I had the pleasure of discussing on 4/26 the 2006 Historical Jesus lectures of Stanford's Thomas Sheehan (listen on iTunes U; here's the syllabus) with PEL listeners John ludders, Terra Leigh Bell, Michael Burgess Chris Eyre, and Benjamin Feddersen. Get the recording now from the Free Stuff for Citizens page, under "Not School and Aftershow Discussions." It was a great discussion, with both (liberal) theist and (very) suspicious viewpoints represented, roughly divided to cover the following questions:
1. Does Sheehan represent a legitimate academic consensus? His story is pretty damning re. the historical accuracy of the traditional Jesus story, and he claims the historical research is independent of faith, such that the outlines of his story are agreed to by the conservative and the liberal alike, yet certainly no official church is going to want to admit that the Resurrection is a demonstrable fiction.
2. What are the outlines of his story about the evolution of these stories by faith communities. He presents the historical-critical method and explains how scholars have concluded that the earliest documents were sayings documents, i.e. as with Confucius or Buddha, what we primarily have are oral traditions (eventually written down) about things Jesus taught, e.g. the Parables. Then the author of the book of Mark constructed (i.e. invented) the first narrative of Jesus's life, which was then taken up by the authors of Luke and Matthew, who added common mythical elements like the fantastic story of his birth, and all the dramatics around his death, and John with the really "high Christology" stuff was even later than that.
3. Should this denial of the historical accuracy of the traditional story imply a loss of faith? Sheehan and others claim that the Biblical writers themselves didn't have historical accuracy in mind, that it's only with the Enlightenment that we get this ideal of scientific objectivity that religion has (wrongly) claimed as its own standard as well, which can only lead to horrific scholarship and bullheadedness in the face of contrary evidence. Per Ricoeur, we should instead read the Bible as myth, which is a good thing: as inspiring metaphor for the human condition and direct incitement to live spiritually and act ethically.
While this was not something we reviewed for our discussion, you might be interested in 2014 lecture by Sheehan that describes this difference between the Christ of faith and the Jeshua of history:
Watch on YouTube.
-Mark Linsenmayer
JBJNR says
May 9, 2015 at 10:49 amVery interesting video – while I am a non-expert, it largely makes sense to me. It would be interesting to expand this discussion to the work of Don Cupitt, who makes the very good point that we have never really studied Jesus Christ as a philosopher, i.e., his ideas and their merit, as opposed to prophet and messiah, with all the associated baggage that comes with taking on board the entire faith and its religious aspects (miracles, afterlife, etc.). I think many would agree with the general tenets (love, forgiveness, kindness, charity, etc.) even as atheists. Worth exploring further, in my view.
John Ludders says
May 22, 2015 at 9:22 amThe lectures are extremely long winded and while I learned a lot of listening to them I would not recommend them as the same value could be gotten from a much, much smaller time investment. There is a lot of repetition and extraneous discussion. But the subject is amazing and learning more about the issue is 100% worth while, I would just say you should do it though means other than these lectures.
In terms of what is and is not generally agreed upon, the Wiki article “Historicity of Jesus” lists the following events as largely agreed upon and accepted as historically accurate by scholars. Sources cited are after the list.
“Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes. Some assume that there are eight elements about Jesus and his followers that can be viewed as historical facts, namely:
+ Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
+ He called disciples.
+ He had a controversy at the Temple.
+ Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem.[10][76]
+ Jesus was a Galilean.
+ His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea.
+After his death his disciples continued.
+ Some of his disciples were persecuted.
Sources: William R. Herzog (2005). Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22528-5.
Authenticating the Activities of Jesus by Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans 2002 ISBN 0391041649 pages 3–7
Reuben Anderson says
September 6, 2016 at 9:05 amI recently discovered the PEL podcast after originally discovering the facebook group, and I’m going back and listening to various episodes from the back catalogue.
Just wanted to note: I’m partway through the Sheehan lectures and I must say I’m disappointed – appalled even. Scepticism I can deal with, but his sloppy inaccuracy and braindead literalism are just dreadful.
This nonsense passes as scholarship? No wonder people have so little time for biblical scholarship.
jp says
September 7, 2016 at 10:11 ama poor critique, RA– examples please
Reuben Anderson says
September 9, 2016 at 3:13 amHi,
Yes I know it is and I’m sorry. I’m weighing up how much effort I’m prepared to put into listening to the series and creating a rebuttal of Sheehan.