There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Tassman]

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.”

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.

Referring to Ehrman as “popularist” at every opportunity is an indication of your intent to trivialize him. And the same applies to the “Jesus Quester. Your wide-eyed “who me” fools no-one. The equivalent would be Mitt Romney referring to Obama as a “liberal” at every opportunity in every speech. Yes, “liberal” is a legitimate word but deployed thus is a deliberate ‘put-down’. Such ‘word-spin’ is regrettably characteristic of your debating style and one can only wonder why you feel the need. Romney no doubt would claim he too was merely using an “accurate term”. But we know better don’t we.

Re your “correction” of Ehrman, what we are waiting for is your rebuttal of Ehrmans’ conclusion of Jesus being a first-century Jewish apocalypticist whose mission failed at his death and non-return as he foretold.

But all we have had to date is whining re Ehrman’s “lack of rigorous methodology” and a 20 paragraph ‘Argumentum Verbosium’ slab of possible ways to approach the subject.

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

Please provide a synopsis, if you are able. I do not have time to chase after you.

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:



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.

Only an “ad hominem” to your sensitive sensibilities! One wonders at your need to continually put the debating opponent in the wrong – do you imagine it puts you in the ‘right’ by default.

Certainly it would be better to discuss issues of substance but your 20 paragraph “slab” does not have any; it does not arrive at any conclusions nor does it provide any arguments. At best it foreshadows possible approaches to the problems.

Conversely, Ehrman is able to reach a conclusion, namely that Jesus is best understood by comparing him to the apocalyptic prophets throughout the history of Judaism that proclaimed the end of the age. He, along with Meier and others argue that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet in the tradition of Elijah and John the Baptist. Paul also preached apocalypticism - it was in fact the generally held view of the Jewish population. Thus, according to Ehrman, the most probable conclusion is that Jesus - as a man of the times - would have believed that he was the apocalyptic prophet as expected by the apocalyptic worldview.

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?

It has everything to do with the supernatural in that the ‘supernatural’ must be ruled out of any historical argument based on Historical/Critical methodology. Thus, to ask about the likelihood of Ehrmans’ historical reconstruction of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, my answer was that it was highly likely – given that the universal expectation was Jesus’ imminent return – as you yourself have conceded – and that such an expectation was couched in terms outside the parameters of Historical methodology, namely that of a supernatural occurrence, i.e. “clouds of glory”, “end of the world and cosmic judgment” etc.

You took exception to my response on the grounds that ruling out the ‘supernatural’ should not be the ONLY way to reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus. I agree and I did not say that it was. But it is the essential starting point when dealing with an historical figure, heavily layered with supernatural accretions, such as Jesus.

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.

Are you familiar with Meir’s actual writings or merely the précis of others? If the former you would understand that Meier, as per Ehrman, understands Jesus prophecies in the tradition of John-the-Baptist’s preaching of the “end-times”. The difference is that that Ehrman sees Jesus’ non-return as a failure whereas Meier sees it as yet to be fulfilled. The latter is a supernatural expectation which is beyond the scope of Historical methodology. Therefore one can only wonder why you keep steering the discussion in the direction of Meier and away from Ehrman, given your claim to rigorously apply historical methodology.

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?

The only matter for discussion is whether Jesus’ followers BELIEVED that he prophesized his post mortem return in glory, not that he necessarily did – although the most probable explanation for this universal belief is that he did. And you have several times agreed that they did.

Your 20 paragraph slab of possible approaches to dealing with the question does not arrive at a conclusion (as you acknowledge) - or is even able to frame an adequate argument.

In many instances we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote; nevertheless Ehrman has produced a compelling argument utilizing source criticism to examine the texts - canonical and non-canonical - to reconstruct the life of Jesus. He employs existing critical criteria and independent attestation, contextual credibility and dissimilarity, to determine what elements of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life can be considered authentic. In short, he utilizes all the tools available to competent biblical scholars. You may disagree with his conclusions but you cannot criticize his methodology.

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.

Unless you are arguing that the destruction of the temple and Jesus’ supposed prophesying of it is relevant to the fulfillment of Jesus’ apocalyptic prophecies then you are off topic.

If the former then please argue the case that the destruction of Jerusalem in c70CE was in fact the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies re the coming of the kingdom. NB: you realize that claiming such a prophetic fulfillment is beyond the scope of Historical/Critical methodology and that you are making a faith statement in making such a claim.

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

I am not distancing myself from Ehrman’s view. You wrongly said: “You appeal to Ehrman to support your view……” i.e. implying that it was my hypothesis. One wonders why you deliberately make such a misleading assertion and so frequently. Surely you are above such cheap point-scoring’.

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.”

Erhman actually considers that the ethical teachings of Jesus were intended merely as a stop-gap measure until his (failed) imminent return and the end of the age – NOT that they were his primary message. You seem to be arguing that they were Jesus’ primary message and using Ehrman to support this view.

BTW, Re the bolded: Please refresh my memory as to the exact quote you are attributing to Ehrman and its context and provide a link.

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?

Surely all bone-fide scholars attempt a detailed examination of Jesus’ words and works. What is your point?

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?

Please provide your reasons with links why you side with those who “question Ehrman’s source-critical presuppositions and opinions that allow such an optimistic appeal to multiple attestation”.

All scholarly judgments are based on educated guesses (including those of the nameless scholars with whom you identify) and Ehrman freely acknowledges this. ALL historical scholarship can only be concerned with establishing probabilities.

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.

Have I ever argued that “Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” was NOT a popular work designed to be read by interested laity? No I have not. What does it say about you that you feel the need to continually misrepresent your debating opponent?

