There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[shunyadragon]

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?

I question this conclusion, but being human I could be wrong, I believe Ehrman does not support 'multiple attestation' of four different independent gospel sources and dates Mark to after the destruction of the temple, and does not consider the text truly prophesying of temple destruction. I believe he supports an over lapping evolution of the text of the gospels with extensive editing as described in Misquoting Jesus.

If Ehrman considers 'multiple attestation' it is not that four gospels were written independent by four distinct writers,and than using that to justify the legitimacy of prophecy, or miracles as Meier does concerning Jesus as a miracle healer. He may consider multiple sources as loosely attesting to certain facts, like Josephus, maybe the questionable Q, gospel of the Hebrews, Paul's letters

[robrecht]

I question this conclusion, but being human I could be wrong, I believe Ehrman does not support 'multiple attestation' of four different independent gospel sources and dates Mark to after the destruction of the temple, and does not consider the text truly prophesying of temple destruction. I believe he supports and over lapping evolution of the text of the gospels with extensive editing as described in Misquoting Jesus.

If Ehrman considers 'multiple attestation' it is not that four gospels were written independent by four distinct writers,and than using that to justify the legitimacy of prophecy, or miracles as Meier does He may consider multiple sources as loosely attesting to certain facts, like Josephus, maybe the questionable Q, gospel of the Hebrews, Paul's letters

I have not read Misquoting Jesus, but in Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, he does appeal to four independent sources providing multiple attestation for the historicity of Jesus' prophecy against the destruction of the temple. Not the four gospels, of course, but multiple traditions, early and later, behind the gospel of Mark (13,2 14,58 15,29), a source behind Stephen's speech in Acts, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Thomas.

[shunyadragon]

I have not read Misquoting Jesus, but in Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, he does appeal to four independent sources providing multiple attestation for the historicity of Jesus' prophecy against the destruction of the temple. Not the four gospels, of course, but multiple traditions, early and later, behind the gospel of Mark (13,2 14,58 15,29), a source behind Stephen's speech in Acts, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Thomas.

I would have to read the reference, but the first problem is Ehrman considers Mark to be written after the destruction of the Temple. In the reviews and description of the book. Ehrman depicts Jesus as an apochalyptic 'end of the world' messianic figure using different sources to justify this. I do not believe this is the same as 'multisource attestation,' as Meier and other christian apologists use it.

There is some justification for this argument that bot Jesus and Paul predicted the 'end of the world.'

i plan to get the book trough the library and read it.

[robrecht]

I would have to read the reference, but the first problem is Ehrman considers Mark to be written after the destruction of the Temple.

Agreed.

[Tassman]

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.

Then why use the term? Many reputable specialists write popularist works, e.g. Stephen Hawking, but their solid grounding in their discipline is not questioned in the way you are questioning Dr Ehrman’s popular books.

And why use the term “Jesus quester”? Why not “biblical scholar” or “historian”? Would you think scholars derisive if they continually referred to “Christianists” or “god questers” in their purportedly serious discussions? Despite your unconvincing “who me” denial, I think that in fact you are attempting to discredit Ehrman.

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.

No, you have not “clearly critiqued” Ehrman’s “source critical presuppositions by juxtaposing them with the views of others, sometimes the majority view…” If you think otherwise, then refresh my memory with specific examples please.

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

My critique of your 20 paragraph “slab” is NOT that it doesn’t provide “certain results” although it doesn’t, but that it doesn’t provide any arguments. At best it foreshadows possible approaches to the problems but at bottom it’s a pretentious “Argumentum Verbosum, as I said before – designed to make you look authoritative but contributing nothing of substance.

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

I always do when there are remarks of substance to reply to.

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.

This is simply not the case. YOU “introduced the idea of the supernatural into our discussion” in your response to my assertion in #3824 “the only likelihood that matters (with regard to the relative likelihood of religious historical claims, which was the context) is whether or not that the supernatural exists - and that is not likely at all”.

The idea of the “supernatural” in studying the Jesus story could have ended at this point. But it didn’t because you responded in #3285 with:

“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”.

Your “ONLY” is irrelevant in the context of our discussion; I wasn’t claiming that the exclusion of the ‘supernatural’ is the ONLY criterion in reconstructing the historical Jesus but that in applying historical methodology it must always excluded.

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

Meier supports Ehrman’s view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, which is a point in contention with some of the Jesus Seminar and some other scholars. But he differs with Ehrman re the prophecies. Unlike Ehrman, he abandons Historical methodology by arguing for the coming Kingdom of God, which is obviously a supernatural notion that you, like Ehrman, must disagree with given your stance on Historical methodology.

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.

