Bart’s new book is out tomorrow. I will be downloading the Kindle edition.
I hope those reading the book will want to add their comments, reviews etc.
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
maryhelena said
Bart’s new book is out tomorrow. I will be downloading the Kindle edition.I hope those reading the book will want to add their comments, reviews etc.
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Greg Matthews said
I was one of those who got to read it last year. I’m sort of interested in how Carrier decides to ride this one down the road with his merry band.
Well – since I’m not playing in Carrier’s merry band…….
Bart’s new book is now downloaded – so I will be spending some time today reading it….
So, Greg – ready with your review?
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Bart’s new book is out tomorrow. I will be downloading the Kindle edition.I hope those reading the book will want to add their comments, reviews etc.
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……
maryhelena said
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Bart’s new book is out tomorrow. I will be downloading the Kindle edition.I hope those reading the book will want to add their comments, reviews etc.
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……
Well, no, not just for what Jesus said or did; we will have to rely on educated guesswork for most historical questions about most ancient historical figures. But that’s what historians have been telling us for a long time now anyway.
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Bart’s new book is out tomorrow. I will be downloading the Kindle edition.I hope those reading the book will want to add their comments, reviews etc.
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……
Well, no, not just for what Jesus said or did; we will have to rely on educated guesswork for most historical questions about most ancient historical figures. But that’s what historians have been telling us for a long time now anyway.
Ah – but then one cannot say that Jesus existed – all one can say is that ‘my guess’ is that he did exist. And if the whole did Jesus exist debate rests on a guessing game – albeit an educated guessing game – well then – neither side can claim certainty and should therefore display a little modesty in their approach to the other side of the debate….
I can most certainly agree with this point – history is primary – and should be for any research into early christian origins…
Bart: Society itself cannot function without a memory of the people and events that have bound and continue to bind it together. As a society we have to remember our origins, our history, our wars, are economic crisis, our mistakes, and our successes. Without a recollection of our past we cannot live in the present or look forward to a future.
Yep, we don’t live in a vacuum – and nor did the gospel writers…..history would have been as important to them as it is to us today….
maryhelena said
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Bart’s new book is out tomorrow. I will be downloading the Kindle edition.I hope those reading the book will want to add their comments, reviews etc.
Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……
Well, no, not just for what Jesus said or did; we will have to rely on educated guesswork for most historical questions about most ancient historical figures. But that’s what historians have been telling us for a long time now anyway.
Ah – but then one cannot say that Jesus existed – all one can say is that ‘my guess’ is that he did exist. And if the whole did Jesus exist debate rests on a guessing game – albeit an educated guessing game – well then – neither side can claim certainty and should therefore display a little modesty in their approach to the other side of the debate….
Well, the bare existence of someone is a much more certain matter than the specifics of what they said or did.
Omar6741 said
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……
Well, no, not just for what Jesus said or did; we will have to rely on educated guesswork for most historical questions about most ancient historical figures. But that’s what historians have been telling us for a long time now anyway.
Ah – but then one cannot say that Jesus existed – all one can say is that ‘my guess’ is that he did exist. And if the whole did Jesus exist debate rests on a guessing game – albeit an educated guessing game – well then – neither side can claim certainty and should therefore display a little modesty in their approach to the other side of the debate….
Well, the bare existence of someone is a much more certain matter than the specifics of what they said or did.
A person can exist in the past but to claim historicity for that person historical evidence is required – and it’s not available for the gospel Jesus figure…
Oh, the expression you used earlier ”..a form of educated guesswork” I’ve not come across yet in reading the book and can’t find ‘guesswork’ in a search on the Kindle edition. Maybe you needed to make it clearer that these were not Bart’s words….
maryhelena said
Omar6741 said
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……Well, no, not just for what Jesus said or did; we will have to rely on educated guesswork for most historical questions about most ancient historical figures. But that’s what historians have been telling us for a long time now anyway.
Ah – but then one cannot say that Jesus existed – all one can say is that ‘my guess’ is that he did exist. And if the whole did Jesus exist debate rests on a guessing game – albeit an educated guessing game – well then – neither side can claim certainty and should therefore display a little modesty in their approach to the other side of the debate….
Well, the bare existence of someone is a much more certain matter than the specifics of what they said or did.
A person can exist in the past but to claim historicity for that person historical evidence is required – and it’s not available for the gospel Jesus figure…
Oh, the expression you used earlier ”..a form of educated guesswork” I’ve not come across yet in reading the book and can’t find ‘guesswork’ in a search on the Kindle edition. Maybe you needed to make it clearer that these were not Bart’s words….
Hmmm..since I did not quote Bart at all, I don’t see any need for me to make it clearer that these were not his words; that ought to be clear enough from the fact that the author of the post is not Bart, and Bart has not been quoted.