Ehrman’s “popularist” book, with its notes and bibliography, is quite sufficient to guide one’s further study on it and related topics, such as the phenomena of millennialism in Judeo/Christianity throughout history, this last being the ongoing phenomena that Ehrman sees as the basis of Jesus’ role as apocalyptic prophet.

So feel free to pursue it at will, you don’t need me to hold your hand, nor do I accept the authority implied by your self-appointed role as a “reviewer”.

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.

There is no substance in your 20 paragraph block ‘Argumentum Verbosium’ to discuss.

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

One does not need Source Criticism to examine Christ's prophecies regarding the expectation of the ‘end-of-the-world’, ‘cosmic judgment’ and the establishing of ‘God’s Kingdom’ on earth. It was the all-pervasive, clearly anticipated expectation which was taught during the earliest days of the faith and found throughout the gospels and other early writings. And you have several times agreed with this.

But where one requires Source Criticism, given that we do not know Jesus’ exact words, is to explain how the early Christians got it so wrong. There is no shortage of Christian expositors using ‘source-criticism’ in an attempt to answer this question. But they usually propose theories explaining away the belief that Christ ever intended to reappear within a single generation – despite the prima facie case to the contrary as well as a minority who believe it has already occurred i.e. the (dare I utter the word) ‘Preterists’.

More to the point, there is NO hypothesis which is agreed upon by all. None! Why is this?

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.

If you believe all this then you lack insight. See above.

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.

I do not stand corrected unless you are claiming to speak for the majority of Christians and I know from experience that you are not. For Christians with a strong emotional investment in the miraculous core events of Jesus’ life and death it is profoundly disquieting that these events and claimed ‘truth-statements’ are ALL subject to rebuttal.

[Tassman]

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

The “limitations of Historical/Critical methodology” are not a negative quality, as you seem to be implying, but merely setting the boundaries of what it is capable of.

robrecht has now answered this.

Many times but evasively and incorrectly.

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.

It is more than just “technically correct”; the role of source-criticism is so well known it shouldn’t require elaboration. In biblical criticism its primary goal is to determine a text's original meaning in its original historical context. It is not concerned with the truth value of the text in and of itself, only its accuracy as to what the authors believed and their intention in writing it.

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...

We have discussed Benedict’s views on this topic before. While he pays ‘lip-service’ to Historical methodology he exempts the bible inasmuch as the text is divinely inspired and intended for the instruction of the Church. Contrary to the Historical/Critical Method he argues that faith alone can enable one to discern the profound harmony and historicity underlying the New Testament. This is in direct contradiction of historical methodology and amounts to special pleading.

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.

The confusion of multiple views re the Parousia, is a consequence of it not occurring within the lifetime of Jesus’ followers - as was widely expected according to the texts. The varieties of differing views are the ongoing, often contradictory, attempts to explain why.

Lüdemann believes that Jesus expected an imminent end of the world - as indicated for example in Mark 14:25 which he believes to be authentic. He does not differ radically from Ehrman’s view re Jesus as failed apocalyptic prophet.

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?

When an historian is dealing with a figure such as Jesus, who is commonly defined by his alleged supernatural attributes and deeds, it is important to specifically disallow the supernatural when using Historical methodology. This is not necessary in the case of, say Hannibal where the question does not arise. Nobody is going to claim that supernatural powers were involved in his crossing the Alps, even though we don’t know how he did it. The non-supernatural criteria historians use for historical/critical reconstructions of Jesus life are the same criteria as in investigating Hannibal, Julius Caesar or any other historical figure. They are the criteria ALL historians use. I’m sure you do not need them spelt out.

[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 got the book, and now understand the context of Ehrman's argument concerning the prophesying the destruction of the temple, and yes how he used a form of 'multiple attestation.' pp155-159. He was not justifying that Jesus was a prophet, making an accurate impressive prophesy come true. He demonstrated that this was a common theme going back to the OT prophesies that the destruction of the temple would be the result of disobedience of the will of God. It was also the thing to do when an army conquered another kingdom or put down a rebellion as in the case of the Jews to level the temple. Others at the time of Jesus also prophesied the destruction of the temple.

[Adam]

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.

There is no substance in your 20 paragraph block ‘Argumentum Verbosium’ to discuss.

False. It's good stuff you need to answer.

The only matter for discussion is whether Jesus’ followers BELIEVED that he prophesized his post mortem return in glory, not that he necessarily did – although the most probable explanation for this universal belief is that he did.

No, in regards to the OP the only matter for discussion is whether Jesus did and whether he thereby got it wrong. Several top scholars argue that it was the Caligula Crisis of 39 AD that galvanized Jesus's followers to develop such texts as the Little Apocalypse in Mark 13--N. H. Taylor and James Crossley for example. Also refer to my latest post here in Apologetics 301 in Argument from Historical Proximity Post #392
in which I argue that end-of-the-world scenarios were not from the seven written gospel eyewitness sources, but came into a later layer in Mark.

[robrecht]

Referring to Ehrman as “popularist” at every opportunity is an indication of your intent to trivialize him. And the same applies to the “Jesus Quester. Your wide-eyed “who me” fools no-one. The equivalent would be Mitt Romney referring to Obama as a “liberal” at every opportunity in every speech. Yes, “liberal” is a legitimate word but deployed thus is a deliberate ‘put-down’. Such ‘word-spin’ is regrettably characteristic of your debating style and one can only wonder why you feel the need. Romney no doubt would claim he too was merely using an “accurate term”. But we know better don’t we.

Why not respond to the substance of my remarks. Failing that, what is your supposed evidence of my being dishonest or trying to fool anyone?

There is no deliberate put down or word spin. I have openly said that I respect Ehrman on many levels and I do. But I am critical of the methodology of the Jesus Questers. That is not a put down, just a difference in methodology.

