There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[shunyadragon]

I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question.

It is possible i cannot answer your question.

You give "more credence" to that view than Meier or Ehrman does?

Yes, I do. Everyone has to weigh the evidence and come to conclusions. I consider Meier the easiest to disagree with, because of his strong Christian theist agenda, and the belief in 'multiple attestation.' I am closer to Ehrman's view on being skeptical of how well the gospels reflect the events of the life of Jesus. I am actually closest to Vermes, and have more confidence in his work than Ehrman or Meier.

I am not sure "more credence" is the best way to describe my view, I prefer a more flexible view of consensus. It is presently just the consensus that I believe best reflects the historical evidence we have at the present time. My view is flexible if more evidence is presented. I especially do not think Meier represents a flexible position.

Meier and Ehrman could both insist that the gospels accurately record the beliefs of Christians at the time they were written, while differing not only with you but with each other as to how accurately those beliefs corresponded with the facts of Jesus' actual life.

They 'could' insist, but I do not think they do. Actually I do not think Ehrman necessarily holds this view, but Meier likely does. Again, I do not find it hard to disagree with these two extreme position and prefer Vermes.

That is a very good point, but it has nothing to do with whether the gospel authors believed everything they wrote. It has to do only with whether we should believe everything they wrote.

First, I do not believe that we should believe everything they wrote, as with a justified skeptical position for all ancient historical writings. There is good historical critical methods that provide a basis for giving relative levels of credibility to different ancient works. It is best to have a flexible position.

I do take into consideration the 'human factors' of how the different ancient documents jive with the evidence throughout history, and do not consider any one to stand alone as 'unique,' as some do with the gospels or the Bible itself.

Second, Considering the present knowledge we have of the history of the gospels it was written, compiled and edited by believers. There are times there is evidence the writers did not believe what they they wrote, for example when Josephus wrote his history concerning the events of his life there is evidence he 'made himself look good,' and changed events more than just fudge the facts.

[Doug Shaver]

It is possible i cannot answer your question.

I'm not entirely sure you understand my question.

You claimed to be basing your disagreement with both Meier and Ehrman on your assumption "that the writers and or compilers who wrote these gospels believed them at the time they were written" (post #3558). If that really is the basis of your disagreement with them, then you must suppose that Meier and Ehrman would both deny "that the writers and or compilers who wrote these gospels believed them at the time they were written." If either of them would not deny it, then you must have some other reason for disagreeing with them.

You give "more credence" to that view than Meier or Ehrman does?

I am not sure "more credence" is the best way to describe my view

You misunderstood me, but it's my fault for wording the question so poorly.

Meier and Ehrman could both insist that the gospels accurately record the beliefs of Christians at the time they were written, while differing not only with you but with each other as to how accurately those beliefs corresponded with the facts of Jesus' actual life.

They 'could' insist, but I do not think they do.

That could have answered my question.

Actually I do not think Ehrman necessarily holds this view, but Meier likely does.

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself with respect to Meier.

[robrecht]

So you say.

Yes, that is what I said.

Too vague, please specify. …

Too vague, please specify

I already have, of course, but you did not like the volume of the specifics, preferring to ignore them as an argumentum verbosum, or ascribe to me an intent to rationalize the evidence, or suppose that I am attempting to argue for an alternative historical reconstruction. All of these critiques are leveled at me and do not touch upon the specific points of critical methodology that I have tried to introduce into the discussion. But, for your convenience, I will present the specifics again, with a few additional ones, and will attempt to do so in a more concise outline format:

1. Source critical assumptions too easily create multiple attestation that more rigorous historico-critical scholars question:

a. Considers Mark and Q to offer independent attestation

i. Neirynck and Friedrichsen recently and the great majority of critical scholars defend Mark’s dependence upon Q traditions, therefore no independent attestation for the points of overlap and less likely independence in more oblique parallels

ii. Lambrecht & Fledderman even defend Mark’s dependence on the written Q source, therefore also no independent attestation
iii. Ehrman considers Mk 8,38 and Q 12,8 to be independent parts of the tradition and makes a judgment of historicity of Mk 8,38-9,1,without any consideration of Mark's dependence upon or redaction of Q 12,8-9 or the Q tradition

b. Treats M and L as written or oral Sondergut with little to no substantive consideration of arguments for Matthean and Lukan redaction or creativity. Thus, instead of the 2-source theory, he really follows a 4-source theory (Sanday, Streeter), still favored by many English speaking (mostly conservative) scholars because it maximizes the amount of traditional or historical content in the gospels

c. Considers the gospel of John to provide multiple and independent attestation to the synoptic gospels

i. Barrett, Sabbe, Neirynck, Van Bella have long defended the contrary view, therefore independent attestation should not be facilely assumed. At least Meier does present an argument (not a good one) against this position

d. Considers Mark and Acts to offer independent multiple attestation of Jesus’ prophecy against the temple
e. Considers the gospel of Thomas to offer independent attestation to the synoptic gospels

i. Many, most recently Goodacre, have defended Thomas’ dependence upon the synoptic gospels, therefore no independent attestation. Ehrman merely says the burden of proof is on those who assert dependence. Why not accept the burden of proof for the claim of independent attestation?
ii. But, assuming independent attestation between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of Thomas should lead Ehrman to admit that the counter-apocalyptic elements shared in common by Luke and Thomas are derived either from Luke’s earlier source L or Q. Likewise, counter apocalyptic elements shared in common by Thomas and Q predate at least the final stages of Q. See, eg, Lk 17,20-21 (= GTh 3,3 [NH 2.2, P Oxy 654], which some therefore attribute to Q, but which Ehrman does not mention

2. Uses these questionable multiple attestation criteria findings to limit application of criteria of dis/similarity

3. Selective appeal to Q texts, incomplete, minimizing, or conflicting discussion of Q passages (TJS)

a. No discussion of the sign of Jonah as it relates to the earliest view of Jesus as a prophet (Q 11,16.29-30, cf Mk 8,11f)
b. Misstates an early association of Jesus with John the Baptist in Q, even ‘though this is not clearly attested in Q (cf Robinson v Kloppenborg)
c. Son of Man is hardly heavenly in Q 7,31-35, rather a man of gluttony and drunkenness, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. (Note the contrast of Jesus and John in Q.) Likewise, Q 9,57-58
d. In Q 7,18-19.22-23 Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of John’s prophecies in Q, but in Jesus’ current work (not some future event) is already found a realized presence of the messianic kingdom. Ehrman admits that the Kingdom is already becoming manifest here in Jesus, but only ‘in a small way’. See also the Qumran messianic scroll (4Q521)
e. Mistakenly sees Q 11,20 as Luke muting the apocalyptic in Mark, although it is part of Q, not Lukan redaction. But, later on, where he correctly identifies it as part of Q, he interprets the same verse apocalyptically! In other words, he advances conflicting interpretations of Q 11,20 based on his own conflicting source critical opinions of provenance
f. Limited or no discussion of some specific counter apocalyptic elements of Q. For example, Ehrman twice omits Lk 17,23 from his citation of this Q passage, a counter apocalyptic element insofar as it tells people not to follow those who say where he (the messiah) is, the Matthean version of which may even be anti-Baptist, -Theudus, -Qumran
g. See Kloppenborg and now Rau who critique the Jesus Questers for generally not attending to the scholarly debates and results of research into the Q source

4. Over optimistic separation of tradition and redaction in Mark, minimizing his creative role as author of the gospel and not giving sufficient attention to Mark’s historical context

a. See the explosion in stylistic, narrative, and literary criticism applied to the gospel of Mark since the 1980s (Neirynck, Perrin, Rhoads, Kelber, Donahue, Robbins, Fowler, etc) that arose with the critique of exaggerated redaction criticism, eg, that of Pesch (Neirynck, Van Bella, Verheyden, and Van Oyen)
b. Identifies multiple traditions behind Mark, which may be taken to provide independent or at least earlier attestation.
c. Ehrman’s view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet is based on his reading of at least 4, perhaps 5, multiple layers of pre-Markan and non-Markan tradition independently attesting to Jesus’ prophecy against the Temple (early and later premarkan traditions [13,2 14,58 15,29], John, Acts, Thomas)
d. Does not adequately consider the creative role of Mark in setting up the prophetic Jesus—temple polemic in Mk 8,38—9,1 13,26.30 14,62 15,29-30.38.39. See also Mk 13,28-29 (cf 11,12-14.20-21)

