Here are the present day historical Jesus scholars I most value:
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 1991-2016 (five volumes so far, with a sixth yet to come!) A Catholic Christian.
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. 1993.
Also, his Jesus and Judaism, 1985. A skeptic.
Dale C. Allison, Jr., Jesus: Millenarian Prophet. 1998.
[Also, his Constructing Jesus... see below.] A Protestant Christian.
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. 1999. A Jew.
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Prophet of the New Millenium. 1999. An atheist.
Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. 2013. A Muslim.
(I can't wait for Meier's final volume, in which he will deal with the really big questions: What was Jesus' view of himself, and how did he regard his death?
Meanwhile, I consider Allison's Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, 2010, to be a work of major significance, for in it he already deals effectively with those big questions.
Along with the deceased German Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias (New Testament Theology, Volume One: The Proclamation of Jesus. 1971), these two scholars, Allison and Meier, have been among the strongest scholarly influences in my life.
All of them are excellent and all are convinced that Jesus had apocalyptic expectations. But there is strong disagreement on what he thought about his death.
@Blahblah
By the way, in Bart Ehrman and Robert Price you have two atheists, the first arguing for the historicity of Jesus and the second against the historicity of Jesus.
@Blahblah - if you're still with us, most of these books have been recommended to us previously, IIRC, but they don't appear to be available to consult online, at least without infringing copyright.
Google might bring up introductions, or summaries, of some of them, though.
I've read some of those, not that it appears to matter.
Please stop alerting me to your posts, James Boswell.
First the fact that you've read a few books does not mean by *any measure* that you have "proven" the words ascribed to characters in the Bible were actually spoken by them. Indeed, some of the scholars you've listed expressly state that they doubt that all, or some of them, were.
Second, I need to work out how to stop being bombarded by notifications.
Third, I never actually stated that I didn't believe any of the characters in question did not exist. So if you are intending on conducting a debate based on my words, kindly base your response on something I've actually said not on something I've not said.
@Blahblah
Fine. I have been nice to you despite the fact that you have not been nice to me. I did that because I thought you might genuinely be interested in historical Jesus studies, but apparently not. If you have indeed "read some of those" and find them unconvincing, then you certainly have every right in the world to call it all a lot of baloney, though I never detected in anything that you said what I thought indicted real familiarity with historical Jesus studies. I will henceforth leave you alone and hope that you will extend the same courtesy to me. Peace.
@all others
As most of you probably know, if you go to amazon or any of the other book suppliers you can often read excerpts of the first several pages and in some cases numerous sample pages of the books I listed, as well as blurbs and editorial reviews, etc.
@Blahblah
Fine. I have been nice to you despite the fact that you have not been nice to me. I did that because I thought you might genuinely be interested in historical Jesus studies, but apparently not. If you have indeed "read some of those" and find them unconvincing, then you certainly have every right in the world to call it all a lot of baloney, though I never detected in anything that you said what I thought indicted real familiarity with historical Jesus studies. I will henceforth leave you alone and hope that you will extend the same courtesy to me. Peace.
You don't like people who disagree with you, do you.
I "haven't been nice" apparently means that I refuse to play the game by your rules.
Also there is something ironic about calling someone else impolite *whilst doing something* they have asked you not to do.
@Rublev
He doesn't need our permission, but one must wonder why, if "discussion about the damaging impacts of charismatic evangelicalism" is what he wants to talk about, he does not go where that is being discussed.
Normally people come to engage in conversation or contribute to a debate. If theology doesn't interest you then why don't you start a thread on a topic which does?
Normally people come to engage in conversation or contribute to a debate. If theology doesn't interest you then why don't you start a thread on a topic which does?
So me saying that we don't and can't know about the truth about attributed words to historical characters is not "contributing". And me disagreeing with your approach is not contributing.
You do know you could simply ignore me and continue talking amongst yourselves, do you?
In other words taking in all comers on the boards is what interests you. An ego trip.
Not really. I was content not to continue posting on this topic at one stage, but then someone else kept using my handle, replying to me about things I hadn't said or on topics from other threads. And other people keep insulting my intelligence.
Methinks you protest too much Blahblah. Or perhaps you are just living up to your handle. Intelligent conversation is very welcome. Pick any thread you like and join in with it.
Methinks you protest too much Blahblah. Or perhaps you are just living up to your handle. Intelligent conversation is very welcome. Pick any thread you like and join in with it.
Or maybe you just don't like your ideas being challenged. Is that it?
@Rublev
I have a wonderful solution for Blahblah. He says, "I've read Ehrman, Allison and Robert Price" so I should think he would like to begin a thread on something like, "Why historical Jesus scholars are full of baloney" or something like that whee he can demonstrate his knowledge of those scholars and why they are wrong.
