Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[Brainache]

Craig B


But Jesus' synoptic "family" supposedly thought he was mentally ill. There's no scene where anybody in the family changes their mind and asserts a leadership role in the movement. That would be Luke's job, presumably, to tell that story in Acts. Not a hint. John 7 isn't any keener on the brothers than the synoptics.

Unless Jesus' teachings and deeds were irrelevant to the success of the James Gang, how could the leader of the pack be somebody who wasn't taught and didn't see anything interesting when his "brother" was alive?

proudfootz


That's also the impression I get from Paul himself. Regardless, Paul's stuff seems the earliest among the documents that climax an estimated several decades to one century after the alleged death in the Fourth Gospel's claiming a supporting role for Christ in the creation.


Thank you, but I am unsure there is an academic consensus here: wikipedia + CARM + Bart writing for the popular market doesn't add up to a consensus of academics.


No, my estimate is that two generations of different Christian authors developed their notions after Paul died and before the canon closed. Paul seems fairly even keel (but we have to take his word for that).


Yes, that's also the Jehovah's Witnesses' view. It's not a new idea. BTW, since angels are not God, and are created beings, that is a "middle christology," assuming that angels are higher for Paul than Jews (who also, in some versions of Judaism, have a pre-existence of sorts). If not, then Bart and I would agree on a low christology for Paul, and differ only on the details. (Bart doesn't like "high" and "low" as terms, and I understand why. Paul's actual angelology would be entirely speculative... except that by definition, angels are created beings, not God, so not much high christology there).


... and a mortal. Jesus did die, according to Paul, and Jesus now has the same body that all other (human) righteous mortals will have soon. Paul's Jesus is living as a human being, now.


It's hard to imagine making progress on the HJ question and not to make progress on all the other questions about the earliest church, and vice versa. It's all of a piece, I think.


But there's no indication of that, as has been discussed in these threads ad nauseam.

Thank you Eight Bits for that very informative post.

Your posts are always worth reading on this subject.

I would also like to point out that there is a uniformity amongst the early Church Historians about James as the leader of the Community in Jerusalem after the death of Jesus.

No other name is associated with that position.

And as far as Paul is concerned, there is only one James that anyone in his flock is receiving orders from: "Those from James" come to town and tell people to get circumcised and Paul goes bananas. Not a lot of "Christian Charity" from Paul towards those folks - he wants them to castrate themselves instead of bothering his happy Gentile Christians...

So if someone else was in charge of the group, no one ever mentioned him.

This "James The Just" was the guy who was unlawfully killed by Ananus Bar Ananus in 62 CE, kicking off a chain of events that led to the war. We know of no other James in such a powerful anti-establishment position at that time.

Personally I don't see how it could be anyone else leading a community of The Poor at that time and place without rating a mention anywhere.

 

[proudfootz]

Craig B

But Jesus' synoptic "family" supposedly thought he was mentally ill. There's no scene where anybody in the family changes their mind and asserts a leadership role in the movement. That would be Luke's job, presumably, to tell that story in Acts. Not a hint. John 7 isn't any keener on the brothers than the synoptics.

Unless Jesus' teachings and deeds were irrelevant to the success of the James Gang, how could the leader of the pack be somebody who wasn't taught and didn't see anything interesting when his "brother" was alive?

This is evidence of a wide divergence between the christianity exemplified by the epistles and that of the gospels.

Harmonizing them may not be the correct reading of the divergent strands.

proudfootz

That's also the impression I get from Paul himself. Regardless, Paul's stuff seems the earliest among the documents that climax an estimated several decades to one century after the alleged death in the Fourth Gospel's claiming a supporting role for Christ in the creation.

It appears to me that Paul's estimation of Jesus as some sort of cosmic emissary is rather on the high side.

Thank you, but I am unsure there is an academic consensus here: wikipedia + CARM + Bart writing for the popular market doesn't add up to a consensus of academics.