Re your “correction” of Ehrman, what we are waiting for is your rebuttal of Ehrmans’ conclusion of Jesus being a first-century Jewish apocalypticist whose mission failed at his death and non-return as he foretold.

But all we have had to date is whining re Ehrman’s “lack of rigorous methodology” [bold][r: false quotation][/bold] and a 20 paragraph ‘Argumentum Verbosium’ slab of possible ways to approach the subject.

The heart of any methodological discussion should indeed consider alternative ways to approach an issue. If that does not interest you, then do not engage in methodological discussions.

My position is that the sources do not allow any definitive historical reconstruction with a very high level of probability, specifically critiquing the type of multiple independent attestation that Ehrman and other Jesus Questers employ in supporting their historical reconstructions. That is not intended as a refutation, but is indeed a differentiation between a less rigorous method and a more rigorous one, ie, one that more seriously questions multiple independent attestation by focusing directly upon the sources themselves and their relationships and in their own historical context.

As you know, I already consider it likely that Jesus shared an apocalyptic mindset with others of his generation so it is silly to wait for me to refute my own position. With respect to judging Jesus a failure or irrelevant on account of being wrong, I also agree with Ehrman that this is a question that should probably be dealt with theologically or philosophically and not on a strictly historical level. People typically answer this question at a personal or communal level in terms of the meaning they derive from history, personal and communal reflection, and an ethical praxis. It is not merely or strictly a historical question. Many people find relevance in Jesus’ teaching quite apart from a specific apocalyptic framework. Others do not. As for the specific claim that Jesus foretold his own parousia prior to the end of his generation, I have tried to engage you in discussion of Ehrman’s very brief treatment of these specific texts and Meier's more extensive treatment.

Some would see a kind of ‘refutation’ of Ehrman’s historical reconstruction merely by recognizing the multitude of sometimes diametrically opposed historical reconstructions by other critical scholars. That is not really a refutation of a reconstruction that self-critically recognizes itself as multiply hypothetical. On the other hand, if you want to claim that Ehrman’s reconstruction is not really hypothetical, the best, or true, or more likely than other reconstructions, you should offer some type of critique of competing historical reconstructions to support this claim. Hence, I have repeatedly asked you about the Jesus Seminar and historical reconstructions based on their work, but you decline to comment. Why?

You have also avoided discussing the source-critical method of Ehrman—why?

Instead you focus on your derogatory characterizations of me or my method or my supposedly ignoble intent. Why?

Please provide a synopsis, if you are able. I do not have time to chase after you.

Or you could merely respond to points when made. Once again, I will repeat for your convenience. Points 1-4 and 7a relate directly to Ehrman’s source-critical methodology.

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.

Only an “ad hominem” to your sensitive sensibilities! One wonders at your need to continually put the debating opponent in the wrong – do you imagine it puts you in the ‘right’ by default.

Certainly it would be better to discuss issues of substance but your 20 paragraph “slab” does not have any; it does not arrive at any conclusions nor does it provide any arguments. At best it foreshadows possible approaches to the problems.

Conversely, Ehrman is able to reach a conclusion, namely that Jesus is best understood by comparing him to the apocalyptic prophets throughout the history of Judaism that proclaimed the end of the age. He, along with Meier and others argue that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet in the tradition of Elijah and John the Baptist. Paul also preached apocalypticism - it was in fact the generally held view of the Jewish population. Thus, according to Ehrman, the most probable conclusion is that Jesus - as a man of the times - would have believed that he was the apocalyptic prophet as expected by the apocalyptic worldview.

You really do not think that calling me pretentious and claiming that I’m trying to make myself look authoritative is an ad hominem? Are you not trying to ‘put me in the wrong’ by attributing to me such motives? Why even speculate about my motives? Why not discuss the actual substance?

Elijah was an apocalyptic prophet? The case can be made that he was proto-apocalyptic with respect to some themes but precisely not in the sense in which you are speaking of apocalyptic (Bedard). Later associations of a future Elijah as coming before the day of the Lord are certainly more apocalyptic, but note even in Malachi Elijah comes not to proclaim or bring about the end, but to bring about repentance so God’s punishment may be averted:

Behold, I am sending to you Elijah the prophet
before the coming of the great and terrible day of Yahweh.
And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the sons,
and the heart of the sons to their fathers;
lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

When you say that Jesus probably considered himself to be the apocalyptic prophet expected by the apocalyptic worldview, is it this view of Elijah that you are referencing? Or are you referring to another that was expected?

Q considers this very question on the lips of John the Baptist and had Jesus respond that ...

Again, you compare my approach to Ehrman’s, noting that mine does not arrive at conclusions, while his does. My conclusion is simply more tentative (and not particularly opposed) because of the nature of the sources and the multiple hypotheses of independent attestation. I can put my argument in more simple terms—Ehrman’s source critical methodology glosses over a more serious consideration of dependence, of Mark upon Q-tradition(s), of Luke upon Mark when composing the speech of Stephen, of John upon the synoptics, of the gospel of Thomas upon the synoptics. Some of these are majority positions, others very well argued and preferred by some, eg, me.

We have made progress; you are no longer referring to Jesus as the one who made the apocalyptic, but rather sharing in a larger apocalyptic worldview, a man of the times, so to speak. Members of the Jesus Seminar would point out, however, that outside of Qumran we do not really know how widespread the apocalyptic worldview was during Jesus’ time. We know that it was embraced in the Qumran community, and that they were already dealing with a delay of their founder’s expectations. Outside of Qumran, however, this is more of an open question, with lots of speculation and hypothetical elements (eg, parts of the Book of Enoch). We can also understand from Josephus a growing sense of apocalyptic prophecy as the Roman-Jewish war approached, which is closer to the historical context of the gospel of Mark, not necessarily the life of Jesus. It is also notable that Josephus does not attribute any apocalyptic fervor to John the Baptist or Jesus (as reconstructed by some) and notable as well that Ehrman does not comment much on this.