Yes, but Ehrman’s “overall conclusion that Jesus likely shared an apocalyptic worldview with others of his generation” is grounded in the fact that Jesus was a mortal man – like other men. This is fundamental to the Historical/Critical Method of researching history as you agree. Thus Jesus’ apocalyptic worldview of an imminent, post mortem return in glory could not occur; it would be a violation of the natural universe and this you agree has no place in historical methodology. Therefore Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet – which is where we came in.

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.

Not if you mean 4 independent gospel sources, but neither does Ehrman. And given that the gospels were all composed after the destruction of the temple the question is irrelevant.

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.

“MY VIEW!!! The view is Ehrman’s as expounded in the book you denigrate as “popularist”: ‘Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’ where he argues that Jesus can be best understood as a first-century Jewish apocalypticist...who expected that the history of the world as was going to come to an end that god was going to overthrow the forces of evil in an act of cosmic judgment.

There is nothing humorous in accepting Jesus’ adoption of the far-from-unique principle of reciprocity as embodied in the universally accepted Golden Rule - unless you are attempting to credit Jesus with it and claim that its universality is proof of the success of Jesus teaching mission. That WOULD be humorous given that it is not what Jesus and his followers proclaimed.

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?

See above.

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.

It depends what you mean by “multiple attestation”. Surely you are not crediting Ehrman as holding that the 4 gospels consist of multiple attestations? Please specify.

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.

You “review” it? I take it this is your way of saying that you will grace us with your opinion?

And NO that would be YOUR attempt to mischaracterize me. My response was to your dismissive:

“If you care to show me the scholarly research that Ehrman did but not include in the popularist version……..”

SO, once again: “Any reputable scholar’s exposition in popular form can only be based on the scholarly research underlying his entire area of expertise…” What you choose not to see is that conclusions of “popularist” works can be grounded in sound scholarship. Further, with Ehrman, there are copious notes at the back of his “popularist” books enlarging on the points in the body of the text and pointing you in the direction to research for yourself.

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.

But you are not “critiquing”, that’s the point. You have presented little of substance. You are “carping” - or fault-finding, if you prefer – not critiquing in a systematic way.

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

Only the Source Critics can determine their reliability of the gospels re Jesus’ actual words, but it doesn’t require a Source Critic to establish that the imminent return of Jesus in glory was the all pervasive belief at the time according to the gospel texts. Obviously they were wrong. Jesus is yet to appear.

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.

See above.

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.

True regarding the technique but what makes it difficult for many Christians is the necessity to abandon the notion of scripture as divinely inspired and abandoning supernatural “truth claims” such as the resurrection. If you as a Christian feel comfortable at the prospect of your core religious beliefs being wrong then I will stand corrected. But the indications are that you will find a way to interpret them to your own personal satisfaction regardless.

[David Hayward]

And why use the term “Jesus quester”? Why not “biblical scholar” or “historian”?

For once, I agree with you. The term "Jesus Quester" is misleading when applied to Ehrman, who is not listed as a Fellow of the Westar Institute ("Jesus Seminar") or involved in its "Jesus Quest".

I wasn’t claiming that the exclusion of the ‘supernatural’ is the ONLY criterion in reconstructing the historical Jesus

But you were. And you were repeatedly challenged on it and asked what other criteria you would also use, a question you repeated failed to answer however strong robrecht's prompting. Let's review:
(My boldening, throughout.)

...how do you measure the degree of likelyhood? Likely, very likely, most likely, etc. What is your historical foundation for differentiating degrees of likelihood?

The only likelihood that matters is whether or not that the supernatural exists...

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?

Easily fixed! Provide verified evidence of the existence of the ‘supernatural’ and I will consider it. I know of none. Certainly historical methodology considers supernatural explanations the least probable explanation of any event and this applies equally to the Jesus story - or are you engaged in special pleading. Supernatural explanations were readily accepted in the pre-scientific era, but not now.

I have not asked you to consider the existence of the supernatural. I have asked you to flesh out or support your view of the historical Jesus.

There is NO “abstract distinction between natural and supernatural?” There IS an effective epistemology for examining the natural; there is NO effective epistemology for examining the supernatural. Thus there can be NO “meaningful or credible historical reconstruction of the life and work of Jesus” which includes miracles. To believe otherwise is an article of faith, not fact.

If there is no such abstract distinction between natural and supernatural, please explain your meaning when you said: "The only likelihood that matters is whether or not that the supernatural exists...

...There are no abstract distinctions between natural and supernatural in history. The only distinctions are between what is probable, what is possible and what is hypothetically possible but highly improbable. The existence of the supernatural is in the last category, i.e. it is a highly improbable, unverified hypothesis.