5. No consideration of the common use of exaggerated apocalyptic language in the Hebrew/LXX scriptures, which was nonetheless clearly not intended nor undertood to be taken as referring to the end of the world. Mark even quotes two such passages in his apocalyptic discourse (Isa 13:10 34,4)

6. No consideration of temple/world/new creation typology in MT/LXX/Judaism, eg, whereby building of a new temple is spoken of as the creation of a new heavens and a new earth

7. No discussion of the Danielic Son of Man apocalyptic prophecies being likely emphasized and intensified as the Jewish War approached (cf Josephus, prophecy of the weeks, substitution of Rome as the 4th beast/empire) and Mark's likely historical context along with his direct quotations of Daniel 7

a. Ehrman prefers to see Jesus as alluding to the Book of Daniel rather than Mark actually quoting the book of Daniel

8. No consideration of royal and temple nonapocalyptic protology as the original matrix for the Jewish idea of the Kingdom of God

9. Too quickly dismisses the idea that the gospel accounts might have been influenced by Pauline ideas and apocalyptic expectations

None of these weaknesses of Ehrman’s (and other Jesus Questers’) methodology invalidate his (or their) conclusion, but it is not as rigorous of an historico-critical evaluation of our sources as practiced by other, very highly respected critical scholars who demonstrate a more rigorous historico-critical method. I do not criticize those who nonetheless want to advance multiply hypothetical historical reconstructions, but one should be aware of how hypothetical they are. Likewise, insofar as none of these critiques invalidate Ehrman's position, I also do not reject or even argue against it, but I do have more respect for the more rigorous methodological positions with respect to historicizing or multiply hypothetical readings of Jesus' life. A more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources.

This is not so. Further it is not an ad hominem - it is an assessment of your own stance based on your own unambiguous words.

Make up your mind. Either ‘it is not so’, or ‘it is your assessment’. It cannot be both.

It is indeed so that you argued (3313): “You pay ‘lip-service’ to the importance of the Historical Method but in practice you don’t exercise it …” That is an ad hominem argument because it is about me rather than the topic at hand. And it is certainly a falsead hominem because I have indeed devoted many years of my life being trained in and successfully practicing the historico-critical method, with never a criticism that I was merely paying lip-service to the importance of the historico-critical method.

Although one is aware that claims of “hurt-feelings” is a common trick among Apologists.

Do you really imagine that my feelings are hurt? I have not said anything like that. Why would you even bring this up?

A silly argument about an absurd (but very revealing) statement of yours which you have been attempting to backtrack from ever since!

Strawman. You’ve completely misinterpreted (and misrepresented) my statement to be practically the opposite of what I said, and from which I have not in the slightest back-tracked. Obviously, your view of ‘revelation’ excludes inerrancy.

Too vague, please specify. But remember we are discussing whether or not Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet not whether his “teaching mission” overall was a success, which is where you have been attempting to steer the argument. It wasn’t, in fact, and nor does Ehrman say so, despite your claim elsewhere that he does, although he like most people admires the principle of reciprocity Jesus adopted as his own.

Jesus personal mission was a failure. It was the evolved theology of the later Christian Church which spread around the world impelled by force-of-arms under Rome initially up to and including its spread in the colonial era by opportunistic missionaries.

As for steering the argument, I initially asked about the historico-critical foundation of your view of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet and, when that was not forthcoming, I went to your own sources to consider their arguments when you would not present them. That is hardly steering the discussion away from the topic. You, on the other hand, seem to be intent upon making this a discussion about me, my methodology, and your mistaken interpretations of my statements.

I quoted for you Ehrman’s own words about how Jesus’ teachings should dominate our lives—is that the ‘claim’ I made elsewhere that you are referring to?

What are you talking about? Biblical studies are exactly Ehrman’s particular “field of scholarly expertise”.

‘Biblical studies’ is extremely general, not a specialty. Ehrman’s specialty is textual criticism, originally New Testament quotations in the writings of Didymus the Blind, a 4th century Alexandrian theologian. Within his specialty of textual criticism, I am told he has developed a more sophisticated method for determining manuscript relationships. But in his popularist writings, at least the two books you’ve referred me to, he does not engage in much substantive discussion with scholarly positions. That is not a put-down; it is characteristic of the popularist genre.

He specifically claims that Jesus can be best understood as a "first-century Jewish apocalypticist who expected that the history of the world as he knew it was going to come to a screeching halt and that God was going to overthrow the forces of evil in a cosmic act of judgment."

Ehrman specifically claims exactly this in his preface and first chapter and subsequently spells it out using established critical criteria and independent attestation even in this merely “popularist work” (more ‘put-downs’).

His argument is also prefigured in his other books, notably ‘Jesus Interrupted’ but implicit in all his writings (scholarly and popular) because in his “rigorous application of Historical/Historical methodology”, which you typically diss, the assumption is that Jesus is just a mortal man and therefore not likely to make a post-mortem return on “clouds of glory”.

Denigrating Ehrman in favor of Meier is a cheap tactic. Both scholars have much to offer although Meier, as shunya correctly notes, places more value on the historicity of the gospels than Ehrman (with good reason in my view) does.

And while you are entitled to your opinion, I find your constant claim to be a “rigorous practitioner of Historical methodology” rings hollow given your routine muddying the waters with supernatural ideation.

First of all, I am not putting down or denigrating Ehrman. Popularist books can be very valuable for a general audience. There should be no doubt about the different genres and audiences when comparing Ehrman’s book with Meier’s multi-volume work.

And I certainly do not disrespect historico-critical method, neither in general nor as practiced by Ehrman. That is a complete misrepresentation and thus a strawman, and an ad hominem.

Actually, with respect to the specific subject matter at hand, Ehrman takes more of an historicizing position than Meier, who considers the statements attributed to Jesus about his return within the lifetime of his disciples as created in the pregospel tradition and not likely authentic statements of Jesus.

Not an ad hominem but a reasonable assessment of your debating style.

Your claim that I do not like a conclusion because I am a Christian, that I am engaging in damage control, that I am implying vast depths of untapped knowledge, that I am trying to come up with an explanation to rationalize Jesus’ failed expectations are all ad hominem arguments. These are all statements about me that add nothing to the substance of the discussion at hand. Why discuss my debating style instead of the matter at hand?

Your own words in #3285 belie this claim. Namely:

“Seriously? How can you possibly expect to construct or even understand a meaningful or credible historical reconstruction of the life and work of Jesus, if your only criterion or measure of likelihood is an abstract distinction between natural and supernatural? If that’s all that interests you in this question, it is easy to see why you might quickly latch onto a superficially understood historical reconstruction of someone else”.

They are your exact words and their intent is clear and cannot be misinterpreted despite your best efforts.

There is, of course, no effort on my part to misinterpret my own words, which I believe would obviously be dishonest and a form of lying. Is it your intent to advance this implicit accusation by innuendo?

I consider that your stated Christian position will influence your views given Ehrman argues that its central figure was wrong regarding his beliefs about himself and his mission.

I have already said that I have no issue with Jesus being wrong. I have also not rejected Ehrman’s position, neither from a faith perspective nor from an historico-critical perspective.

And, your demonstrably unconvincing attempts to separate your supernaturalist-based faith from the pure naturalist approach demanded by Historical/Critical methodology is testament to this.

That you are not convinced is subjective on your part, not a matter of demonstration. If you would engage in an actual discussion of historico-critical criteria or attend to where I have done so, you would see that my faith is nowhere employed in my historico-critical methodology. Instead, you prefer to discuss my Christian faith.