It's difficult to find where this often named but seldom cited 'academic consensus' can be found. It just seemed I get lots of hits from 'Paul high christology' and virtually nothing when I search for 'Paul low christology'.

I chose a spectrum of cites to show it's not just believers, or agnostics, or whichever group displaying some sort of 'bias'.

No, my estimate is that two generations of different Christian authors developed their notions after Paul died and before the canon closed. Paul seems fairly even keel (but we have to take his word for that).

Certainly 'even keel' is a matter of degree.

Yes, that's also the Jehovah's Witnesses' view. It's not a new idea. BTW, since angels are not God, and are created beings, that is a "middle christology," assuming that angels are higher for Paul than Jews (who also, in some versions of Judaism, have a pre-existence of sorts). If not, then Bart and I would agree on a low christology for Paul, and differ only on the details. (Bart doesn't like "high" and "low" as terms, and I understand why. Paul's actual angelology would be entirely speculative... except that by definition, angels are created beings, not God, so not much high christology there).

Testimony about an angel would seem to me to be rather less helpful in establishing the alleged existence of a mortal man.

... and a mortal. Jesus did die, according to Paul, and Jesus now has the same body that all other (human) righteous mortals will have soon. Paul's Jesus is living as a human being, now.

It may be a matter of interpretation as to whether a cosmic being whose existence pre-dates their brief visit to an earthly body and then returns to their original existence as a powerful spirit should be considered the same as real mortals.

It's hard to imagine making progress on the HJ question and not to make progress on all the other questions about the earliest church, and vice versa. It's all of a piece, I think.

It may be so. The literature is the product of many christian writers with diverse notions and were produced over a long time, and they had no compunction about re-writing materials they came across to suit themselves.

But there's no indication of that, as has been discussed in these threads ad nauseam.

From what I gather Paul himself talks of getting his information from scriptures and visions.

 

[Brainache]

I just have to ask:

Does anyone else here find it strange that out of all of the posters on all of these HJ threads, our new friend proudfootz chose to hitch his wagon to dejudge's star?

Given the intellectual poverty of dejudge's position, his constant repetition of irrelevant nonsense and total lack of any understanding of the study of History, I find it hard to believe that any honest assessment of his position would include the phrase "always worth reading".

How does something like that happen?

 

[proudfootz]

It certainly looks like someone is trying to provoke.

ETA: I'm rather nonplussed at the fervency of this attack, seems out of all proportion to what has been posted.

Knowing of Stone for some time his anger is always out of proportion to the alleged offense.

Some are only here to provoke with their trollery.

That's why these threads always end up 3 times longer than they need be.

If we confined ourselves to the half-dozen quote-mined proof-texts that are used as 'evidence' there must have been a real Jesus, this would be quickly over and done with.

 

[Brainache]

Knowing of Stone for some time his anger is always out of proportion to the alleged offense.

Some are only here to provoke with their trollery.

Indeed.

That's why these threads always end up 3 times longer than they need be.

If we confined ourselves to the half-dozen quote-mined proof-texts that are used as 'evidence' there must have been a real Jesus, this would be quickly over and done with.

Go on then, what's stopping you?

 

[Belz...]

And the John Frum cult was claimed to have existed since the 1910s and he was thought to be a real person by 1957.

Did the author claim to squabble with his predecessors ?

My questions amount to: do the Frum cults apply, here ?

Seriously, it is unlikely the Gospels existed in Paul's time otherwise he would not have written things that conflicted with them and would not have been so vague regarding Jesus.

You misread me. I said "gospels", not "THE gospels".

 

[proudfootz]

Indeed.

Go on then, what's stopping you?

The desire to respond to trolling.

 

[Belz...]

Well, it is unlikely that the Pauline Corpus did exist in the time of the Gospels

Sounds like you have the beginnings of a nice contradiction, there. Keep going.

You forgot that you wrote this.

