Stephen said
Well we can both be wrong of course but we can’t both be right.I think Stephen’s perspective is too–for want of a better word–jaundiced. And it’s not very hard to divine why that is.
Of course…if you can read Jesus’ mind over two thousand years then mine shouldn’t be difficult at all. But you can’t.
My perspective is pretty straightforward (if you ask instead of guess). I am what I suppose could be called a historical minimalist. I accept the basic skeleton of the narrative. An itinerant Jewish apocalypticist runs afoul of the Roman authorities and is crucified. His followers come to believe he rose from the dead and is favored by God. But I don’t think any of the actual narrative details of the stories recorded in the gospels are historical in the slightest. It’s literature and theology. And we certainly don’t have access to the personal psychology of the historical Jesus. Any motivation we ascribe to Jesus is guaranteed to be a projection. How could it not be? There’s no “there” there. We know some details about the apocalyptic mindset from our sources so we extrapolate that he might have shared some of those notions but that’s it. “My” Jesus stands in the shadows of what came after. HIs essence is occluded to us. And yes, from a 21st century secular perspective (which is mine surprise surprise) he was a naïve religious fanatic.
godspell you can’t even get my motivations right. How the hell are you going to get Jesus’ right? Why would you want to imagine that you can do this?
ps: you have no idea how stupid the “fundamentalist atheist” trope is to someone who has been both.
“Historical minimallist”–meaning that you’ll accept as little as you can get away with. Knowing damned well that’s just the tip of the iceberg. You figured out Carrier and his ilk are con men. Good for you! But you’re still selectively applying this skepticism, and selective skepticism is just modified credulity, at the end of the day.
If I take your word for it that I’m wrong about your motivations–wouldn’t you have to do the same for me?
And that would mean admitting you’re wrong. Truthfully, I’ve figured you out pretty well, but I still confuse the **** out of you. You’ve said as much. I’m good with that.
I did not call you a fundamentalist atheist, though sad to say, the type exists. However, if you’ve been a fundamentalist Christian, and you’ve gone to the other extreme–that is precisely what I was saying. Zeal of the convert. Gets you both ways, coming and going. Out of the frying pan…… 😉
And one more thing–Jesus was unquestionably a Jew, to his dying breath. His ideas do come from Apocalyptic Judaism, through John and probably the Essenes–the bare bones of them. And I have said this, over and over again. So it gets a bit tiresome, you ignoring my real arguments in favor of ones you’ve made up in your head.
However, he clearly did have differences with John. He sure as hell had differences with all the factions of Judaism that existed in that time period, though also points of commonality with some. Anyone who studies the available texts with any understanding can see that. Not to mention the fact that John, his teacher, did not come into serious conflict with mainstream Judaism (his problems with Antipas were more political and personal than theological). Originals do tend to get themselves in trouble.
If the point is “Nobody is original if he or she isn’t entirely different from everything that came before” why not just say no one has ever been original?
And again, I ask you to identify for me someone you admire, who you think was original. I asked you this before, and you never did respond.
This is important to you–but the question remains–why? You haven’t answered that either. And the odds that someone who rebelled against his religious background doesn’t have emotional issues to work out–nonexistent. Jesus clearly had a few of his own. And no, we can’t really know exactly what those were. But part of history is speculation–if that’s insufficiently ‘minimalist’ for you, sorry. But after all–you’re not an historian–and since you haven’t mentioned your educational background, after I inquired–I’m going to assume it consists of reading books that struck your fancy. Nothing wrong with that.
But I was in a doctoral program for three years–and nobody ever mentioned the term ‘historical minimalism’–you made that up. Very original. 😀
Robert wrote
I don’t think there should be PhDs for Leben Jesu Forschung. It is for me a hobby, almost a game, perhaps best played by those with actual expertise in real disciplines, but a game nonetheless. If one knows the languages, texts, and traditions of the era, one might be a little better equipped to play the game, but it is still a game, for some a very serious game, but a game nonetheless. For those who know well what can be known, we may guess at what we don’t know, but we cannot know what we can only guess at. There is such a thing as educated guesses, but the truly educated know these are only guesses. Wow, that must sound very arrogant. OK, guilty as charged. Yes, absolutely, the doctrines and ethics ascribed to him definitely come from his Jewish tradition.