It has everything to do with the supernatural in that the ‘supernatural’ must be ruled out of any historical argument based on Historical/Critical methodology. Thus, to ask about the likelihood of Ehrmans’ historical reconstruction of Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, my answer was that it was highly likely – given that the universal expectation was Jesus’ imminent return – as you yourself have conceded – and that such an expectation was couched in terms outside the parameters of Historical methodology, namely that of a supernatural occurrence, i.e. “clouds of glory”, “end of the world and cosmic judgment” etc.

You took exception to my response on the grounds that ruling out the ‘supernatural’ should not be the ONLY way to reconstruct the historical figure of Jesus. I agree and I did not say that it was. But it is the essential starting point when dealing with an historical figure, heavily layered with supernatural accretions, such as Jesus.

So it now appears that you have finally, after three months arguing to the contrary, accepted my own understanding of my own words in 3285. Correct? Or do you still want to argue that my use of “only”, which you present here in all caps, has no role in correctly understanding my words?

It is not clear what you are referencing with your, ‘It has everything to do with the supernatural …’ If you are referencing my statement, “Note that this question is directed at your own claim that this historical reconstruction is ‘very likely’ and has no reference whatsoever to the supernatural …”, you have misinterpreted my question.

When should we expect your answer to my initial question? On what basis do you consider Ehrman’s reconstruction as very likely and more likely than other critical reconstructions, eg, those based on the work of the Jesus Seminar?

Are you familiar with Meir’s actual writings or merely the précis of others? If the former you would understand that Meier, as per Ehrman, understands Jesus prophecies in the tradition of John-the-Baptist’s preaching of the “end-times”. The difference is that that Ehrman sees Jesus’ non-return as a failure whereas Meier sees it as yet to be fulfilled. The latter is a supernatural expectation which is beyond the scope of Historical methodology. Therefore one can only wonder why you keep steering the discussion in the direction of Meier and away from Ehrman, given your claim to rigorously apply historical methodology.

Once again, you did not answer my question: “Are you, in fact, directly familiar with Meier’s own work or are you referring to another scholar’s critique of Meier’s work?”

In answer to your question, I have not read Meier’s four volumes in their entirety but I have read the sections that interest me in assessing his methodology and a few other sections. I have not steered the discussion toward Meier. The only reason that I have even mentioned Meier is because you first appealed to him as supporting your view and, if you recall, it was I who initially identified Meier’s Jesus Quester methodology as less rigorous than what I follow (3283):

“With respect to historical and exegetical methodology, Meier is actually much more traditional than me. I respect his scholarship, but the methodology I follow is much more rigorously focused on the meaning and relationships of the texts before us, without trying to use the texts to justify historical reconstructions of events that transpired 40-70 years prior.”

Now, it seems to me you are possibly speaking of your view of Meier’s religious faith (that he sees Jesus’ return as yet to be fulfilled) and not necessarily his historical methodology or positions. What is the text of Meier that you are referring to?

I have been trying to get you to address a more concrete question in terms of historical methodology. On what scholarly methodological grounds does Ehrman accept as historical Jesus prophesying his return on the clouds of glory? Contrast his approach to Meier’s approach in following the majority (I think) in not seeing these prophecies as authentic? The section of Meier I am referring to is in his 2nd volume, pp. 336-348 & 388-396.

The only matter for discussion is whether Jesus’ followers BELIEVED that he prophesized his post mortem return in glory, not that he necessarily did – although the most probable explanation for this universal belief is that he did. And you have several times agreed that they did.

Your 20 paragraph slab of possible approaches to dealing with the question does not arrive at a conclusion (as you acknowledge) - or is even able to frame an adequate argument.

In many instances we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote; nevertheless Ehrman has produced a compelling argument utilizing source criticism to examine the texts - canonical and non-canonical - to reconstruct the life of Jesus. He employs existing critical criteria and independent attestation, contextual credibility and dissimilarity, to determine what elements of the gospel accounts of Jesus' life can be considered authentic. In short, he utilizes all the tools available to competent biblical scholars. You may disagree with his conclusions but you cannot criticize his methodology.

Why is it that you no longer want to discuss whether Jesus prophesized his post mortem return on the clouds of glory? You assert that this is most probably so, but do not want to discuss why you (or Ehrman) consider this to be the most probable explanation? You appear to be abandoning any attempt to support a crucial element of your position.

Where do you find any mention in Paul, our earliest witness to Christian beliefs, that Jesus prophesized his post mortem return in glory? Where do you find this in Q? Only when you get to Mark, do you find something like this, according to some, but probably most critical Markan scholars would not read this prophecy as authentic or as referring to the parousia, and Ehrman himself acknowledges when he considers this as an authentic Son of Man saying in Mark that it did not originally refer to Jesus’ post mortem return in glory. In fact, this is his single reason for considering it authentic. Lüdemann traces this early Christian belief to the early resurrection visions—what is your reason for disagreeing with Lüdemann?

Of course one can disagree with Ehrman’s methodology, especially his appeal to multiple independent attestation. Why do you avoid this question: “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?

Unless you are arguing that the destruction of the temple and Jesus’ supposed prophesying of it is relevant to the fulfillment of Jesus’ apocalyptic prophecies then you are off topic.

If the former then please argue the case that the destruction of Jerusalem in c70CE was in fact the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies re the coming of the kingdom. NB: you realize that claiming such a prophetic fulfillment is beyond the scope of Historical/Critical methodology and that you are making a faith statement in making such a claim.