You have a limited vocabulary, but it is growing:

You have ALREADY exposed Brainache's post as filth, vacuous nonsense--ad hom attacks.

 

[Belz...]

A lot of people who have left Christianity can't seem to get Jesus out of their hearts.

Evidence, please.

 

[dejudge]

This "James The Just" was the guy who was unlawfully killed by Ananus Bar Ananus in 62 CE, kicking off a chain of events that led to the war. We know of no other James in such a powerful anti-establishment position at that time.

There is no person called James the Just in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

James in AJ 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus the Anointed [Χριστός] High Priest the Son of Damneus.

Jewish Kings and High Priest were called Anointed [Χριστός].

The assumed HJ of Nazareth was NOT a King of the Jews nor an High Priest but a Preacher.

If Jesus lived as an obscure preacher then he would NOT be called the Anointed [Χριστός] by Jews.

The Chronicon Paschale

Until Jannaeus, who was also called Alexander, there were annointed leaders; but with him the succession of high priests who led the nation came to an end. They were called Christs by the prophets.

King David was called Christ [Χριστός].

Based on the Preface to the Recognitions, James the Just was still alive when Clement of Rome was about to be Bishop of Rome c 69 CE.

The Preface to the Recognitions

The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord’s brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair[/B] and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it.

There is no evidence whatsoever that James the Just is James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 because his brother Jesus the Anointed was STILL ALIVE in the time of Albinus.

1. James the Just was STILL ALIVE after James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death.

2. Jesus the brother of James in AJ 20.9.1 was STILL ALIVE c 62-64 CE AFTER his brother was stoned to death.

3. Chrysostom admitted James in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of Jesus.

4. Jerome admitted James in AJ 20.9.1 was NOT the brother of Jesus in the NT.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

Thank you for the kind words. The James situation is a mess. At this point, I don't aspire to sort it out, I just observe the unresolved options.


proudfootz

Harmonizing them may not be the correct reading of the divergent strands.

We have some common ground there.

It appears to me that Paul's estimation of Jesus as some sort of cosmic emissary is rather on the high side.

There is no lower christiology than Jesus currently being some sort of cosmic emissary. I don't know that there is any academic consensus on Paul's christology. If there is, I am not sure why term-based search hit counts would help measure it. You presented the example of Ehrman, who does not find an especially high christology in Paul, but clearly would rather not use the term "low christology" for it. JW's (and Muslims) have a low christology, but that's not confined to Paul.

Testimony about an angel would seem to me to be rather less helpful in establishing the alleged existence of a mortal man.

I haven't seen the testimony, so I couldn't say. Paul's Jesus definitely was born human, was Jewish, died, and is now a human being. What, if anything, Paul thought Jesus was before he was born is interesting, but Jesus participated in history is as a human being, or there is no historical Jesus. Stories told after he died don't change that - as long as he actually died.

It may be a matter of interpretation as to whether a cosmic being whose existence pre-dates their brief visit to an earthly body and then returns to their original existence as a powerful spirit ...

Paul's Jesus is now a human being. If Paul believed Jesus was a powerful spirit before his tour of duty, then Paul believes he a different kind of powerful being now, and with the same equipment as every other righteous human being will be given; Jesus just got his first.

From what I gather Paul himself talks of getting his information from scriptures and visions.

Some information, for example, the religious material in Galatians 2: 15 ff. that distinguishes Paul's teaching from other brands then on the market ("my good-message" not "my information").

 

[tsig]

Evidence, please.

Tsig whips out his HeartScope and looks at Brainache's, Beltz's et. al hearts and there it is, a Jesuculus right there in the middle of the heart.

 

[Brainache]

Tsig whips out his HeartScope and looks at Brainache's, Beltz's et. al hearts and there it is, a Jesuculus right there in the middle of the heart.

You really don't understand the difference between Historical research and faith?

That's a bit sad really.

That you can't see past your own bias is pretty obvious by your "contributions" to this debate.

