Hello, I’m quite new to Jesus-research and Dr. Ehrman’s work. With so many books out there, my question is
- What are the best up-to-date books on what we know about the historical Jesus, and how we know it (i.e. the available sources and reasoning techniques)?
Reading in the preface of Ehrman’s apocalyptic prophet of the new millennium
“In my opinion, a reader has the right to know not only what scholars think about Jesus, but also why they think what they think. That is, readers have the right to know what the evidence is.”,
that’s exactly the book I’m looking for. Does that book still represent Dr. Ehrman’s view, and is it in line with current scholarly consensus?
I understand that Dr. Ehrman has written much about the historical Jesus and related questions in his newer books Interrupted, Forged, How Jesus Became God, and Before the Gospels, but I won’t have time to read all those. So where should I start?
And what are the most important books on alternative scientifically defendable views?
Thanks for your help!
Konrad, welcome.
Of Dr Ehrman’s books I would highly recommend both Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet and How Jesus Became God. Try Paula Fredriksen’s Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. If you are up for it there is John Meier’s five volume A Marginal Jew.
If you’re looking for a survey of various views of the historical Jesus try The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James Beilby.
Konrad said
Steefen said
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Alternative, scientifically defendable views about the historical Jesus?
thanks for your suggestion, seems interesting but a bit strange to me, think I’ll stay with more established authors for now.
I asked you a question:
Alternative, scientifically defendable views about the historical Jesus?
By the way, Steefen is Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy.
Stephen said
Of Dr Ehrman’s books I would highly recommend both Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet and How Jesus Became God. Try Paula Fredriksen’s Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. If you are up for it there is John Meier’s five volume A Marginal Jew.If you’re looking for a survey of various views of the historical Jesus try The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James Beilby.
thanks for your suggestion!
Reading Apocalyptic Prophet now, seems great, only feared it might be partially outdated.
Will surely read How Jesus Became God, “the historical development that led to the affirmation that he is God” seems a key question.
Fredriksen’s books look very promising.
Five Views seem really interesting!
Steefen said
I asked you a question:
Alternative, scientifically defendable views about the historical Jesus?
sorry, didn’t understand your post, now I do.
what I mean with Alternative, scientifically defendable views is alternatives to Ehrman’s view of Jesus as “apocalyptic prophet”. As Ehrman writes in Apocalyptic Prophet, “I should stress, though, that not every modern scholar has shared this view of Jesus”, and Wikipedia lists some here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
With scientifically defendable I mean just using evidence and logic, without resorting to faith.
you think there’s only one such view?
Konrad said
Steefen said
I asked you a question:
Alternative, scientifically defendable views about the historical Jesus?
sorry, didn’t understand your post, now I do.
what I mean with Alternative, scientifically defendable views is alternatives to Ehrman’s view of Jesus as “apocalyptic prophet”. As Ehrman writes in Apocalyptic Prophet, “I should stress, though, that not every modern scholar has shared this view of Jesus”, and Wikipedia lists some here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
With scientifically defendable I mean just using evidence and logic, without resorting to faith.
you think there’s only one such view?
I just looked through the bibliography for my book, Historical Accuracy. I want you to know about these two books:
Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans’ Studying the Historical Jesus Series, Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, editors. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000.
deSilva, David A. The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude: What Earliest Christianity Learned from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. Oxford University Press, New York, 2012.
One thing that is catching my attention is Eerdmans’ Studying the Historical Jesus Series.
When I googled: I got this:
Overview
In The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus, Princeton professor Dale C. Allison Jr. candidly presents his examination of the evidence throughout his career as a New Testament scholar and offers a tempered assessment.
In Who Is Jesus?, Carl E. Braaten presents an informative survey of the first, second, and third quests for the historical Jesus, and he offers a compelling case for the canonical Jesus as the only one relevant for Christianity.
Drawing on extensive research and vast erudition, Craig S. Keener’s The Historical Jesus of the Gospels demonstrates that, when thoroughly grounded in its early Jewish setting, Scripture’s testimony concerning Jesus offers a more coherent and plausible interpretation than competing theories.
Paul Barnett’s Finding the Historical Christ offers a well-researched, historically rigorous case for the accuracy of the canonical account of Jesus and his messianic identity, even marshaling hostile witnesses who attest to the reliability of the gospels.
And in the massive Jesus Research, renowned Princeton scholar James H. Charlesworth gathers distinguished Jewish and Christian contributors to weigh in on the state of nearly every facet of Jesus research.
Might as well add:
The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered by Paul N. Anderson
= = =
Do I think there is only one such view of the historical Jesus?
An historical Jesus would have to be one, biological human being resulting from the intercourse of a man and a woman.
I think the Biblical Jesus was a composite character of historical fiction.