To return to the discussion JB2, you identified that the words of the historical Jesus would have included those which had a criteria of embarrassment for the church.
I'd add to that the Aramaisms in the gospels and the distinctive Parables and Beatitudes.
Blahblah, I like nothing more than having my ideas challenged. Do go ahead.
I have. I challenged your idea that the words attributed to Peter are true because it shows him as flawed.
The idea that your mate James Boswell above somehow thinks that invoking the name Bart Ehrman somehow strengthens his case, when the whole point of his books including "Misquoting Jesus" and "Did Jesus Exist" is that whilst he Ehrman is convinced someone existed that the stories were based upon, he can't be sure about anything else.
The idea that Ehrman would somehow agree with your assessment of the truthiness of words attributed to Peter is beyond bonkers.
Quite why he was even brought into this discussion I have no idea at all - other than for James Boswell to provide a reading list of scholars he has heard of.
@Rublev
Yes, Rublev, that IS another good indication that we are dealing with historical reality and not just myth. John P. Meier has stressed that, but also warned against too strong a dependence on it, one reason being that the earliest church spoke Aramaic for quite a while and for that reason some of the earliest tradition could have been overly influenced by the church.
Still, it's there, it's most definitely there and is important.
I think the Sabbath controversies and the reprioritisation of the Law in SOM would be other good candidates since they would fit the pattern of His disputes with the Pharisees. And the concern Jesus shows for the Messianic Secret in Mark.
But what about the less likely candidates? Such as the unique 'I Am' sayings of John's gospel which look like vehicles for John's Christological theology.
But the I Am sayings are of questionable historicity, as is the entire Johannine presentation of Jesus as one who went around openly proclaiming his Messiahship in private and in public.
He would surely have ended up dead much, much sooner if he had done that, as you previously pointed out.
@Rublev
I am not talking to Blahbah, as he requested, but I have to wonder if he has actually ever READ Ehrman's seminal work on the historical Jesus. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Mellenium, in which Ehrman definitely defends Jesus' historicity and the likelihood that we can know much about Jesus, historically speaking.
But I repeat:
I have a wonderful solution for Blahblah. He says, "I've read Ehrman, Allison and Robert Price" so I should think he would like to begin a thread on something like, "Why historical Jesus scholars are full of baloney" or something like that whee he can demonstrate his knowledge of those scholars and why they are wrong.
I would even gladly start such a thread for him.
Otherwise, his continued appearances here might begin to seem like harassment.
I agree. John's Book of Signs contradict the concern Jesus shows for His miracles not to be reported in Mark.
So assuming that Mark is the most reliably historical gospel, what are the questionable constructions in Mark? The centurion's Confession at the crucifixion looks like a literary parallel to Peter's Confession of Christ.
Yes. Anyone is allowed to join in with any conversations on the board. People who seem to be deliberately disruptive and in breach of the Ship’s 10 Commandments, or a board’s guidelines may attract unwelcome attention from Hosts or Admins, otherwise, if you don’t want to engage with someone’s post just scroll past it.
Blahblah said: ...whilst [while] Ehrman is convinced someone existed that the stories were based upon, he can't be sure about anything else.
That is simply NOT Ehrman's position. He argued extensively against Price in defense of the thesis that there is much that we can be historically sure of regarding Jesus.
Blahblah earlier invited us to ignore him. I suggest we do that. I think you have already started.
Otherwise, his continued appearances here might begin to seem like harassment.
Congratulations. The straw that finally broke the cameladmin's back. Enough of your disruption. You've learned nothing from your two suspensions and contributed more than your fair share to making this and other threads a trainwreck. You have now achieved official Commandment 1 jerk status and maintained it long enough to get your ban.
Goodbye.
And to everyone else, the Admins' pissed-offness with @James Boswell II is rivalled only by their pissed-offness with the bunch of schoolkids apparently intent on lowering their game to his. Don't think that because it's not you that's been banned this time around that your disruptive tendencies have escaped our notice; go back and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the various host warnings scattered over these threads.
The dialogue with the Syro - Phoenician woman which shows Jesus in an embarrassing light is surely authentic.
The story of the Last Supper is confirmed by Paul's letters - a rare parallel text with the gospels.
But the dance of Salome is an implausible explanation for the death of J the B which contradicts Josephus' account of a political execution.
And there are a number of suspiciously retrospective texts in Mark. The prophecy of J the B that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit looks like a theological explanation in the light of Pentecost. Mark 9: 1 may be the same idea.