It is, of course, fundamental to Ehrman’s and others’ reconstruction of Jesus as a prophet and as an apocalyptic prophet. That is not at all off-topic, at least not for Ehrman. How could Mark’s presentation of Jesus’ prophecy of the destruction of the temple and the end of the world (Mk 13) be off-topic?

So, 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 first asked you this question over 3 months ago. Feel free to answer it at any time.

And what do you think of Ehrman’s limitation of the application of the criterion of dissimilarity, considering my approach too radical?

I am not distancing myself from Ehrman’s view. You wrongly said: “You appeal to Ehrman to support your view……” i.e. implying that it was my hypothesis. One wonders why you deliberately make such a misleading assertion and so frequently. Surely you are above such cheap point-scoring’.

You would do well to stop trying to base your ad hominem and other arguments upon what you believe I am supposedly implying. I did not imply that this was your original hypothesis, only that it is also your position and you did make appeal to Ehrman to support your view. Your view of what you imagine I am implying is not a misleading statement of mine, merely your incorrect interpretation that I am attempting to mislead. You cannot present any evidence whatsoever for this accusation of dishonesty.

Erhman actually considers that the ethical teachings of Jesus were intended merely as a stop-gap measure until his (failed) imminent return and the end of the age – NOT that they were his primary message. You seem to be arguing that they were Jesus’ primary message and using Ehrman to support this view.

BTW, Re the bolded: Please refresh my memory as to the exact quote you are attributing to Ehrman and its context and provide a link.

This is now the third time I am providing you with the context and link to where Ehrman says that he believes the teachings of Jesus (of love and mercy and forgiveness) should dominate our lives:

RAZ: So what is your relationship with Jesus about? I mean, is it historian to historical figure? Is there any part of it that is spiritual?

EHRMAN: Most of it is historical. Jesus is the most important figure in the history of Western civilization. And so people ask me, well, why would you be interested in somebody you don't believe in? I mean, he's tremendously important. So...

RAZ: I mean, is Jesus to you what Lincoln is to Doris Kearns Goodwin, or - I mean, you know? (SOUNDBITE OF LAUGHTER)

EHRMAN: To a large extent. Although I must say that I continue to be attracted by the teachings of Jesus. Jesus' teachings of love and mercy and forgiveness, I think, really should dominate our lives, that it really is better to love your neighbor as yourself. On the personal level, I agree with many of the ethical teachings of Jesus, and I try to model my life on them, even though I don't agree with the apocalyptic framework in which they were put.

http://m.npr.org/news/Arts+%26+Life/...inglePage=true

Surely all bone-fide scholars attempt a detailed examination of Jesus’ words and works. What is your point?

My point should be clear. I have asked you many times for your criteria in preferring Ehrman’s reconstruction over the work of the Jesus Seminar. You said, “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.”

So, once again, why is it that you prefer the reconstruction of Ehrman over the work of the Jesus Seminar?

Please provide your reasons with links why you side with those who “question Ehrman’s source-critical presuppositions and opinions that allow such an optimistic appeal to multiple attestation”.

All scholarly judgments are based on educated guesses (including those of the nameless scholars with whom you identify) and Ehrman freely acknowledges this. ALL historical scholarship can only be concerned with establishing probabilities.

They are not nameless scholars, as you claim; I have named quite a few of them. As I’ve said before, I will happily provide you with references for any of the scholars I’ve cited, but they will not be links. You would need access to a good library to look up the journals and books. Most of the articles can be purchased on-line if you do not have access to a good library. Please ask for one or at most a few references at a time as I have cited quite a few scholars. If you really do want to review the literature, I also suggest that you take a more polite tone and dispense with the accusations that I am trying to fool anyone or deliberately trying to mislead, as I do not prefer to assist rude people.

Have I ever argued that “Ehrman’s Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium” was NOT a popular work designed to be read by interested laity? No I have not. What does it say about you that you feel the need to continually misrepresent your debating opponent?

Ehrman’s “popularist” book, with its notes and bibliography, is quite sufficient to guide one’s further study on it and related topics, such as the phenomena of millennialism in Judeo/Christianity throughout history, this last being the ongoing phenomena that Ehrman sees as the basis of Jesus’ role as apocalyptic prophet.

So feel free to pursue it at will, you don’t need me to hold your hand, nor do I accept the authority implied by your self-appointed role as a “reviewer”.

I did not misrepresent you, but I did disagree with your characterization of Ehrman’s notes as “copious,” at least with respect to the current book under discussion. I asked because I wanted you to clarify your opinion. When you put “popularist” in quotation marks, and constantly argue with my use of the word ‘popularist’ to characterize this work, I think it would be good for you to clearly state that you do in fact agree with my characterization of the work as popularist.

There is no substance in your 20 paragraph block ‘Argumentum Verbosium’ to discuss.

Professional practitioners of the historico-critical method certainly disagree! Ask for any of the specific references, if you cannot find them yourself, and you can read for yourself.

One does not need Source Criticism to examine Christ's prophecies regarding the expectation of the ‘end-of-the-world’, ‘cosmic judgment’ and the establishing of ‘God’s Kingdom’ on earth. It was the all-pervasive, clearly anticipated expectation which was taught during the earliest days of the faith and found throughout the gospels and other early writings. And you have several times agreed with this.

But where one requires Source Criticism, given that we do not know Jesus’ exact words, is to explain how the early Christians got it so wrong. There is no shortage of Christian expositors using ‘source-criticism’ in an attempt to answer this question. But they usually propose theories explaining away the belief that Christ ever intended to reappear within a single generation – despite the prima facie case to the contrary as well as a minority who believe it has already occurred i.e. the (dare I utter the word) ‘Preterists’.