Was there a Galilean Jesus? Yes. He was a rebel whose forces were defeated at the Battle of Galilee. His biography may have been corrupted 180 degrees and put into the soup of the lovable, biblical Jesus.
I do not think Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Yes the Tribulation of the Jewish Revolt happened. Part II of the prophecy, eternal Kingdom of God ushered in by the Son of Man is a problem. Jesus the apocalyptic prophet also gave the parable of the Wicked Tenants. After the Tribulation AD70, for 70+ more years, the only Kingdom over the former Judea was the Roman Empire. Son of Man to Son of Earth to Son of Gaia to Gaius (the tradition of Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar such that Gaius is the meaning of Son of Man) is how Jesus’ prophecy would have to play out.
Problems with the Wicked Tenants Parable followed by the post-Tribulation godly kingdom
– Jesus is not a prophet if the written prophecy was written after the event happened (Gospels written after the Temple was laid low)
– the post-Tribulation godly kingdom [the Roman Empire] did not see itself representing Jesus’ god, and it certainly did not institute Zechariah’s vision of Jerusalem as a must-see holy city destination.
Then there is the idea that the historical Jesus was an angel evidencing God intervening in history. This one angel needed to be given a history. The gospels became the one such history–hero history for Jesus the angel.
Konrad said
Steefen, thanks for your answer!you know I’m only starting my research, I’ll check out you suggestions as I go along.
To let you know, almost none of Steefen’s choices are up-to-date by any means. Paul Barnett is 12 years outdated. Robert Van Voorst’s work is also rather outdated especially in light of recent scholarship on almost all the topics he discusses. James Charlesworth’s Jesus Research, is not particularly great unless you want just basic overviews of specific topics. Carl Braaten’s book is mostly apologetics and the survey is errant and reductive as well. Even the entire idea of the “three quests” of the historical Jesus has recently been deconstructed and argued as a misconception.
If you want up-to-date stuff, research articles will be your best bet.
For historiographical research (i.e. the history of the Quest itself), see:
Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Theses on the Nature of the Leben-Jesu-Forschung. A Proposal for a Paradigm Shift in Understanding the Quest,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 17 (2019): 1-34
Jonathan Bernier, The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity: Toward a Critical Realist Philosophy of History in Jesus Studies (London: T&T Clark, 2018)
Werner Zager, Jesusforschung in vier Jahrhunderten: Texte von den Anfängen historischer Kritik bis zur “dritten Frage” nach dem historischen Jesus (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014)
Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century: 1900-1950 (Harrisburg: Trinity International, 1999)*
James Crossley, Jesus in an Age of Neoliberalism (New York: Routledge, 2014)
For Jesus historicity (whether he existed), see:
Christopher M. Hansen, “Lord Raglan’s Hero and Jesus: A Rebuttal to Methodologically Dubious Uses of the Raglan Archetype,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 16 (2020): 129-149
Simon Gathercole, “The Historical and Human Existence of Jesus in Paul’s Letters,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 16 (2018): 183-212
Antonio Piñero, Aproximación al Jesús histórico (Madrid: Editorial Trotta, 3rd edn, 2019)
Gerd Theissen, “What Can We Know of Jesus and His Activities?—Arguments for the Historicity of Jesus,” Iesus Aboensis 2 (2017): 34-50
Raphael Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus: Why a Philosophical Analysis Elucidates the Historical Discourse (Value Inquiry Book Series, 336; Leiden: Brill, 2019)**
For Jesus Research currently:
Currently, historical Jesus research has been a bit lulled. The most recent studies have been examining him through more critical theory and philosophy lenses.
Justin Meggitt, “Was the Historical Jesus an Anarchist?” in A. Christoyannopoulos and M. S. Adams, Essays in Anarchism and Religion: Volume 1 (Stockholm: Stockholm University Press, 2017)
James Crossley, Jesus and the Chaos of History: Redirecting the Life of the Historical Jesus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)***
István Czachesz, Cognitive Science and the New Testament: A New Approach to Early Christian Research (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)
Ivan Prchlík, “Auctor Nominis Eius Christus. Tacitus’ knowledge of the origins of Christianity,” Philologica 2/ Graecolatina Pragensia (2017): 95-110
Sara Parks, Gender in the Rhetoric of Jesus: Women in Q (Lanham: Lexington/Fortress, 2019)
Rebecca Denova, The Origins of Christianity and the New Testament (Hoboken: Wiley, 2021)
These are just a few. I would heavily check their citations for yourself for more.
*This is old, but its information is largely regarding the second quest. Weaver’s analysis is largely commendable and widely used in the field. Its only shortcomings are on the Christ Myth debate, where it is unfortunately lacking in a number of places. Unfortunately, there are no good historiography sources on mythicism yet.