Personally, given that Historical methodology does not allows for claims of scripture being divinely inspired and that ALL truth-claims contained therein are subject to criticism to the point of being shown wrong, I think it very difficult for Christians’ to “rigorously apply” the Historical/Critical Method.

This too is an ad hominem. Being a Christian does not make it any more difficult to learn and rigorously apply historico-critical methodology. It can be difficult for anyone, or at least time consuming, to master the languages and literature, but the method itself is not particularly difficult, certainly not from a philosophical perspective. In my tradition, there is no necessary conflict between faith and reason.

[Tassman]

I already have, of course, but you did not like the volume of the specifics, preferring to ignore them as an argumentum verbosum, or ascribe to me an intent to rationalize the evidence, or suppose that I am attempting to argue for an alternative historical reconstruction. All of these critiques are leveled at me and do not touch upon the specific points of critical methodology that I have tried to introduce into the discussion. But, for your convenience, I will present the specifics again, with a few additional ones, and will attempt to do so in a more concise outline format:

1. Source critical assumptions too easily create multiple attestation that more rigorous historico-critical scholars question:

a. Considers Mark and Q to offer independent attestation

i. Neirynck and Friedrichsen recently and the great majority of critical scholars defend Mark’s dependence upon Q traditions, therefore no independent attestation for the points of overlap and less likely independence in more oblique parallels

ii. Lambrecht & Fledderman even defend Mark’s dependence on the written Q source, therefore also no independent attestation
iii. Ehrman considers Mk 8,38 and Q 12,8 to be independent parts of the tradition and makes a judgment of historicity of Mk 8,38-9,1,without any consideration of Mark's dependence upon or redaction of Q 12,8-9 or the Q tradition

b. Treats M and L as written or oral Sondergut with little to no substantive consideration of arguments for Matthean and Lukan redaction or creativity. Thus, instead of the 2-source theory, he really follows a 4-source theory (Sanday, Streeter), still favored by many English speaking (mostly conservative) scholars because it maximizes the amount of traditional or historical content in the gospels

c. Considers the gospel of John to provide multiple and independent attestation to the synoptic gospels

i. Barrett, Sabbe, Neirynck, Van Bella have long defended the contrary view, therefore independent attestation should not be facilely assumed. At least Meier does present an argument (not a good one) against this position

d. Considers Mark and Acts to offer independent multiple attestation of Jesus’ prophecy against the temple
e. Considers the gospel of Thomas to offer independent attestation to the synoptic gospels

i. Many, most recently Goodacre, have defended Thomas’ dependence upon the synoptic gospels, therefore no independent attestation. Ehrman merely says the burden of proof is on those who assert dependence. Why not accept the burden of proof for the claim of independent attestation?
ii. But, assuming independent attestation between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of Thomas should lead Ehrman to admit that the counter-apocalyptic elements shared in common by Luke and Thomas are derived either from Luke’s earlier source L or Q. Likewise, counter apocalyptic elements shared in common by Thomas and Q predate at least the final stages of Q. See, eg, Lk 17,20-21 (= GTh 3,3 [NH 2.2, P Oxy 654], which some therefore attribute to Q, but which Ehrman does not mention

2. Uses these questionable multiple attestation criteria findings to limit application of criteria of dis/similarity

3. Selective appeal to Q texts, incomplete, minimizing, or conflicting discussion of Q passages (TJS)

a. No discussion of the sign of Jonah as it relates to the earliest view of Jesus as a prophet (Q 11,16.29-30, cf Mk 8,11f)
b. Misstates an early association of Jesus with John the Baptist in Q, even ‘though this is not clearly attested in Q (cf Robinson v Kloppenborg)
c. Son of Man is hardly heavenly in Q 7,31-35, rather a man of gluttony and drunkenness, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. (Note the contrast of Jesus and John in Q.) Likewise, Q 9,57-58
d. In Q 7,18-19.22-23 Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of John’s prophecies in Q, but in Jesus’ current work (not some future event) is already found a realized presence of the messianic kingdom. Ehrman admits that the Kingdom is already becoming manifest here in Jesus, but only ‘in a small way’. See also the Qumran messianic scroll (4Q521)
e. Mistakenly sees Q 11,20 as Luke muting the apocalyptic in Mark, although it is part of Q, not Lukan redaction. But, later on, where he correctly identifies it as part of Q, he interprets the same verse apocalyptically! In other words, he advances conflicting interpretations of Q 11,20 based on his own conflicting source critical opinions of provenance
f. Limited or no discussion of some specific counter apocalyptic elements of Q. For example, Ehrman twice omits Lk 17,23 from his citation of this Q passage, a counter apocalyptic element insofar as it tells people not to follow those who say where he (the messiah) is, the Matthean version of which may even be anti-Baptist, -Theudus, -Qumran
g. See Kloppenborg and now Rau who critique the Jesus Questers for generally not attending to the scholarly debates and results of research into the Q source

4. Over optimistic separation of tradition and redaction in Mark, minimizing his creative role as author of the gospel and not giving sufficient attention to Mark’s historical context

a. See the explosion in stylistic, narrative, and literary criticism applied to the gospel of Mark since the 1980s (Neirynck, Perrin, Rhoads, Kelber, Donahue, Robbins, Fowler, etc) that arose with the critique of exaggerated redaction criticism, eg, that of Pesch (Neirynck, Van Bella, Verheyden, and Van Oyen)
b. Identifies multiple traditions behind Mark, which may be taken to provide independent or at least earlier attestation.
c. Ehrman’s view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet is based on his reading of at least 4, perhaps 5, multiple layers of pre-Markan and non-Markan tradition independently attesting to Jesus’ prophecy against the Temple (early and later premarkan traditions [13,2 14,58 15,29], John, Acts, Thomas)
d. Does not adequately consider the creative role of Mark in setting up the prophetic Jesus—temple polemic in Mk 8,38—9,1 13,26.30 14,62 15,29-30.38.39. See also Mk 13,28-29 (cf 11,12-14.20-21)

5. No consideration of the common use of exaggerated apocalyptic language in the Hebrew/LXX scriptures, which was nonetheless clearly not intended nor undertood to be taken as referring to the end of the world. Mark even quotes two such passages in his apocalyptic discourse (Isa 13:10 34,4)

6. No consideration of temple/world/new creation typology in MT/LXX/Judaism, eg, whereby building of a new temple is spoken of as the creation of a new heavens and a new earth

7. No discussion of the Danielic Son of Man apocalyptic prophecies being likely emphasized and intensified as the Jewish War approached (cf Josephus, prophecy of the weeks, substitution of Rome as the 4th beast/empire) and Mark's likely historical context along with his direct quotations of Daniel 7

a. Ehrman prefers to see Jesus as alluding to the Book of Daniel rather than Mark actually quoting the book of Daniel

8. No consideration of royal and temple nonapocalyptic protology as the original matrix for the Jewish idea of the Kingdom of God

9. Too quickly dismisses the idea that the gospel accounts might have been influenced by Pauline ideas and apocalyptic expectations

None of these weaknesses of Ehrman’s (and other Jesus Questers’) methodology invalidate his (or their) conclusion, but it is not as rigorous of an historico-critical evaluation of our sources as practiced by other, very highly respected critical scholars who demonstrate a more rigorous historico-critical method. I do not criticize those who nonetheless want to advance multiply hypothetical historical reconstructions, but one should be aware of how hypothetical they are. Likewise, insofar as none of these critiques invalidate Ehrman's position, I also do not reject or even argue against it, but I do have more respect for the more rigorous methodological positions with respect to historicizing or multiply hypothetical readings of Jesus' life. A more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources.

Well yes. One can only wonder why you have presented the above long list of speculative hypotheses when you freely admit that “a more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources”. Nevertheless, we can be as sure as we can be of anything in the gospels that Jesus and his followers were expecting his imminent post mortem arrival in glory – as you too have acknowledged several times – and he did NOT return as expected. In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

But, unlike many apologist biblical scholars, Ehrman’s above conclusion has been arrived at strictly by the Historical/Critical Method, i.e. the same form of historical methodology practiced by secular historians. And fundamental to this methodology Jesus (or any historical figure) can only be viewed as a mortal man not a supernatural entity.

