Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[zugzwang]

I just noticed the criteria for HJ, from John Robertson, cited above, which are these:

1) He was the personal founder of Christianity
2) He taught as reported in the Gospels
3) He was put to death in the circumstances there recorded

It strikes me that they are all incorrect, and I doubt if contemporary historians would go along with them.

'Personal founder' sounds as if Jesus turns up, announces that a new religion is required, based on him. I don't think that is a necessity in a HJ argument at all.

(2) is barmy, since there is a big disconnect between HJ and the veridical nature of the gospels; again, this is not required for HJ.

(3) - put to death, OK, but 'in the circumstances there recorded' is again superfluous. You don't have to posit that there was an earthquake to back HJ.

These criteria confuse HJ with the Christ of faith; no modern historian would do that.

 

[Belz...]

These criteria confuse HJ with the Christ of faith; no modern historian would do that.

Many posters are working quite hard to "confuse" HJ with Christ.

 

[maximara]

I just noticed the criteria for HJ, from John Robertson, cited above, which are these:

1) He was the personal founder of Christianity
2) He taught as reported in the Gospels
3) He was put to death in the circumstances there recorded

It strikes me that they are all incorrect, and I doubt if contemporary historians would go along with them.

'Personal founder' sounds as if Jesus turns up, announces that a new religion is required, based on him. I don't think that is a necessity in a HJ argument at all.

(2) is barmy, since there is a big disconnect between HJ and the veridical nature of the gospels; again, this is not required for HJ.

(3) - put to death, OK, but 'in the circumstances there recorded' is again superfluous. You don't have to posit that there was an earthquake to back HJ.

These criteria confuse HJ with the Christ of faith; no modern historian would do that.

I oversimplified Robertson's actually points for the sake of brevity; here is a more detailed summation from a 1946 work:

"(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.

1 The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.

2 An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death "; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.

3 Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.

4 The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. 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" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History?)


Note that Wells hypothetical Jesus in Jesus Legend and later was not crucified and that work has been classified as "Christ Myth" by Doherty, Price, Stanton, Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. Unless they all misunderstood what Wells was actually arguing this would certainly fall under the "put to death in the circumstances there recorded" criteria.

 

[eight bits]

zugzwang

These criteria confuse HJ with the Christ of faith; no modern historian would do that.

Just slightly before your time here was the epic "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=9

which, in fairness, was also linked to by John Robertson's biggest fan here.

Many of us discussed in that thread what we personally thought was the least the HJ hypothesis should hold to avoid vacuity. Few (none whom I recall) of us chose the Robertson criteria. Although there wasn't ever a joint statement, there was some consensus around a small number of such relatively concrete points as:

To count, Jesus should be: One man, Jewish by birth, who was executed (with success satisfactory to those responsible) in Pilate's time, after having performed some public preaching in the tradition of John the Baptist, which attracted some disciples who stayed together for a while after he died, and who was the person referred to as formerly deceased in Galatians and the two canonical letters to the Corinthians.

Individual recipes might demand a bit more or a bit less, seasoned to taste. This can be thought of as the rough intersection of several more specific historical hypotheses about Jesus. A few posters favored one or another of those specific hypotheses which strongly attracted them, rather than attaining confidence through relaxed specificty.

Now, maybe we should have a "What counts as a mythical Jesus?" thread.

 

[maximara]

zugzwang


Just slightly before your time here was the epic "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=9

which, in fairness, was also linked to by John Robertson's biggest fan here.

Many of us discussed in that thread what we personally thought was the least the HJ hypothesis should hold to avoid vacuity. Few (none whom I recall) of us chose the Robertson criteria. Although there wasn't ever a joint statement, there was some consensus around a small number of such relatively concrete points as:

To count, Jesus should be: One man, Jewish by birth, who was executed (with success satisfactory to those responsible) in Pilate's time, after having performed some public preaching in the tradition of John the Baptist, which attracted some disciples who stayed together for a while after he died, and who was the person referred to as formerly deceased in Galatians and the two canonical letters to the Corinthians.

