No, the controversy springs from people making **** up to try and prove Jesus is Horus or Mithras, and only proving they don’t know much about any of them.
You know very well I reject the supernatural aspects of the NT, and don’t assume the non-supernatural stuff all happened. That is not the same as saying none of it did.
Are you saying none of it happened, Stephen? Because Bart has about as much contempt for Richard Carrier and his illk as he does for fundamentalist ‘scholars’ who claim to have found a first century copy of Mark that proves it’s all true.
It really is the same thing. People trying to make the facts match their prejudices. The nature of the prejudice doesn’t matter. If you think it does, that only goes to show that scholarship isn’t what matters to you. And of course, you’re no more of a scholar than I am. Which is why we’re both here. 🙂
Wow this is the first time you’ve ever actually asked me a question instead of merely presuming you knew my thoughts and motivations. We’re making progress! Consequently I’m happy to respond.
No, I’m not a Mythicist. But neither do I assume that Richard Carrier is a fool or demon-possessed. He’s merely mistaken. He does seem to have some personality issues but I don’t care about that. Only his arguments. (Being an asshole doesn’t mean you’re wrong. Being a saint doesn’t make one right. It’s irrelevant. Don’t you see? This is why attacking the perceived personalities of media atheists is completely beside the point.)
On the other hand I would describe myself as a skeptical historical minimalist. I consider the historical core of the NT to be expressed in Mark 1:14-15.
Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news.”[
Jesus had some kind of relationship with John (disciple? rival? both?) and had a ministry in Galilee of indeterminate length preaching the imminent Kingdom. At some point he went to Jerusalem and ran afoul of the Romans. Afterwards Jesus’ disciples formed a Jewish sect that ultimately mutated into a world religion.
But that’s it. We have absolutely no access to Jesus’ psychology or motivations and I think very little of the narrative involving Jesus in the gospels has any basis in history. There is a detectable tension between the pre-Easter Jesus and the post-Easter Jesus in the gospels. In the classic formulation the religion of Jesus became a religion about Jesus. In that tension we get glimpses of the historical Jesus but only glimpses. I have no problem with speculation as long as it’s labeled as such. (The best scholars do this. The folks you see on YouTube mostly don’t.)
As far as expertise, no I’m not a NT scholar but I have been reading in this field for over thirty years and I can certainly understand the scholarship. (Prof Ehrman has expressed some opinions I disagree with. One does not argue with such a person lightly but I would if the opportunity arose. Perhaps I’ll post about it.)
I have no problems with any of this. I think we can, in fact, make some good suppositions with regards to Jesus’ motives (Bart does), and we do the same with many another figure from ancient history, and we’re going to do it whether you like it or not. But suppositions they remain. And if that bothers you here, it should bother you everywhere. Not just when it’s Jesus.
With regards to being skeptical, I’d say we’re in the same ballpark, if not the same page (I’m obviously a great deal more sympathetic than you, but that’s a bias we both have to allow for).
Speculation labels itself, man. You don’t need to say “It’s just my opinion” every time you give an opinion. Not unless you’re a major scholar writing a book for the mass market. This is an internet forum. “It’s just my opinion” is implicit. Unless somebody says “Thiis is a fact.” And I never did.
I think if I prefaced my posts with “I’m an atheist” you’d have zero problem with anything I type. We’re not on the same team, and that’s the issue here. But I’m not on the other team either, not quite, and that seems to confuse you. Hey, join the club. 😉
And one more thing, Stephen. I’m not a scholar. But I did study to be one. For three years. At CUNY Graduate School, surrounded by the very best historians NYC had to offer. Modern European History, which stretches from the Renaissance to the French Revolution, though I did get into the 20th here and there. English, French, German, Russian, Spanish. Covered the bases. And of course religion was a very big part of all that. In good ways and bad.
And what I learned was that the study of history is enormously complex, and full of division as to how we should look at the past, how we can best understand it. More data doesn’t necessarily lead to greater clarity. Ancient History can be refreshingly simple, because there are so few texts to peruse. It lends itself to speculation, because without speculation, nobody’s ever going to get anywhere. But historians disagree about events that happened a few decades ago, with endless documentation. And they always will.
Sadly, I also learned that I was never going to learn any language other than English, and on that rock, my scholarly ambitions foundered. But I finally got the education I never got in college. And I value that. And you should understand that I value real scholarship, and I know it when I see it. I also see that all scholars, without exceptions, have prejudices that readers must identify and allow for–and for their own as well. It’s a process, and it goes on forever. There is no end to the quest to understand our past. Anymore than there’s an end to our quest to understand ourselves.
And if you don’t see how important Jesus was and is to that quest–well–sorry.
I think we can, in fact, make some good suppositions with regards to Jesus’ motives (Bart does),
No, there’s a distinction between Prof Ehrman’s viewpoint and yours which is obviously opaque to you. Describing Jesus as an apocalypticist makes the best sense of the data. This says nothing about Jesus’ inner psychology. That is opaque to everyone.
And if that bothers you here, it should bother you everywhere. Not just when it’s Jesus.
What makes you think it doesn’t bother me everywhere? You’re projecting again.
More data doesn’t necessarily lead to greater clarity.
Perhaps not but without data there is no clarity at all.
Speculation labels itself, man.
But the problem arises not when I don’t realize you’re speculating but when you don’t realize you’re speculating.
And if you don’t see how important Jesus was and is to that quest–well–sorry.
What makes you think I don’t see how important Jesus is? You’re projecting again.
An apocalyptic preacher has rather a different inner psychology from someone who thinks the world will just go on, wouldn’t you say? Bart also goes into some detail in his last book as to Paul’s psychology, how he might have won converts. He speculates that Constantine became a monotheist because he wanted to be the only ruler. It’s very believable, but it’s not proven fact. It’s supposition. It’s PSYCHOLOGY. They all do it.
You want to believe it’s all yes or no, true or false, on or off–digital thinking. Life isn’t digital, it’s analog. As Susan Sontag said, one great truth may be the polar opposite of another. Don’t TELL me I’m wrong about the way you think, SHOW me, by not taking these ridiculously rigid stances with regards to a subject that I, in all fairness, probably know more about than you (I don’t see any reference to your graduate studies).
Where else does it bother you? Give me an example of historical writing that isn’t about a religious figure, that you find offensive.
Now who’s projecting? You assume I always believe anything I say is indisputably true? I have changed my opinions in this subject alone innumerable times, but I don’t stop taking stances, because that’s part of how you learn.
How do you think Jesus was important? Obviously he impacted history, just by existing (and at least you admit that he did). But how do you think he managed to inspire all these people who founded a religion that he never intended to start? What was so special about him? Yes, that’s a valid question. Many are called, but damn few are chosen.
You understand history isn’t a science, right? It’s part of the humanities. The modern study of history may call upon science, but history remains a dark art, full of imprecision and gray areas.
And I know this, because I studied it, intensively, for several years of my life. Doesn’t make me an authority. But on what basis do you claim to understand it any better?
In 1988, a wonderful tv documentary series was aired, hosted by the Egyptologist and archeologist John Romer, called “Testament.” It was a history of the Tanakh and Christian Bibles as well as their transmission and dissemination in Europe. There was one program on the Gospels, and in it, Romer outlined a “Historian’s Creed” about Jesus that represented the last several centuries of scholarly research. According to Romer, the contents of this “Creed,” what historians thought could be considered reliable historical facts about Jesus, boiled down to these:
“Jesus lived in Galilee. He preached, he healed, he had followers. He came to Jerusalem, he argued with the temple authorities, and he was crucified by the Romans.”
Now, based on all the things I’ve read about Jesus in history, it’s likely we can be a bit more specific than this bare bones account. We can probably say Jesus was raised and lived his formative years in Nazareth. We can probably say Jesus was baptised by John the Baptist. We can say that Jesus formulated a unique set of teachings that gained him some, perhaps small, following in Galilee. We can say he gained a reputation as a healer (saying he was a healer as the “Historian’s Creed” a la Romer does probably goes a little farther than historically reliable). We can probably say that Jesus, when he came to Jerusalem for the Passover festival, proclaimed things that got him in trouble with the religious authorities there. We can probably say that at least some of Jesus’ own teachings, either to his close disciples or perhaps at the end more openly, represented him as closely associated with the immanent end of the present world age and the establishment of God’s Kingdom, namely as the “messiah” or the “king of the Jews” or some other politically signifiant figure. We can probably say that, when the Roman authorities got wind of this, he was quickly brought before Pilate, sentenced to death and crucified, so that he would not become a cause for “trouble” during the Passover festivities. Shortly after the crucifixion, Jesus’ followers came to believe and proclaim that Jesus was raised from the dead, and formed their own religious movement.
More than that, I think it’s presently not possible to have a lot of overconfidence about. I tend to agree with those like Dr. Ehrman who believe that Jesus probably was an apocalypticist. But I’m not sure this can be more confidently known than the set of seemingly reliable facts in the paragraph above.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
A very nice summary of the facts that we can be reasonably certain of after 2000 years.
After that, the evidence, though quite signficant in volume, has issues and lends itself more to historical, theological, scientific and philosophical interpretation, interpolation and judgment of historical veracity. We all have to decide exactly what we believe about Jesus – what he actually said, what he did (miracles etc), whether he was resurrected and, most of all, who he was.
It is not an historian’s job to decide who did miracles, or if miracles exist.
Frankly, I think that’s above everybody’s pay grade.
Just going there muddies the waters, and you end up understanding less, not more.
We can have a rational discussion as to whether Jesus had a reputation as a faith healer. Not as to whether he could revoke the laws of nature.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)