If you are speaking about historico-critical method, I agree, as I said above. This seems to answer one of my original questions to you about the historical basis for your statement about something being "very likely."

YOU said in #3285:

“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 a distinction between natural and supernatural?”

Let me remind you that such a distinction is the backbone of Historical/Critical methodology. It excludes the supernatural as a likely explanation for ANY historical occurrence...

...The point of this question is that more sophisticated criteria are indeed necessary and widely used in the various historical reconstructions of an historical Jesus.

And so it goes on in like fashion, page after page, with robrecht repeatedly trying to find out what other -- repeat OTHER -- repeat additional -- criteria you accept for use use in your own historical reconstruction of an historical Jesus.

I wasn’t claiming that the exclusion of the ‘supernatural’ is the ONLY criterion in reconstructing the historical Jesus

Yes you were.

But since you now claim you were not, perhaps you will now list the other historical-critical criteria you use, as repeatedly requested by robrecht

David

[Adrift]

For once, I agree with you. The term "Jesus Quester" is misleading when applied to Ehrman, who is not listed as a Fellow of the Westar Institute ("Jesus Seminar") or involved in its "Jesus Quest".

I'm confused by this. I thought "Jesus Quester" was just a general, non-derivative term applied to all scholars attempting to understand who the "historical Jesus" is. As I understand it, we're currently in the third (or possibly 4th) quest, which includes scholars as diverse as Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, Ben Worthington III, James Dunn, Robert Funk, etc. I'd be very surprised to find that Ehrman is not regarded as a Jesus Quester, and I've never heard anyone take issue with the term besides Tassman here.

[Tassman]

I'm confused by this. I thought "Jesus Quester" was just a general, non-derivative term applied to all scholars attempting to understand who the "historical Jesus" is. As I understand it, we're currently in the third (or possibly 4th) quest, which includes scholars as diverse as Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, Ben Worthington III, James Dunn, Robert Funk, etc. I'd be very surprised to find that Ehrman is not regarded as a Jesus Quester, and I've never heard anyone take issue with the term besides Tassman here.

The designation of “Jesus quest scholar” is usually limited to scholars applying Historical/Critical methodology. As such it is based on the axiom that no biblical text can be considered as divinely-inspired. Further, that the truth claims made by a biblical text are open to refutation (like any other historical text) with no exemptions for special pleading concerning religious traditions. In short, biblical texts have no a priori authority. I’d be very surprised if this is the view held by apologist scholars like Witherington or the Rt. Rev’d NT Wright etc and nor is the term “Jesus Quester” usually applied to them or their ilk. And while “Jesus Quester” is not offensive in itself, in my opinion it carries the similar negative connotation as the term “liberal” when used by Republican Conservatives about - say, Obama.

[Tassman]

For once, I agree with you. The term "Jesus Quester" is misleading when applied to Ehrman, who is not listed as a Fellow of the Westar Institute ("Jesus Seminar") or involved in its "Jesus Quest".

Certainly the term "Jesus Quest" is in common currency re scholars practicing Historical methodology to search for the historical Jesus, but I wasn’t aware that the Westar Institute or the Jesus Seminar use the term “Jesus Quester” when referring to their research. To me it has derogatory overtones. E.g. an historian may refer to his “quest” to uncover say, the historical Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, as opposed to the legendary accretions of these figures, but I doubt he would refer to himself as an “Alexander Quester” or a Julius Caesar Quester.

But you were. And you were repeatedly challenged on it and asked what other criteria you would also use, a question you repeated failed to answer however strong robrecht's prompting. Let's review:
(My boldening, throughout.)





















And so it goes on in like fashion, page after page, with robrecht repeatedly trying to find out what other -- repeat OTHER -- repeat additional -- criteria you accept for use use in your own historical reconstruction of an historical Jesus.

Yes you were.

But since you now claim you were not, perhaps you will now list the other historical-critical criteria you use, as repeatedly requested by robrecht

David

But no I wasn't. What went on for page after page was robrechts' (and now your) attempts to divert the discussion away from the limitations of Historical/Critical methodology which, inconveniently for Christians, does not allow for the inclusion of miraculous Christian dogma as history.

Let me remind you that my assertion way back in #3284 was limited to a specific response to a specific question of robrecht’s, namely: “how do you measure the degree of likelihood? Likely, very likely, most likely, etc. What is your historical foundation for differentiating degrees of likelihood?” This was with reference to establishing the historical likelihood of the events described in the scriptures.