Individual recipes might demand a bit more or a bit less, seasoned to taste. This can be thought of as the rough intersection of several more specific historical hypotheses about Jesus. A few posters favored one or another of those specific hypotheses which strongly attracted them, rather than attaining confidence through relaxed specificty.

Now, maybe we should have a "What counts as a mythical Jesus?" thread.

The highlighted part is in conflict with both Price's and Marshall's definitions:

"For even if we trace Christianity back to Jesus ben Pandera or an Essene Teacher of Righteousness in the first century BCE, we still have a historical Jesus." (Price)

Jesus existed as a actual person opposed to him being a fictional creation like Dr Who or King Lear. (Marshall)

In fact, the highlighted part would make even Irenaeus' Jesus crucified under Claudius Caesar (ie a minimum of 5 years after Pontius Pilate was recalled back to Rome) as "mythical" because he was executed too late.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge

Individual recipes might demand a bit more or a bit less, seasoned to taste. This can be thought of as the rough intersection of several more specific historical hypotheses about Jesus. A few posters favored one or another of those specific hypotheses which strongly attracted them, rather than attaining confidence through relaxed specificty.

Now, maybe we should have a "What counts as a mythical Jesus?" thread.

We have gone through this already. No need to re-invent the wheel.
We are now in the evidence stage.

Do you have any evidence from antiquity for any version of the multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ?

An historical Jesus can only be determined by evidence not assumptions or tasty criteria.

May I also remind you that there is no corroborative evidence that the Pauline writers were actual contemporaries of your proposed HJ [seasoned by imagination].

 

[maximara]

We have gone through this already. No need to re-invent the wheel.
We are now in the evidence stage.

Do you have any evidence from antiquity for any version of the multiple irreconcilable versions of HJ?

An historical Jesus can only be determined by evidence not assumptions or tasty criteria.

May I also remind you that there is no corroborative evidence that the Pauline writers were actual contemporaries of your proposed HJ [seasoned by imagination].

True, but much of the same can be said of Robin Hood and King Arthur given how fluid their supposed "historical" source personages are.

Price has often used King Arthur as one of his examples of people who have almost but not quite been mythologized to the point of historical irrecoverably:

"As Dundes is careful to point out, it doesn’t prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionized, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype.

But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through.

Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them."
King Arthur is the odd man out here because all the others in Price's list have known contemporary evidence to their existence such as documents, coin, murals, carvings dedicated to their deeds, etc.

If we accept Price's premise that King Arthur some residue that shows he was a historical person even if we are not sure who is is based on then have to ask what is that evidence and how does it compare to that of Jesus?

 

[Brainache]

zugzwang


Just slightly before your time here was the epic "What counts as a historical Jesus?" thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=235771&page=9

which, in fairness, was also linked to by John Robertson's biggest fan here.

Many of us discussed in that thread what we personally thought was the least the HJ hypothesis should hold to avoid vacuity. Few (none whom I recall) of us chose the Robertson criteria. Although there wasn't ever a joint statement, there was some consensus around a small number of such relatively concrete points as:

To count, Jesus should be: One man, Jewish by birth, who was executed (with success satisfactory to those responsible) in Pilate's time, after having performed some public preaching in the tradition of John the Baptist, which attracted some disciples who stayed together for a while after he died, and who was the person referred to as formerly deceased in Galatians and the two canonical letters to the Corinthians.

Individual recipes might demand a bit more or a bit less, seasoned to taste. This can be thought of as the rough intersection of several more specific historical hypotheses about Jesus. A few posters favored one or another of those specific hypotheses which strongly attracted them, rather than attaining confidence through relaxed specificty.

Now, maybe we should have a "What counts as a mythical Jesus?" thread.

I am going to hate myself, but I think that MJ thread is not too bad an idea.

