and that is not by any means the typical sort of neutral background which objective academics are normally expected to bring into their life’s work.

 

[IanS]

And that's supposed to make Ehrman "like" a practicing priest, is it?

It makes Ehrman, Crossan and their Bible studies colleagues of a very similar background in their lifelong immersion in religious beliefs, practices and studies.

That’s a background of faith belief and faith interest which is unique to religious studies. Academics in most other fields do not enter their field with a prior background of faith beliefs in the supernatural. And certainly not supernatural beliefs that are actually the central feature of their entire subject.

 

[Brainache]

It makes Ehrman, Crossan and their Bible studies colleagues of a very similar background in their lifelong immersion in religious beliefs, practices and studies.

That’s a background of faith belief and faith interest which is unique to religious studies. Academics in most other fields do not enter their field with a prior background of faith beliefs in the supernatural. And certainly not supernatural beliefs that are actually the central feature of their entire subject.

Here is a list of the Universities in the UK: (spoilered for length)

University of Aberdeen
University of Abertay Dundee
Aberystwyth University
Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge
The Arts University Bournemouth
University of the Arts London
Camberwell College of Arts
Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
Chelsea College of Art and Design
London College of Communication
London College of Fashion
Wimbledon College of Art
Aston University, Birmingham
Bangor University
University of Bath
Bath Spa University
University of Bedfordshire, Luton and Bedford
University of Birmingham
Birmingham City University
Birmingham Conservatoire
University College Birmingham
Bishop Grosseteste University
University Centre at Blackburn College, Blackburn
University of Bolton
Bournemouth University
BPP University
University of Bradford
University of Brighton
Brighton and Sussex Medical School - students here are technically full members of both the University of Brighton and the University of Sussex
University of Bristol
Brunel University, Uxbridge and London
University of Buckingham
Buckinghamshire New University, High Wycombe


The iconic King's College Chapel of the University of Cambridge (centre), built between 1441 and 1515
University of Cambridge
Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, Thanet, Tunbridge Wells and Chatham
Cardiff University
Cardiff International Academy of Voice
Cardiff University School of Medicine
Cardiff Metropolitan University (UWIC)
University of Central Lancashire, Preston and Burnley
University of Chester, Chester and Warrington
University of Chichester
City University London
Cass Business School
City Law School
Coventry University
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Shrivenham and Silsoe
University for the Creative Arts, Canterbury, Epsom, Farnham, Maidstone and Rochester
University of Cumbria, Carlisle (main campus), Penrith and Ambleside
De Montfort University, Leicester
University of Derby
University of Dundee


Durham Castle, a building of Durham University
Durham University, Durham and Stockton-on-Tees (Queen's Campus)
University of East Anglia, Norwich
University of East London
University of East London School of Law
Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, Lancashire


The Old College of the University of Edinburgh
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh Napier University
University of Essex, Colchester and Southend-on-Sea
University of Exeter
Camborne School of Mines
Falmouth University
Dartington College of Arts
University of Glasgow
Glasgow Caledonian University
University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, Gloucester and London
University of Greenwich
Glyndŵr University, Wrexham
Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh and Galashiels
University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield
University of the Highlands & Islands, Inverness (main campus), Elgin, Perth & across north and western Scotland
University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield & Barnsley
University of Hull, Hull and Scarborough
Hull York Medical School (HYMS)


Imperial College London
Imperial College London
Imperial College at Wye
Royal School of Mines
Keele University, Staffordshire
University of Kent, Canterbury and Medway
Kingston University
Lancaster University


The Parkinson Building at the University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Leeds
Leeds Metropolitan University
Leeds Trinity University, Horsforth, Leeds
University of Leicester
University of Lincoln, Lincoln, Hull, Riseholme and Holbeach
University of Liverpool
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
Liverpool Hope University
Liverpool John Moores University


Senate House, University of London
University of London
Birkbeck, University of London
Central School of Speech and Drama
Courtauld Institute of Art
Goldsmiths, University of London
Heythrop College
Institute of Cancer Research
Institute of Education
King's College London
Institute of Psychiatry (IOP)
London Business School
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE)
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Queen Mary, University of London
Royal Academy of Music