**This is the most recent peer reviewed mythicist book, but Lataster’s work is hardly convincing or notable. In fact, it is rather worthless and adds nothing to the subject. The only truly convincing take on mythicism I’ve ever read is Jean Magne’s From Christianity to Gnosis and From Gnosis to Christianity (Brown Judaic Studies Series; Brown University and Scholars Press, 1993).
***Crossley has regularly taken Marxist inspired viewpoints, which are really cool. That being said, while an amateur, this book Christian Chiakulas, The Carpenter’s Son: A Proletarian Reconstruction of Jesus of Nazareth (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2019) is rather interesting and provides a Marxist interpretation and reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Of course, his view is more akin to a modern Tankie though, making use of Maoist and Leninist ideas.
As a general rule we tend not to listen much to Steefen. He kinda just says a lot, props up fake credentials (calls himself an “argumentation specialist” but has nothing remotely close to any relevant credential he has proven; and then touts his self published outdated book). His ideas are fringe, at best, and he tends to rely heavily on false authority appeals and endorses a lot of nutjobs like Francesco Corotta (who has a trash book that has no relevance in the field, but Steefen just nonstop tries defending it).
As a mythicist, I would recommend focusing on the exact details for the basis of Jesus’ existence. There are a lot of great speculations on exactly who Jesus was, and their methodologies seem to this uneducated fan fairly intact. Their analyses of what exactly Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were trying to say using the historical Jesus carry over just fine to the realm where we realize Jesus was just fan fiction. While raising its own issues, mythicism resolves many issues like “How Jesus became God” if he is believed by the author of that book to have been an itinerant preacher.
The point is: focus on the evidence provided by each of these authors that Jesus did actually exist. Imho these arguments are far less convincing than their well crafted arguments about who Jesus was. I had long skipped over these arguments and defended historicity before I fell into historicity through my own careful look into the OT.
I’m a historicist (is that what we’re called?) because it’s the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the traditions we have. I reject mythicism because it makes no compelling case for the origins of Christianity, which is after all the question that scholars are actually asking. You shouldn’t start with the question, Did Jesus exist? Start with the question, What is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity? If you’re not focused on the latter question you’re kind of wasting your time. This is why merely pointing out again the historical problems with the New Testament is so inadequate. Mythicists want evidence. Ok, how about providing some!
FocusMyView said
As a mythicist, I would recommend focusing on the exact details for the basis of Jesus’ existence. There are a lot of great speculations on exactly who Jesus was, and their methodologies seem to this uneducated fan fairly intact. Their analyses of what exactly Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were trying to say using the historical Jesus carry over just fine to the realm where we realize Jesus was just fan fiction. While raising its own issues, mythicism resolves many issues like “How Jesus became God” if he is believed by the author of that book to have been an itinerant preacher.The point is: focus on the evidence provided by each of these authors that Jesus did actually exist. Imho these arguments are far less convincing than their well crafted arguments about who Jesus was. I had long skipped over these arguments and defended historicity before I fell into historicity through my own careful look into the OT.
Mythicism is only convincing to the uneducated and the grifters… like Carrier, who is both.
And if you think their analyses of Paul and what he meant in Romans 1:3 is convincing, then you really need to take a look at some basic Occam’s Razor. Also, we have all seen your look into the OT. It is anything but careful.
Also I referenced a number of works on mythicism, specifically debunking it. Mythicists have yet to offer any relevant or notable peer reviewed response, just Raphael Lataster’s five hundred page polemical screed.
Stephen said
I’m a historicist (is that what we’re called?) because it’s the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the traditions we have. I reject mythicism because it makes no compelling case for the origins of Christianity, which is after all the question that scholars are actually asking. You shouldn’t start with the question, Did Jesus exist? Start with the question, What is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity? If you’re not focused on the latter question you’re kind of wasting your time. This is why merely pointing out again the historical problems with the New Testament is so inadequate. Mythicists want evidence. Ok, how about providing some!
Yeup. Mythicism has yet to provide a single piece of convincing evidence that any of its points are even salient. There has never been shown to be an pre-Christian cult of Jesus, there is no proof Jesus was copied from dying-rising savior deities (the leading scholar on the subject, Tryggve Mettinger, has rejected it outright and the guy who invented the category argued Jesus was historical too, J. G. Frazer), their interpretations of Paul are strenuous at best, and their arguments from silence are methodologically deadpan failures, because we would never expect the evidence they want from a first century Jewish preacher. At this point, mythicists can only get around Paul by arguing for nonsensical allegories evidenced nowhere else in early Christian texts, by arguing for conjectural interpolations with no supporting evidence, or by reinterpreting them… as cosmic sperm banks (as Carrier calls it), which also have no supporting evidence either.
