I find your work very useful for me because I have a limited knowledge on many of the topics, but find many of them interesting. I am more concerned with the layman approach, credibility, and integrity rather that the author's desire to make their own assessment.
Thank you, Richard, and I’m happy my approach is working for you.
I write the way I’d like to learn, and the worst thing one can do is learn through other people’s opinions. That’s why I’m very picky about what I read and what I watch. The moment I sense a source trying to pass personal opinion off as fact simply because they believe it to be true, I abandon it. Not because they’re wrong, but because it’s wasteful to invest time in things whose reliability has already been shown to be questionable.
It seems to me that the "search for the historical Jesus" is a red herring. The only reason theistic scholars keep flogging this topic is because if the mythicists essentially prove that the Jesus of the NT was not an historical person, it undermines the Christian religions.
Still the question isn't relevant. The only relevant question is "Was Jesus a god?" I am pretty sure this question cannot be answered historically because gods are "supernatural." Still I do not see any Christian scholars seriously investigating the supernatural. Think how much support their religion would receive were supernatural phenomena be shown to exist.
I get your point; however, are you sure the historical Jesus question matters so much to Christianity?
Abraham and Moses have zero historical footprint, yet their status in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is untouched, even though historians consider them theological figures.
If historians announced tomorrow that we have no evidence for Jesus, would it change anything for Christians? Would the Church care?
Oh, I think they would care alright! After all, Abraham and Moses were just people ….. Jesus, on the other hand, in Christian belief, is God! I think, therefore, without Him, there is no Christianity.
DId you know -- I didn't until a couple days ago -- that letters between scholars in the early post-Enlightenment period were reprinted as essays? For example, Galileo got into serious trouble with the Catholic Church for his reprinted 1613 Letter to Benedetto Castelli, leading to him spending his old age under house arrest in a villa outside Florence. In the letter he said the evidence pointed to the Earth orbiting the Sun and that (oh, my!) biblical passages should not be taken literally when science pointed in another direction.
As AI scrapes more and more, your comments will become part of your "oeuvre." In fact, it's an interesting exercise for me to ask Gmail - "what have Alessandra and I written to each other over the last few months?" Kinda like being a weighty person asking his personal secretary to do trivial research. Although many decry the energy/water waste of such inquiries, I'm convinced the "No Data Center" movement arises from battered souls crying out against the rapidity and confusedness of accelerating change. In fact, I can't help but smile hearing about conferences, national summits, mass rallies where folks get on planes and into SUVs to rail against new data centers.
I'm also finding that we are entering a new "age of letters." Where it once was that writers spent a good deal of their day in correspondence with those they knew in three dimensions, we now find ourselves doing this with those we know only in two dimensions. Lately, for me, it's with poets in Italy, a lyricist in Peru, and futurists in India and Maine. It's curious how the anonymity of the Internet has invited us into greater intimacy with those we might call strangers. These are steps toward what I see as an emergent recognition of One-ness. PS - for fun, you can ask AI to perform a logarithmic regression of Five Transitions in human history (fire for cooking 780,000BC, agriculture 12,000BC, incipient market capitalism (Venice 1300AD), mature market capitalism (US 1970AD), and awakening market capitalism (global pandemic 2022).
In general, I don’t care who the scholar, the historian, or the so-called expert in academia tends to be. Unless that master of religious history can produce hard facts, based upon historical evidence, then I file their findings away into a fully packed drawer labeled ‘conjecture and speculation.’
It’s not that I dismiss their findings outright, but as pointed out in your article, Tanner, without facts, opinions are just that, one’s own personal, sometimes biased, evaluation of unknown truth, however much research is attached to it.
Then too is the issue of career protection, of professional reputation, of bias, of research funding, and of course the sticking with the status quo to avoid the dreaded consequence of being ‘shunned’ by one’s peers. How many scholars and historians publicly profess a belief that most likely God and Jesus exist, but privately embrace a belief in the exact opposite direction.
So perhaps it is best to maintain an open mind, read the books, read Tanner, and come to your own conclusions based upon your own assessment of the information provided. Your guess might be as good as the ‘experts.’
Not sure what to add, other than I very much appreciate your approach, and find it very sound, while also reading Ehrman on his blog from time to time, along with a number of other authors.
Regarding exaltation, you can probably guess my take. There was a tension early on between the Jewish Christians who had some form of low exaltation, and the Pauline Christians who adopted high exaltation. Don't know how many experts would agree.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the warm note and kind words. It’s great to hear that this approach hits the mark for you.
As for exaltation, my point wasn’t about whether Ehrman was right or wrong, but that at the time he wrote it, it was his personal hypothesis rather than an established position in the field. And there was no way for the reader to tell the difference, because the same voice that presents settled facts with full confidence also presents his own conjectures in exactly the same tone. That makes it impossible for a non‑specialist to know what is consensus and what is personal interpretation that may later be accepted, revised, or rejected by the field.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and the point is well taken. I know that some of my feelings for example are fringe, and it is important for me to also know the consensus.