Similarly the conversation about Elijah following the Transfiguration looks like a retrospective explanation of the untimely death of J the B.
And the Little Apocalypse of Mark 13 looks like the author's retrospective reflection on the Fall of Jerusalem.
I agree that there are various sayings of Jesus that are likely to be correct because they are awkward and don't fit in with the accepted picture. However, you can't turn that around and say that uncontroversial sayings must be invited; there must be some reason why what I'm calling the "accepted picture" emerged in the first place.
However I'm careful to say "likely" because we don't know for sure, and never will know. Unless a kindly Doctor lends us his Tardis, of course.
Comments
Here are the present day historical Jesus scholars I most value:
John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 1991-2016 (five volumes so far, with a sixth yet to come!) A Catholic Christian.
E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. 1993.
Also, his Jesus and Judaism, 1985. A skeptic.
Dale C. Allison, Jr., Jesus: Millenarian Prophet. 1998.
[Also, his Constructing Jesus... see below.] A Protestant Christian.
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity. 1999. A Jew.
Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Prophet of the New Millenium. 1999. An atheist.
Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth. 2013. A Muslim.
(I can't wait for Meier's final volume, in which he will deal with the really big questions: What was Jesus' view of himself, and how did he regard his death?
Meanwhile, I consider Allison's Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, 2010, to be a work of major significance, for in it he already deals effectively with those big questions.
Along with the deceased German Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias (New Testament Theology, Volume One: The Proclamation of Jesus. 1971), these two scholars, Allison and Meier, have been among the strongest scholarly influences in my life.
All of them are excellent and all are convinced that Jesus had apocalyptic expectations. But there is strong disagreement on what he thought about his death.
By the way, in Bart Ehrman and Robert Price you have two atheists, the first arguing for the historicity of Jesus and the second against the historicity of Jesus.
I think Ehrman wins.
Google might bring up introductions, or summaries, of some of them, though.
Please stop alerting me to your posts, James Boswell.
First the fact that you've read a few books does not mean by *any measure* that you have "proven" the words ascribed to characters in the Bible were actually spoken by them. Indeed, some of the scholars you've listed expressly state that they doubt that all, or some of them, were.
Second, I need to work out how to stop being bombarded by notifications.
Third, I never actually stated that I didn't believe any of the characters in question did not exist. So if you are intending on conducting a debate based on my words, kindly base your response on something I've actually said not on something I've not said.
Click on that, and work out what (if any!) notifications you want. Then click on 'Save Preferences', and hopefully, all will be well.
Hope that helps. Constant 'pinging' can be annoying, as it's rather akin to stalking, I feel.
Thanks. I thought I had toggled the notifications sensibly but it turns out I hadn't.
Now that's sorted out..
Fine. I have been nice to you despite the fact that you have not been nice to me. I did that because I thought you might genuinely be interested in historical Jesus studies, but apparently not. If you have indeed "read some of those" and find them unconvincing, then you certainly have every right in the world to call it all a lot of baloney, though I never detected in anything that you said what I thought indicted real familiarity with historical Jesus studies. I will henceforth leave you alone and hope that you will extend the same courtesy to me. Peace.
As most of you probably know, if you go to amazon or any of the other book suppliers you can often read excerpts of the first several pages and in some cases numerous sample pages of the books I listed, as well as blurbs and editorial reviews, etc.
You don't like people who disagree with you, do you.
I "haven't been nice" apparently means that I refuse to play the game by your rules.
Also there is something ironic about calling someone else impolite *whilst doing something* they have asked you not to do.
How looking at the blurb, the cover and the first few pages is supposed to educate anyone about this subject is beyond my understanding.
But hey. I've read Ehrman, Allison and Robert Price but apparently someone else can tell by osmosis that I haven't.
I can't say I've tried, as I don't 'do' Amazon...
I'm sorry? I came because I found a discussion about the damaging impacts of charismatic evangelicalism and engaged in other threads.
Why, do I need your permission?
He doesn't need our permission, but one must wonder why, if "discussion about the damaging impacts of charismatic evangelicalism" is what he wants to talk about, he does not go where that is being discussed.
Are you seriously telling me that these threads are *not* open for anyone to contribute to?
If so, maybe the description of the "purgatory" board needs changing.
So me saying that we don't and can't know about the truth about attributed words to historical characters is not "contributing". And me disagreeing with your approach is not contributing.
You do know you could simply ignore me and continue talking amongst yourselves, do you?
Not really. I was content not to continue posting on this topic at one stage, but then someone else kept using my handle, replying to me about things I hadn't said or on topics from other threads. And other people keep insulting my intelligence.
Or maybe you just don't like your ideas being challenged. Is that it?