My response to this query - and this query alone - was: “the only likelihood that matters is whether or not the supernatural exists - and that is not likely at all”. In short, the methodology of historical research is by its very nature restricted to what happens here on this natural, earthly plane. It cannot presuppose any set beliefs about a proposed supernatural realm or miracles of Jesus.

As for the attempt to skirt around this fundamental historical axiom - the "historical-critical criteria" I use in my "own historical reconstruction of an historical Jesus" is precisely the same that one would apply to any other historical figure. Namely the application of ‘Source criticism’, ‘Form criticism’, ‘Tradition criticism’ etc, etc, etc with the proviso that historians cannot establish ‘miracles’ as the most probable occurrence.

Miracles, by their very nature are the least probable occurrence in any historical account. And given that miracles feature prominently in the Jesus story it is at this point that one enters into the realm of faith, not history.

[Adrift]

You just can't help but show your hand every time you post. I mean, every time you post, it shows how little read you are on the literature out there.

The designation of “Jesus quest scholar” is usually limited to scholars applying Historical/Critical methodology. As such it is based on the axiom that no biblical text can be considered as divinely-inspired.

While the historical method does not involve any assumptions about the text being divine, it certainly does not base itself on any such axiom.

Further, that the truth claims made by a biblical text are open to refutation (like any other historical text) with no exemptions for special pleading concerning religious traditions.

Who said otherwise? I know you're looking for a good fight with a theist, but you're not going to find any theist falling for this, especially when they have a better knowledge about the subject than you do.

In short, biblical texts have no a priori authority. I’d be very surprised if this is the view held by apologist scholars like Witherington or the Rt. Rev’d NT Wright etc

That's because you've never picked up one of their books. You seem to have the most peculiar idea about authors like Wright and Witherington. You seem to think they're raving evangelists who spend page after page trying to prove to readers that miracles do happen. And you'll continue not having a clue as long as you don't ever pick up one of their books. Its a real shame too. I mean, its a shame that someone can spend time on a forum every day bad talking scholars they've never read. It should be prerequisite that if you haven't read a scholar you're not allowed to act like you know their work.

and nor is the term “Jesus Quester” usually applied to them or their ilk.

Uh, yes, it is usually applied to them (see for example Who Is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology by Thomas P. Rausch, pg. 16). Ben Witherington is an historian who specializes in the methods of rhetorical criticism and social-science criticism, and has even written a book on the Third Quest (in which he includes himself) called The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, and N.T. Wright coined the term "Third Quest" for goodness' sake (The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986).

And while “Jesus Quester” is not offensive in itself, in my opinion it carries the similar negative connotation as the term “liberal” when used by Republican Conservatives about - say, Obama.

Well good thing you're no scholar. No one takes offence at being called a Jesus Quester, and in fact, many scholars have no problem labeling themselves members of the Jesus Quest. You'd know this if you read any literature on the subject, besides the 3 books by Ehrman and Crossan you own. Do us and yourself a favor Tassman, and do more reading and less posting.

[Adrift]

Certainly the term "Jesus Quest" is in common currency re scholars practicing Historical methodology to search for the historical Jesus, but I wasn’t aware that the Westar Institute or the Jesus Seminar use the term “Jesus Quester” when referring to their research. To me it has derogatory overtones. E.g. an historian may refer to his “quest” to uncover say, the historical Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar, as opposed to the legendary accretions of these figures, but I doubt he would refer to himself as an “Alexander Quester” or a Julius Caesar Quester.

Oh brother. It'd be comical if it wasn't so tragic.

But no I wasn't.

Dude, for once in your life, why can't you just admit when you're wrong? You have to be one of the most prideful people I've ever met online, ever. David just got done quoting your own words back in your face, and you still can't admit to them. And this isn't the first time this has happened to you. Just admit you're wrong, and go on with your day. Its not going to kill you.

And you do realize that in this discussion between you and Robrecht, you're the one fixated on the supernatural and the miraculous. I know it blows your mind that some theists can study historical claims without going there, but it happens all the time. And I know you want that to be the focus of the discussion between the two of you (and anyone else who wanders into the conversation) but after months of the same back and forth, you've got to see by now that he's not taking the bait... Is it not obvious?

[robrecht]

Then why use the term? Many reputable specialists write popularist works, e.g. Stephen Hawking, but their solid grounding in their discipline is not questioned in the way you are questioning Dr Ehrman’s popular books.

Why not use an accurate term? Don’t you think a theoretical physicist would make note of the fact that he is reading a popularist work of another theoretical physicist, before discussing the methodological differences? Referring to it as a popularist work functions as a defense of minimal interaction with other scholarly methods and opinions. It also helped explain why scholars have focused more on the method of Meier’s 4-volume work, which does engage in such scholarly discussion. Many of the same critiques of Meier’s methodology are equally and sometimes more applicable to Ehrman, even if understandably does not seek to engage in critical debate with other positions. Bottom line, it is not a derogatory term; Ehrman himself describes this book as “for popular (ie, general-reading) audiences.”