As for your attempt to discredit Ehrman’s conclusions by claiming he is: “not as rigorous of an historico-critical evaluation of our sources as practiced by other, very highly respected critical scholars who demonstrate a more rigorous historico-critical method” as well as your frequent dismal of him as a mere “popularizer” is a genetic fallacy and smacks of “shooting the messenger”. Ehrman’s academic credentials and published works are beyond question.

http://www.bartdehrman.com/books.htm

Make up your mind. Either ‘it is not so’, or ‘it is your assessment’. It cannot be both.

It is indeed so that you argued (3313): “You pay ‘lip-service’ to the importance of the Historical Method but in practice you don’t exercise it …” That is an ad hominem argument because it is about me rather than the topic at hand. And it is certainly a falsead hominem because I have indeed devoted many years of my life being trained in and successfully practicing the historico-critical method, with never a criticism that I was merely paying lip-service to the importance of the historico-critical method.

It is not an ad hominem to disagree with your own assessment of yourself as a rigorous practitioner of Historical Methodology. You make the claim (embarrassingly frequently considering the evidence to the contrary) and I disagree with it. In short, I do not accept your self-evaluation because you have not provided good reason to think otherwise. Thus, it is my opinion not the personal attack you choose to characterize it as.

Do you really imagine that my feelings are hurt? I have not said anything like that. Why would you even bring this up?

I did not say that. I said it is a “common trick among Apologists to “claim” hurt feelings (its a part of the standard theist habit of demeaning the opponent) – in this instance the frequency of your erronious claims re alleged ad hominems on my part.

Strawman. You’ve completely misinterpreted (and misrepresented) my statement to be practically the opposite of what I said, and from which I have not in the slightest back-tracked. Obviously, your view of ‘revelation’ excludes inerrancy.

There is nothing to misinterpret. Your own words in #3285 are a straight forward (but erroneous) admission that the supernatural has a place in historical methodology. Namely:

“Seriously? How can you possibly expect to construct or even understand a meaningful or credible historical reconstruction of the life and work of Jesus, if your only criterion or measure of likelihood is an abstract distinction between natural and supernatural? If that’s all that interests you in this question, it is easy to see why you might quickly latch onto a superficially understood historical reconstruction of someone else”.

They are your exact words and their intent is clear and cannot be misinterpreted despite your best efforts to claim they have been.

As for steering the argument, I initially asked about the historico-critical foundation of your view of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet and, when that was not forthcoming, I went to your own sources to consider their arguments when you would not present them. That is hardly steering the discussion away from the topic. You, on the other hand, seem to be intent upon making this a discussion about me, my methodology, and your mistaken interpretations of my statements.

But it was “forthcoming” to the extent that Historical methodology cannot examine non natural explanations and we have clear, straightforward textural evidence (acknowledged by you) that the mortal man Jesus and his followers expected his post mortem return. This did not occur and so Jesus can only be described as a failed apocalyptic prophet in terms of his own apocalyptic framework.

The interminable welter of alternative views of prophecy in the OT and NT presented above, which you like to think of as “rigorous application of “Historico-critical methodology”, are the rationalizations by believers after the event to explain WHY it did not occur as expected and they are inconclusive in any event.

I quoted for you Ehrman’s own words about how Jesus’ teachings should dominate our lives—is that the ‘claim’ I made elsewhere that you are referring to?

Not quite! You quoted Erman in #3467 as being attracted to the ethical teachings of Jesus as generally accepted worldwide. But then you add: “Not bad for a failed apocalyptic prophet!” with the implication that Jesus’ didn’t really fail after all.

Well, yes he did. Urging people to be nice to each other is not the same as a post mortem return on clouds of glory to establish god’s kingdom, as he and his followers were expecting. So yes he failed big-time.

‘Biblical studies’ is extremely general, not a specialty. Ehrman’s specialty is textual criticism, originally New Testament quotations in the writings of Didymus the Blind, a 4th century Alexandrian theologian. Within his specialty of textual criticism, I am told he has developed a more sophisticated method for determining manuscript relationships. But in his popularist writings, at least the two books you’ve referred me to, he does not engage in much substantive discussion with scholarly positions. That is not a put-down; it is characteristic of the popularist genre.

“Among his (Ehrman’s) fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament”.

http://www.bartdehrman.com/biography.htm

And yes it is obviously an attempted “put down”. Firstly, Ehrman’s expertise covers the whole area of biblical scholarship not just textural criticism – see link- and secondly, while “popularist writings” (one can almost hear the sneer) do not have the detail one expects from academic treatises, the conclusions are the same and are dependent upon the research required for the scholarly works.

First of all, I am not putting down or denigrating Ehrman. Popularist books can be very valuable for a general audience. There should be no doubt about the different genres and audiences when comparing Ehrman’s book with Meier’s multi-volume work.

And I certainly do not disrespect historico-critical method, neither in general nor as practiced by Ehrman. That is a complete misrepresentation and thus a strawman, and an ad hominem.

Actually, with respect to the specific subject matter at hand, Ehrman takes more of an historicizing position than Meier, who considers the statements attributed to Jesus about his return within the lifetime of his disciples as created in the pregospel tradition and not likely authentic statements of Jesus.

By comparing Ehrmans “Popularist books” (not his academic work) with “Meier’s (academic) multi-volume work” you are making an invalid comparison and one can only conclude that despite your denial you are “putting down or denigrating Ehrman”.

Your claim that I do not like a conclusion because I am a Christian, that I am engaging in damage control, that I am implying vast depths of untapped knowledge, that I am trying to come up with an explanation to rationalize Jesus’ failed expectations are all ad hominem arguments. These are all statements about me that add nothing to the substance of the discussion at hand. Why discuss my debating style instead of the matter at hand?

There is, of course, no effort on my part to misinterpret my own words, which I believe would obviously be dishonest and a form of lying. Is it your intent to advance this implicit accusation by innuendo?

I have already said that I have no issue with Jesus being wrong. I have also not rejected Ehrman’s position, neither from a faith perspective nor from an historico-critical perspective.

That you are not convinced is subjective on your part, not a matter of demonstration. If you would engage in an actual discussion of historico-critical criteria or attend to where I have done so, you would see that my faith is nowhere employed in my historico-critical methodology. Instead, you prefer to discuss my Christian faith.

Re the bolded, in that case we are in agreement and have nothing further to discuss given that we both recognize that, as you say above: “A more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources”.

Nevertheless, what the Historical method CAN do, e.g. as per Ehrman, is assess the probabilities of, in this instance, whether Jesus apocalyptic prophecies re his imminent return were accurate. And the only realistic conclusion is that they were not. So it is just as well (as per the bolded above) that you have no problem with this conclusion.

This too is an ad hominem. Being a Christian does not make it any more difficult to learn and rigorously apply historico-critical methodology. It can be difficult for anyone, or at least time consuming, to master the languages and literature, but the method itself is not particularly difficult, certainly not from a philosophical perspective. In my tradition, there is no necessary conflict between faith and reason.

No it is not an “ad hominem” it was a personal opinion. But I think we all know why you feel the need to put your opponent "in the wrong” all the time.

My exact quote was: “Personally, given that Historical methodology does not allows for claims of scripture being divinely inspired and that ALL truth-claims contained therein are subject to criticism to the point of being shown wrong, I think it very difficult for Christians’ to “rigorously apply” the Historical/Critical Method.”

Note the bolded.

[robrecht]

Well yes. One can only wonder why you have presented the above long list of speculative hypotheses when you freely admit that “a more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources”.

It is precisely by recognizing the multiply hypothetical character of the method of Ehrman and other Jesus Questers that allows us to see that a more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources. Source criticism is the key.