 

[eight bits]

Brainache

I was serious about that. I don't want to OP it (that should be somebody whose cup of tea it is, I think).


maximara

The highlighted part is in conflict with both Price's and Marshall's definitions:

That may be. However, I do not serve Price or Maxwell, and the distinction you highlighted was made because about 1/3 of those with a living religious commitment to a historical Jesus believe that Jesus was not executed, but do believe that it seemed that he was.

With your luck, max, there was some Jesus ben Pandera whose tales of derring-do inspired a middle-aged Galilean Don Quixote with notions, causing him run off to be dunked by John (changing his name to Jesus, like his hero, so you can work your beloved John Frum into this story somewhere). In his new identity, Jesus Quixote preaches some, and picks up some Sancho Panzas along the way. Alas, on a Paschal visit to the Temple, JQ doesn't wacth where he's going, trips over some moneychanger's table, mumbles a scriptural verse he happens to remember about turning God's house into a den of thieves, gets arrested and is crucified.

It doesn't even matter which Jesus Paul dreamed of. HJ and MJ partisans each declare victory.

Moral: the Price is right. Jesus ben Pandera, if he existed, could be the historical Jesus, and would be if there is some explanation that connects his life with features of the early church. If he did exist, and there is such an explanation, then what's the problem? If there isn't, then he isn't a historical Jesus who counts.

dejudge

An historical Jesus can only be determined by evidence not assumptions or tasty criteria.

If you read either my post or the OP of the thread linked to in my post, you'll see that the object was to define a hypothesis in a way that is useful for further discussion. The question of whether or not the hypothesis is actually true wasn't addressed in my post.

May I also remind you that there is no corroborative evidence that the Pauline writers were actual contemporaries of your proposed HJ [seasoned by imagination].

Yes, you may, but as it happens, I am unfailingly mindful of this pillar of your position.

 

[The Norseman]

Given that no one here seems willing or able to define MJ or HJ, and we get told "which HJ" and "which MJ" all the time, I find your characterisation misguided.

Kinda reminds me of the term 'god'; none of us can have a rational, meaningful discussion without some kind of common definition.

HJ has been explained many times in this thread as having certain minimal features. Any features outside this very broad and simplistic description is irrelevant, unless your goal is to make HJ into MJ, a silly tactic if ever there was one.

This Lowest Common Denominator historic Jesus is only made up on JREF. No historian/scholar has ever been shown to agree to the LCD Jesus and stop there, calling it all good.

What do I care what this guy said a full century ago ? No one is obliged to follow his criteria. It's much more useful to distinguish HJ and MJ by the existence of a founder to Christianity (point 1 above) rather than an arbitrary set of criteria that end up creating a mess of branching hypothesese that defy classification.

If all of these historians/scholars are utilizing the same Historic Method, then how come they all seem to do what you're complaining about, as I've now repeatedly shown?

Many posters are working quite hard to "confuse" HJ with Christ.

Perhaps you can help by providing a common definition we can all use and with which all scholars agree.

 

[The Norseman]

I just noticed the criteria for HJ, from John Robertson, cited above, which are these:

1) He was the personal founder of Christianity
2) He taught as reported in the Gospels
3) He was put to death in the circumstances there recorded

It strikes me that they are all incorrect, and I doubt if contemporary historians would go along with them.

'Personal founder' sounds as if Jesus turns up, announces that a new religion is required, based on him. I don't think that is a necessity in a HJ argument at all.

(2) is barmy, since there is a big disconnect between HJ and the veridical nature of the gospels; again, this is not required for HJ.

(3) - put to death, OK, but 'in the circumstances there recorded' is again superfluous. You don't have to posit that there was an earthquake to back HJ.

These criteria confuse HJ with the Christ of faith; no modern historian would do that.

Yes, many modern historians do exactly that as has been shown numerous times so far. Re-read the threads currently going on and you will find it.

 

[Brainache]

Yes, many modern historians do exactly that as has been shown numerous times so far. Re-read the threads currently going on and you will find it.

I think you are confusing modern Historians with modern Bible Apologists.