And why use the term “Jesus quester”? Why not “biblical scholar” or “historian”? Would you think scholars derisive if they continually referred to “Christianists” or “god questers” in their purportedly serious discussions? Despite your unconvincing “who me” denial, I think that in fact you are attempting to discredit Ehrman.

Because Jesus Quester is a much more specific and precisely relevant to the distinction I am making. There are other biblical scholars and historians who do not approach the sources in order to reconstruct an historical Jesus because they have long been convinced that the nature of the sources simply do not allow this. Their approach is more directly focused on the sources themselves.

If being a Christian or theist is relevant to the topic at hand it may be highly relevant to know the beliefs of an author. But that does not excuse one from dealing with the substance of arguments.

You do not believe me, but I have not been dishonest here, thus this is your issue to deal with as far as I can see. In my experience, Ehrman accepts corrections well and is no less receptive to legitimate methodological discussion. As I mentioned previously, he considers the approach I follow to be too radical. Neither participant in this debate is delegitimized or discredited by such debate, in fact quite the opposite.

No, you have not “clearly critiqued” Ehrman’s “source critical presuppositions by juxtaposing them with the views of others, sometimes the majority view…” If you think otherwise, then refresh my memory with specific examples please.

Please see Post 3573, points 1-4 and 7a and respond whenever you are able.

My critique of your 20 paragraph “slab” is NOT that it doesn’t provide “certain results” although it doesn’t, but that it doesn’t provide any arguments. At best it foreshadows possible approaches to the problems but at bottom it’s a pretentious “Argumentum Verbosum, as I said before – designed to make you look authoritative but contributing nothing of substance.

Once again you are trying to divine my intent in a derogatory manner, which is at best an ad hominem.
It would be better to discuss the issues of substance. If you do not consider the work of source critical scholars who critique the methodology of the Jesus Questers or who defend alternative source-critical positions, say why you consider their scholarly opinions to be irrelevant or incorrect.

Here are your own words:

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.

… as per #3573 re his “lack of [inaccurate quote] “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.

Is this not your critique that it does not provide results? If not, then please clarify and please do not hesitate to provide your actual critique of any of the scholars I have mentioned.

I always do when there are remarks of substance to reply to.

This is simply not the case. YOU “introduced the idea of the supernatural into our discussion” in your response to my assertion in #3824 “the only likelihood that matters [Insertion: (with regard to the relative likelihood of religious historical claims, which was the context)] is whether or not that the supernatural exists - and that is not likely at all”.

The idea of the “supernatural” in studying the Jesus story could have ended at this point. But it didn’t because you responded in #3285 with:

“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”.

Your “ONLY” is irrelevant in the context of our discussion; I wasn’t claiming that the exclusion of the ‘supernatural’ is the ONLY criterion in reconstructing the historical Jesus but that in applying historical methodology it must always excluded.

You introduced the idea of the supernatural. I did not use the term except in response to your introducing the term into the discussion. The context of your introduction of the supernatural, was actually my question about your claim that Jesus was very likely a failed apocalyptic prophet: “… Secondly, how do you measure the degree of likelihood? Likely, very likely, most likely, etc. What is your historical foundation for differentiating degrees of likelihood?

So the context of your response was my question regarding your view that Jesus was “very likely” a failed apocalyptic prophet. It is good that you have finally clarified that your response was in fact not really a response to my question about your claim, but rather your desire to pronounce upon the relative likelihood of religious historical claims (see your insertion highlighted above). Should you ever like to answer my question, please do not hesitate to do so. Again, I was asking about your characterization of “very likely” with respect to your own position. How do you measure the degree of likelihood, eg, very likely vs likely, very likely vs most likely, etc. What is your historical foundation for differentiating degrees of likelihood. Not that this question is directed at your own claim that this historical reconstruction is “very likely” and has no reference whatsoever to the supernatural, but merely seeks to understand the method implicitly or explicitly underlying your judgment.

Now, while it is good to understand your view of the context of your response, such is completely irrelevant to your misinterpretation of my words to mean practically the opposite of what I said, unless your view of the context of my words changes their actual meaning. The plain simple fact of the matter was that I never said anything remotely similar to ‘the supernatural is necessary to an historical reconstruction of Jesus’. My use of the word “only” is absolutely relevant to the meaning of my statement, when considered alone or when understood in the context of my question about your view of the likelihood of ‘your’ historical reconstruction.