Nevertheless, we can be as sure as we can be of anything in the gospels that Jesus and his followers were expecting his imminent post mortem arrival in glory – as you too have acknowledged several times – and he did NOT return as expected. In short he was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

You have given no argumentation to support why this is the most certain historical reconstruction. What are your grounds for rejecting opposing historical reconstructions, for example, those based on the work of the Jesus Seminar? Why do you avoid this question?

But, unlike many apologist biblical scholars, Ehrman’s above conclusion has been arrived at strictly by the Historical/Critical Method, i.e. the same form of historical methodology practiced by secular historians. And fundamental to this methodology Jesus (or any historical figure) can only be viewed as a mortal man not a supernatural entity.

That is also fundamental to the work of the Jesus Seminar and the source-critical scholars I have cited above.

As for your attempt to discredit Ehrman’s conclusions by claiming he is: “not as rigorous of an historico-critical evaluation of our sources as practiced by other, very highly respected critical scholars who demonstrate a more rigorous historico-critical method” as well as your frequent dismal of him as a mere “popularizer” is a genetic fallacy and smacks of “shooting the messenger”. Ehrman’s academic credentials and published works are beyond question.

I have never once questioned his academic credentials, or tried to discredit him in any other way, but my own methodological preference is for a more rigorous application of source criticism.

It is not an ad hominem to disagree with your own assessment of yourself as a rigorous practitioner of Historical Methodology. You make the claim (embarrassingly frequently considering the evidence to the contrary) and I disagree with it. In short, I do not accept your self-evaluation because you have not provided good reason to think otherwise. Thus, it is my opinion not the personal attack you choose to characterize it as.

I am not embarrassed about my training in historico-critical methodology. I suppose you consider that a claim and a self-assessment, but for me it’s just a fact of my life, not based on self-assessment but the assessment of prominent critical scholars. It is not my intent to advance a claim about myself, but merely to offer some of what I have learned in my studies. There is no reason to make this a discussion about me.

I did not say that.

Hence my question.

I said it is a “common trick among Apologists to “claim” hurt feelings (its a part of the standard theist habit of demeaning the opponent) – in this instance the frequency of your erronious claims re alleged ad hominems on my part.

I am still wondering what your point is in talking about “hurt feelings”?

There is nothing to misinterpret. Your own words in #3285 are a straight forward (but erroneous) admission that the supernatural has a place in historical methodology. Namely:

“Seriously? How can you possibly expect to construct or even understand a meaningful or credible historical reconstruction of the life and work of Jesus, if your only criterion or measure of likelihood is an abstract distinction between natural and supernatural? If that’s all that interests you in this question, it is easy to see why you might quickly latch onto a superficially understood historical reconstruction of someone else”.

They are your exact words and their intent is clear and cannot be misinterpreted despite your best efforts to claim they have been.

Re-read and try to understand the word “only” in that quote. The objection was merely to that being the only criterion, not to the use of that criterion.

But it was “forthcoming” to the extent that Historical methodology cannot examine non natural explanations and we have clear, straightforward textural evidence (acknowledged by you) that the mortal man Jesus and his followers expected his post mortem return. This did not occur and so Jesus can only be described as a failed apocalyptic prophet in terms of his own apocalyptic framework.

We never disagreed about historical methodology being limited to natural explanations. I was interested in knowing the historico-critical foundation for your particular assessment of the evidence. It is that which you did not provide, which is why I sought it out among the scholars you cited.

The interminable welter of alternative views of prophecy in the OT and NT presented above, which you like to think of as “rigorous application of “Historico-critical methodology”, are the rationalizations by believers after the event to explain WHY it did not occur as expected and they are inconclusive in any event.

No, you misunderstand, I presented no interminable welter of alternative views of prophecy. The rigorous application of historico-critical methodology must include a rigorous approach to source criticism. Quellenkritik. Literargeschichte. That is my point about methodology.

Not quite! You quoted Erman in #3467 as being attracted to the ethical teachings of Jesus as generally accepted worldwide. But then you add: “Not bad for a failed apocalyptic prophet!” with the implication that Jesus’ didn’t really fail after all.

Not just ‘attracted’; you left out the part about Ehrman saying that Jesus’ teachings should dominate our lives.

Well, yes he did. Urging people to be nice to each other is not the same as a post mortem return on clouds of glory to establish god’s kingdom, as he and his followers were expecting. So yes he failed big-time.

You have not yet established that Jesus expected and prophesied his own post mortem return on the clouds of glory. Ehrman seems to accept this as an authentic saying of Jesus, but Meier, Lüdermann, and so many other critical scholars do not, I suspect the great majority from my anecdotal experience at SNTS & SBL. Again, I question your words “to establish God’s Kingdom.” Is your interpretation of Jesus’ supposedly authentic prophecy merely apocalyptic or is it also messianic?

“Among his (Ehrman’s) fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament”.

http://www.bartdehrman.com/biography.htm

And yes it is obviously an attempted “put down”. Firstly, Ehrman’s expertise covers the whole area of biblical scholarship not just textural criticism – see link- and secondly, while “popularist writings” (one can almost hear the sneer) do not have the detail one expects from academic treatises, the conclusions are the same and are dependent upon the research required for the scholarly works.

Once again, your complaint is with what you believe is my intent or attitude, what you believe you can almost hear, but I am not that voice inside your head. You and I are using the term ‘expertise’ and ‘specialty’ somewhat differently here. If you care to show me the scholarly research that Ehrman did but not include in the popularist version, I will happily review it too.

By comparing Ehrmans “Popularist books” (not his academic work) with “Meier’s (academic) multi-volume work” you are making an invalid comparison and one can only conclude that despite your denial you are “putting down or denigrating Ehrman”.

It is your own personal subjective conclusion, and perhaps it is the only one you are capable of making, but it is not in fact accurate. If you had referred me to one of Ehrman’s more academic works, I would have been happy to compare it to Meier’s work, but I read the one you referred me to, which is indeed a popularist work. You also cited Meier. If I recall correctly, the point of the comparison was that the scholars I cited who are critical of Meier’s methodology have focused on Meier because he provides much more discussion of these issues. It was also interesting to note how Meier disagrees with some of Ehrman’s positions, at times taking a more skeptical position.

Re the bolded, in that case we are in agreement and have nothing further to discuss given that we both recognize that, as you say above: “A more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources”.

If you do not care to discuss Ehrman and Meier’s application of the historico-critical method, my critique and that of others, or any of my other questions of you, and if you no longer advance mistaken interpretations of my words, then we do not have anything further to discuss here.

Nevertheless, what the Historical method CAN do, e.g. as per Ehrman, is assess the probabilities of, in this instance, whether Jesus apocalyptic prophecies re his imminent return were accurate. And the only realistic conclusion is that they were not. So it is just as well (as per the bolded above) that you have no problem with this conclusion.

One hardly needs to employ any historical methodology to assess the probabilities of whether or not the world has come to an end. Historico-critical methodology can be used to study the sources, their dependence or independence, and to place them in their historical context. Some, like Ehrman, would like to go further and claim that Jesus’ prophecy of his imminent return was authentic but this can only be done by employing a less rigorous approach to the sources than others, eg, Meier, Lüdemann, and many others. You are, of course, under no obligation to discuss these questions if you do not want to, but they are the critical questions that should precede conclusions.

No it is not an “ad hominem” it was a personal opinion. But I think we all know why you feel the need to put your opponent "in the wrong” all the time.

Defending an ad hominem by use of another ad hominem. Thanks for the laugh!

My exact quote was: “Personally, given that Historical methodology does not allows for claims of scripture being divinely inspired and that ALL truth-claims contained therein are subject to criticism to the point of being shown wrong, I think it very difficult for Christians’ to “rigorously apply” the Historical/Critical Method.”

Note the bolded.

I know it is your opinion, but that does not mean it is not an ad hominem opinion advanced in this discussion. It may also be an improper generalization about all Christians, but more likely it is an implicit partial concession, because you were initially speaking about me and now you’re presumably referring to some Christians.