I have a wonderful solution for Blahblah. He says, "I've read Ehrman, Allison and Robert Price" so I should think he would like to begin a thread on something like, "Why historical Jesus scholars are full of baloney" or something like that whee he can demonstrate his knowledge of those scholars and why they are wrong.
I'd add to that the Aramaisms in the gospels and the distinctive Parables and Beatitudes.
I have. I challenged your idea that the words attributed to Peter are true because it shows him as flawed.
The idea that your mate James Boswell above somehow thinks that invoking the name Bart Ehrman somehow strengthens his case, when the whole point of his books including "Misquoting Jesus" and "Did Jesus Exist" is that whilst he Ehrman is convinced someone existed that the stories were based upon, he can't be sure about anything else.
The idea that Ehrman would somehow agree with your assessment of the truthiness of words attributed to Peter is beyond bonkers.
Quite why he was even brought into this discussion I have no idea at all - other than for James Boswell to provide a reading list of scholars he has heard of.
Yes, Rublev, that IS another good indication that we are dealing with historical reality and not just myth. John P. Meier has stressed that, but also warned against too strong a dependence on it, one reason being that the earliest church spoke Aramaic for quite a while and for that reason some of the earliest tradition could have been overly influenced by the church.
Still, it's there, it's most definitely there and is important.
But what about the less likely candidates? Such as the unique 'I Am' sayings of John's gospel which look like vehicles for John's Christological theology.
But the I Am sayings are of questionable historicity, as is the entire Johannine presentation of Jesus as one who went around openly proclaiming his Messiahship in private and in public.
He would surely have ended up dead much, much sooner if he had done that, as you previously pointed out.
I am not talking to Blahbah, as he requested, but I have to wonder if he has actually ever READ Ehrman's seminal work on the historical Jesus. Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Mellenium, in which Ehrman definitely defends Jesus' historicity and the likelihood that we can know much about Jesus, historically speaking.
But I repeat:
I have a wonderful solution for Blahblah. He says, "I've read Ehrman, Allison and Robert Price" so I should think he would like to begin a thread on something like, "Why historical Jesus scholars are full of baloney" or something like that whee he can demonstrate his knowledge of those scholars and why they are wrong.
I would even gladly start such a thread for him.
Otherwise, his continued appearances here might begin to seem like harassment.
So assuming that Mark is the most reliably historical gospel, what are the questionable constructions in Mark? The centurion's Confession at the crucifixion looks like a literary parallel to Peter's Confession of Christ.
How can I be harassing someone when that same person keeps saying I said things that I didn't say?
BroJames
Purgatory Host
I am getting tired of this.
Blahblah said:
...whilst [while] Ehrman is convinced someone existed that the stories were based upon, he can't be sure about anything else.
That is simply NOT Ehrman's position. He argued extensively against Price in defense of the thesis that there is much that we can be historically sure of regarding Jesus.
Blahblah earlier invited us to ignore him. I suggest we do that. I think you have already started.
Absolutely agree with you on John's book of signs.
But you are going to have a hard time pulling out of me non-historical stuff regarding Mark. I lean much too strongly in the other direction.
At no point was Ehrman or Price trying to argue that we can know that certain phrases are accurately attributed to specific New Testament character.
Why are you not understanding this distinction?
Congratulations. The straw that finally broke the cameladmin's back. Enough of your disruption. You've learned nothing from your two suspensions and contributed more than your fair share to making this and other threads a trainwreck. You have now achieved official Commandment 1 jerk status and maintained it long enough to get your ban.
Goodbye.
And to everyone else, the Admins' pissed-offness with @James Boswell II is rivalled only by their pissed-offness with the bunch of schoolkids apparently intent on lowering their game to his. Don't think that because it's not you that's been banned this time around that your disruptive tendencies have escaped our notice; go back and read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the various host warnings scattered over these threads.
/admin mode
The story of the Last Supper is confirmed by Paul's letters - a rare parallel text with the gospels.
But the dance of Salome is an implausible explanation for the death of J the B which contradicts Josephus' account of a political execution.
And there are a number of suspiciously retrospective texts in Mark. The prophecy of J the B that Jesus would baptise with the Holy Spirit looks like a theological explanation in the light of Pentecost. Mark 9: 1 may be the same idea.
Similarly the conversation about Elijah following the Transfiguration looks like a retrospective explanation of the untimely death of J the B.
And the Little Apocalypse of Mark 13 looks like the author's retrospective reflection on the Fall of Jerusalem.
However I'm careful to say "likely" because we don't know for sure, and never will know. Unless a kindly Doctor lends us his Tardis, of course.