Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[maximara]

OK, so can you cite for me some of the Chinese Historians denying the Historicity of Jesus? I don't want the moon, just one or two should do for our purposes.

That door swings booth ways. Show us Chinese Historians that support the Jesus of the Bible. It will be interesting to see the reasoning behind the zombie jubilee there.

Remember until the late 1970 China was anti-religion all across the board with numerous Buddhist and Taoist temples destroyed or converted to secular use.

 

[Stone]

That door swings booth ways. Show us Chinese Historians that support the Jesus of the Bible. It will be interesting to see the reasoning behind the zombie jubilee there.

Remember until the late 1970 China was anti-religion all across the board with numerous Buddhist and Taoist destroyed or converted to secular use.

I see. So there are, in fact, no Asian historians at all who subscribe to the myther mumbo-jumbo. Why am I not surprised that you cannot produce a one?

And by the way, it's NOT "Chinese Historians that support the Jesus of the Bible" who are relevant here. It's Chinese Historians that support the Jesus of the Pre-resurrection Paulines, the Q sayings and the extra-Biblicals -- not a miracle story anywhere there.

Boy, oh boy, some posters here think you're so slippery, and you can't even get around the simple fact that your statement about Asian Historians was totally wrong.

Stone

 

[Brainache]

...
Remember until the late 1970 China was anti-religion all across the board with numerous Buddhist and Taoist temples destroyed or converted to secular use.

Well exactly, so finding one who denies Jesus should be easy. They haven't been living under the oppressive heel of the Church, under orders to maintain Christian Dogma.

No, they've been living free in Mao's Paradise on Earth. Free to publish all the anti-Church Propaganda they could get their freedom loving hands on. So where is it? I could do with a laugh.

 

[pakeha]

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

Amen, amen.

...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?

I'd like to know this, too, Brainache.
And without gotchas.
I get my gotcha quota from reading the monster thread at RatSkep, thank you very much.

...it seems more likely that Jesus was a counter-cultural rabbi who preached for social reversal (the last shall be first) and spoke of something called the Kingdom of God. He had a practical streak, since he taught that others following in his footsteps should be paid for what they do. He was eventually crucified for sedition. ...

Thanks, Stone, for such a clear summary of how you see an historical Jesus.
IIRC you base this on the Gospels and Paul and Thomas.
Unlike Ehrman, you think Josphus and Tacitus are also evidence Jesus existed.

I myself see that payment teaching as something Paul spun to ensure a cash flow, but that could be due to my imposing the results of my observations of present-day tele-preachers and their ilk onto a 1st century figure.

 

[Brainache]

...
I'd like to know this, too, Brainache.
And without gotchas.
I get my gotcha quota from reading the monster thread at RatSkep, thank you very much.
...

Didn't I answer that? I don't think that post got split to AAH.

I just scrolled down the thread here:

Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
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.

 

[pakeha]

...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.

Ah, of course you're right, you've mentioned this before.

The DDS.
Out of curiosity, do any historians support this view?

I Google the DDS but I can't get a clear idea of what Academe has come around to thinking about them.
Perhaps it's early days yet for an interpretation of them.

I'm off to read more about the dating.

ETA
And yes, to see what Ehrman thinks about the DDS.
After all, this thread was originally about his views.

 

[Brainache]

Ah, of course you're right, you've mentioned this before.

The DDS.
Out of curiosity, do any historians support this view?

I Google the DDS but I can't get a clear idea of what Academe has come around to thinking about them.
Perhaps it's early days yet for an interpretation of them.

I'm off to read more about the dating.

ETA
And yes, to see what Ehrman thinks about the DDS.
After all, this thread was originally about his views.

I'm not sure.

Some people say the Jury is still out. Some say they are definitely earlier, some say they are definitely later, some say we can't know.

So, given the confusion of claims, I'll go with: Jury still out.

 

[dejudge]

Please, the consensus is that the HJ was most likely an itinerant Jewish Preacher in the first half of the first century of the common era.

You just claimed an historian Robert Eiseman argued that Jesus was a Zealot so I really find your statement to be contradictory.

The Historian Robert Eisenman confirms that there is no consensus.

My source is the Hypothesis put forward by the Historian Robert Eisenman.

I'm not "doing history" at all, he is. I'm not qualified. Neither are you. Neither of us gets to make up our own "Theory" without supporting it and going through the whole tedious rigmarole that Professional Historians have to go through. Sorry, we don't get to be instant experts.

Lots of different people have superimposed their opinions on that. What do you want me to do about it?

That is precisely what is happening. Historians have not yet reached a consensus on the existence of Jesus and have not yet reached a consensus and who Jesus was if he existed. Also some may be Agnostic about the Jesus character.

One thing they all agree on is the core essentials. If you want to make a case, it has to account for the core essentials of what we already know about a HJ.

If there are Historians who are Agnostic then they do NOT all agree on the core essentials.