[bertatberts]

Happy Birthday to you, Happy Birthday to you. Happy Birthday dear thread, happy Birthday too you.

[shunyadragon]

I know it is your opinion, but that does not mean it is not an ad hominem opinion advanced in this discussion. It may also be an improper generalization about all Christians, but more likely it is an implicit partial concession, because you were initially speaking about me and now you’re presumably referring to some Christians.

It is hardly a generalization, nor Tassman's opinion only. I consider the bias of many traditional Christians have many preloaded assumptions concerning being able to 'rigorously apply' the the Historical/Critical Method. The conclusions of most historians indeed do reflect their religious beliefs, as do Meier, Ehrman and Jewish historians.like Vermes. considering the trend it all looks suspect. without taking sides or drawing definitive conclusions, I am closest to Vermes.

I put my belief aside and look at history as history.

[robrecht]

It is hardly a generalization, nor Tassman's opinion only. I consider the bias of many traditional Christians have many preloaded assumptions concerning being able to 'rigorously apply' the the Historical/Critical Method. The conclusions of most historians indeed do reflect their religious beliefs, as do Meier, Ehrman and Jewish historians.like Vermes. considering the trend it all looks suspect. without taking sides or drawing definitive conclusions, I am closest to Vermes.

I put my belief aside and look at history as history.

What I was referring to as an improper generalization would be to apply the statement to all Christians, not the more specific 'many traditional Christians'. I also agree that history is indeed quite subjective and limited by many factors, not least of which is the character of our sources.

[shunyadragon]

What I was referring to as an improper generalization would be to apply the statement to all Christians, not the more specific 'many traditional Christians'. I also agree that history is indeed quite subjective and limited by many factors, not least of which is the character of our sources.

I believe this problem of using the 'historical critical method' in the justification of any religious belief in any religion, lies at the heart of the problem put forth in this thread, As far as I can conclude this justification does not represent 'rigorous application of the method.

As far as academic history is concerned, one's belief needs to parked at the door before one enters.

[robrecht]

I believe this problem of using the 'historical critical method' in the justification of any religious belief in any religion, lies at the heart of the problem put forth in this thread, As far as I can conclude this justification does not represent 'rigorous application of the method.

As far as academic history is concerned, one's belief needs to parked at the door before one enters.

Of course.

[Tassman]

Please do not remove the context of my arguments by breaking them into bite-sized pieces as you have done in this post.

It is precisely by recognizing the multiply hypothetical character of the method of Ehrman and other Jesus Questers that allows us to see that a more secure historico-critical foundation is not likely given the nature of our sources. Source criticism is the key.

You have given no argumentation to support why this is the most certain historical reconstruction. What are your grounds for rejecting opposing historical reconstructions, for example, those based on the work of the Jesus Seminar? Why do you avoid this question?

That is also fundamental to the work of the Jesus Seminar and the source-critical scholars I have cited above.

Ehrman’s position is that it is the most probable historical reconstruction.

OTOH, the slab of material you have now posted twice as an example of “rigorous historical methodology”, has produced no conclusions. It all noise and no substance – in short, it’s useless. Actually, it’s worse than useless given that Jesus' proclamation of the “Kingdom of God” and eschatological salvation was his primary mission. And yet you cannot determine what was said, what was meant to occur and when.

I have never once questioned his academic credentials, or tried to discredit him in any other way, but my own methodological preference is for a more rigorous application of source criticism.

This is not the case. You make snide remarks about Ehrman such as “populist”, “Jesus quester” and snide comments as per #3573 re his “lack of “rigorous historico-critical evaluation of our sources as practiced by other, very highly respected critical scholars who demonstrate a more rigorous historico-critical method”. Well we have seen where the last gets us, i.e. nowhere. In short, you attempt to discredit the opponent rather than attempt to rebut the arguments.

I am not embarrassed about my training in historico-critical methodology. I suppose you consider that a claim and a self-assessment, but for me it’s just a fact of my life, not based on self-assessment but the assessment of prominent critical scholars. It is not my intent to advance a claim about myself, but merely to offer some of what I have learned in my studies. There is no reason to make this a discussion about me.

Hence my question.

I am still wondering what your point is in talking about “hurt feelings”?

Just as well you continually remind us re your expertise in the Historical/Critical Method otherwise we would have no way of knowing you were such an expert. But TWeb membership is fortunate in having so many experts in so many fields. We even had a quantum physicist at one stage. He also received praise from prominent peers – or so he claimed.

Re-read and try to understand the word “only” in that quote. The objection was merely to that being the only criterion, not to the use of that criterion.

Let me see - your exact words in #3285 were:

“Seriously? How can you possibly expect to construct or even understand a meaningful or credible historical reconstruction of the life and work of Jesus, if your only criterion or measure of likelihood is an abstract distinction between natural and supernatural? If that’s all that interests you in this question, it is easy to see why you might quickly latch onto a superficially understood historical reconstruction of someone else”.

Nope! The emphasis on “ONLY” makes no difference at all. The notion of “supernatural” has NO place in Historical methodology – whether it is the “only” distinction or just one of many.

We never disagreed about historical methodology being limited to natural explanations. I was interested in knowing the historico-critical foundation for your particular assessment of the evidence. It is that which you did not provide, which is why I sought it out among the scholars you cited.

In that case we agree that the options re the historicity of Jesus’ second-coming are limited.

From the NT we learn that the all pervasive expectation among Jesus’ followers was his imminent return to establish his kingdom. And it is most likely these beliefs derived from Jesus himself - given their prominence in the NT. Furthermore, these beliefs were still prevalent a generation later when the gospels were written. So undoubtedly, this is what was believed at the time..

However in terms of historical outcomes Historical/Critical methodology cannot support the notion of anything other than natural occurrences. Thus, Jesus could only have been a mortal man and the notion of a post-mortem return whether imminent or 2,000 years hence is not an historical likelihood. So, solely in terms of his own beliefs Jesus failed as a prophet re the coming Kingdom of God i.e. unless one is prepared to accept the concept of a purely spiritual kingdom as per the likes of Meier.

No, you misunderstand, I presented no interminable welter of alternative views of prophecy. The rigorous application of historico-critical methodology must include a rigorous approach to source criticism. Quellenkritik. Literargeschichte. That is my point about methodology.

Given that ‘source criticism’ in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author or redactor of the final text and that Dr Erhman is a recognized authority in New Testament authentication, the historical Jesus, lost gospels, early Christian writings, even the most biased person cannot argue that he lacks the academic authority and scholarly skills to rigorously apply historico-critical” methodology. Your only possible argument can be that you disagree with Ehrman’s conclusions NOT that he is insufficiently “rigorous”.

Not just ‘attracted’; you left out the part about Ehrman saying that Jesus’ teachings should dominate our lives.

You have ignored the point that Dr Ehrman, as with most people, is in full agreement with the principle of reciprocity (as found in the Golden Rule and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc) which Jesus adopted - although it long predates him and it is not unique to Jesus. But to argue this as proof of Jesus’ success, as per your attempted sarcasm: “Not bad for a failed apocalyptic prophet!” - is merely a poor rationalization for Jesus non-appearance to establish god's kingdom on earth, which was the real purpose of hs mission.

You have not yet established that Jesus expected and prophesied his own post mortem return on the clouds of glory. Ehrman seems to accept this as an authentic saying of Jesus, but Meier, Lüdermann, and so many other critical scholars do not, I suspect the great majority from my anecdotal experience at SNTS & SBL. Again, I question your words “to establish God’s Kingdom.” Is your interpretation of Jesus’ supposedly authentic prophecy merely apocalyptic or is it also messianic?

All we can know is what Jesus’ followers believed and recorded in their writings and there is little doubt that Jesus' proclamation of the “Kingdom of God” and eschatological salvation was his primary mission. Do you disagree?