If you don’t think there is any evidence for the Gospel Jesus figure, maybe we should first discuss Bart’s book on that topic. Once we are sure he existed, we can then see how reliable memories of him might have been. 🙂
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
Omar6741 said
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
Wow – that’s great – ”...a form of educated guesswork’‘……only for what Jesus said or did? The next step for Bart is to apply that reasoning to the whole Jesus historicist question…..OK – will start reading the Kindle version……Well, no, not just for what Jesus said or did; we will have to rely on educated guesswork for most historical questions about most ancient historical figures. But that’s what historians have been telling us for a long time now anyway.
Ah – but then one cannot say that Jesus existed – all one can say is that ‘my guess’ is that he did exist. And if the whole did Jesus exist debate rests on a guessing game – albeit an educated guessing game – well then – neither side can claim certainty and should therefore display a little modesty in their approach to the other side of the debate….
Well, the bare existence of someone is a much more certain matter than the specifics of what they said or did.
A person can exist in the past but to claim historicity for that person historical evidence is required – and it’s not available for the gospel Jesus figure…
Oh, the expression you used earlier ”..a form of educated guesswork” I’ve not come across yet in reading the book and can’t find ‘guesswork’ in a search on the Kindle edition. Maybe you needed to make it clearer that these were not Bart’s words….
Hmmm..since I did not quote Bart at all, I don’t see any need for me to make it clearer that these were not his words; that ought to be clear enough from the fact that the author of the post is not Bart, and Bart has not been quoted.
If you don’t think there is any evidence for the Gospel Jesus figure, maybe we should first discuss Bart’s book on that topic. Once we are sure he existed, we can then see how reliable memories of him might have been. 🙂
OK – since it is the subject of Bart’s book that is the focus of the OP – I simply inferred from your reference to ”..a form of educated guesswork” to be a reference to the book. My mistake if that was not your intention.
Whether or not the gospel Jesus is viewed, in some variant, as historical is neither here nor there with regard to the substance of Bart’s new book. Memory is a function regarding stories of fictional figures as well as of historical figures. The question for the gospel story is what historical figure, or figures, did the gospel writers have in mind when creating their story. Memory on its own will not establish historicity for the gospel Jesus figure. As the quote I referenced above – history is relevant to our lives – and it is history that offers a way forward in understanding the memories of the gospel writers. While the gospel writers supplied the ‘string’ it is the ‘pearls’ of historical facts that need to be collected.
I’m enjoying the read of the book – even Reza Aslan gets a mention. I’m sure he will be pleased about that….
”…a true gist memory’….
”As I have indicated, most critical scholars would agree that in very broad outline, the Gospel accounts represent a true gist memory. During a Passover festival Jesus was brought before the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, found guilty for calling himself king of the Jews, and ordered to be crucified”. (page 136)
The true gist memory here is not the detail re Passover or Pilate – the true gist memory is that Rome executed, crucified, a real flesh and blood historical King of the Jews. A historical remembrance placed, by the gospel writers, 70 years after the historical event.
If the gospel writers were writing accounts taken from oral memory, 40 or 65 years after the Lukan gospel chronology, and the gist of these memories is deemed historical and taken to be important for the gospel story – then one cannot discount the importance of earlier memories, memories prior to 30/33 c.e. It would be these earlier memories, memories that, however distorted or misremembered by time, would retain the gist of a historical event. It would be these earlier memories that would have meaning for those living during the Lukan chronological time-frame. Thus, the gospel story is not saying Jesus was crucified by Pilate in 30/33 c.e. – it is saying that the Lukan Pilate time-frame is the 70th year anniversary, the remembrance of that earlier event in 37 b.c.e. The earlier Roman execution of a King of the Jews was remembered in a literary memorial set down around 30/33 c.e. – the gospel crucifixion story.
maryhelena said
”…a true gist memory’….”As I have indicated, most critical scholars would agree that in very broad outline, the Gospel accounts represent a true gist memory. During a Passover festival Jesus was brought before the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, found guilty for calling himself king of the Jews, and ordered to be crucified”. (page 136)
You read quickly! All the way to page 136!
The virgin birth, however, would not be considered a true gist memory by most scholars, I take it.
Omar6741 said
I have just started reading it. It will be a useful point of reference for discussions of history.
It seems we need to have a general notion of “information transmitter”; a scribe is an information transmitter, an oral storyteller is an information transmitter, an author is an information transmitter, and so on. In general, we can trust a particular bit of information in a book, like the Gospels, only if we can trust each information transmitter in the chain leading back to the person who heard Jesus say or do something. All of these are anonymous, however, in typical cases, and so we have no way of deciding whether or not they were reliable. And that means that historical views about what Jesus of Nazareth said or did have to involve a form of educated guesswork.