 

[Craig B]

Craig B

But Jesus' synoptic "family" supposedly thought he was mentally ill. There's no scene where anybody in the family changes their mind and asserts a leadership role in the movement. That would be Luke's job, presumably, to tell that story in Acts. Not a hint. John 7 isn't any keener on the brothers than the synoptics.

Unless Jesus' teachings and deeds were irrelevant to the success of the James Gang, how could the leader of the pack be somebody who wasn't taught and didn't see anything interesting when his "brother" was alive?

How it happened is not described in the sources. But apart from Jesus' teaching and deeds there is another significant element: the dynastic. If Jesus was considered to be a Davidic messiah--and I have argued that the expression "son of God" is a Davidic Royal title--then Jesus might well have been succeeded by a blood kinsman as the head of the messianic group. In this conception Peter would be the "chief minister" of the movement, and James would be its "monarch".

 

[proudfootz]

proudfootz

We have some common ground there.

No doubt!

There is no lower christiology than Jesus currently being some sort of cosmic emissary.

I think Jesus being an ordinary human might be 'lower' than a pre-existing angel.

I don't know that there is any academic consensus on Paul's christology. If there is, I am not sure why term-based search hit counts would help measure it. You presented the example of Ehrman, who does not find an especially high christology in Paul, but clearly would rather not use the term "low christology" for it. JW's (and Muslims) have a low christology, but that's not confined to Paul.

Yup, Paul's letters are a mess. But he does seem to be possessed of some pretty far out ideas which would seem to pose some difficulties for the HJ hypothesis that Jesus was a mere mortal who perhaps taught and preached then died and stayed dead but around whom legends and myths gradually accumulated.

I haven't seen the testimony, so I couldn't say. Paul's Jesus definitely was born human, was Jewish, died, and is now a human being.

That sounds rather odd as I was under the impression Paul thought Jesus was something special.

"there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live"

does not sound like a regular joe.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 8&version=NIV

What, if anything, Paul thought Jesus was before he was born is interesting, but Jesus participated in history is as a human being, or there is no historical Jesus. Stories told after he died don't change that - as long as he actually died.

As we know, the dying-and-rising god idea was around and known even among the Jews, so someone depicted as dying then rising could well be a story of that well known type.

But that brings up an interesting point: if Jesus was a preacher of some sort who died (as in the HJ hypotheses), whatever became of those who revered him as a wise but fully mortal man who did not rise from the dead?

Paul's Jesus is now a human being. If Paul believed Jesus was a powerful spirit before his tour of duty, then Paul believes he a different kind of powerful being now, and with the same equipment as every other righteous human being will be given; Jesus just got his first.

Apparently Jesus is the prototype of a new sort of being, and humans will leave the mortal sort of body for a spiritual body like Jesus has. Believers will be transformed this way - but did Jesus (according to Paul) undergo this from one sort of body to another?

Some information, for example, the religious material in Galatians 2: 15 ff. that distinguishes Paul's teaching from other brands then on the market ("my good-message" not "my information").

It is interesting that there was such diversity among the proto-christians at such an early stage (conceived from the notion that christianity began with the teachings and career of one man at a definite time and place).

In any event, treating Paul as an 'early' example, we can see the irrelevance of the gospel-style Jesus which later came into vogue.

"Paul lives in a world of divine revelation. He moves amid wide-ranging and diverse circles of apostles who preach the Christ, none of whom show any sign of tracing their authority or knowledge about such a divine figure back to a ministry on earth, or to a group of apostles who had been participants and witnesses of that ministry."

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm

 

[proudfootz]

There is no person called James the Just in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.

James in AJ 20.9.1 was the brother of Jesus the Anointed [Χριστός] High Priest the Son of Damneus.

Jewish Kings and High Priest were called Anointed [Χριστός].

The assumed HJ of Nazareth was NOT a King of the Jews nor an High Priest but a Preacher.

If Jesus lived as an obscure preacher then he would NOT be called the Anointed [Χριστός] by Jews.

