Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[proudfootz]

Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall said the same thing: "We shall land in considerable confusion if we embark on an inquiry about the historical Jesus if we do not pause to ask ourselves exactly what we are talking about." (Marshall, Ian Howard. I Believe in the Historical Jesus. Regent College Publishing, 2004, p. 27-29.)

The biggest problem with the whole MJ vs HJ debate is it is presented in such black and white terms.

As I said before a man who ran though the Temple trashing the place screaming "I am Jesus King of the Jews" who is cut down by a guard during the rule of Pontius Pilatus would NOT be a HJ by the standard MJer John Robertson set forth in 1900 ("What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded.") or by Marshall's second standard (Gospels accounts give a reasonable account of historical events).

Or what about "Jesuses" inspired by Paul's teachings? It would be one way to explain his 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 warning about being "corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" by "another Jesus, whom we have not preached," "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted". Who or what were the other Jesuses Paul wrote of?

It is an interesting question for me what would an 'historical Jesus' consist of? I'm guessing every scholar probably has something in mind which might not match what another scholar would propose. Must this man be named 'Jesus'? Must he be a native Galilean? Must he have lived in AD? Or could he be from an earlier (or later) time?

It is interesting that there are supposed to have been 'other Jesuses' preached. Is this merely a rhetorical flourish about the interpretations of the Jesus idea? Or were there literally different candidates?

I think one thing that keeps the whole debate about who was (or whether there ever was) THE historical Jesus from settling down into a narrow channel is that on the one hand we have too little definitive evidence and on the other hand too many possible solutions to the puzzle.

Thanks!

 

[maximara]

Yes.
Yet again I've expressed my self badly.
Pliny refers to Christians in the second century.
His friend and colleague, Tacitus, writing in the second century, refers to a cult in Rome at the time of the Great Fire.
Sorry to be so unclear.

Except Pliny the Elder and Josephus who were both in Rome in the 60s don't mention the cult at all. Suetonius, the only other person of Tacitus time to supposedly mention "Christians" mentions them some 16 paragraphs before he mentions the fire implying that Nero's attack on them began well before the first...which means Josephus would have been a witness to it and if the TF was in anyway genuine would have mentioned it.

More over the cult Tacitus refereed to was Chrestians not Christians and Tertullian and other went to great pains to explain that Chrestians and Christians were NOT variants of each other but in reality two separate terms.

"If Chrestians is a variant spelling of Christians then why do the early Christian authorities, such as Tertuallian, take issue with the two being used interchangeably? He clarifies that Chrestian is a proper term in it's own right. It is a different word with a different meaning - not a variant." (Christian, Yeremyah)

"Indeed, even the Papyrology Unit within the University of Oxford, for the 3rd century P.Oxy 3035, renders the term "Chresian" as "Christian". Various reasons for this type of emendation and/or translation are provided, including misspelling by the original scribes, Iotacism, and orthographic errors. If any of these reasons were correct, then it would be reasonable to expect a mixture of the terms "Chrestian" and "Christian" in the sources, but a mixture is certainly not found." (The sources of "Chrestian" [χρηστιανος] and "Christian" [χριστιανος] in Antiquity)

In fact the very word "Christian" in any actual contemporary (ie not a copy made in a later century) document doesn't appear until the late 2nd early 3rd centuries with Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian and it doesn't appear in any Bible until the middle 5th century.

So at best it appears Tacitus and Suetonius were repeating an urban myth about Chrestians and since the very word "Christian" doesn't appear until much latter is uncertain if Pliny the Younger was dealing with Christians as we know them or Chrestians (our oldest copy of him is from the 6th century) who may or may not have revered Christ.

 

[Brainache]

The Historical Jesus is a Hoax.

Please, get enrolled at YALE--Dr. Dale Martin may want to tutor you about his personal belief that Jesus was born of a Ghost who resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Please, go to the 38th minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkjzQO5aaSc

Dr. Dale Martin a Christian Scholar, an historian at Yale, personally believes Jesus was 100% God and 100% man and PRAYS to Jesus and REPEATS the Apostles' Creed


Dr. Dale Martin at Yale personally believes Jesus was BORN of a Ghost.


Apostles' Creed


1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:

4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:

5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:

7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:

8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:

9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:

10. The forgiveness of sins:

1l. The resurrection of the body:

12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

We are all familiar with your uninformed opinion dejudge.

