Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist

[Blood]

Superb review/summary of the book, Peter. I never read it, either, not because I'm not interested in the question, but because I find Ehrman naive, conventional and boring.

His utter lack of knowledge or engagement of what Spin once memorably called "the transmutation of literature into history" is only the most glaring of Ehrman's faults. Yes, the Gospel of Mark appears to be quasi-history writing in parts, but also, importantly, purely mythical in the majority. Ehrman's take from this is that Mark and/or his informants simply wildly exaggerated the historical Jesus. That is the only possibility. There is never any engagement with the possibility that the opposite happened -- the mythical Jesus was historicized. Both phenomena have commonly happened throughout human history, and it's either naive or disingenuous to pretend that the latter couldn't have also happened with Jesus.

[Giuseppe]

Ehrman seems to reject any appeal ad consensus of the scholars like him, but only to show it again in a new form: the historicist consensus of all the Christians of the planet from the early II CE to today.

Even so, it is only hearsay. Never more than that.

And paradoxically, pace Ehrman, that disturbing historicist hearsay was condemned also by ''Mark'':

And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.

(Mark 13:21-23)

[outhouse]

* The question of interpolation -- can we move beyond the reflexive dismissal, to settle it with the best arguments?

This is tough Peter

If a community effort and compilation, I always see someone over the scribes shoulder wanting to make last minute changes. If so this would be an interpolation to anyone with "undue" criticism. And just because it is an interpolation it does not mean it is fictional.

[outhouse]

* The "crucified messiah" -- is this the best way to describe it?

.

Regardless of historicity, that is the context they are selling. They are selling the value in the perceived sacrifice. All authors to some degree.

As far as Ehrman goes, he over states historicity as all credible scholars do [hypocritical yes] but if you take to big a bite out of modern scholars hypothesis, you alienate yourself from book customers.

His foundation I find semi credible while having different personal opinion then he does on many aspects he over states.

[outhouse]

And paradoxically, pace Ehrman, that disturbing historicist hearsay was condemned also by ''Mark'':

You lack context and comprehensive abilities here for this sentence. That is not historicist hearsay that was condemned.

That is in context refutation against different Christology and false messiahs.

Josephus (Antiq., 20:6) tells us, that under the government of Felix, “the whole country was full of magicians who deceived the people.” In the same chapter, he says, “The magicians and deceivers persuaded the common people to follow them into the wilderness, promising to show them evident signs and miracles.” It seems these impostors pretended that the miracles they were going to perform, were those which God had predicted the Messiah would perform;

[DCHindley]

Ehrman seems to reject any appeal ad consensus of the scholars like him, but only to show it again in a new form: the historicist consensus of all the Christians of the planet from the early II CE to today.

Even so, it is only hearsay. Never more than that.

And paradoxically, pace Ehrman, that disturbing historicist hearsay was condemned also by ''Mark'':

And if anyone says to you at that time, ‘Look! Here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look! There he is!’—do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.

(Mark 13:21-23)

Hmmm,

Saying "Do not believe claims that the anointed-one has come just now and is still present!" is not really the same thing as saying "Do not believe claims that the anointed-one has come in the past, ever!"

After all, this is what Christians who developed the higher Christology took from the Judaic tradition of their movement, that "The anointed-one had come in the past, and died to serve as an atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of the sins of mankind, and will come a second time to establish and head the kingdom of God."

Unpacked, this passage is saying "the real anointed-one has already come in the flesh, performed his vicarious sacrifice for all, and will come again, but only in the way we high-Christology holding Christians envision it: as a spiritual/angelic return backed by angels of god to resurrect the dead, perform a general judgment to determine who would get to live in a new, spiritual, heaven and earth. Therefore, don't believe those who say the anointed-one will (come again to?) establish an earthly kingdom by force!"

This kind of thing was what many Judeans actually did 66-74 CE, pledging their allegiance to several persons they believed were specially anointed by God to establish an everlasting earthly kingdom and defeat the powers-that-be.

This off-hand way of writing-off the Judeans as "has-beens" informs me that we are dealing with reactionary polemic by which gentile Christians, that is, the holders of high Christology, had rationalized how the mantle of God's blessing had been lifted from the shoulders of the Judeans and transferred to their own.

It is time now to participate in the sacred rituals associated with this "special Day," established by manufacturers of greeting cards and suppliers of fresh cut flowers, which we call "the one of the Mother." Until later ...

DCH


There was nothing in that passage that I thought suggested some kind of "universal rule," e.g., "the anointed-one does not exist in the earthly realm," that is equally valid for past, present and future.

[Giuseppe]

Saying "Do not believe claims that the anointed-one has come just now and is still present!" is not really the same thing as saying "Do not believe claims that the anointed-one has come in the past, ever!"

There was nothing in that passage that I thought suggested some kind of "universal rule," e.g., "the anointed-one does not exist in the earthly realm," that is equally valid for past, present and future.

I have quoted Mark as example of evidence of rival insistent claims, made during his (of "Mark") time, that the his same Jesus-Christ is to see behind this or that historical seditionist or Jesus-emulator (a' la Simon Magus). According to our Peter, to say that "Jesus Christ is mr. X" means to do a historicist claim. Therefore, by implication, Mark is denying these rival historicist claims. By contrast, only the historicist claim made by Mark is true, for Mark.

But Mark is a Jesus-mythicist for any other Jesus different from his one.

Can I say so?

[TedM]

Just wanted to say thanks for your OP. I haven't read the book yet so enjoyed reading your own summary/take on the various points.

[Peter Kirby]

Superb review/summary of the book, Peter.

Thanks!

I find Ehrman naive, conventional and boring.

Always? I have enjoyed some of his other books, such as Forged and The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.

There is never any engagement with the possibility that the opposite happened -- the mythical Jesus was historicized. Both phenomena have commonly happened throughout human history, and it's either naive or disingenuous to pretend that the latter couldn't have also happened with Jesus.

A I understand, Ehrman simply gives this one to the mythicists -- he implies, by what arguments he doesn't make, that the Gospel of Mark could have developed as the historicization of an earlier mythical Jesus, in a general way.

Going the the "Aramaic" arguments and the "independent sources" arguments, etc., tends to say that the gMark is not enough.

Even appealing to the "40 years later" thing does, in its way--he feels he needs to qualify the statement with some argument, instead of just rejecting the alternative outright. We can disagree with the argument, but at least he has tried.

[Peter Kirby]

Just wanted to say thanks for your OP. I haven't read the book yet so enjoyed reading your own summary/take on the various points.

Thanks. It was very easy to do, just some off-the-cuff remarks.