The problem occurs when we're emotionally invested in what the claim is about. In that case, when we want something to be true and it comes from a source that's usually reliable, we skip straight to treating it as fact and then pass it along to everyone else.
Don’t dismiss some of your feelings as ‘fringe.’ Minimalists love to label alternative views that could have a basis in fact, as off-the-wall fringe views. Many times those views are legitimate and have a foundation in fact they would rather not acknowledge. Scholarly consensus is often just a matter of sticking with the status quo, facts be ignored.
Ehrman's last name contains the answer. ErrorMan. As you point out, his obfuscation of what's peer -reviewed (that is censored by current conventional academic thinking) and what's his is a glaring mistake. An error.
But, friend, you are not - nor should you be - what you proclaim your role to be: "My job is to report where the field sits, say so plainly when the field is divided, and keep my own reconstructions out of the copy." Bull! You cannot wash yourself from copy. Nor should you want to.
Your "out of the drawer" piece I found on medium a few days ago is you. And the authentic you is a glorious you. (I'm not sure whether you saw my medium comment)
Alan, that made me laugh, and no, I hadn't seen the Medium comment. I'll go find it.
You're right that no writing is voiceless, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of dishonesty. What I choose to cover, what I lead with, and what I'm willing to call nonsense are all my decisions, and there's no way to wash them out of the copy.
It's also very human not to notice our own biases until someone calls them out or until we start questioning our assumptions. I do the latter more than most, partly because of my tendency toward over-analysis and overthinking, which can be both good and bad. So bias doesn't need to be deliberate to be present.
The one thing I can say with full confidence is that I aim to promote the questions rather than the answers. That's why I've said many times that what I personally believe should remain irrelevant to the reader.
I've got German blood, too. And it would be unfair to say there's Harm in Harmeyer. Yet, maybe those now tending the Harmeyer farms could be more aware of the harm that conventional farming does to ... well, all of us. But my dad admonished me not to dis-honor others' names. So, I apologize. Dr Ehrman is an honored man in error. I should know, having been the honored subject of 40 years of peer review -- in deep error :-)
You have a good sense of humor. And yes, I totally agree with you that even though the surname Ehrman literally means "honor man"/"man of honor" it does not mean everyone who carries that name deserves the meaning. I've only read bits and pieces from Bart Ehrman, don't know him personally, so I won't defend or not defend his person or publications. 😀
I find your work very useful for me because I have a limited knowledge on many of the topics, but find many of them interesting. I am more concerned with the layman approach, credibility, and integrity rather that the author's desire to make their own assessment.
Thank you, Richard, and I’m happy my approach is working for you.
I write the way I’d like to learn, and the worst thing one can do is learn through other people’s opinions. That’s why I’m very picky about what I read and what I watch. The moment I sense a source trying to pass personal opinion off as fact simply because they believe it to be true, I abandon it. Not because they’re wrong, but because it’s wasteful to invest time in things whose reliability has already been shown to be questionable.
It seems to me that the "search for the historical Jesus" is a red herring. The only reason theistic scholars keep flogging this topic is because if the mythicists essentially prove that the Jesus of the NT was not an historical person, it undermines the Christian religions.
Still the question isn't relevant. The only relevant question is "Was Jesus a god?" I am pretty sure this question cannot be answered historically because gods are "supernatural." Still I do not see any Christian scholars seriously investigating the supernatural. Think how much support their religion would receive were supernatural phenomena be shown to exist.
Hi Steve,
I get your point; however, are you sure the historical Jesus question matters so much to Christianity?
Abraham and Moses have zero historical footprint, yet their status in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is untouched, even though historians consider them theological figures.
If historians announced tomorrow that we have no evidence for Jesus, would it change anything for Christians? Would the Church care?
Oh, I think they would care alright! After all, Abraham and Moses were just people ….. Jesus, on the other hand, in Christian belief, is God! I think, therefore, without Him, there is no Christianity.
Tanner,
Your comments are ... publishable.
DId you know -- I didn't until a couple days ago -- that letters between scholars in the early post-Enlightenment period were reprinted as essays? For example, Galileo got into serious trouble with the Catholic Church for his reprinted 1613 Letter to Benedetto Castelli, leading to him spending his old age under house arrest in a villa outside Florence. In the letter he said the evidence pointed to the Earth orbiting the Sun and that (oh, my!) biblical passages should not be taken literally when science pointed in another direction.
As AI scrapes more and more, your comments will become part of your "oeuvre." In fact, it's an interesting exercise for me to ask Gmail - "what have Alessandra and I written to each other over the last few months?" Kinda like being a weighty person asking his personal secretary to do trivial research. Although many decry the energy/water waste of such inquiries, I'm convinced the "No Data Center" movement arises from battered souls crying out against the rapidity and confusedness of accelerating change. In fact, I can't help but smile hearing about conferences, national summits, mass rallies where folks get on planes and into SUVs to rail against new data centers.