The Chronicon Paschale

King David was called Christ [Χριστός].

Based on the Preface to the Recognitions, James the Just was still alive when Clement of Rome was about to be Bishop of Rome c 69 CE.

The Preface to the Recognitions

There is no evidence whatsoever that James the Just is James in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1 because his brother Jesus the Anointed was STILL ALIVE in the time of Albinus.

1. James the Just was STILL ALIVE after James in AJ 20.9.1 was stoned to death.

2. Jesus the brother of James in AJ 20.9.1 was STILL ALIVE c 62-64 CE AFTER his brother was stoned to death.

3. Chrysostom admitted James in Galatians 1.19 was NOT the brother of Jesus.

4. Jerome admitted James in AJ 20.9.1 was NOT the brother of Jesus in the NT.

It does seem to create confusion as there are so many Jameses.

Likewise it makes no sense for the James in Antiquities of the Jews to be a leader of a christian cult as the death of an apostate more or less would most likely be a matter of commendation for Ananus rather than a matter for censure or outrage from pious Jews.

Whatever nitwit added the absurd phrase 'the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ' to the passage in Josephus blundered badly, and thus have misled the credulous even unto our own times.

 

[dejudge]

How it happened is not described in the sources. But apart from Jesus' teaching and deeds there is another significant element: the dynastic. If Jesus was considered to be a Davidic messiah--and I have argued that the expression "son of God" is a Davidic Royal title--then Jesus might well have been succeeded by a blood kinsman as the head of the messianic group. In this conception Peter would be the "chief minister" of the movement, and James would be its "monarch".

You argue without evidence. Arguing without evidence is really speculation based on imagination.

The same sources which claimed Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God also claimed he walked on the sea, transfigured and resurrected.

A man with a Davidic title cannot walk on the sea, transfigure and resurrect.

The story of Jesus is the one of mythology NOT history.

Jesus of Nazareth was a supernatural being in the myth fables called Gospels.

Why do you think think Jesus of Nazareth was a figure of history when you have no actual existing contemporary evidence from antiquity?

We already know you have no evidence from antiquity for your HJ. It has been proven by the On-Going Quest for an ASSUMED HJ since the 18th century to this very day.

 

[Brainache]

It does seem to create confusion as there are so many Jameses.

Likewise it makes no sense for the James in Antiquities of the Jews to be a leader of a christian cult as the death of an apostate more or less would most likely be a matter of commendation for Ananus rather than a matter for censure or outrage from pious Jews.

Whatever nitwit added the absurd phrase 'the brother of Jesus, the one called (the) Christ' to the passage in Josephus blundered badly, and thus have misled the credulous even unto our own times.

Except that the Christians were a Jewish cult at the time.

Jesus was Jewish, remember?

These MJ ideas all seemed to be based on Christian dogma. Weird.

 

[proudfootz]

Tsig whips out his HeartScope and looks at Brainache's, Beltz's et. al hearts and there it is, a Jesuculus right there in the middle of the heart.

Really! Don't you know these are published scholars whose research make them leaders in the field?

Oh, that's right - nobody knows that.

But what we do know of the 'Bible scholar academy' is that it is rife with religious folks - which is why it is better to know by what reasoning they believe in Jesus rather than going by the number of believers.

While Ehrman isn't shy about repeatedly proclaiming how many of his Bible study colleagues agree Jesus is real you really have to dig for the actual evidence and arguments.

 

[proudfootz]

Except that the Christians were a Jewish cult at the time.[/QUOTE}

Except supposedly Jews were supposedly killing apostates like Stephen, et al.

Jesus was Jewish, remember?

So that's why the Jews called him 'Jesus the Just' and admired him?

Oh, that's right - they didn't!

These MJ ideas all seemed to be based on Christian dogma. Weird.

Only your strawman versions seem to be.

Maybe instead of arguing from your ignorance you should conduct a little research...