There is no need for you to keep repeating this nonsense.

 

[Craig B]

Do you mean whether or not 1st century Christians used that term for themselves?
How could Acts help us there?

By telling us that the name was applied to them in Antioch, in a context referring to an early conversion campaign.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

You seem largely to have answered your own question about evidence, by reciting some of the best of it. As with any contingent uncertainty, you apply the evidence and draw your own conclusions. In this particular case, the spread along trade routes, etc. (you recall our Alaskan friend's view) points to First Century activity, rather than an explosion in 110, say.

"Internal evidence" is also crucial. The story is that a guy killed by Pontius Pilate will return to Earth before his friends (and the storyteller) die. This story, the very core of Paul's teaching, has a rigidly limited shelf-life. A Second Century onset theory has some difficulty there. "Jesus was supposed to have come back" was first taught when it was clear that Jesus hadn't?

Anything's possible in religious fantasy, but this theory needs some work, I think. Then again, John Frum. Meh, maybe it still needs work.


dejudge

You don't have any actual evidence for what you write so please stop wasting my time.

My posts cannot waste your time except that you read them. Look to yourself to remedy your complaint.

An "argument from silence" would be an inference that something happened because something else did not happen. You had observed that Josephus was silent about Χριστιανός.. As you rightly point out, nothing interesting follows from your observation.

 

[dejudge]

We are all familiar with your uninformed opinion dejudge.

There is no need for you to keep repeating this nonsense.

What a big lie.

I present the FACTS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkjzQO5aaSc

At around the 38th minute Dr. Dale Martin, an historian at Yale, admits he personally believes the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Apostles Creed.

Amazingly, Dr Dale Martin does NOT teach what he actually Believes.

 

[maximara]

It is an interesting question for me what would an 'historical Jesus' consist of? I'm guessing every scholar probably has something in mind which might not match what another scholar would propose. Must this man be named 'Jesus'? Must he be a native Galilean? Must he have lived in AD? Or could he be from an earlier (or later) time?

It is interesting that there are supposed to have been 'other Jesuses' preached. Is this merely a rhetorical flourish about the interpretations of the Jesus idea? Or were there literally different candidates?

I think one thing that keeps the whole debate about who was (or whether there ever was) THE historical Jesus from settling down into a narrow channel is that on the one hand we have too little definitive evidence and on the other hand too many possible solutions to the puzzle

Well Paul's "another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted" would seem to cover 'the interpretations of the Jesus idea' concept well enough which still leaves the "another Jesus, whom we have not preached" concept.

A trip to Greekbible give us this (the highlighted part is "another Jesus"):

ΕΙ ΜΕΝ ΓΑΡ Ο ΕΡΧΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΑΛΛΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΗΡΥΣΣΕΙ ΟΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΚΗΡΥΞΑΜΕΝ Η ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΕΤΕΡΟΝ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΤΕ Ο ΟΥΚ ΕΛΑΒΕΤΕ Η ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΕΤΕΡΟΝ Ο ΟΥΚ ΕΔΕΞΑΣΘΕ ΚΑΛΩΣ ΑΝΕΧΕΣΘΕ

Which doesn't clarify anything but it is somewhat more useful then dealing with all the variant English translations.

 

[proudfootz]

What a big lie.

I present the FACTS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkjzQO5aaSc

At around the 38th minute Dr. Dale Martin, an historian at Yale, admits he personally believes the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Apostles Creed.

Amazingly, Dr Dale Martin does NOT teach what he actually Believes.

This just means one less 'secular scholar' believes in an historical Jesus, and one more christian.

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

At around the 38th minute Dr. Dale Martin, an historian at Yale, admits he personally believes the Nicene Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity and the Apostles Creed.

That's nice. It's not news that Martin is a prominent "high church" Episcopalian (American branch of the Anglican Communion), and is especially well-known as an advisor to that church on LGBT issues. Thus, he regularly and publicly professes the Nicene Creed.

Amazingly, Dr Dale Martin does NOT teach what he actually Believes.

That is what you need evidence for, especially since you just linked to a clip of him teaching, and saying from the stage that he believes the Creeds.

 

[dejudge]

This just means one less 'secular scholar' believes in an historical Jesus, and one more christian.

