JoeWallack

JW:
One of my Peter Peeves is too many Threads on the same subject, especially MJ verses HJ verses AJ Ad Nazorean. Even though Ehrman's book on the subject (so to speak), Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, is relatively new, the related Threads on it here are getting relatively old while becoming even greater in number than Republican Presidential contenders. The worst part is the scholarship is informal and disorganized.

The purpose of this Thread will be to analyze Ehrman's book in a formal and organized way.

After skimming (love that word, "skimming") through the book (which, dare I say, is more than most people here who have already written extensively on the subject, have done) in addition to immediately becoming the foremost authority the world has ever known on it (which goes without saying), I also have some "Good news" and bad news. The Good news is I think Ehrman's book is the best book ever written on the subject. The Bad news is I think Ehrman's book is the best book ever written on the subject.

In order to get this projectile started, let's start at the start (which seems to be the hardest thing for most people to do here:

What are Ehrman's stated objectives in the book?

You have to read all of Ehrman's Introduction to pick out his objectives:

"The reality is that whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist. That is what this book will set out to demonstrate." (Page 4)

"And so, with this book, I do not expect to convince anyone in that boat. What I do hope is to convince genuine seekers who really want to know how we know that Jesus did exist, as virtually every scholar..." (Page 5)

"as a historian I can show why at least one set of skeptical claims about the past history of our civilization is almost certainly wrong," (Page 6)

I think the one statement that is consistent with all the above is:

Ehrman's objective is to demonstrate that Jesus' existence was somewhere between certain and almost certain.

Forgetting about the pairing of "almost" and "certain", Ehrman in fact uses "certain" and "exist" so many times that we should have a new Skeptical drinking game. Every time Ehrman uses "certain" and "exist" in the same sentence you take a shot at him.

As a big fan of Ehrman, I tell you the truth, I am sore amazed at his informal and lack of organized objectives and fear that his methodology will suffer the same maladies. But back to the start. Have I correctly laid out Ehrman's objective. Everyone is welcome to comment up to once a day (for most people, this will improve your scholarship. You don't know who you are). The exception is Harvey Dubish, who having so much more in common with Jesus than the rest of us, is welcome to comment as often as he likes).


Josephus

ErrancyWiki

Vorkosigan

You mean "You do a shot"

tanya

Hi Joe, great tongue in cheek.

yeah, you are correct, too many threads, and too disorganized, but I do not blame anyone for that. Those of us who submitted comments to each of half a dozen different threads, all addressing Ehrman's most recent tome, understood that we were contributing to the chaos.

There is no easy way to untangle it.

Starting from here, going forward, though, I guess that Ehrman's book will be read by an increasing number of poor souls (I will not be one of them, based on the publisher's extracts, I have seen quite enough), so, your thread could well end up being the pivot for a new plan to respond to the various ideas in his newest endeavor.

Your poll, on the other hand, is defective. Well, just technically. There is no "other" category. I guess you saw yourself as "other", or, at least, anticipated that we would envision it that way....

I think a genuine poll (I know you did that one in jest) would be interesting. By genuine, I am thinking of several categories which correspond to the ideas presented in his book(s).

:notworthy:

Solo

Here is my Deep Thought du jour, Joe. To really get it, let the reader understand the relatively simple question of Frank Kermode.

If so many causes act in concert to ensure that texts are from the beginning and sometimes indeterminately studded with interpretations; and if these texts in their very nature demand further interpretation and yet resist it, what should we expect when the document in question denies its own opacity by claiming to be a transparent account of the recognizable word ? (Genesis of Secrecy (or via: amazon.co.uk), p 102.)

Now suppose what Kermode is really saying applied to the key Mark verses is this: Mark 4:13 references not the parable of the sower as the parallels of Matthew (10:13-14) and Luke (8:9) claim. Suppose further, they did not want the reader to consider Mark's verse which explicitly relates the mystery to gnosis. Because that verse may have been specially designed to fool the "psychics" into thinking he is refering to the sower parable, which he then in typical Markan zaniness goes on to lay out in detail. Suppose "this parable" (αὕτη ἡ παραβολή) wants to point to 4:10-12. Find someone to explain to you the semantics of "recursion" and you have solved the mystery of Mark. Kinda. τὰ πάντα in 4:11 does not mean "all the parables in the gospels are given as parables", but "the whole gospel is a string of parables" .... that is - hold your chair - even the allegorical setting for the statement itself. Too convoluted ? Evidently, since no-one has figured it out yet. But I have figured it out so I am lying, like Epimenides about the Cretans. :constern01:

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Unless Ehrman is a magician his book MUST be based on Logical Fallacies and unreliable sources.

It is because of ALL these threads that we are ALL able to understand in a very short time that there is NO credible sources for an Historical Jesus.

These forums are EXTREMELY useful because in an INSTANT people from around the WHOLE EARTH with an internet connection can make an input.

These MULTIPLE threads CONFIRM one FACT--there is NO CREDIBLE evidence for an historical Jesus.

No-one with an internet connection has SENT any credible evidence except perhaps their slow computer has a VIRUS.

denarius

I have read Ehrman's book and I find it completely persuasive. Not only does he provide evidence for a historical person behind the Jesus stories, but he makes Swiss cheese out of the Mythicists' principal theories. What is more, I agree with Ehrman that the existence of a historical crucified Jesus in no way suggests that God exists. Atheists shouldn't get excited over the prospect that Jesus existed as a historical person any more than they should get excited over whether or not Apollonius of Tyana existed.

aa5874

Again, what is the EVIDENCE that there was an Historical Jesus??? Surely a Con-Man and used-car sales man can persuade people too.

This is BC&H so please provide the source of the EVIDENCE for an historical Jesus.

What you call Persuasion may be Gullibility!!

We have already assumed that Ehrman has a negative opinion of people who do NOT agree with his position on Jesus.

We SIMPLY need sources for an historical Jesus.

You seem to have no idea that the Quest for an Historcal Jesus is still on-going for the last 250 years.

denarius

Maybe I am gullible. If that is the case, so be it. And yes, I am aware that historians are still trying to find information about the historical Jesus.

Before I respond, have you read Ehrman's book?

ApostateAbe

Hi, denarius. Welcome to BC&H. As part of your welcome, it is my role to inform you that most of us ignore aa5874. Arguing with him produces results that are no more beneficial, for either party, than arguing with a Magic Eight Ball. I think of aa5874 as a Magic Myther Ball. I think that is why he writes in capital letters so often.

mountainman

Do we get a role here Abe?
I wasn't aware of this.
I wonder what Joe's role is?
The Bible is such a serious book ....



HA HA HA

Joe is on the right track. The New Testament is such a serious bullshit story that sooner or later laughter erupts from the pagan regions of the human psyche. People who live in areas where water is scarce or expensive should put a bible in their water cistern in their water closet. It performs beneficial conversions and reductive transformations on the water bill, the equivalent of a house brick (dependent on the size of the codex)



I voted for the option that Biblical Scholarship traditionally mandated unswerving BELIEF in the Historical Jesus and itself is bound to follow, and to defend the sun of the historical Jesus (and the business and industry surrounding the HJ), all the way into it's glorious sunset.

Aloha !