Certainly some scholars, including members of the Jesus Seminar, do not consider Jesus was apocalypticist, but Ehrman makes the case through a detailed examination of Jesus' words and works and shows them to be the work of a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who expected universal judgment and the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. And that this belief was shared by his followers.

If you disagree then I suggest you present an argument (you have yet to do so) rather than simply nit-pick at the conclusions of reputable scholars like Ehrman.

Once again, your complaint is with what you believe is my intent or attitude, what you believe you can almost hear, but I am not that voice inside your head. You and I are using the term ‘expertise’ and ‘specialty’ somewhat differently here. If you care to show me the scholarly research that Ehrman did but not include in the popularist version, I will happily review it too.

YOU will review it???

Any reputable scholar’s exposition in popular form can only be based on the scholarly research underlying his entire area of expertise. Or are you suggesting that Professor Bart Ehrman - noted authority in the fields of the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament – merely cobbles together unscholarly ‘quickies’ to make a fast buck?

It is your own personal subjective conclusion, and perhaps it is the only one you are capable of making, but it is not in fact accurate. If you had referred me to one of Ehrman’s more academic works, I would have been happy to compare it to Meier’s work, but I read the one you referred me to, which is indeed a popularist work. You also cited Meier. If I recall correctly, the point of the comparison was that the scholars I cited who are critical of Meier’s methodology have focused on Meier because he provides much more discussion of these issues. It was also interesting to note how Meier disagrees with some of Ehrman’s positions, at times taking a more skeptical position.

Have you actually said anything here?

If you do not care to discuss Ehrman and Meier’s application of the historico-critical method, my critique and that of others, or any of my other questions of you, and if you no longer advance mistaken interpretations of my words, then we do not have anything further to discuss here.

What critique, other than you carping about Ehrmans’ alleged lack of “rigid application” of the Historical/Critical method?

One hardly needs to employ any historical methodology to assess the probabilities of whether or not the world has come to an end. Historico-critical methodology can be used to study the sources, their dependence or independence, and to place them in their historical context.

Correct! It is self-evident that the all pervasive belief in the gospels (presumably deriving from Jesus himself) of his imminent return in glory and establishing God’s Kingdom on earth was a failed prophecy, because the world has NOT come to an end. An alternate explanation is that the gospels do not provide a reliable account of Jesus’ teaching.

Some, like Ehrman, would like to go further and claim that Jesus’ prophecy of his imminent return was authentic but this can only be done by employing a less rigorous approach to the sources than others, eg, Meier, Lüdemann, and many others. You are, of course, under no obligation to discuss these questions if you do not want to, but they are the critical questions that should precede conclusions.

ALL prophecies entailing the supernatural, such as the establishment of a divine kingdom, are outside the remit of Historical methodology. Without a bodily resurrection, there can be no literal Second Coming – at best merely a spiritual one. This is the only possible historical approach regardless of what “rigorous approach to the sources” one adopts.

As well, to question whether “Jesus’ prophecy of his imminent return was authentic”, given how pervasive the notion is, undermines the reliability of the gospels as a source of Jesus’ teachings altogether.

Defending an ad hominem by use of another ad hominem. Thanks for the laugh!

I know it is your opinion, but that does not mean it is not an ad hominem opinion advanced in this discussion. It may also be an improper generalization about all Christians, but more likely it is an implicit partial concession, because you were initially speaking about me and now you’re presumably referring to some Christians.

What a character you are!

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Mat 7). Abusive ad hominems are your forte. It is your ongoing habit “to insult or belittle your opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument” (Oxford Dictionary) , e.g. see above re Ehrman.

[Tassman]

1. Originally posted by shunyadragon

I believe this problem of using the 'historical critical method' in the justification of any religious belief in any religion, lies at the heart of the problem put forth in this thread, As far as I can conclude this justification does not represent 'rigorous application of the method.

As far as academic history is concerned, one's belief needs to parked at the door before one enters.

Of course.

Really!! Then why your objection and accusation of an ad hominem as a response to my post #3568, namely “Personally, given that Historical methodology does not allows for claims of scripture being divinely inspired and that ALL truth-claims contained therein are subject to criticism to the point of being shown wrong, I think it very difficult for Christians’ to “rigorously apply” the Historical/Critical Method”. I will go further and say that I don't think it possible unless traditional Christianty is redefined to the point of being unrecognisable.

[robrecht]

Please do not remove the context of my arguments by breaking them into bite-sized pieces as you have done in this post.

Ehrman’s position is that it is the most probable historical reconstruction.

OTOH, the slab of material you have now posted twice as an example of “rigorous historical methodology”, has produced no conclusions. It all noise and no substance – in short, it’s useless. Actually, it’s worse than useless given that Jesus' proclamation of the “Kingdom of God” and eschatological salvation was his primary mission. And yet you cannot determine what was said, what was meant to occur and when.

This is not the case. You make snide remarks about Ehrman such as “populist”, “Jesus quester” and snide comments as per #3573 re his “lack of “rigorous historico-critical evaluation of our sources as practiced by other, very highly respected critical scholars who demonstrate a more rigorous historico-critical method”. Well we have seen where the last gets us, i.e. nowhere. In short, you attempt to discredit the opponent rather than attempt to rebut the arguments.

So your continuing to object to my identification of Ehrman’s book as popularist (not populist) and now objecting to my identification of him as a Jesus Quester. Do you really disagree that Ehrman’s work on Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet for the next millennium is a popularist work? This is not a snide remark; it is just the genre of the work, and I would expect Ehrman to agree. As for the term, Jesus Quester, I don’t know who coined the term, but obviously it is a construct based on von Harnack’s work. It merely serves to identify those who use our sources primarily to seek to reconstruct the historical Jesus behind the gospels and you will find the term in the published works of scholars, and even used to promote the works of Jesus Questers themselves. These are not attempts to discredit Ehrman, nor is he an opponent of mine.

As for dealing with Ehrman’s arguments, I have clearly critiqued his source critical presuppositions by juxtaposing them with the views of others, sometimes the majority view, and other times views that still merit considerable discussion among scholars, which Ehrman simply cannot provide in a popularist work. Just because I, and others, disagree with some of Ehrman’s source critical methodology, and view it as less rigorous, does not mean that I am trying to discredit him. People are allowed to disagree.

Of course, Ehrman considers his reconstruction to be the most probable, as should every serious Quester.

It seems like your only critique so far of my ‘slab’ is that what I and others view as the more rigorous method does not produce more certain results. I agree. But the desire to arrive at a more certain result cannot change the nature of our sources.

Just as well you continually remind us re your expertise in the Historical/Critical Method otherwise we would have no way of knowing you were such an expert. But TWeb membership is fortunate in having so many experts in so many fields. We even had a quantum physicist at one stage. He also received praise from prominent peers – or so he claimed.

You are always welcome to reply to the substance of my remarks.

Let me see - your exact words in #3285 were:

“Seriously? How can you possibly expect to construct or even understand a meaningful or credible historical reconstruction of the life and work of Jesus, if your only criterion or measure of likelihood is an abstract distinction between natural and supernatural? If that’s all that interests you in this question, it is easy to see why you might quickly latch onto a superficially understood historical reconstruction of someone else”.

Nope! The emphasis on “ONLY” makes no difference at all. The notion of “supernatural” has NO place in Historical methodology – whether it is the “only” distinction or just one of many.

It was not I who introduced the idea of the supernatural into our discussion, but you, to say that it is hypothetically possible but not likely. My view of the historico-critical method does not even entertain the hypothesis.

It is a shame that you still do not understand the function of the word “only” in my statement. Take out the word “only” and the statement means exactly what you have been arguing all along. But, attend to the word ‘only’, and the statement means practically the opposite: you need more criteria than merely rejecting the supernatural.

In that case we agree that the options re the historicity of Jesus’ second-coming are limited.

From the NT we learn that the all pervasive expectation among Jesus’ followers was his imminent return to establish his kingdom. And it is most likely these beliefs derived from Jesus himself - given their prominence in the NT. Furthermore, these beliefs were still prevalent a generation later when the gospels were written. So undoubtedly, this is what was believed at the time..