I'm also finding that we are entering a new "age of letters." Where it once was that writers spent a good deal of their day in correspondence with those they knew in three dimensions, we now find ourselves doing this with those we know only in two dimensions. Lately, for me, it's with poets in Italy, a lyricist in Peru, and futurists in India and Maine. It's curious how the anonymity of the Internet has invited us into greater intimacy with those we might call strangers. These are steps toward what I see as an emergent recognition of One-ness. PS - for fun, you can ask AI to perform a logarithmic regression of Five Transitions in human history (fire for cooking 780,000BC, agriculture 12,000BC, incipient market capitalism (Venice 1300AD), mature market capitalism (US 1970AD), and awakening market capitalism (global pandemic 2022).
take care, my friend
Alan
Thank you for sharing this, Allan.
In general, I don’t care who the scholar, the historian, or the so-called expert in academia tends to be. Unless that master of religious history can produce hard facts, based upon historical evidence, then I file their findings away into a fully packed drawer labeled ‘conjecture and speculation.’
It’s not that I dismiss their findings outright, but as pointed out in your article, Tanner, without facts, opinions are just that, one’s own personal, sometimes biased, evaluation of unknown truth, however much research is attached to it.
Then too is the issue of career protection, of professional reputation, of bias, of research funding, and of course the sticking with the status quo to avoid the dreaded consequence of being ‘shunned’ by one’s peers. How many scholars and historians publicly profess a belief that most likely God and Jesus exist, but privately embrace a belief in the exact opposite direction.
So perhaps it is best to maintain an open mind, read the books, read Tanner, and come to your own conclusions based upon your own assessment of the information provided. Your guess might be as good as the ‘experts.’
Thanks Ariel.
The thing about ancient history is that it relies heavily on inference drawn from extremely limited evidence.
Agree, so best to remain skeptical yet open to new ideas.
Not sure what to add, other than I very much appreciate your approach, and find it very sound, while also reading Ehrman on his blog from time to time, along with a number of other authors.
Regarding exaltation, you can probably guess my take. There was a tension early on between the Jewish Christians who had some form of low exaltation, and the Pauline Christians who adopted high exaltation. Don't know how many experts would agree.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate the warm note and kind words. It’s great to hear that this approach hits the mark for you.
As for exaltation, my point wasn’t about whether Ehrman was right or wrong, but that at the time he wrote it, it was his personal hypothesis rather than an established position in the field. And there was no way for the reader to tell the difference, because the same voice that presents settled facts with full confidence also presents his own conjectures in exactly the same tone. That makes it impossible for a non‑specialist to know what is consensus and what is personal interpretation that may later be accepted, revised, or rejected by the field.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense, and the point is well taken. I know that some of my feelings for example are fringe, and it is important for me to also know the consensus.
The problem occurs when we're emotionally invested in what the claim is about. In that case, when we want something to be true and it comes from a source that's usually reliable, we skip straight to treating it as fact and then pass it along to everyone else.
Don’t dismiss some of your feelings as ‘fringe.’ Minimalists love to label alternative views that could have a basis in fact, as off-the-wall fringe views. Many times those views are legitimate and have a foundation in fact they would rather not acknowledge. Scholarly consensus is often just a matter of sticking with the status quo, facts be ignored.
Tanner,
Ehrman's last name contains the answer. ErrorMan. As you point out, his obfuscation of what's peer -reviewed (that is censored by current conventional academic thinking) and what's his is a glaring mistake. An error.
But, friend, you are not - nor should you be - what you proclaim your role to be: "My job is to report where the field sits, say so plainly when the field is divided, and keep my own reconstructions out of the copy." Bull! You cannot wash yourself from copy. Nor should you want to.
Your "out of the drawer" piece I found on medium a few days ago is you. And the authentic you is a glorious you. (I'm not sure whether you saw my medium comment)
Take care,
Alan
Alan, that made me laugh, and no, I hadn't seen the Medium comment. I'll go find it.
You're right that no writing is voiceless, and pretending otherwise would be its own kind of dishonesty. What I choose to cover, what I lead with, and what I'm willing to call nonsense are all my decisions, and there's no way to wash them out of the copy.
It's also very human not to notice our own biases until someone calls them out or until we start questioning our assumptions. I do the latter more than most, partly because of my tendency toward over-analysis and overthinking, which can be both good and bad. So bias doesn't need to be deliberate to be present.
The one thing I can say with full confidence is that I aim to promote the questions rather than the answers. That's why I've said many times that what I personally believe should remain irrelevant to the reader.
The surname Ehrman is of German origin. It comes from the German word "ehre" meaning honor, dignity and high regard. Thus, "man of honor."
Thanks, Donna
I've got German blood, too. And it would be unfair to say there's Harm in Harmeyer. Yet, maybe those now tending the Harmeyer farms could be more aware of the harm that conventional farming does to ... well, all of us. But my dad admonished me not to dis-honor others' names. So, I apologize. Dr Ehrman is an honored man in error. I should know, having been the honored subject of 40 years of peer review -- in deep error :-)
ALan
You have a good sense of humor. And yes, I totally agree with you that even though the surname Ehrman literally means "honor man"/"man of honor" it does not mean everyone who carries that name deserves the meaning. I've only read bits and pieces from Bart Ehrman, don't know him personally, so I won't defend or not defend his person or publications. 😀