That’s a proper attitude. I’m not calling for blood or demanding legislation here. But godspell thinks his imaginary expertise allows him to penetrate Jesus’ psychology. And he doesn’t seem to realize he’s playing a game. (Rather badly I might add.)
godspell wrote
But to argue Jesus made no modifications–or that his modifications did not prove more influential than everything that came before–is just self-delusion,
But when challenged on the subject you suddenly can’t produce any description of what these “modifications” might be.
because you need to make him smaller
Once again (and again and again) you have no more access to my psychology than you do Jesus’. But you can’t stop it can you? And you can’t see why it’s a problem?
“Historical minimallist”–meaning that you’ll accept as little as you can get away with
No, it actually means I’ll accept what can be demonstrated. That’s how all historians approach their sources.
If I take your word for it that I’m wrong about your motivations–wouldn’t you have to do the same for me?
Yes of course. Which is why I don’t ascribe motivations to you that I can’t possibly know. If I have done so please point it out so I may correct myself.
…if you’ve been a fundamentalist Christian, and you’ve gone to the other extreme–that is precisely what I was saying.
Yes I understand. I hope you don’t think I haven’t heard this kind of thing before!
I ask you to identify for me someone you admire, who you think was original. I asked you this before, and you never did respond.
But I did respond – at length.
Truthfully, I’ve figured you out pretty well…
Me and Jesus! Jesus hasn’t voiced an opinion but I stand in awe of your penetrating insight!
This is important to you–but the question remains–why?
But wait – you just said you had figured me out. Which is it?
ps As to my curriculum vitae, well I have nothing to prove. Waiving your Johnson in the wind may give you some sense of importance but it’s rather infantile don’t you think?
I think you need to be careful in saying we can
[someone] thinks his imaginary expertise allows him to penetrate Jesus’ psychology. And he doesn’t seem to realize he’s playing a game.
better in my opinion is to focus on psychological specifics
Dr Ehrman thinks he can understand enough about Jesus to determine, after looking at relevant evidence what Jesus thought regarding marriage in the Kingdom, well at least to enough write a blog about it.
I agree that we can make reasonable evaluations of what Jesus thought on this subject , but when I look at evidence provided, I come to exact opposite as he has.
also I somewhat think when someone says “your view is anachronistic” is “begging the question” or at least avoiding it or some other logical fallacy that has some name I dont know,
how can one 21st century guy say to another 21st century “your view is anachronistic”?
that is real question, if you can explain it please do so.
Since nobody here is a scholar, it all comes down to what we’ve read, who we find credible, and (of course, whether we admit it or not) what appeals to us personally. Bart has written that everybody has his or her own Jesus, but that is not the same thing as saying that everybody projects idealized traits onto Jesus–some do quite the opposite. Some are out to build him up, others to tear him down–Stephen falls into the latter category. He calls it ‘minimalism’ but that’s the same thing as saying he doesn’t want to ascribe any positive qualities to Jesus if he can possibly avoid it. How much study do we need to know somebody who led a cult, attracted enough attention from the authorities to be executed for nothing more than talking, and whose followers refused to forget about him even though that meant risking their own lives, was charismatic? But there were many cults, with many charismatic leaders, with many interesting ideas. Why him?
None of the answers provided are terribly satisfactory. Probably there is no one answer, but rather a spectrum of interlocking reasons, why his memory took hold, and refused to be dispelled. The Mithras Cult, that Mythers sometimes nonsensically claim was the real basis for the Jesus Myth, was very powerful for a while–then disappeared without a trace. There wasn’t any Mithras, is the problem. That really was a made-up story. And not a very compelling one, once it outlived its time, the circumstances that lent it appeal. When you read the gospels with an open mind, you can see much artifice, much denial of reality–and yet feel a beating heart inside of them. And that heart is Jesus. (forgive my mawkish metaphors, I was raised Catholic after all.).
History is not entirely about understanding a handful of highly influential people. In practice, we should care at least as much about all the people who just slogged along, leading unextraordinary lives. The French pioneered social history, where you study daily life, commerce, trade, agriculture. It requires a great deal of data, still very subjective, but it can shed light on how people lived, and maybe even what they wanted–which is the only reason anything ever catches on, or fails to do so. The people take interest or they don’t.
Jesus could not have had humbler origins–and no other person in history impacted so many, so powerfully. To say that wasn’t just down to him is to say nothing, because that was true of all the others who had an impact. It’s the way society responds to individuals that creates myths, legends, and of course religions. And most particularly individuals who pose questions society has no answer for.
I think the question is “Why are we like this?”
my interpretation is relatively metaphorical and apocalyptic. I do think Jesus expected the Kingdom to come within his generation, which did not occur, that is what I appreciate about Bart’s work; it’s the magical vs non-magical (as you wrote above) nature of the Kingdom itself where we part ways.
I’d rather believe Jesus meant what you say, but I don’t think so. The Kingdom isn’t up in the clouds, it would be in many ways like the world Jesus knew–but it is an altered reality. A mingling of the earthy and the ethereal.
I don’t suppose you’ve ever read The King of Elfland’s Daughter?
I would imagine Lord Dunsany–a Protestant reared among Catholics, a Christian in love with paganism–had some similar conception. A blending of disparate elements into a whole where all he believes in is reconciled, all division banished forever. No longer the fields we know.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
To put it more plainly, if Jesus expected the Kingdom to come in his lifetime, obviously that could not occur without supernatural intervention (a force not even Rome at the peak of its power could stand against). And once the supernatural is introduced, why assume it doesn’t remain?
Jesus doesn’t know a lot of history, but he knows the OT. The OT talks of many kingdoms, Jewish and pagan, rising, then crumbling into dust, replaced by others (this vision of the Jews, who outlasted so many seemingly invincible conquerors, somehow remaining themselves all the while, is incredibly powerful, one of the most enduring insights any people has ever had).
He understands everything created by humans must come to an end, and it won’t end well. I don’t think he believes there is any chance that simply regaining independence for Palestine solves the underlying problems that led to it being conquered and subjugated, again and again. Physical force isn’t the answer–those who live by the sword, perish by the sword.
He is not content to know that someday the Romans will fall as well. That isn’t solving anything. Another empire will take Rome’s place (little did he know it would be an empire that worshiped him as God, followed by many others who did the same). As long as the world remains the same, the cycle will perpetuate itelf. The wheel of history will keep turning.
To borrow from a more recent story featuring supernatural elements, he wants to break the wheel.
And once again, you didn’t answer my question. Let me be more specific.
Was Alexander the Great ‘original’?
godspell, do you really want me to answer this question? Because the result will be that anybody reading this post will expect you to reciprocate with an explanation of what was original about Jesus. So far you have avoided at least a couple opportunities to do so. So you let me know godspell, do you want me to answer this question?
tompicard wrote
Dr Ehrman thinks he can understand enough about Jesus to determine, after looking at relevant evidence what Jesus thought regarding marriage in the Kingdom, well at least to enough write a blog about it.
I agree that we can make reasonable evaluations of what Jesus thought on this subject , but when I look at evidence provided, I come to exact opposite as he has.
As perfect an example as any that we have little access to the historical Jesus. We know what the gospel writers thought Jesus thought about it.
how can one 21st century guy say to another 21st century “your view is anachronistic”?
that is real question, if you can explain it please do so.
When the view being expressed contradicts those aspects of history that we can verify. It’s easier to give examples. In the first Marvel Captain America movie WW2 infantry squads were depicted as unsegregated. The film depicted black soldiers fighting alongside white soldiers in the same unit against the Nazis. Now in a dumb (but entertaining) superhero movie nobody will really get upset but one 21st century guy can point out the anachronism to another 21st century guy, like I’m doing now.
Robert said
Once we get past the pejorative stigma of words like ‘magical’, we’re still left with the distinction between divine/angelic vs human/political. Where do you place yourself in that divide?
uhh unless you ask more specifically I would have to say in the exact middle,
Yes, Stephen, I want you to answer that question.
Because the real answer, much as you don’t want to admit it is, that’s not the point of anything. Originality isn’t an objective fact. Everything has precedents. Jesus came up with a much more compelling version of ideas he’d inherited–he made it come alive in a way the Essene texts never could. He made it accessible to a great variety of people in a way John the Baptist never could. He made it something worth sacrificing and even dying for to an increasing number of talented acolytes, before and after his death.
Your point seems to be that if we can point to anyone who said anything like what Jesus said, before he said it, he wasn’t original.
And my point is that’s not someone who has seriously studied the history of ideas would ever say. You simply don’t know enough to even make an argument, which is why you’re ducking my questions.
Stephen said
And once again, you didn’t answer my question. Let me be more specific.Was Alexander the Great ‘original’?
godspell, do you really want me to answer this question? Because the result will be that anybody reading this post will expect you to reciprocate with an explanation of what was original about Jesus. So far you have avoided at least a couple opportunities to do so. So you let me know godspell, do you want me to answer this question?
tompicard wrote
Dr Ehrman thinks he can understand enough about Jesus to determine, after looking at relevant evidence what Jesus thought regarding marriage in the Kingdom,
As perfect an example as any that we have little access to the historical Jesus. We know what the gospel writers thought Jesus thought about it.
So by looking at Mark 12:18 you are not willing to say that Jesus thought that at the resurrection there will be no marriage but only that Mark thought that Jesus thought that at the resurrection there is no marriage?
this is kind of ridiculous
I was assuming in this thread we were taking some of the reports in the gospels to be historically accurate, (well at least these verses) if you aren’t willing to accept that then there is no point in any discussion and even more ridiculous a criticism of anachronism because rather than determining verifiable history you can only consider what the writers of the ancient documents thought was verifiable history
godspell said
To put it more plainly, if Jesus expected the Kingdom to come in his lifetime, obviously that could not occur without supernatural intervention
But it is not obvious to me and probably even less obvious to a Judean peasant prophet living in the first century who after being baptized in Jordan river had some kind of ecstatic experience with God
Stephen said
. . I don’t think any of the actual narrative details of the stories recorded in the gospels are historical in the slightest. It’s literature and theology.
ok sorry didn’t see this till now
so you don’t think Mark 12:18 is historical in the slightest,
that is a fine opinion.
as I started this thread I assumed we were beginning by accepting pretty much the viewpoint assumptions held by Dr Ehrman, tho they probably weren’t explicitly stated, here ** you do not have permission to see this link **
he seems to base his argument that Jesus was single on a presumption that Mark 12:18 is somewhat historical.
and I took that and ran with it
I also question your comment
Stephen said
. . . We know some details about the apocalyptic mindset from our sources so we extrapolate that , ,
Aren’t these sources about the apocalyptic mindset also likely literature and theology (non historical)?
and your comment / opinion
Stephen said
from a 21st century secular perspective (which is mine surprise surprise) he was a naïve religious fanatic.
is valid opinion but equally as anachronistic as mine or Dr Ehrman’s (maybe more but that is my opinion)
maybe this is how threads veer off course I assume that you were arguing something related to Jesus and marriage, but it seems like not , maybe just your rant, but that is ok doesn’t offend me
Is there any religious person one in the past 100 (or 1000) years who you dont consider naive and fanatical ?
if you want to share ok, if not ok too.
tompicard said
godspell said
To put it more plainly, if Jesus expected the Kingdom to come in his lifetime, obviously that could not occur without supernatural interventionBut it is not obvious to me and probably even less obvious to a Judean peasant prophet living in the first century who after being baptized in Jordan river had some kind of ecstatic experience with God
I do not see how you come to that conclusion. A Judean peasant living in the first century who has come into contact with Jewish Apocalyptic ideas and had some kind of ecstatic experience with God is precisely the kind of person who would believe that. And the OT is full of supernatural interventions in favor of the Jews when faced with a superior enemy. This is simply an extension of that idea, to the point where no further interventions shall ever be required, gentiles of good will shall also be saved, and the basic sources of past discord shall be abolished forever. One of these being sex, at least in the sense it had existed in the past. So I’m baffled as to why you think Jesus just thought it would be the same as before, when everything he’d learned would teach him that if that was the case, there would be more wars, more injustice, more grinding poverty. He didn’t know about global warming, but I doubt he’d have been surprised.
Then again, Stephen has apparently concluded that historians don’t know what they are talking about, and he is free to dismiss their findings, selectively or in their entirely, if they cause him any discomfort. Maybe I was being too kind when I said he wasn’t as bad as Carrier. 🙄
I think you’ve got it just right–it’s both. Jesus doesn’t draw a clear line between the two. To him, it’s a miracle when people treat each other decently with no external motivation to do so. We should all see that as a miracle. The supernatural stuff is secondary to ethics. He still needs to believe in the supernatural, because without it, he can’t see how the good part of us wins out in what we now call a Darwinian universe. Neither did Darwin. Neither do I, but one can always hope.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)