O:
If you think about it, you’ll realize it is not about trusting your sources, but whether, applying the critical method, we can determine if any of it is true. This BTW is what the Jesus Seminar appears to have been trying to do. According to Robert Miller, “In assessing the authenticity of the sayings of Jesus, the Jesus Seminar shouldered a burden of proof: to accept as authentic only those sayings it could demonstrate to be such…” Thus while the individual members might think otherwise, critical investigation required something other than mere belief. Hence the alleged gap (between their conclusions and beliefs) purported to prove some sort of ideological double dealing is simply a mixture of offense at their conclusions and the assumption that if they are concluding something offensive, they must also be trying to do something offensive. This despite the fact that many of the commentators, themselves, employed the critical method in their own work. It’s instructive that critical thinking lost out, even among some experts, to insinuation and whether someone was offended.
Omar6741 said
Well, the bare existence of someone is a much more certain matter than the specifics of what they said or did.
Actually, O
It’s simply a matter of probability and, what Karl Marx might have described as sticking to the level of abstraction. To argue that historians can’t say whether Jesus existed, is to forget the standard of evidence historians use and concluding they are being inconsistent SOMEHOW by actually adhering to it.
Omar6741 said
maryhelena said
”…a true gist memory’….”As I have indicated, most critical scholars would agree that in very broad outline, the Gospel accounts represent a true gist memory. During a Passover festival Jesus was brought before the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, found guilty for calling himself king of the Jews, and ordered to be crucified”. (page 136)
You read quickly! All the way to page 136!
The virgin birth, however, would not be considered a true gist memory by most scholars, I take it.
Yep, I’m a quick reader….now on page 154….
I’ve now got to the section re the issue of sedition. Looks like Bart is not going to be influenced by Dale Martin…..
”Historical discontinuity (a rebel Jesus and passive later church): Yes, there was, in my view, a sharp discontinuity, but that is easily explained (as I hint at toward the end of my article). After the disciples saw what a disaster the armed option was, what would be more natural than that they would abandon it? There is lots of discontinuity between the historical Jesus and later beliefs and practices. But this one is easy to explain: they tried the armed option and it failed. Come up with a different strategy to get the kingdom of God!”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Bart rejects the seditious issue on two grounds. 1) the pacifist quotations. 2) the questions of followers of Jesus not being arrested.
On the second question:
“(Why) Was Jesus the Galilean Crucified Alone? Solving a False Conundrum”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament 36.2 (2013) 127-154.
Fernando Bermejo Rubio
** you do not have permission to see this link **
On the first question of the pacifism quotes: They, like the seditious elements in the gospel story, are there. I think it is wrong to pit them against each other. The gospel story is what it is. The seditious elements and the pacifist quotes need to be accommodated:
If looking for gist memory is what we seek to do – then denying a seditious element to the gospel Jesus figure is surely mistaken. The existence of pacifist sayings does not trump the seditious elements – an argument can be made that the pacifist sayings are being used to play down the seditious elements. But that both are part of the gospel Jesus story is a reality that can’t be ignored. If there is gist memory in the pacifist sayings then there is gist memory in the seditious elements….
I do find the Barabbas explanation disappointing. Firstly, Bart questions the historicity of Barabbas (no fault with that). However, he then proceeds to say the reason the Jews choose Barabbas to be released is because they, the Jews, in the eyes of the gospel writers, ”…..are always doing the wrong thing and opposing the true ways of God”.
Why would the Jews want an insurrectionist set free? Perhaps they were advocating rebellion against Rome and Barabbas was just the sort of man they needed?
If Jesus was viewed as an appeaser, a pacifist figure – the Jews would have no use for such a man while living under Roman occupation.
That’s a basic political take on the Barabbas and Jesus story. However, it’s not the only political story that can be argued…..its just the simplest one.
The gist memory of the Barabbas and Jesus story is the historical memory of not one but two historical figure. One figure a Man of War and the other figure a Prince of Peace type figure. History, of course, has the Man of War executed, crucified, by Rome in 37 b.c.e., not the Prince of Peace figure. The gospel political allegory allows the tables to be turned, as it were. For theological reasons the sinless man, the Prince of Peace, has to be the one crucified.
Yes, the Barabbas story is not history – it’s a political allegory. Viewing it as such allows a window into history that simply blaming the Jews for always doing the wrong thing simply cannot open.
A hard hitting interview with Bart…..
Remembering Jesus (Or Not)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The more I read of your book, the more I found myself actually sympathizing with those scholars out there who say that ** you do not have permission to see this link ** at all. That he is pure fiction. And yet you insist, throughout the book, that Jesus did exist. Why? What is your best evidence?