Why do you spend so much time arguing for your interpretation of my own words rather than engage in substantive discussion?

Meier supports Ehrman’s view of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, which is a point in contention with some of the Jesus Seminar and some other scholars. But he differs with Ehrman re the prophecies. Unlike Ehrman, he abandons Historical methodology by arguing for the coming Kingdom of God, which is obviously a supernatural notion that you, like Ehrman, must disagree with given your stance on Historical methodology.

Leaving aside Meier’s view of the supernatural for the moment, please comment on the basis for your view of Jesus’ specific prophecies, specifically in response to the Jesus Seminar and so many other critical scholars. That is what I have been asking you for quite some time now. Why is it that you will not engage in this discussion, as opposed to arguing for your differing interpretation of my own words?

Now, specifically with respect to Meier’s view of these prophecies, I think you are making an assumption that he abandons historical method here. My recollection of his treatment of these specific prophecies is an entirely historico-critical discussion, in which he concurs with the majority of critical scholars. If you can show that I am remembering Meier incorrectly here, that would be helpful. Are you, in fact, directly familiar with Meier’s own work or are you referring to another scholar’s critique of Meier’s work?

If you like, I can look up the passage in Meier for you where he discusses this, but first I would like to know if you are basing your view of Meier’s position on something specific you have read, and if so, what, or if you are just making an assumption.

Yes, but Ehrman’s “overall conclusion that Jesus likely shared an apocalyptic worldview with others of his generation” is grounded in the fact that Jesus was a mortal man – like other men. This is fundamental to the Historical/Critical Method of researching history as you agree. Thus Jesus’ apocalyptic worldview of an imminent, post mortem return in glory could not occur; it would be a violation of the natural universe and this you agree has no place in historical methodology. Therefore Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet – which is where we came in.

No, the matter for discussion is whether Jesus, as historically reconstructed by many with diverse and contradictory views, did in fact prophesy his post mortem return in glory. And, if one takes this view, how is it supported through rigorous historico-critical method.

“Yes [this is false], but …”? So are you now conceding that what you said was false? “Your only possible argument can be that you disagree with Ehrman’s conclusions NOT that he is insufficiently “rigorous.” Or something else? If the latter, are you merely ignoring that, once again, your view of my position is very different from my own view of my position?

“…Ehrman’s “overall conclusion that Jesus likely shared an apocalyptic worldview with others of his generation” is grounded in the fact that Jesus was a mortal man – like other men. …”
No, not really. Is it not also possible that Jesus or any other ordinary man or women did not share an apocalyptic worldview? A methodological rejection of the supernatural does not establish you position.

“ … Thus Jesus’ apocalyptic worldview of an imminent, post mortem return in glory could not occur …” If indeed that was actually Jesus’ view, that he would soon return post mortem on the clouds of glory—Jesus Questers use historico-critical methods to try and establish whether or not this was in fact Jesus’ view, teaching, or prophecy. It is this discussion in which I have been trying to engage you.

Rather than basing your conclusion on false, presumed, or overly general premises, it is possible to base your conclusion on stronger historico-critical methodology, as does Ehrman, so why not examine and discuss Ehrman’s methodology?

Not if you mean 4 independent gospel sources, but neither does Ehrman. And given that the gospels were all composed after the destruction of the temple the question is irrelevant.

No, that is not what Ehrman means, as I have already indicated on at least four occasions. Ehrman’s claim of multiple attestation comes from multiple putative sources of Mark, as well as hypothetical sources underlying Stephen’s speech in Acts, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Thomas. It may be worrth noting that Ehrman is not so sure that the gospel of Mark was written after the destruction of the temple, ‘though he rightly considers this to be the majority view and he certainly seems more inclined to favor this view (as I certainly do). But, insofar as Ehrman is discussing multiple attestation through independent sources of the gospels, the issue is entirely relevant, even accepting the a post-70 composition of Mark. So, let’s get back to the actual question, do you follow the source-critical methodology of Ehrman? Do you believe that Ehrman’s source-critical methodology is an example of the most rigorous application of historico-critical method. I do not. What say you?

Compare two methods. One presupposes independent attestation through multiple sources, while the other more 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.

“MY VIEW!!! The view is Ehrman’s as expounded in the book you denigrate as “popularist”: ‘Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium’ where he argues that Jesus can be best understood as a first-century Jewish apocalypticist...who expected that the history of the world as was going to come to an end that god was going to overthrow the forces of evil in an act of cosmic judgment.