Apologists exist who use some of the Historical arguments (Crossan, Sanders etc), but there are Atheists, Jews, Hindus, whatever, who also support the HJ position. It is not a purely Christian position.

Look up Geza Vermes again, or Jesus in The Talmud again, if you did the last time that stuff was posted...

 

[dejudge]

True, but much of the same can be said of Robin Hood and King Arthur given how fluid their supposed "historical" source personages are.

I am specifically dealing with the question of the existence/non-existence of an HJ.

The existence or non-existence of Robin Hood and King Arthur require separate and independent inquiries and the results cannot be transferred to an HJ.

At this very moment, there is no evidence of an historical Jesus in the time of Pilate. Stories of Jesus are dated no earlier than the 2nd century.

I cannot go any earlier until new evidence surfaces.

The Jesus story and cult are no earlier than the 2nd century.

If there was no Jesus story and cult in the 1st century then it would be expected that no evidence would surface.

This is exactly what has happened.

 

[dejudge]

... However, I do not serve Price or Maxwell, and the distinction you highlighted was made because about 1/3 of those with a living religious commitment to a historical Jesus believe that Jesus was not executed, but do believe that it seemed that he was.

Where did you get that figure from?

Please show us a source which provides the data for those with a living religious commitment?

With your luck, max, there was some Jesus ben Pandera whose tales of derring-do inspired a middle-aged Galilean Don Quixote with notions, causing him run off to be dunked by John (changing his name to Jesus, like his hero, so you can work your beloved John Frum into this story somewhere). In his new identity, Jesus Quixote preaches some, and picks up some Sancho Panzas along the way. Alas, on a Paschal visit to the Temple, JQ doesn't wacth where he's going, trips over some moneychanger's table, mumbles a scriptural verse he happens to remember about turning God's house into a den of thieves, gets arrested and is crucified.

You need to write a disclaimer--everything you say about Jesus Pandera is fiction and based on your imagination--any resemblance to real people or places is a co-incidence.

You ought to know that making up stories is really worthless because there will be no corroboration in antiquity for stories made up today.

 

[dejudge]

If you read either my post or the OP of the thread linked to in my post, you'll see that the object was to define a hypothesis in a way that is useful for further discussion. The question of whether or not the hypothesis is actually true wasn't addressed in my post.

If that was your objective then you have it upside down and back to front.

You should have first collected the HISTORICAL data and then develop an hypothesis from the data.

The data in the NT supports a myth hypothesis not an HJ.

Where is the historical source for YOUR HJ hypothesis?

Is it the Bible?

The Bible is a source of myth, fiction, discrepancies, historical problems and implausibility.

You seem to have no idea of the difference between "speculation" and an "hypothesis".

 

[eight bits]

dejudge

Where did you get that figure from?

There are about twice as many living Christians as Muslims. Both profess a historical Jesus (Isa). Google is your friend, and Bing tries hard to be.

You need to write a disclaimer--everything you say about Jesus Pandera is fiction and based on your imagination--any resemblance to real people or places is a co-incidence.

Don Quxote is a work of fiction. What you quoted is a hypothetical. It describes a possible world in which an author admired by the other poster could be correct.

Thank you for your concern about my needs, though.

As to other matter, if you have some advice about how another poster ought to have formulated a question in a thread (s)he launched, then you need to take that up with the other poster.

 

[dejudge]

dejudge


There are about twice as many living Christians as Muslims. Both profess a historical Jesus (Isa). Google is your friend, and Bing tries hard to be.

Christians do not believe in an historical Jesus. Christians believe in a Jesus of Faith.

God is a figure of history to Christians.

Jesus the Son of God, the Logos, and God Creator is a figure of history according to Christians.

I am afraid you have no idea that Christians and Christian Scholars do not really argue for an historical Jesus--they BELIEVE Gods and Sons of Gods exist.

You may have been duped.

Myth Jesus [the Son of God--the Logos, God Creator] is an historical Jesus to Christians and Christian Scholars.