However in terms of historical outcomes Historical/Critical methodology cannot support the notion of anything other than natural occurrences. Thus, Jesus could only have been a mortal man and the notion of a post-mortem return whether imminent or 2,000 years hence is not an historical likelihood. So, solely in terms of his own beliefs Jesus failed as a prophet re the coming Kingdom of God i.e. unless one is prepared to accept the concept of a purely spiritual kingdom as per the likes of Meier.

So I take it you will no longer be citing Meier as supporting your own view?

Given that ‘source criticism’ in biblical criticism, refers to the attempt to establish the sources used by the author or redactor of the final text and that Dr Erhman is a recognized authority in New Testament authentication, the historical Jesus, lost gospels, early Christian writings, even the most biased person cannot argue that he lacks the academic authority and scholarly skills to rigorously apply historico-critical” methodology. Your only possible argument can be that you disagree with Ehrman’s conclusions NOT that he is insufficiently “rigorous”.

This is false. I have already said that I do not argue against Ehrman’s overall conclusion. I believe that Jesus likely shared an apocalyptic worldview with others of his generation.

But it should be recognized that those who follow a more rigorous approach to our sources do indeed question the rigor of the Jesus Questers.

Compare two methods. One presupposes independent attestation through multiple sources, while the other seriously considers dependence among sources. Would you not call the second more rigorous?

Do you believe that there are at least 4 independent sources providing strong multiple attestation for Jesus prophesying the destruction of the temple? Do you therefore believe that Jesus did in fact historically prophesy the destruction of the temple? I asked you this question nearly 3 months ago. Feel free to answer it at any time.

You have ignored the point that Dr Ehrman, as with most people, is in full agreement with the principle of reciprocity (as found in the Golden Rule and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc) which Jesus adopted - although it long predates him and it is not unique to Jesus. But to argue this as proof of Jesus’ success, as per your attempted sarcasm: “Not bad for a failed apocalyptic prophet!” - is merely a poor rationalization for Jesus non-appearance to establish god's kingdom on earth, which was the real purpose of hs mission.

I have in no way ignored that. If you read my signature, you will in fact see that I even cite there Jesus’ own source for the golden rule from the book of Leviticus. And, as I’ve said before, I do not like sarcasm, except when it is genuinely funny. You appeal to Ehrman to support your view that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, while Ehrman also believes that the teachings of Jesus should dominate our lives. I’m sorry, but I do find this humorous.

All we can know is what Jesus’ followers believed and recorded in their writings and there is little doubt that Jesus' proclamation of the “Kingdom of God” and eschatological salvation was his primary mission. Do you disagree?

Certainly some scholars, including members of the Jesus Seminar, do not consider Jesus was apocalypticist, but Ehrman makes the case through a detailed examination of Jesus' words and works and shows them to be the work of a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who expected universal judgment and the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. And that this belief was shared by his followers.

If you disagree then I suggest you present an argument (you have yet to do so) rather than simply nit-pick at the conclusions of reputable scholars like Ehrman.

I have already told you several times that I believe it likely that Jesus shared an apocalyptic worldview with others of his time. But do you imagine that the Jesus Seminar has not also made their case through a likewise detailed examination of Jesus’ words and works?

Where Ehrman finds multiple attestation for his view, I side with those who question his source-critical presuppositions and opinions that allow such an optimistic appeal to multiple attestation. That may be picking nits to you, but it is serious business among the community of scholars that deal with this issue.

Oh, and characterizing my view as ‘picking nits,’ would that be an example of a snide remark?

YOU will review it???

Any reputable scholar’s exposition in popular form can only be based on the scholarly research underlying his entire area of expertise. Or are you suggesting that Professor Bart Ehrman - noted authority in the fields of the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament – merely cobbles together unscholarly ‘quickies’ to make a fast buck?

If you can present it, of course I will review it. And, of course, I have said nothing remotely similar to what you suggest. That would be your own attempt to mischaracterize the discussion.

Have you actually said anything here?

Of course. Feel free at any time to respond.

What critique, other than you carping about Ehrmans’ alleged lack of “rigid application” of the Historical/Critical method?

You are, once again, misquoting me. And the critique of Meier’s and Ehrman’s source-critical views is not carping, just a more rigorous approach to our sources. In my opinion and in the opinion of the critical scholars I have mentioned.

Correct! It is self-evident that the all pervasive belief in the gospels (presumably deriving from Jesus himself) of his imminent return in glory and establishing God’s Kingdom on earth was a failed prophecy, because the world has NOT come to an end. An alternate explanation is that the gospels do not provide a reliable account of Jesus’ teaching.

ALL prophecies entailing the supernatural, such as the establishment of a divine kingdom, are outside the remit of Historical methodology. Without a bodily resurrection, there can be no literal Second Coming – at best merely a spiritual one. This is the only possible historical approach regardless of what “rigorous approach to the sources” one adopts.

As well, to question whether “Jesus’ prophecy of his imminent return was authentic”, given how pervasive the notion is, undermines the reliability of the gospels as a source of Jesus’ teachings altogether.

It is nice to see you arguing for the reliability of the gospels as a source of Jesus’ teachings.

What a character you are!

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?" (Mat 7). Abusive ad hominems are your forte. It is your ongoing habit “to insult or belittle your opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument” (Oxford Dictionary) , e.g. see above re Ehrman.

I have in no way insulted or belittled Ehrman, nor have I been abusive toward him or directed any ad hominems against him. Quite simple, he is not an opponent. This seems to be your imagination.

Really!! Then why your objection and accusation of an ad hominem as a response to my post #3568, namely “Personally, given that Historical methodology does not allows for claims of scripture being divinely inspired and that ALL truth-claims contained therein are subject to criticism to the point of being shown wrong, I think it very difficult for Christians’ to “rigorously apply” the Historical/Critical Method”. I will go further and say that I don't think it possible unless traditional Christianity is redefined to the point of being unrecognisable.

Simply because being a Christian does not make it any more difficult to learn and rigorously apply historico-critical methodology. Your contention that I only pay lip-service to the historico-critical method is simply false.

[shunyadragon]

I thought I had responded to this, but could not find it.

I'm not entirely sure you understand my question.

You claimed to be basing your disagreement with both Meier and Ehrman on your assumption "that the writers and or compilers who wrote these gospels believed them at the time they were written" (post #3558). If that really is the basis of your disagreement with them, then you must suppose that Meier and Ehrman would both deny "that the writers and or compilers who wrote these gospels believed them at the time they were written." If either of them would not deny it, then you must have some other reason for disagreeing with them.

I believe the highlighted above comes closest to Meier. I believe Ehrman considers it more possible that the gospels were altered and edited to some degree after they were written, and may not accurately reflect the view or testimony of the original authors.


Now you seem to be contradicting yourself with respect to Meier.

I thought I would repeat the following, because it is more specific as my disagreement with Meier

I consider Meier the easiest to disagree with, because of his strong Christian theist agenda, and the belief in 'multiple attestation.' I am closer to Ehrman's view on being skeptical of how well the gospels reflect the events of the life of Jesus, but consider the gospels come close to the beliefs of the authors and those that believed at the time they were written and compiled.. I am actually closest to Vermes, and have more confidence in his work than Ehrman or Meier.

[robrecht]

I thought I had responded to this, but could not find it.

I thought I would repeat the following, because it is more specific as my disagreement with Meier

I consider Meier the easiest to disagree with, because of his strong Christian theist agenda, and the belief in 'multiple attestation.' I am closer to Ehrman's view on being skeptical of how well the gospels reflect the events of the life of Jesus, but consider the gospels come close to the beliefs of the authors and those that believed at the time they were written and compiled.. I am actually closest to Vermes, and have more confidence in his work than Ehrman or Meier.

Do you also disagree with Ehrman when he appeals to multiple attestation of at least 4 independent sources to argue for the historicity of Jesus' prophesying the destruction of the temple?