There is nothing humorous in accepting Jesus’ adoption of the far-from-unique principle of reciprocity as embodied in the universally accepted Golden Rule - unless you are attempting to credit Jesus with it and claim that its universality is proof of the success of Jesus teaching mission. That WOULD be humorous given that it is not what Jesus and his followers proclaimed.

Yes, your view, or is Ehrman’s view no longer your view, are you now distancing yourself from Ehrman’s view?

Do you really think you have correctly characterized what I said here, or are you merely trying to avoid mention of the fact that Ehrman believes the teachings of Jesus should dominate our lives?

If the former, how can you possibly interpret my words to mean anything similar my believing it is humorous that Jesus accepted and taught the Golden Rule? And why on earth would you suggest that I might be attempting to credit Jesus with the Golden Rule, after I just pointed out to you that my own signature contains Jesus’ own source in the Hebrew scriptures for this teaching? Why don’t you simply respond to my words rather than creating wild interpretations for the sake of more pointless argument. None of what you suggest here has any relation to what I have said.

And, again, I have not denigrated Ehrman’s book; Ehrman and I are in agreement that his work as written “for popular (ie, general-reading) audiences.”

See above.

But you did not answer my question above. So I will repeat for your convenience: Do you imagine that the Jesus Seminar has not also (like Ehrman) made their case through a likewise detailed examination of Jesus’ words and works?

It depends what you mean by “multiple attestation”. Surely you are not crediting Ehrman as holding that the 4 gospels consist of multiple attestations? Please specify.

I have, of course, already specified several times exactly what I am referring to in Ehrman’s methodology. I would also think you would already be familiar with Ehrman’s methodology. But, just in case you are not, I will repeat once again: Ehrman’s claim of multiple attestation comes from multiple putative sources of Mark, as well as hypothetical sources underlying Stephen’s speech in Acts, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Thomas.

So, 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. Do you really not see why this point is important?

You “review” it? I take it this is your way of saying that you will grace us with your opinion?

And NO that would be YOUR attempt to mischaracterize me. My response was to your dismissive:

“If you care to show me the scholarly research that Ehrman did but not include in the popularist version……..”

SO, once again: “Any reputable scholar’s exposition in popular form can only be based on the scholarly research underlying his entire area of expertise…” What you choose not to see is that conclusions of “popularist” works can be grounded in sound scholarship. Further, with Ehrman, there are copious notes at the back of his “popularist” books enlarging on the points in the body of the text and pointing you in the direction to research for yourself.

So now you concede that Ehrman’s work is indeed a popularist work? Good. And, by the way, I have in no way denied that a popularist work can be grounded in sound scholarship—that should be the very nature of a popularist work! I am also beginning to think that perhaps you have never read Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium. Do you really find his notes at the end of this book to be copious? In his treatment of the historical Jesus, Chapters 2-14, he averages 4 brief notes per chapter. But, again, if you want to present a more detailed view of the scholarship of some of the questions I have raised, I will indeed be happy to review it. In the meantime, I will have to content myself with my own reading of the literature and sources.

But you are not “critiquing”, that’s the point. You have presented little of substance. You are “carping” - or fault-finding, if you prefer – not critiquing in a systematic way.

Why not support this opinion of me? Where specifically do you disagree with the Post 3573, points 1-9 or with the scholars I have mentioned there? That would be substantive discussion.

Only the Source Critics can determine their reliability of the gospels re Jesus’ actual words, but it doesn’t require a Source Critic to establish that the imminent return of Jesus in glory was the all pervasive belief at the time according to the gospel texts. Obviously they were wrong. Jesus is yet to appear.

Exactly correct, which is why source criticism is such an important element of this question. So let’s hear your source-critical views.

See above.

You have in no way demonstrated, above or elsewhere, that I have in any 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. Do I disagree with him and Meier on some important points? Absolutely. But that is not insulting, belittling, or abusive, nor is it directed at him personally, as he is a man that I respect on a number of levels.

True regarding the technique but what makes it difficult for many Christians is the necessity to abandon the notion of scripture as divinely inspired and abandoning supernatural “truth claims” such as the resurrection. If you as a Christian feel comfortable at the prospect of your core religious beliefs being wrong then I will stand corrected. But the indications are that you will find a way to interpret them to your own personal satisfaction regardless.

I am entirely comfortable with the exercise of the historico-critical method. Not only with respect to historico-critical methodology, but the very foundation of apophatic theology insists upon the fundamental reality that everything we know of God is wrong. You stand corrected. Thank you for this concession.

[robrecht]

I would have to read the reference, but the first problem is Ehrman considers Mark to be written after the destruction of the Temple. In the reviews and description of the book. Ehrman depicts Jesus as an apochalyptic 'end of the world' messianic figure using different sources to justify this. I do not believe this is the same as 'multisource attestation,' as Meier and other christian apologists use it.