In short, mythicists have nothing on their side, and require so much conjecture for their position to work that Occam’s Razor is still firmly on the side of the historicists.
Stephen said
I’m a historicist (is that what we’re called?) because it’s the simplest and most straightforward explanation for the traditions we have. I reject mythicism because it makes no compelling case for the origins of Christianity, which is after all the question that scholars are actually asking. You shouldn’t start with the question, Did Jesus exist? Start with the question, What is the best explanation for the origin of Christianity? If you’re not focused on the latter question you’re kind of wasting your time. This is why merely pointing out again the historical problems with the New Testament is so inadequate. Mythicists want evidence. Ok, how about providing some!
As one who used that argument dozens of times, remember that both Paul and Jesus considered themselves Jews (or Judeans). Both preached about the coming end of ages. End of ages may be fitting for a militant Jesus as well as the itinerant preacher Jesus. Certainly Daniel, from which we probably get the Son of Man concept, talked more than once about ages of being ruled by massive foreign powers. So any historical Jesus thought the end of ages was coming. Since both Jesus and Paul would have thought themselves Jews and not Christians, we do not need a preexisting Jesus cult separate from Judaism. They were Jews. And they believed in Jesus. My point is that in the early first century their was a belief in Jesus. But no separate cult existed. So why should we expect one prior to the time period the cahracter JEsus is written into?
So clearly Jesus’ preaching nor Pauls’ travels and writing weren’t enough to create “Christianity.” We don’t see people branch off into Christianity until later in the century. IDK what causes the creation of Christianity, but for a placeholder I will propose that the destruction of the Judean temple and victorious celebration of Romans defeating Judeans had a major impact on whether people wanted to be described as Judeans any longer. Or perhaps as Erhman proposes those in “The Way” who were so sure the world was ending instead started to see their fellow believers dying off and decided to write down their stories of this itinerant preacher. For either scenario you don’t need anyone to have actually met a physical Jesus for a religion to take off in the wake of the destruction of the Judean temple.
As far as applying Occam’s razor, Dr. Price puts it best. Paraphrasing, If Jesus is just an itinerant preacher with a few followers as minimalists suggest, then what on earth would Jews be worshiping? Its beyond belief that such an existence would be initiate a worldwide religion. I tend to think Price is wrong here. Humans are not logical and I can fully see how people might start a religion of a flawed human that was crucified. So Occam’s razor really is hard to use if you are trying to figure out human behavior.
thanks for your replies, folks!
currently reading Carrier, I think he cannot be dismissed out of hand. He may make mistakes and have some crazy theories, but his idea of systematically applying Bayes’ theorem seems wise to me (having done my PhD in theoretical computer science / logic)
I’ll report back.
Konrad said
thanks for your replies, folks!currently reading Carrier, I think he cannot be dismissed out of hand. He may make mistakes and have some crazy theories, but his idea of systematically applying Bayes’ theorem seems wise to me (having done my PhD in theoretical computer science / logic)
I’ll report back.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Proving History: Baye’s Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus by Richard Carrier has 120 ratings averaging 4 stars.
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt by Richard Carrier has 357 ratings averaging 4.5 stars.
On the Historicity… was studied when I wrote Historical Accuracy.
Konrad, I have a question for you:
Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan has 6,491 ratings averaging 4.5 stars.
Did you read or are you going to read that book? (Yes, I read that book. Bart read that book also.)
…but his idea of systematically applying Bayes’ theorem seems wise to me (having done my PhD in theoretical computer science / logic)
I don’t think the problem is with Bayes but with the application. I have heard a couple Bayesians opine that using it to determine the probability of a figure from ancient history being, well, historical, is not a proper use of the theorem. I look forward to your opinion.
My point is that in the early first century their was a belief in Jesus. But no separate cult existed. So why should we expect one prior to the time period the cahracter JEsus is written into?
But who is saying there was? Not the historicists like, well, me. It’s the mythicists who posit a Jesus cult that sprang up with no founder!
So clearly Jesus’ preaching nor Pauls’ travels and writing weren’t enough to create “Christianity.”
Christianity wasn’t an event, it was a process. A process that began with an itinerant disciple of John the Baptist who branched out on his own and attracted converts who attracted other converts etc etc etc. Some of these converts were literate and their writings were used to attract more converts who eventually founded a world religion that exists to the present day (although the wheels do finally seem to be coming off the wagon). Not a sexy account for sure but that is the simplest explanation for what happened.
Dr. Price puts it best…
Life is full of ironies. I’ve known of Bob Price’s work for twenty years. Not his work on the NT but his writings about fantasy and horror fiction about which he has been interesting and profuse. I’ve read him, met him, spoken to him, but it was only through his association with mythicism that I realized he was degreed in NT studies. Price possesses an extravagant imagination that captivates in one genre and betrays in another.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)