The Founder's Building of Royal Holloway
Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham
Royal Veterinary College
St George's, University of London
School of Advanced Study
Institute for the Study of the Americas
Institute of Advanced Legal Studies
Institute of Classical Studies
Institute of Commonwealth Studies
Institute of English Studies
Institute of Germanic & Romance Studies
Institute of Historical Research
Institute of Musical Research
Institute of Philosophy
Warburg Institute
School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
School of Pharmacy, University of London


University College London Main Building
University College London (UCL)
Eastman Dental Institute
Institute of Archaeology
Institute of Child Health
Institute of Neurology
School of Slavonic and East European Studies (SSEES)
University Marine Biological Station, Millport (shared with the University of Glasgow)
London Metropolitan University
London South Bank University
Loughborough University


The Main Quadrangle of the University of Manchester
University of Manchester
Manchester Metropolitan University
Middlesex University, London
Newcastle University
Newman University, Birmingham
University of Northampton
Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne
Norwich University of the Arts
University of Nottingham
Nottingham Trent University
The Open University, Milton Keynes (an open-access distance learning university)
The OU also offers courses on nursing in alliance with the Royal College of Nursing Institute


The Radcliffe Camera, University of Oxford
University of Oxford
Oxford Brookes University
University of Plymouth
University of Portsmouth
Queen's University Belfast
St Mary's University College
Stranmillis University College
Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh
University of Reading
The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen
Roehampton University, London
Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester
Royal College of Art, London


St Salvator's Quad at the University of St Andrews
University of St Andrews
University of St Mark & St John, Plymouth
University of Salford
University of Sheffield
Sheffield Hallam University
University of Southampton
Southampton Solent University
University of South Wales, merger of University of Wales, Newport and University of Glamorgan
Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Lichfield
University of Stirling, Bridge of Allan


University of Strathclyde
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
University of Sunderland
University of Surrey, Guildford
University of Sussex, Falmer and Brighton
Swansea Metropolitan University
Swansea University
Teesside University, Middlesbrough and Darlington


University of Ulster, Belfast
University of Ulster, Coleraine, Jordanstown, Magee and Belfast
University of Wales, undergoing a merger with Trinity Saint David and Swansea Metropolitan
University of Wales, Trinity Saint David
University of Warwick, Coventry
University of West London, Ealing and Brentford
London College of Music
University of Westminster, London
University of the West of England, Bristol
University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Hamilton, Ayr & Dumfries
University of Winchester
University of Wolverhampton
University of Worcester
University of York
York St John University

Now, out of that list, many if not most of those places will teach courses on History. Many would cover the Ancient Near East, as that is a popular area of study.

No one in any of those Universities is teaching Carrier's Myth Jesus. Why not pick one and give them a call to find out why that is?

 

[IanS]

You're doing it again. Crossan left the priesthood in the late 1960s. You are using a form of argumentum ad hominem. What about dejudge? He used to be a Christian. Is his position to be dismissed because he used to believe Christian dogma?

Afaik, Crossan is still a devout Christian. The fact that he was ever a practicing priest at all, compromises his neutrality and objectivity as an academic making pronouncements about what he says are "facts" about Jesus. His background, which is one of a whole lifetime absolutely drowning in religious belief and all manner of religious, theological and priestly studies, means that he certainly does not have a neutral objective and impartial history in respect of this subject.

As far as any named participants here are concerned - I expect there are quite a few people in these HJ threads who have at one time believed the Christian biblical teaching and attended church etc. As it happens I am not one of them. Though I have not criticised anyone here for any such Christian beliefs, in any way at all.

However we are talking about Bart Ehrman (notice the title of this thread). And we are talking about what Ehrman says is the evidence that convinces him and what he says is the "overwhelming majority" of his colleagues and everyone else, that Jesus, in Ehrman's words, "certainly, definitely, did exist".

It is not an-ad hominem against anyone in this thread, to criticise public figures like Ehrman & Crossan etc., who have knowingly put themselves up for public scrutiny and public criticism by selling commercial books making claims about Jesus. Ehrman is not beyond criticism, and neither is his profession of NT religious studies and bible criticism etc.