What you are really showing is that there are many differences and that there are really no core essentials among Historians--some are Agnostics, some argue that Jesus is a figure of Myth and some argue for a variety of characters.

 

[dejudge]

The very fact that there are multiple Jesus characters put forward by Historians must be as a result of NO actual evidence from antiquity.

Historians would all agree that Tiberius was an Emperor of Rome because there is evidence from antiquity.

If some Scholars claim Jesus was a Zealot, another say he was an Apocalyptic preacher, another say he was a Myth and another say he does not know it is obvious that there really is no supporting evidence at all for any of the supposed Jesus characters.

An historical Jesus is at the mercy of the inventor.

 

[Brainache]

The very fact that there are multiple Jesus characters put forward by Historians must be as a result of NO actual evidence from antiquity.

Historians would all agree that Tiberius was an Emperor of Rome because there is evidence from antiquity.

If some Scholars claim Jesus was a Zealot, another say he was an Apocalyptic preacher, another say he was a Myth and another say he does not know it is obvious that there really is no supporting evidence at all for any of the supposed Jesus characters.

An historical Jesus is at the mercy of the inventor.

That isn't the point of the enquiry. If you are looking for someone to tell you about the One True Jesus, go to church. If you are interested in social movements and how they form, talk to a Historian. I agree that some Scholars invent their own Jesus to reflect their own Theology. I think it's silly.

Eisenman say Jesus was a Zealot (I am drastically simplifying it when I say that), because he thinks Jesus was part of the Qumran Community.

He thinks this because he says that the DSS have so many parallels to the stuff in the bible, that they show commonality.

It is long and complicated and I'm not the Historian. Eisenman is. Take it up with him.

 

[GDon]

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.

I have Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" on Kindle. On page 143, Ehrman writes:

What I think is that Jesus really existed but that the Jesus who really existed was not the person most Christians today believe in... For now I want to continue to mount the case that whetever else you may want to say about Jesus, you can say with a high degree of certainty that he was a historical figure. In this chapter I will wrap up my discussion of the historical evidence by stressing just two points in particular. These two points are not the whole case for the historical Jesus... But these two points are especially key. I think each of them shows beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that Jesus must have existed as a Palestinian Jew who was crucified by the Romans.​

Ehrman then spends the next 35 odd pages on the two points: Paul knowing Peter and James brother of the Lord and the pre-Pauline claim of Jesus being crucified.

 

[Brainache]

I have Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" on Kindle. On page 143, Ehrman writes:

What I think is that Jesus really existed but that the Jesus who really existed was not the person most Christians today believe in... For now I want to continue to mount the case that whetever else you may want to say about Jesus, you can say with a high degree of certainty that he was a historical figure. In this chapter I will wrap up my discussion of the historical evidence by stressing just two points in particular. These two points are not the whole case for the historical Jesus... But these two points are especially key. I think each of them shows beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that Jesus must have existed as a Palestinian Jew who was crucified by the Romans.​

Ehrman then spends the next 35 odd pages on the two points: Paul knowing Peter and James brother of the Lord and the pre-Pauline claim of Jesus being crucified.

OK. Thanks. I've seen a lot of people knock Ehrman's book. I haven't read it.

 

[pakeha]

I'm not sure.

Some people say the Jury is still out. Some say they are definitely earlier, some say they are definitely later, some say we can't know.

So, given the confusion of claims, I'll go with: Jury still out.

I'd say the jury is still battling it out over the DSS.
Ehrman seems to have put his foot into it proper on the subject
http://biblicalraleigh.wordpress.com/

A small taste of the reactions Ehrman received on his lecture at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences as part of a series of lectures given during the DSS exhibit in 2008

Dr. Ehrman: I’m participating in the DSS exhibit by giving a lecture simply because I was asked to do so. I was asked because I’m an expert on the historical Jesus and the early Christian movement, and I will be talking about how the apocalyptic character of the scrolls allow us to see the Jewish apocalyptic milieu out of which Christianity emerged.

Mr. Cooper: I can certainly understand why you would accept an invitation to give a talk, but you have apparently not given any serious thought to the rigged quality of the lecture series in which you will be participating; to the obvious exclusion of a series of prominent historians and archaeologists who, over the past decade, have rejected the Qumran sectarian theory; and to the appearance of impropriety that, as a consequence, surrounds the lecture series as well as the exhibit as a whole. This is a museum of natural sciences run by a N.C. government agency, not a propoganda organ for a disputed theory.

[Mr. Cooper might have added that only a small portion of the Dead Sea scrolls have the "apocalyptic character" Dr. Ehrman apparently attributes to the scrolls as a whole.]

And so on.

 

[Brainache]

I'd say the jury is still battling it out over the DSS.
Ehrman seems to have put his foot into it proper on the subject
http://biblicalraleigh.wordpress.com/

A small taste of the reactions Ehrman received on his lecture at the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences as part of a series of lectures given during the DSS exhibit in 2008


And so on.

There is definitely a **** fight going on about these things. I hope I live long enough to see how these debates pan out.