Christians and Christian Scholars consider that the Jesus of Faith is a figure of history as is stated in the NT.

Who really argues that the Historical Jesus hardly did anything as stated in the NT?

Is it not Christians and Christians Scholars.

Who argues that the Historical Jesus was a Zealot?

Not Christians and Christian Scholars.

Who argues that the historical Jesus was an obscure criminal?

Not Christians and Christian Scholars.

Who really argues for a mere human Jesus who hardly did anything as stated in the NT?

You don't know that God and his ONLY begotten son are historical according to Christians and Christian Scholars.

There is not a shred of evidence for the multiple irreconcilable versions of Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Christians do not believe in an historical Jesus. Christians believe in a Jesus of Faith.

God is a figure of history to Christians.

Jesus the Son of God, the Logos, and God Creator is a figure of history according to Christians.

I am afraid you have no idea that Christians and Christian Scholars do not really argue for an historical Jesus--they BELIEVE Gods and Sons of Gods exist.

You may have been duped.

Myth Jesus [the Son of God--the Logos, God Creator] is an historical Jesus to Christians and Christian Scholars.


Christians and Christian Scholars consider that the Jesus of Faith is a figure of history as is stated in the NT.

Who really argues that the Historical Jesus hardly did anything as stated in the NT?

Is it not Christians and Christians Scholars.

Who argues that the Historical Jesus was a Zealot?

Not Christians and Christian Scholars.

Who argues that the historical Jesus was an obscure criminal?

Not Christians and Christian Scholars.

Who really argues for a mere human Jesus who hardly did anything as stated in the NT?

You don't know that God and his ONLY begotten son are historical according to Christians and Christian Scholars.

There is not a shred of evidence for the multiple irreconcilable versions of Jesus.

OK. just for the sake of argument, let's say everybody here agrees with you. You have convinced us all that we were wrong and you are right.

What now?

It's no good if we all agree, but those blokes in Universities like this guy:


From Yale University, will continue to teach their mistaken "HJ" material.

How are you going to convince Yale University (amongst others) to change their Ancient History courses?

Otherwise it's all a bit pointless, don't you think?

 

[dejudge]

Christians do not believe in an historical Jesus. Christians believe in a Jesus of Faith.

God is a figure of history to Christians.

Jesus the Son of God, the Logos, and God Creator is a figure of history according to Christians.

I am afraid you have no idea that Christians and Christian Scholars do not really argue for an historical Jesus--they BELIEVE Gods and Sons of Gods exist.

You may have been duped.

Myth Jesus [the Son of God--the Logos, God Creator] is an historical Jesus to Christians and Christian Scholars.


Christians and Christian Scholars consider that the Jesus of Faith is a figure of history as is stated in the NT.

Who really argues that the Historical Jesus hardly did anything as stated in the NT?

Is it not Christians and Christians Scholars.

Who argues that the Historical Jesus was a Zealot?

Not Christians and Christian Scholars.

Who argues that the historical Jesus was an obscure criminal?

Not Christians and Christian Scholars.

Who really argues for a mere human Jesus who hardly did anything as stated in the NT?

You don't know that God and his ONLY begotten son are historical according to Christians and Christian Scholars.

There is not a shred of evidence for the multiple irreconcilable versions of Jesus.

OK. just for the sake of argument, let's say everybody here agrees with you. You have convinced us all that we were wrong and you are right.

What now?

Your question came a little too late.

The HJ argument is being cremated.

Now, Jesus of Nazareth is like Romulus of Rome and Adam of Eden.

 

[Brainache]

Your question came a little too late.

The HJ argument is being cremated.

Now, Jesus of Nazareth is like Romulus of Rome and Adam of Eden.

But there is nobody in the entire world who teaches the MJ as part of a History course at University, except as a demonstration of bad Scholarship.

So what are you doing to correct this ghastly miscarriage of education?

The Profs at Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge and all those other fancy places are still teaching the HJ. Whatever shall we do?

You'd better call them or something, they should know they are using a dead argument...