More to the point, there is NO hypothesis which is agreed upon by all. None! Why is this?

Exactly correct, again. You do not need source criticism if you want to merely presume that “Christ’s prophecies” are all authentic. But you do need source criticism to study Jesus’ life, teaching, and prophecies in an historico-critical manner. If you do not believe this is so, then tell us why Ehrman uses source criticism to argue for his historical reconstruction? I’m not sure what ‘source critics’ you are referring to, but in my experience the great majority of critical scholars certainly do not use source criticism to rationalize or explain away the belief that Jesus intended to reappear within a single generation.

The primary reason why there is no hypothesis which is agreed upon by all, as I’ve said many times, is because the nature of the sources simply do not allow any definitive historical reconstruction of Jesus’ life on several essential points.

If you believe all this then you lack insight. See above.

On the contrary, I have much more insight into my own intentions and the meaning of my own words than you ever could.

I do not stand corrected unless you are claiming to speak for the majority of Christians and I know from experience that you are not. For Christians with a strong emotional investment in the miraculous core events of Jesus’ life and death it is profoundly disquieting that these events and claimed ‘truth-statements’ are ALL subject to rebuttal.

You’re going back on your word—did you forget what you said in your immediately preceding post? “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.”

My response: “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.”

So do you now withdraw the conditional terms of your concession? Or did you just forget what you had said?

[robrecht]

I got the book, and now understand the context of Ehrman's argument concerning the prophesying the destruction of the temple, and yes how he used a form of 'multiple attestation.' pp155-159. He was not justifying that Jesus was a prophet, making an accurate impressive prophesy come true. He demonstrated that this was a common theme going back to the OT prophesies that the destruction of the temple would be the result of disobedience of the will of God. It was also the thing to do when an army conquered another kingdom or put down a rebellion as in the case of the Jews to level the temple. Others at the time of Jesus also prophesied the destruction of the temple.

Yes, it is ‘a form of multiple attestation’, indeed a very explicit form:“They are obviously multiply attested (Mark, John, Acts and Thomas!).” Personally, I do not feel this is so obvious. More recently, Ehrman himself has begun to reconsider part of his argument for dissimilarity of a part of the supposedly pre-Markan tradition of Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple, but, as far as I know, he has not abandoned his source critical view of multiple independent attestation.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it is ‘a form of multiple attestation’, indeed a very explicit form:“They are obviously multiply attested (Mark, John, Acts and Thomas!).” Personally, I do not feel this is so obvious. More recently, Ehrman himself has begun to reconsider part of his argument for dissimilarity of a part of the supposedly pre-Markan tradition of Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple, but, as far as I know, he has not abandoned his source critical view of multiple independent attestation.

I agree in part, but I believe Ehrman's use of multiple attestation has a different purpose than that of most Christian apologists. Christians primarily use 'multiple attestation to justify their belief in the historical context as Jesus showed genuine prior knowledge of a major historical event. Ehrman's use was to show this type of prophecy was common in Biblical history, and at the time of his life and prior to the destruction of the temple, and not extraordinary.

[robrecht]

I agree in part, but I believe Ehrman's use of multiple attestation has a different purpose than that of most Christian apologists. Christians primarily use 'multiple attestation to justify their belief in the historical context as Jesus showed genuine prior knowledge of a major historical event. Ehrman's use was to show this type of prophecy was common in Biblical history, and at the time of his life and prior to the destruction of the temple, and not extraordinary.

I was speaking from a strictly source-critical perspective. I'm not that familiar with Christian apologetics, but since Ehrman is an agnostic WRT to epistemology and an atheist with respect to religious belief, I would not expect to find much similarity to Christian apologists in terms of purpose or motivation. Apologetics has no place in historico-critical methodology. From a strictly source-critical perspective, how do you differentiate Ehrman from Meier?

[shunyadragon]

I was speaking from a strictly source-critical perspective. I'm not that familiar with Christian apologetics, but since Ehrman is an agnostic WRT to epistemology and an atheist with respect to religious belief, I would not expect to find much similarity to Christian apologists in terms of purpose or motivation. Apologetics has no place in historico-critical methodology. From a strictly source-critical perspective, how do you differentiate Ehrman from Meier?

It would ideal to separate apologetics from historico-critical methodology, but unfortunately an agenda of belief or non-belief remains underlying most scholars work. As with my favorites; Vermes, Meier and Ehrman, their scholarship is influenced by their belief or non belief.

Meier does propose to separate them, but only achieves this imperfectly. He clearly acknowledges his strong belief, and holds that the historical search is not really relevant as either confirming or weakening one's belief. His weakness appears in how he addresses the extraordinary feats Jesus is said to perform such as healing. He proposes that they cannot be confirmed historically as Divine miracles, but nonetheless equates them as likely historical events comparing them to the miracles at Lourdes. I personally have researched and visited Lourdes, and find these claims questionable. It is interesting how he addresses the issue of the Resurrection, which he considers not verifiable as a historical event. I do not consider Meier's acrid synical approach to the Jesus Seminar very enlightened and unbiased. I do not share all the conclusions of the Jesus seminar, and consider their conclusions tainted by bias as Meier's is, but their academic work is very good comparing the known knowledge of the different gospels and early texts.

Much of Meier's work reaches similar conclusions as Vermes. I believe Vermes is also influenced by his turn back to Judaism in his search for the historical Jesus. He considers many events, including the 'empty tomb' to be historical events, but does not consider any miraculous aspect of the life of Jesus as historical events including the Resurrection. I believe his belief in God, history as a Roman priest, moderates his negativity toward the historical Jesus

Ehrman's analysis of the Historical Jesus is excellent, but it is underlain by a strong non-belief. I do not fault Ehrman's historical academic standard of his work on the historical Jesus, because he chose to write layman level books. I have listened to him speak and met him.