There is some justification for this argument that bot Jesus and Paul predicted the 'end of the world.'

i plan to get the book trough the library and read it.

Hi, Shuny. I only now saw that you added to your post after I had responded. I look forward to your reading the book to see if and how their use of multiple attestation is different. I think, from a purely source-critical perspective, they are very similar, eg, for Ehrman Mark and Q are treated as independent sources, John is considered independent of the synoptics, prior sources are identified in Mark and Luke (eg, Stephen's speech in Acts), etc, the gospel of Thomas is independent of the syoptic gospels, etc. This is Ehrman's source-critical methodology for claiming multiple attestation by at least four independent sources for his historical judgment that Jesus did in fact prophesy the destruction of the temple.

Also, lest you misunderstand my position, I believe that both Jesus and Paul shared an apocalyptic worldview and have not been arguing against this position.

[shunyadragon]

Hi, Shuny. I only now saw that you added to your post after I had responded. I look forward to your reading the book to see if and how their use of multiple attestation is different. I think, from a purely source-critical perspective, they are very similar, eg, for Ehrman Mark and Q are treated as independent sources, John is considered independent of the synoptics, prior sources are identified in Mark and Luke (eg, Stephen's speech in Acts), etc, the gospel of Thomas is independent of the syoptic gospels, etc. This is Ehrman's source-critical methodology for claiming multiple attestation by at least four independent sources for his historical judgment that Jesus did in fact prophesy the destruction of the temple.

Also, lest you misunderstand my position, I believe that both Jesus and Paul shared an apocalyptic worldview and have not been arguing against this position.

I have ordered the book through my small town library and should have it in a few days.

[David Hayward]

I thought "Jesus Quester" was just a general, non-derivative term applied to all scholars attempting to understand who the "historical Jesus" is. As I understand it, we're currently in the third (or possibly 4th) quest...

My bad. I had been reading articles critical of the Jesus Seminar's methods, and because of the use of the term there had been misled into supposing "Jesus Quest" referred to the Westar Institute's latest (4th plus a side-) project. It doesn't.

But no I wasn't. What went on for page after page was robrechts' (and now your) attempts to divert the discussion away from the limitations of Historical/Critical methodology which, inconveniently for Christians, does not allow for the inclusion of miraculous Christian dogma as history.

I approve heartily of your keenness to get the discussion back on track and to focus on the limitations of Historical/Critical methodology.

Let me remind you that my assertion way back in #3284... ...It cannot presuppose any set beliefs about a proposed supernatural realm or miracles of Jesus.

robrecht has now answered this.

...the "historical-critical criteria" I use in my "own historical reconstruction of an historical Jesus" is precisely the same that one would apply to any other historical figure. Namely the application of ‘Source criticism’, ‘Form criticism’, ‘Tradition criticism’ etc, etc, etc with the proviso that historians cannot establish ‘miracles’ as the most probable occurrence.

If I were to ask engineers who had selected a bridge design what criteria they had used in selecting that best design, and why it was the best design and better than the rejected designs, I would not expect them to answer “Physics”, Mathematics” and “Chemistry”; your list of "‘Source criticism’, ‘Form criticism’, ‘Tradition criticism’ etc, etc, etc" is similarly technically correct but uninformative.

Much as one can use physics, maths and chemistry to build a wide variety of bridge designs, so can one use source, form and tradition criticism to arrive at different pictures of Jesus. Pope Benedict XVI comments that...

...the reconstructions of this Jesus (who could only be discovered by going behind the traditions and sources used by the Evangelists) became more and more incompatible with one another: at one end of the spectrum, Jesus was the anti-Roman revolutionary working – though entirely failing – to overthrow the ruling powers; at the other end, he was the meek moral teacher who approves everything and unaccountably comes to grief. If you read a number of these reconstructions one after the other, you see at once that far from uncovering an icon that has become obscured over time, they are much more like photographs of their authors and the ideals they hold.

To be specific, Ehrman's view of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet is one view among a variety of differing views; even Gerd Ludermann, who you have previously quoted approvingly in this thread, seems not to agree; if you ever wish to explain why Ehrman's view is correct, and the views of Ludermann and other historical-critical scholars are incorrect, please feel free to do so.

Miracles, by their very nature are the least probable occurrence in any historical account. And given that miracles feature prominently in the Jesus story it is at this point that one enters into the realm of faith, not history.

Here we have the one specific criterion that you have declared you use: disallow the supernatural. What other criteria do you use, and how specifically did you use them in choosing Ehrman's view as the correct view for you and robrecht to adopt?

David