Fingers crossed, I suppose.

 

[dejudge]

That isn't the point of the enquiry. If you are looking for someone to tell you about the One True Jesus, go to church. If you are interested in social movements and how they form, talk to a Historian. I agree that some Scholars invent their own Jesus to reflect their own Theology. I think it's silly.

You are the one who has been giving the impression that Historians have some consensus yet simultaneously showing that it is not really the case.

Eisenman say Jesus was a Zealot (I am drastically simplifying it when I say that), because he thinks Jesus was part of the Qumran Community.

He thinks this because he says that the DSS have so many parallels to the stuff in the bible, that they show commonality.

It is long and complicated and I'm not the Historian. Eisenman is. Take it up with him.

Are you not the one posting here? I can only respond to what you post. If Eisenman is an Historian whose Jesus is dramatically different to that of another Historian then you are exposing that there really is no core belief in Academia about the nature of Jesus.

It is that simple.

But, what is most revealing is that the multiple HJ characters from Historians do show that there could be no known data for an historical Jesus hence the abundance of speculative characters called Jesus.

The only evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is that of mythology--not history.

An HJ of Nazareth is a product of guesswork and speculation.

Erhman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was reviewed and found to be a failure of facts and logic which would be completely compatible with guesswork and speculation.

 

[Brainache]

You are the one who has been giving the impression that Historians have some consensus yet simultaneously showing that it is not really the case.

Then you don't understand what Academics mean when they talk about a Consensus of Opinions.

Are you not the one posting here? I can only respond to what you post. If Eisenman is an Historian whose Jesus is dramatically different to that of another Historian then you are exposing that there really is no core belief in Academia about the nature of Jesus.

Except for the one that he was: A man, Jewish, A Preacher. That's it. That is all they have a consensus about.

It is that simple.

It is that simple.

It is that simple.

But, what is most revealing is that the multiple HJ characters from Historians do show that there could be no known data for an historical Jesus hence the abundance of speculative characters called Jesus.

Except that he was a Jewish Preacher-man.

The only evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is that of mythology--not history.

An HJ of Nazareth is a product of guesswork and speculation.

Good thing we aren't talking about him then. Phew, that was close!

Erhman's "Did Jesus Exist?" was reviewed and found to be a failure of facts and logic which would be completely compatible with guesswork and speculation.

I haven't read it. Any good?

 

[clayflingythingy]

Ehrman then spends the next 35 odd pages on the two points: Paul knowing Peter and James brother of the Lord and the pre-Pauline claim of Jesus being crucified.

Interesting. So the historical consensus is based on very thin gruel.

I don't know James Tabor's academic standing among his peers, but having read The Jesus Dynasty, I would ask if pulling stuff out your arse is common among Jesus scholars?

 

[Brainache]

Interesting. So the historical consensus is based on very thin gruel.

I don't know James Tabor's academic standing among his peers, but having read The Jesus Dynasty, I would ask if pulling stuff out your arse is common among Jesus scholars?

I think we can say that there are many people publishing books full of things they pulled out of their arses. We can also say that some of those people are publishing books about Jesus.

Does that make them Jesus Scholars? Maybe. It doesn't make them Historians though...

 

[Belz...]

When people like Nick Terry try, they get shouted down. They can't have it both ways. They put their fingers in their ears and go LALALALA until the Historian goes away. Then they say, "See, he can't explain it! I win!"

I think people are talking past each other here. On the HJ side we have a few people claiming that Jesus "definitely" existed, to which the MJ side responds by asking for evidence. Piggy tried to address that but failed because we then realised that he didn't support the "definitely" claim. Nick is doing the same thing but to me there was no confusion about his claims to start with. IanS, however, seems to still think that Nick is claiming "definitely" when all he can see in his posts, quite justifiably so, is "probably".

Was it you who said comparing them to Truthers was going too far? I disagree.

ETA: I think "Mythers" have become the new "Truthers".

This has no place in a serious conversation. Take your labeling somewhere else.

ETA: To Clarify: Sorry, but if you aren't qualified in the study of Ancient History, you don't get to vote.

You're right, of course. But because you don't contribute to a field doesn't mean you can't expect the experts in that field to explain it to you.

 

[Belz...]

I see. So there are, in fact, no Asian historians at all who subscribe to the myther mumbo-jumbo. Why am I not surprised that you cannot produce a one?

And by the way, it's NOT "Chinese Historians that support the Jesus of the Bible" who are relevant here. It's Chinese Historians that support the Jesus of the Pre-resurrection Paulines, the Q sayings and the extra-Biblicals -- not a miracle story anywhere there.

Boy, oh boy, some posters here think you're so slippery, and you can't even get around the simple fact that your statement about Asian Historians was totally wrong.

Stone

Personally, I'd actually be quite interested to see if there's a difference of opinion between western scholars and Chinese scholars on this issue, given the lack of powerful Christian influences over there. Idem for Japan and other similar countries.