I believe the Evangelical conservative scholars and apologists do most definitely consider the major part of their historical investigation into the life of Jesus as first and foremost apologetic in nature.

[robrecht]

It would ideal to separate apologetics from historico-critical methodology, but unfortunately an agenda of belief or non-belief remains underlying most scholars work. As with my favorites; Vermes, Meier and Ehrman, their scholarship is influenced by their belief or non belief.

Meier does propose to separate them, but only achieves this imperfectly. He clearly acknowledges his strong belief, and holds that the historical search is not really relevant as either confirming or weakening one's belief. His weakness appears in how he addresses the extraordinary feats Jesus is said to perform such as healing. He proposes that they cannot be confirmed historically as Divine miracles, but nonetheless equates them as likely historical events comparing them to the miracles at Lourdes. I personally have researched and visited Lourdes, and find these claims questionable. It is interesting how he addresses the issue of the Resurrection, which he considers not verifiable as a historical event. I do not consider Meier's acrid synical approach to the Jesus Seminar very enlightened and unbiased. I do not share all the conclusions of the Jesus seminar, and consider their conclusions tainted by bias as Meier's is, but their academic work is very good comparing the known knowledge of the different gospels and early texts.

Much of Meier's work reaches similar conclusions as Vermes. I believe Vermes is also influenced by his turn back to Judaism in his search for the historical Jesus. He considers many events, including the 'empty tomb' to be historical events, but does not consider any miraculous aspect of the life of Jesus as historical events including the Resurrection. I believe his belief in God, history as a Roman priest, moderates his negativity toward the historical Jesus

Ehrman's analysis of the Historical Jesus is excellent, but it is underlain by a strong non-belief. I do not fault Ehrman's historical academic standard of his work on the historical Jesus, because he chose to write layman level books. I have listened to him speak and met him.

I believe the Evangelical conservative scholars and apologists do most definitely consider the major part of their historical investigation into the life of Jesus as first and foremost apologetic in nature.

I agree with everything you say here, Shuny, but what I'm asking about is your comparison or contrast of Meier's and Ehrman's source-critical methodology, ie, their use of mulitple independent attestation. This is a much more fundamental question in my understanding. My familiarity with Meier is less than yours, I think.

With respect to Lourdes, I wonder if Meier's point is not that Jesus' miracles are every bit as miraculous as those at Lourdes, but that there were indeed people who believed themselves to have been healed, both at Lourdes as well as with Jesus. Psychosomatic, placebo effect, that kind of thing. I will take a look and see.

[shunyadragon]

I agree with everything you say here, Shuny, but what I'm asking about is your comparison or contrast of Meier's and Ehrman's source-critical methodology, ie, their use of mulitple independent attestation. This is a much more fundamental question in my understanding. My familiarity with Meier is less than yours, I think.

With respect to Lourdes, I wonder if Meier's point is not that Jesus' miracles are every bit as miraculous as those at Lourdes, but that there were indeed people who believed themselves to have been healed, both at Lourdes as well as with Jesus. Psychosomatic, placebo effect, that kind of thing. I will take a look and see.

My first advice is get Meier's books and read. I am going to get them again from the library, and his later ones I have not read, and go over again how he uses mulitple independent attestation.

In comparing Meier, Vermes and Ehrman, they are similar in many ways on how they use the method. Meier and Vermes have similar academic backgrounds in the Roman Church and it shows in their work. Remember Meier remains a strong believer, and a apparently a believer in Lourdes and healing miracles. Nothing in what he wrote indicates he proposes the psychosomatic or placebo effect, What he does is try, but fails here, is to separate his belief from the historical Jesus, and holds that historically the healing and other miracle events are likely extraordinary and true, but historically cannot be determined to be Divine feats as such.

Eherman takes the hard skeptic approach using the mulitple independent attestation that nothing in scripture is extraordinary, for example the prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple made by Jesus is ordinary because many were making such prophecies. He deliberately looked for different sources to justify this view.

Personally I do not necessarily make the conclusions they make, but use their work to better understand the text including the Jesus Seminar. I believe that if Q existed, the Jesus Seminar made the best evaluation and comparison with known texts for the hypothetical Q, and gave it a good foundation for anything else that may come along. Another example would be the miracles in the scriptures. I will not go for Meier's view that they are likely historical facts, but use his analysis to understand the reported events as written in the context of the life of Jesus and the time he lived.

[robrecht]

My first advice is get Meier's books and read. I am going to get them again from the library, and his later ones I have not read, and go over again how he uses mulitple independent attestation.

In comparing Meier, Vermes and Ehrman, they are similar in many ways on how they use the method. Meier and Vermes have similar academic backgrounds in the Roman Church and it shows in their work. Remember Meier remains a strong believer, and a apparently a believer in Lourdes and healing miracles. Nothing in what he wrote indicates he proposes the psychosomatic or placebo effect, What he does is try, but fails here, is to separate his belief from the historical Jesus, and holds that historically the healing and other miracle events are likely extraordinary and true, but historically cannot be determined to be Divine feats as such.

Eherman takes the hard skeptic approach using the mulitple independent attestation that nothing in scripture is extraordinary, for example the prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple made by Jesus is ordinary because many were making such prophecies. He deliberately looked for different sources to justify this view.

Personally I do not necessarily make the conclusions they make, but use their work to better understand the text including the Jesus Seminar. I believe that if Q existed, the Jesus Seminar made the best evaluation and comparison with known texts for the hypothetical Q, and gave it a good foundation for anything else that may come along. Another example would be the miracles in the scriptures. I will not go for Meier's view that they are likely historical facts, but use his analysis to understand the reported events as written in the context of the life of Jesus and the time he lived.

I have his books, just don't get around to reading them all that much as my interests (when I have the time!) are more in line with direct examination of the texts, source-critical considerations of their interrelationships, understanding the texts in their own historical context insofar as this can be done, and to keep my language skills from getting too rusty. Leben Jesu Forschung is more of a hobby for me as I find it interesting, but also rather hypothetical and subjective.

[shunyadragon]

I have his books, just don't get around to reading them all that much as my interests (when I have the time!) are more in line with direct examination of the texts, source-critical considerations of their interrelationships, understanding the texts in their own historical context insofar as this can be done, and to keep my language skills from getting too rusty. Leben Jesu Forschung is more of a hobby for me as I find it interesting, but also rather hypothetical and subjective.

I tend to lean on comparison of sources for this knowledge instead of an intensive investigation of the text itself over many years, and I bave developed computer files for comparisons, and understanding the language translation problems and interpretations. My knowledge of Latin is ok, but most definitely lack Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, and the knowledge of the these languages are essential for doing independent studies myself. I find it sufficient to do comparative studies of what scholars have already done, and add to my computer files over the years.

As far as the OT goes I prefer Jewish scholarship of the Hebrew over Christian, but not necessarily all the interpretations. A few years back some Jews from Isreal offered some very good detailed analysis of OT scripture in debates with Christians concerning prophesy section of in the Jewish Comparative Religions. I kept a compilation of the two or more different interpretations provided, and add to it over the years.

[robrecht]

... I am going to get them again from the library, and his later ones I have not read, and go over again how he uses mulitple independent attestation. In comparing Meier, Vermes and Ehrman, they are similar in many ways on how they use the method. Meier and Vermes have similar academic backgrounds in the Roman Church and it shows in their work. Remember Meier remains a strong believer, and a apparently a believer in Lourdes and healing miracles. Nothing in what he wrote indicates he proposes the psychosomatic or placebo effect, What he does is try, but fails here, is to separate his belief from the historical Jesus, and holds that historically the healing and other miracle events are likely extraordinary and true, but historically cannot be determined to be Divine feats as such.

Eherman takes the hard skeptic approach using the mulitple independent attestation that nothing in scripture is extraordinary, for example the prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple made by Jesus is ordinary because many were making such prophecies. He deliberately looked for different sources to justify this view. ...

Recovering from foot surgery (old running injury), I finally had time to look up the relevant sections in Meier. On his source critical methodology supporting multiple attestation, see especially Vol I, pp. 174-5, 189-90 (general), 45-7, 53-4 (Paul), I, 44, 52-53, II, 474, 724-725, 770-1 (John), I, 116-8, 146-8 (Gospel of Peter), I, 124-39, 153-166 (Gospel of Thomas). In general, and from a purely source-citical perspective, his use of multiple independent attestation is practically identical to that of Ehrman in my opinion. Have you been able to come up with significant methdololgical differences on this point? In specifics, and as expected, Meier discuss some aspects of this issue in much more detail, thus it is not surprising that he ultimately does not consider the gospel of Thomas nor that of Peter to offer independent sources. So, with respect to these specifics, you could make the case that Ehrman uses multiple independent attestation more than Meier. Unless I missed it, Meier also does not seem to engage in a general discussion of Markan dependence upon Q or Q-traditions and his treatment of Johannine dependence upon the synoptics is very meagre.

Is your point that Meier and Vermes on the one hand and Ehrman on the other all use source-criticism in service of their presuppositions and bias? I am sure they, as do we all, have presuppositions and bias, but I think in the academic world peer-review and professional seminars do tend to challenge this tendency. And I think more attention to source-critical study would also constructively challenge Leben Jesu Forschung.

I also looked up his discussion of Lourdes. You may find these excerpts interesting (pp 515-517):

“I mention the supposed cures at Lourdes not to claim that they are miracles but to provide a concrete example of the distinction I have been making between a historical and a philosophical (or theological) judgment about inexplicable events. …

The case histories at Lourdes testify to an undisputable historical fact of our own time. I do not mean the fact of miraculous cures; I make no such claim. Rather the fact that I refer to is that certain people, ostensibly seriously ill, claim to be suddenly, miraculously cured in a religious setting. … The principle of historical analogy would suggest that, if this sort of phenomenon has happened in religious circumstances in our own day, it may be that something similar has happened in religious circumstances in the past.

To put this in another way: in the face of the Lourdes phenomenon (and others like it), one cannot assert a priori that Jesus never performed inexplicable cures, claimed by some to be miracles. …

In the case of Jesus we do not have the detailed medical records, personal interviews, and tracking system that would enable us to say that, in the case of Jesus’ miracles, all conceivable explanations from the physical sciences or psychology have been exhaustively tested and excluded.”

See also p 528 n 20: “Schleyer stresses the strong psychological element evident in many of the cures. … West points out that some cases declared miraculous might have natural explanations, especially psychological ones. …”

[Amber24]

Jesus didn't exactly specify how long the age he was speaking of was. The age of Jesus is the age of Pisces hence the two fish he turned to several to feed many which by the way we are coming to the end of that age in December and moving to Aquarius that will start the great tribulation and this afterward he will return with great glory. If you read the bible and do other research you will come to the same conclusions. Jesus is lord and yes he was perfect man is not Jesus is devine but humbled himself and set an example for all men to follow so that they would also understand that its not impossible to live free of sin. If I am indeed out of context with my argument than I apologize but I wanted to share my views...