Ben C Smith

I would like to call attention to a nice pair of posts by Loren Rosson on his weblog. The first assembles a list of twelve (mostly quite familiar) names (subconsciously recalling the call of the twelve disciples??) and asks each participant to fill out a survey consisting of questions on the historical Jesus. The second informally (nonstatistically and anonymously) summarizes the results of that survey, interpreting ten out of twelve as a general consensus on the issue.

The conclave members include an atheist and a nontheist, two Jews, two agnostics, two Protestants, two Catholics, an evangelical, and a Unitarian.

Rosson sums up:

The upshot is that there was little consensus on what we can say about Jesus. We agree that he was baptized by John; that he was an exorcist-healer; that he was sexually ascetic; that he was a prophet (whether apocalyptic, messianic, social, or some combination thereof) who expected something rather dramatic to happen soon (i.e. the coming kingdom of God); that he called twelve special disciples; that he said a lot of memorable things which continue lending themselves to a variety of interpretations (especially the parables); that he engaged in disputes over the Torah, temple, and taxes; that he was killed by the Romans (in collaboration with the Judean elite) in Jerusalem during passover as a political troublemaker; that the synoptic gospels and Paul's letters are good ways of getting to Jesus. We could perhaps call these basic facts which stand a good chance of being objectively true, since they are agreed to by people from Christian, Jewish, and secular backgrounds. But these modest results are somewhat disappointing: they simply confirm what most books about the historical Jesus say anyway.

Stephen Carlson, one of the participants, echoes this sentiment:

The upshot is that it is easier to get agreement about what Jesus said and did rather than what he meant by those words and deeds.

If I might be permitted to offer an opinion, there was actually a slight bit more consensus on the various issues than I had expected.

Nevertheless, that there was more consensus on the what than on the why (what Jesus meant) is, I think, to be expected. We have enough sources at second hand to be able to triangulate and sometimes come to reasonably secure conclusions as to what Jesus said or did, but, without a document from his own hand or from the hand of someone known for certain to have been his bosom companion, I doubt we will ever attain unanimous certainty as to what exactly Jesus meant.

Such are the contingencies of history.

Ben.

Toto

"Nothing?" Paul doesn't see fit to mention any exorcisms or healings.

Chris Weimer

I just wanted to let you all know that the "conclave" has yet to discuss the survey taken by us. Hopefully, more consensus can be reached after fruitful discussion. In the meantime, enjoy the results.

Vorkosigan

Interesting work. Thanks, Loren.

Michael

Steven Carr

Is there one person who lived at the same time as Jesus (I assume Meier accepts this definition of contemporary) who says Jesus performed excorcisms or healings?

Nothing is more certain than something which is not even a fact? - welcome to the crazy world of Historical Jesus studies, where the standards are those that would be ridiculed mercilessly in science.

Chris Weimer

Steve Carr - What's crazy is people demanding unreasonable evidence for someone who if it were anybody else the requirements would be much lower.

What it does show is that you lack the necessary training in historical studies period. I suggest you start by learning Greek. From there, we can move on to what is reasonable evidence v. what is unreasonable evidence, and from there, methods on determining probability.

Good luck to you.

Steven Carr

I think this extraordinary outburst highlights the fact that there is no methodology for historical Jesus studies.

Or else Weimer would simply have named a contemporary of Jesus who said that Jesus performed exorcisms and healings.

Chris is right that I should always be happy to learn a bit more Greek. Paul said that Jesus became a 'pneuma'. What is the definition of 'pneuma'?

Toto

The question here isn't whether Jesus existed - only whether he was known to perform exorcisms and healings. The only evidence of those exorcisms and healings is in the gospels, written much later than Jesus' presumed existence, but not in Paul's letters. How can something with so little evidential support be so certain?

Steven Carr

Known by Paul as an exorcist and healer is the question.

And how can Meier write that it is 'certain' that Paul viewed Jesus as an exorcist and healer?

That is junk, surely?

Perhaps Meier meant that it is certain that his contemporaries viewed Jesus as an exorcist and healer , except for those contemporaries that did not view Jesus as an exorcist and healer.

That really is certain. In fact, it is a tautology.

Loren Rosson III

Ben, thanks for mentioning this. As Chris said, there may be follow-up discussion on his forum if the group has time for it.

I began with a group of 14, with two members for each of the seven slots. But Alan Segal (Jewish) and Scot McNight (evangelical) were unable to participate in the long run. So I moved Chris Weimer from Unitarian/Dignist to Jewish (an atheist Jew can fill either slot, I suppose), and so this left us with one Unitarian and one evangelical.

Ideally I wanted two (rather than one, per Meier) members for each slot in order to increase numbers and make it harder to reach consensus. In that light, perhaps the results are more significant, and less modest, than I first thought.