There may be hundreds of Christians Scholars who believe Jesus was God Incarnate.

It would appear that Christian Scholars personally believe in a Mythological Jesus yet argue that their Jesus was a figure of history.

This is tantamount to deception.

If a person knows that they have no evidence for an historical Jesus and believe Jesus was a Myth [a God Incarnate] then it is completely unacceptable that such a person should teach others exactly what they do not believe.

 

[Brainache]

dejudge


That's nice. It's not news that Martin is a prominent "high church" Episcopalian (American branch of the Anglican Communion), and is especially well-known as an advisor to that church on LGBT issues. Thus, he regularly and publicly professes the Nicene Creed.


That is what you need evidence for, especially since you just linked to a clip of him teaching, and saying from the stage that he believes the Creeds.

He also doesn't appear to be teaching anyone else to believe the Nicene creed.

He is teaching History, not Theology in that video.

 

[Craig B]

dejudge


That's nice. It's not news that Martin is a prominent "high church" Episcopalian (American branch of the Anglican Communion), and is especially well-known as an advisor to that church on LGBT issues. Thus, he regularly and publicly professes the Nicene Creed.


That is what you need evidence for, especially since you just linked to a clip of him teaching, and saying from the stage that he believes the Creeds.

Maybe when dejudge writes

Amazingly, Dr Dale Martin does NOT teach what he actually Believes

he means that he is astonished that Dr Martin doesn't teach people the Nicene Creed as part of his curriculum, though he actually believes it. However, people reading dejudge's words would infer that Dr Martin was hypocritically teaching something contrary to the creed which he professes.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

He also doesn't appear to be teaching anyone else to believe the Nicene creed.

He is teaching History, not Theology in that video.

It's a little tricky. At Yale, what Martin teaches can fairly be described as "history and literature." Like many Ivy Leagure professors, he also speaks at other public and acadmeic gatherings besides his classes. That particular video shows a discussion (not, by agreement of the participants and sponsor, a debate) on a subject that is plainly chirstological, and so could fairly be included under the rubric of theology.

It is an inescapable fact that the Christians continue what they received from their Jewish antecedents: that God works in history, It follows, then, that there will necessarily be an intersection between historical issues and Judeo-Christian theological ones. It cannot be helped.

Craig B

...Dr Martin doesn't teach people the Nicene Creed as part of his curriculum, though he actually believes it....

I'm not 100% sure of that. The Nicene Creed, or even the Apostles' Creed, is too late to have much weight in the concerns of this video, or in his Yale open course on the New Testament and other early Christian literaure. Martin has written a great deal about the development of Christian attitudes about several isues, however. It's hard to believe that he doesn't teach about the Creeds in the ordinary course of his duties, including what he personally believes about them. Yale has been a secular university for a long time now, so evangelizing students isn't part of a professor's duties. Describing one's own views, when pertinent to the subject matter, sound like a good idea to me. Regardless, there's nothing secret or hidden about Martin's views.

 

[Brainache]

Brainache




It's a little tricky. At Yale, what Martin teaches can fairly be described as "history and literature." Like many Ivy Leagure professors, he also speaks at other public and acadmeic gatherings besides his classes. That particular video shows a discussion (not, by agreement of the participants and sponsor, a debate) on a subject that is plainly chirstological, and so could fairly be included under the rubric of theology.

It is an inescapable fact that the Christians continue what they received from their Jewish antecedents: that God works in history, It follows, then, that there will necessarily be an intersection between historical issues and Judeo-Christian theological ones. It cannot be helped.

I agree that there must be some overlap in subject matter, but I don't believe he is trying to convince his audience of the divinity of Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity.

He is talking about the Historical research into the origins of Christianity, not Jesus as saviour. So when dejudge attacks him for being Christian, he is just arguing ad hominem.

For dejudge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

[maximara]

pakeha

You seem largely to have answered your own question about evidence, by reciting some of the best of it. As with any contingent uncertainty, you apply the evidence and draw your own conclusions. In this particular case, the spread along trade routes, etc. (you recall our Alaskan friend's view) points to First Century activity, rather than an explosion in 110, say.

"Internal evidence" is also crucial. The story is that a guy killed by Pontius Pilate will return to Earth before his friends (and the storyteller) die. This story, the very core of Paul's teaching, has a rigidly limited shelf-life. A Second Century onset theory has some difficulty there. "Jesus was supposed to have come back" was first taught when it was clear that Jesus hadn't?

Anything's possible in religious fantasy, but this theory needs some work, I think. Then again, John Frum. Meh, maybe it still needs work.

Well based on "Frier's Life Table for the Roman Empire" the whole idea of "guy killed by Pontius Pilate will return to Earth before his friends (and the storyteller) die" was on life support by the time Paul started writing in c50 CE.

Assuming a 20 year old listened to Jesus 36 CE using the table get a 74% chance he was still alive in 51 CE and 46% chance of still being alive by 66 CE the year before Paul is thought have been killed (And Paul never directly state who crucified Jesus only vague references to it) By 71 CE it is down to 36%, 76 is 27%, 81 is 18%, 86 is 11% and I think you get the idea.

And these are for the entire empire much of which was at peace. The region Paul mainly preached in was anything but peaceful with would be messiah leading their followers to certain doom from 4 BCE all the way to 70 CE meaning that the survivability percentages are even lower then what I am calculating.

Then you have the fact that the first attempt to collect Paul's writing and a Gospel into one work doesn't occur until c140 by which time it is time for that Red Dwarf joke of "Everybody's dead".

 

[dejudge]

dejudge.....That is what you need evidence for, especially since you just linked to a clip of him teaching, and saying from the stage that he believes the Creeds.

Dr. Dale Martin teaches the REAL Jesus is NOT the historical Jesus.

Dr. Dale Martin has confirmed inadvertently that the historical Jesus is a Hoax.

The REAL Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Please, go the 42nd minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkjzQO5aaSc

 

[Brainache]

Dr. Dale Martin teaches the REAL Jesus is NOT the historical Jesus.

Dr. Dale Martin has confirmed inadvertently that the historical Jesus is a Hoax.

The REAL Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.

Please, go the 42nd minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkjzQO5aaSc

Well, OK. I haven't seen that video before.

After he talks about his "real Jesus" (ie: The Jesus of his faith) he goes on to explain what the Historical Jesus is.

Did you block your ears for that bit?

The video I linked to was a lecture at the University:



Not a religious seminar.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

Sorry I screwed up the formatting, since fixed.

I don't believe he is trying to convince his audience of the divinity of Christ, or the doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes, I think that's right. Also, Martin seems to do his best to keep the discussion focused on an actual question of fact, what a historical figure thought about himself. For the purposes of that discussion, the existence of the historical figure can simply be assumed. It's a perfectly fine, well-posed hypothetical that way.


max

Well based on "Frier's Life Table for the Roman Empire" the whole idea of "guy killed by Pontius Pilate will return to Earth before his friends (and the storyteller) die" was on life support by the time Paul started writing in c50 CE.

If Paul was writing about it in 50 CE, then there were First Century Christians, and that much of pakeha's concerns would be resolved.

Obviously the teaching is on "life support" in 1 Coritnthians - Paul is plainly responding to people complaining that he had promised his recruits that they wouldn't die and by the 50's, some recruits had died. The plug isn't pulled until John 21, so far as I can see (and the rest of John prudently omits the Olivet business).

And not that I don't appreciate your mortality calculations, but John 21 seems to be about the last man standing. The "beloved Disciple" (assuming that Mohammed's taste in horizontal playmates is representative of God's taste in prophets) could easily have been ten in 36 CE.

 

[dejudge]

Well, OK. I haven't seen that video before.

After he talks about his "real Jesus" (ie: The Jesus of his faith) he goes on to explain what the Historical Jesus is.

Did you block your ears for that bit?

The video I linked to was a lecture at the University:



Not a religious seminar.

Did you block your ears? He claimed the REAL Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.

You don't understand what 'Real' means.

The REAL Jesus is the Jesus of FAITH.

 

[Brainache]

Did you block your ears? He claimed the REAL Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.

You don't understand what 'Real' means.

The REAL Jesus is the Jesus of FAITH.

Sure, if you are a Christian.

But that is a totally different concept to the Historical Jesus, as Dale Martin explains in the video you linked, so I don't see what the problem is.

If he wants to believe in God and the Trinity, so what? That makes no difference to the evidence that Jesus was a 1st century Jewish preacher.