Ah, that is a big question that would take a big answer. And in fact I give a big answer in another book that I wrote a few years ago, Did Jesus Exist? There I show why there is really no question among the vast majority of scholars (with one or two exceptions out of many, many thousands!) that Jesus existed, whatever else we might want to say about what he said and did.
Towards the end, you conclude that “The Gospels are shared memories of the past” (p.293). No, they are not. They are made up tales of fiction. Your own work proves that, so eloquently. So why not just say that? I found that frustrating. I mean, words have meaning, and when you call a made up fiction a “shared memory,” aren’t you just making things more confusing? More obfuscated? More untrue?
No, I’m afraid you have misunderstood me. The Gospels are not fiction in the sense you state. The authors of these books did not make up their stories about Jesus. They inherited their stories from the oral tradition. Most of these stories had been shaped and transformed by their oral transmission; some of them were invented, either with intent or not. (It is oh so possible for stories to be made up without anyone exercising intentional deceit. It happens all the time: that’s what rumors are). But the point is NOT simply that they are a bunch of lies. That’s not the point at all. The point is that to understand these books for what they are we have to understand and appreciate how memory works. If we don’t appreciate how people remember the past, then we privilege dry “fact-checking” over “meaning.” I argue strongly that we don’t do that normally in our lives and should not do it with the New Testament. That’s the entire point of my final chapter.
——————————————————
I’ll admit that, although I’m only halfway through the book, I kind of agree with the above – everything Bart is saying about memory and distorted memory and false memory etc brings the ‘truth’ , i.e. the accuracy, of the gospel story into question. The christian fundamentalist are going to have a ball game….and the ahistoricists – who knows but they might well be keeping the door open for Bart….yes, Damascus conversions are never easy but they do happen when the obvious is so plainly stated as it is in Bart’s new book…
Memory cannot be relied upon to assume historicity of any gospel event. Picking and choosing which memory is historical defeats the whole trust of Bart’s argument re memory. Probability re any gospel event does not guarantee historicity – all it does is credit the author with using some logic in the creation of his story.
It seems to me that Bart’s new book is not going to be a book that can be used to support a historical Jesus – it’s more likely the book that will bring the historicist Jesus assumption down from it’s pedestal…Bart’s protestations, in the interview, nothwithstanding….
====================
Apologies to anyone offended re the link in the above quote to Richard Carrier’s book……not my intention at all to draw attention to that book….but taking the link out did not seem to be the correct way to use the quotation…I don’t support the mythicist argument in Carrier’s book…
I have now finished reading Bart’s new book.
I loved this quotation:
”Literature speaks to us quite apart from the facts of history. So does music. So does sculpture. So do all the arts. The Gospels are not simply historical records about they past. They are also works of art”. (page 276 Kindle edition)
The gospels as a work of art – the gospels as great literature. Yes indeed. And like all great art the gospels are a reflection of, and have meaning for, our human living experience.
I do find, however, that the emphasize in the book upon distorted memory does serve to undermine the gospels as a work of art! Finding gist memory in the gospel story is one thing – but emphasize upon distorted memory does, to my mind, indicate that the work of art is flawed…..Yes, memory distorts the past. But to assume that because the gospels have conflicting ‘memories’, or contradictions, that that indicates distorted memory is at play in the gospel story does not necessarily follow. Contradictions can be in the gospel story for reasons other than distorted memories…Storyline development can involve changes without any memory being involved at all – just simply creative licence….
From the ahistoricist perspective, the gospel story was created to be what it is – i.e. a story – not a collection of memories that a gospel writer strung like pearls on a string. The ahistoricist perspective allows for gist historical memory to be reflected in the story. Distorted memory does not have a role to play. An author’s creative ability not his journalistic ability is what translates into a work of art.
Towards the end of the book I’ll admit to losing some interest. The chapters that deal with the memory of the gospel writers were, for me, simply repeating the gospel story – albeit through the eyes, memory, of the gospel writer/writers.
Obviously, from a historical perspective, it is Bart’s references to gist memory that is relevant. Here, of course, is where history has to be put on the table in order to validate the gist memories within the gospel story. The gospel gist memory does not validate itself as being true gist memory. Yes, of course, if one goes with the assumption of a historical Jesus – then the gospel gist memory is simply reflecting that assumption. But if it is gist memory, as a psychological discipline/study that one is wanting to use in support of ones gospel interpretation – one does need evidence in order to validate the gist memory as valid.
There will probably be some ahistoricists/mythicists that find the book a shot in the foot for the historicist Jesus figure. Thus, while Bart’s new book makes some interesting points regarding memory research – that research does not help his historicist position. On the contrary it demonstrates how fragile the ground is upon which the historicist case is based.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert