And Carrier’s reply to Erhman:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026
Cap’t Jack
A reply] from Ehrman to Carrier. After refuting many arguments from Carrier, Ehrman states:The Ehrman-Carrier battle is a fun one to watch. There's something about Ehrman that rubs me the wrong way. Not sure what it is, just a little too sure of himself, or maybe it is a statement like the one you quoted here, it says, "I could explain it to you if you were smarter, but you're not, so I'll make it simple." Carrier seems to be trying harder to make scholarship accessible.My scholarly books would never be mistaken for books that would be read by a wide, general public. But Carrier indicates that the inadequacy of Did Jesus Exist can be seen by comparing it to two of his own recent books, which, he tells us, pay more attention to detail, embrace a more diverse range of scholarship, and have many more footnotes. I did not write this book for scholars. I wrote if for lay people who are interested in a broad, interesting, and very important question. Did Jesus really exist? I was not arguing the case for scholars, because scholars already know the answer to that question. I was explaining to the non-scholar why scholars think what they do. A non-scholarly book tries to explain things in simple terms, and to do so without the clutter of detail that you would find in a work of scholarship.Italics by me.
One book that I highly recommend is The Historical Jesus, Five Views where you see both arguments clearly laid out pro and con. Although Erhman isn’t represented, his views are, including other scholar’s findings from the Jesus Seminar, e.g. My personal favorite Crossan. I read two of Erhman’s books BTW and didn’t get that impression of him, but like you I couldn’t react to that statement other than to view it as pretentious. I’m finishing a Carrier book now and in contrast his research is very similar to Price in that he presents a picture of a cobbled together myth. Still not convinced, yet. I’m just delving into this concept of Jesus the myth.
Cap’t Jack
Well, until someone presents clear evidence to the contrary (i.e., that the most skilled of ancient historians are in error), I will continue to presume that Jesus did exist, just as I presume that a “cobbled together” mythology of Jesus exists.
And Carrier's reply to Erhman: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026The other way round? The Erhman article I linked is a reaction on the Carrier article you linked.
Oops, my bad. You’re right GdB. This is Carrier’s proper response to Erhman’s reply to Carrier’s criticism of Erhman’s book. And this debate BTW is ongoing as they continue the debate on their separate blogs sites.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1151
Cap’t Jack
And never the twain will meet…
For the rest I agree with TimB: as a layman, I keep it at the majority of experts. If they change their minds based on new facts, or better interpretations of existing facts, I will eventually hear that.
Same here. But the point counter point arguments are enlightening even though the mythisists seem to be fighting an uphill battle. I’ve read a Price book, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and am finishing Carrier’s book Not The Impossible Faith which is essentially a reply to a Christian apologist. The problem, if you can call It that are the literally hundreds of Biblical quotes that are referenced and if you aren’t a scholar (which I’m not by any means,; my interest is purely historical not interpretational) the reader has to flip to the actual quote for clarity and that takes time. Of course that’s a great portion of the argument anyway.
Cap’t Jack
There was something similar about this by some former
Baptist minister who left christianity.
He was apparently disturbed upon taking grad courses in textual criticism at Harvard.
And I remember a chrisitan missionary scholar replying saying something to the effect that “harvard is among the extremely liberal schools”
I cant help but think “ah…good times those were :)”
I can't find any that could possibly be considered creditable.Did you check out the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus? His existence as a historical figure seems to be quite widely accepted. Apparently the key non-Christian sources are Josephus and Tacitus, and the only details of his life that are subject to almost universal assent are that he was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate. I know that a credible case can be made that he is a fictional figure but this is not currently very widely believed among serious historical scholars. I have not read the whole thread, I apologise if these points have already been made.
I can't find any that could possibly be considered creditable.Did you check out the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus? His existence as a historical figure seems to be quite widely accepted. Apparently the key non-Christian sources are Josephus and Tacitus, and the only details of his life that are subject to almost universal assent are that he was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified under Pontius Pilate. I know that a credible case can be made that he is a fictional figure but this is not currently very widely believed among serious historical scholars. I have not read the whole thread, I apologise if these points have already been made. It is not unlikely that Jesus of the bible lived. It's his divinity and reputation as a miracle worker that is in question and can't be validated. There is so little contemporary mention of him, I can't help thinking that most everything said about him is exaggeration and mythmaking long after he was dead. The whole story of his birth, for example, cannot be documented or sourced and it had to have come to light only long after his death when no possible witnesses were alive--just like most of the other stories about him-- no contemporary witnesses and virtually no contemporary documentation. The writers of the bible did not know him and everything they wrote was based on oral testimony by others who also never knew him. Lois
So long story short. A guy named Jesus existed. A subsequent mythology (outlandish but appealing to many) arose based on his existence. The mythology had and continues to have a profound effect on the course of human history.
So long story short. A guy named Jesus existed. A subsequent mythology (outlandish but appealing to many) arose based on his existence. The mythology had and continues to have a profound effect on the course of human history.Pretty much sums it up. (Great sig by the way Tim). What bugs me is when people who should know better misuse the term "historical" Jesus. It means the myth, or if you if don't like "myth", the Jesus that we know through the scriptures and theology that has been handed down to us. It does not mean the historically accurate picture of a man who was reportedly walking around. It certainly is not the same Jesus that people experience in their personal relationship.
So long story short. A guy named Jesus existed. A subsequent mythology (outlandish but appealing to many) arose based on his existence. The mythology had and continues to have a profound effect on the course of human history.Actually that's close but there's a little more to it. A guy named Jesus apparently existed. Around the same time, there were numerous other Jewish preachers who had followers and who preached similar ideas. Subsequently numerous mythologies/stories arose by numerous groups. In many cases, their stories were made up out of whole cloth to illustrate various points and attributed to Jesus. This was NOT meant to be devious, that's just how things were back then (no such thing as copyright, plagiarism, etc.). Often, and long after Jesus was gone, these groups came into competition with each other and things got out of hand as far as "gospels" about Jesus. This is the point in history where politics and churches come in. Eventually through various means, many of which WERE devious, one set of gospels/myths "won out". And that's what we roughly have handed down until current times. It's actually fascinating history, especially the writing of the King James Bible which itself is a work of fiction on top of a series of works of fiction for political reasons. As an aside, and this is just my own personal speculation, my guess is, one hot day something happened to set "our" Jesus apart from the rest. And that was, he was probably walking along somewhere on a hot day, and someone a ways off, seeing him in the middle of one of the mirages where the earth looks like water, thought he was actually walking on water. They probably told others of this "miracle" and off we go.
After getting two religion degrees, and owing 60k doing so and progressively getting more and more secular here are my thoughts you get for free:
I would agree with the vast majority of scholars who have Phds in religious studies, Greek, history, the classical period etc and teach at schools with academic freedom. The few outliers like price I was never persuaded by.(some of these scholars are liberal xtian, others agnostic or atheist)
(i do not include as scholars people who work for schools like liberty university , southern baptist seminaries, etc…they don’t use real scholarship…they start with dogma and work backwards.)
What is accepted by most scholars…some would claim more…a few less:
The first written gospel (mark) is basis luke/matthew (they also used other source) Very little of the gospels could be called historical. The book of John? Jesus totally talks in long sermons whereas in other books he is pithy. John is not the words of Jesus. Even in Mark, we can’t be sure what he said. Also, some of what Jesus said is common to Jewish thought. Others parts seem to be added in after the fact to explain events theologically “hey I am gonna die and rise for good reason!” (nope! never said it!)
The rest of NT is just ideas about Jesus, not facts about him.
The virgin birth was just an add on. this was common to do with bios back in the day.
The miracles of Jesus are “tall tales”. These are the sort of thing that people make claims about today (how many faith healers do we have today that we know don’t actually heal people?) the fact that the followers of Jesus thought he did miracles merely shows that historically speaking, he had the same kind of followers as modern faith healers. they saw him lay hands…they say people got better. so? a 1000 people at a Benny Hinn show will say the same. we don’t take their claim seriously. so historically speaking, did Benny Hinn heal people? no. but historically speaking the followers of Benny Hinn THOUGHT he did. and could write so in diary. hence…gospels.
So a modern scholar would say the virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection of Jesus are all faith claims of the xtians that were simply added in as mythic elements.
however the death of Jesus, the fact that he was some sort of rabbi that was a pain in the ass to local leaders, and that he had followers, seems very likely.
It also seems likely that soon after, his followers began to report visions of him. Again, would reporting of visions or “seeing Jesus” be any proof historically? NO. If 500 people today said that they saw Elvis, we would reject it out of hand.
If they wrote a book about claiming Elvis rose from dead…a scholar would say 'these people did claim to see Elvis, they thought they saw Elvis" but
a big rule in history is that you cannot academically verify any supernatural event. you can only say “people thought this happened”
I would say historically…Jesus was a very charismatic leader. his actual words (we don’t know if any in the bible are actually his) must have inspired somehow. then we know he was killed. then we know his followers persevered then they wrote stuff about him that is NOT TRUSTWORTHY.
which brings us to the non-christian who wrote about Jesus-- Josephus…I think that Christians ADDED IN to what he said. and I think they were very obvious about it.
this is the alleged quote Christians have passed down over time:
“About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
this is how much some people say he actually wrote " ." that does not seem likely. why add a whole quote? let’s take out all the theological bullshit and editorial…
“About this time there lived Jesus. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”
So… the non-christian verifies: Jesus lived. he won over people. he got his ass killed. people kept following him. they are still around.
let’s look at what was added.
“Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He was the Messiah. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. " see how the short Josephus quote is just facts…and this is all editorial with claims to miracles and resurrection?
as a masters level scholar, it seems to me, the three options people have given 1) Josephus wrote it all (not likely) 2) he wrote none it 3) he wrote parts of it.
it seems to be, those who claim 1 or 2 really do so out of pure ideology.
it is really really fun to take a piss at the very existence of Jesus for some people. but i think the responsible skeptical position is a) he existed. b) he said stuff and won an audience c) obviously he won people over…their descendents are still here. I would also add that his death must be historical…I don’t see him walking around? do you? and a popular religious figure being killed is not a big stretch.
well, that was a 60k answer.
i think the reasonable answer is that the early followers of Jesus took his words and his death, believed he somehow “still was around” either because they were delusional or had right brain experiences that they interpreted as visions of him still being around…when they were really just their brain saying “hey this guy mattered a lot.his memory is still with you…his message lives on”
Postscript:
For those who say that religious scholars are too biased or christian…here is the following:
[first I can say that my professors of religious studies were pretty liberal. and a lot of professors in the field of religious studies are agnostics.
History of Jesus scholarship:
religious scholars kicked the “Jesus was based on Greek myth” and “Jesus never existed” ideas around for over 60 years. and it was amongst the liberal academics that theses ideas considered and were rejected…the religious conservatives never even entertained them. many modern theology schools were founded because paid christian scholars at schools like Harvard, Yale, etc… were willing to consider ideas like 'Jesus never said he was god” and 'Jesus was not born of a virgin" , in America today there are two kinds of theology/religious programs…
I am aware of richard carrier’s theories. suffice it so say, I cannot write in a single post why i think his views on philo, his ahistorical mythic view, etc…don’t seem to be the best route. I will say his theory is incredibly interesting. If I was still in school I would probably spend a lot of time running down his assertions. but having read some of the blogs that critique him, I find that some of his methodology does not ring true. a huge problem? what if you feel that bayes theorem is a bad way to interpret history? baye’s theorem is not like a microscope, which you have to use in order to see smaller things. Baye’s theorem is simply one way to appracch data. It can be helpful. But it by no means is the only way or eve the best way. many scholars find it problematic.
http://irrco.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/probability-theory-introductio/
and from a math guy Private Site
and i think for skeptics… this guy : http://plover.net/~bonds/cultofbayes.html
Thanks for the educated perspective on this topic, somepetezimm.