This is not a typical objective academic university subject area. And it's practitioners are not typical neutral, impartial objective researchers in their field. It’s a field which is compromised by almost all it’s practitioners having a background of religious faith, and where their studies depend on the ancient writing from people of extreme religious beliefs in the supernatural.

 

[Brainache]

...
This is not a typical objective academic university subject area. And it's practitioners are not typical neutral, impartial objective researchers in their field. It’s a field which is compromised by almost all it’s practitioners having a background of religious faith, and where their studies depend on the ancient writing from people of extreme religious beliefs in the supernatural.

Evidence?

ETA: What about the Jewish Scholars? What's their motive to argue for a HJ?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I never said Bart Ehrman was a fundamentalist. I said Bart Ehrman Believes the Bible.

Bart Ehrman claims the Gospels in the Bible contain the history of his Jesus. See "Did Jesus Exist?".

Sorry to butt in, but could I ask for clarification on what you wrote above. Bart Ehrman does not believe that everything in the gospels is historical. Are you arguing that he thinks that? It is difficult to tell from what you wrote above. Ehrman thinks most of it is myth.

HJers are like fundamentalists. HJers BELIEVE the Bible contains the history for Jesus of Nazareth and do so WITHOUT corroboration.

HJers and fundamentalists have Blind Faith in the Bible as an historical source for their Jesus.

I reject the Bible as a historical source for Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'without corroboration' in reference to HJers believing that the gospels and letters of Paul contain some historical information. One of the cornerstones of HJ work is to use extra-biblical source material as corroboration. The problem is that there is so very little of it and what we do have is problematical.

Of course it is true that there are no clear, unequivocal, or non-problematic roughly contemporary references to an historical Jesus outside of the gospels and letters of Paul. Josephus is the closest, but the two passages that exist from his writings are controversial to say the least.

Why do you reject the gospels and Paul's letters as historical sources regarding Jesus? How can you do so, out of hand, without revealing what sounds to an outside observer as a fairly strong anti-Christian or anti-religious bias?

Just wondering.

 

[Belz...]

Welcome to the forum, Phil, and good luck with that.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Afaik, Crossan is still a devout Christian. The fact that he was ever a practicing priest at all, compromises his neutrality and objectivity as an academic making pronouncements about what he says are "facts" about Jesus. His background, which is one of a whole lifetime absolutely drowning in religious belief and all manner of religious, theological and priestly studies, means that he certainly does not have a neutral objective and impartial history in respect of this subject.

As far as any named participants here are concerned - I expect there are quite a few people in these HJ threads who have at one time believed the Christian biblical teaching and attended church etc. As it happens I am not one of them. Though I have not criticised anyone here for any such Christian beliefs, in any way at all.

However we are talking about Bart Ehrman (notice the title of this thread). And we are talking about what Ehrman says is the evidence that convinces him and what he says is the "overwhelming majority" of his colleagues and everyone else, that Jesus, in Ehrman's words, "certainly, definitely, did exist".

It is not an-ad hominem against anyone in this thread, to criticise public figures like Ehrman & Crossan etc., who have knowingly put themselves up for public scrutiny and public criticism by selling commercial books making claims about Jesus. Ehrman is not beyond criticism, and neither is his profession of NT religious studies and bible criticism etc.

This is not a typical objective academic university subject area. And it's practitioners are not typical neutral, impartial objective researchers in their field. It’s a field which is compromised by almost all it’s practitioners having a background of religious faith, and where their studies depend on the ancient writing from people of extreme religious beliefs in the supernatural.

While I generally agree, I must point out something else. It is impossible to argue from a completely dispassionate position; that is not the way humans work.

The 'objectivity' of the New York Times in the early part of the last century was an advertising slogan. They don't even try to argue that they are objective any longer. The same can be said of the Royal Society when it devised it rules for scientific publication. That was an attempt to ward off easy objections by claiming objectivity and writing pieces in a particular way.

Academics are well aware of this. Scientists are well aware of this. That is why academics employ clearly stated criteria in their analyses.

I'm afraid that arguing that a group of scholars is biased tells us nothing. All scholars have biases. Focusing on one group of potential biases and arguing that the scholars conclusions are not valid because of the perceived biases is the definition of ad hominem attack.

I think it might be more prudent to focus on the criteria employed by the scholars in question. That would constitute a valid attack on their work and their conclusions.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Welcome to the forum, Phil, and good luck with that.

Thank you

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

No it’s not because it’s “too specialized”. It’s because it’s too religious.

Could I ask for a point of clarification? Is it not possible to study religious material from an historical perspective? Is it not possible to employ the criteria that other historians use in their analyses to religious material? Is that not what Ehrman does?

A “historian” is not merely a student or anyone who is considered by someone to be an “expert” (much as I have complete respect for all students in any level/field of education, and also for the enthusiast commitment of amateur experts in many fields). Students are … “students”, ie yet to be qualified and practicing academic research. And amateurs, however expert, are not “historians”, they are expert amateurs.

What is usually meant by a term like “historian”, or “scientist”, or similar professions, is not an amateur expert or an undergraduate student, and nor in those particular fields does it usually mean anyone working outside of university research at post doctorate level. It almost always means a fully tenured, fully qualified, university lecturing position.

Which describes Ehrman. He is a tenured professor in an academic position using historical methods to study religious content. Whether we want to call him an historian or not is beside the point. What matters are the actual arguments. Do the arguments hold water or not?

I'm not really sure why anyone would have a problem with someone claiming that Ehrman is an authority on this matter. I would say the same about others who completely disagree with his position.

I know I'm just butting in here, but I think for all involved that arguing about his status as a scholar is a waste of time.

 

[IanS]

Sorry to butt in, but could I ask for clarification on what you wrote above. Bart Ehrman does not believe that everything in the gospels is historical. Are you arguing that he thinks that? It is difficult to tell from what you wrote above. Ehrman thinks most of it is myth.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'without corroboration' in reference to HJers believing that the gospels and letters of Paul contain some historical information. One of the cornerstones of HJ work is to use extra-biblical source material as corroboration. The problem is that there is so very little of it and what we do have is problematical.

Of course it is true that there are no clear, unequivocal, or non-problematic roughly contemporary references to an historical Jesus outside of the gospels and letters of Paul. Josephus is the closest, but the two passages that exist from his writings are controversial to say the least.

Why do you reject the gospels and Paul's letters as historical sources regarding Jesus? How can you do so, out of hand, without revealing what sounds to an outside observer as a fairly strong anti-Christian or anti-religious bias?

Just wondering.

I appreciate that you are specifically addressing those questions to what dejudge said. However it might help to clarify some of the sceptic position here if I make a couple of comments on the above -


On the first point - I don’t think any sceptics here are claiming that Ehrman (or any academic Bible Scholars) thinks everything in the bible is literally true. But what is being said, is that he and others do think that some of what the bible says about Jesus is actually true of a living HJ.

Second point - most sceptics here (and perhaps even all of them) are actually saying very little more than you yourself just said when you talked about the fact that there are “no clear, unequivocal, or non-problematic roughly contemporary references to an historical Jesus outside of the gospels and letters of Paul. Josephus is the closest, but the two passages that exist from his writings are controversial to say the least.”. IOW - 99% of what all sceptics are saying in 99% of these HJ threads, is simply that the evidence claimed for Jesus is by no means reliable enough to conclude that Jesus probably existed, let alone to conclude as Ehrman, Crossan and all those who Ehrman described as “almost every properly trained scholar on the planet", that Jesus “certainly” “definitely” did exist.

Last point -the reason most sceptics reject the letters of Paul and the canonical gospels as evidence of Jesus is because they are (a) not remotely reliable in terms of the authenticity and veracity of their anonymous authors, and (b) not by any means credible in what they claim about a messiah that none of them ever knew but who they reported as believed by other unknown people to have been constantly performing all manner of miracles which, although no doubt universally believed at the time as both true and also as certain proof that Jesus was indeed the promised messiah, were then shown 1800 years later by science to be “certainly” all untrue fiction.

IOW - the whole thing comes down to the need for properly reliable evidence. And there simply isn’t any.