This was a most informative series of talks and I came to a clearer understanding of the Historical Jesus. I agree that the institutional church is guilty of malpractice by keeping this information in the academy. Perhaps our congregations would not be shrinking if the youth were taught like this!

I am not Catholic but evidently they are taught according to the Professor in this series that Jesus mother was Mariam not Mary ? Very different than I have been taught. Also personal comments about Republicans should not be apart of his teaching. I could go on but not worth my time. I am just really tired of professors twisting truths around when dealing with highly impressionable minds that are formulating their political, religious, etc. views and trust them to tell them not their personal opinions but the truths of the subject being taught. Sickofit10

This series is chock full of fallacies upon fallacies. I truly feel sorry for any person that had to sit through this torturous course. This professor would’ve hated me from day one until he failed me. My classmates would have got endless joy out of listening to me and this douche argue.😅😅😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

this class is amazing and interesting. i’m so grateful they shared it as a podcast! to other reviewers, professor sheehan does not say the da vinci code is historical fact - he is sharing the many mythologies about jesus (yeshua) that continue to develop in our modern day. he is simply pointing out the ways in which mythology about jesus persists. he’s not referencing it as historic fact 🙄 this has low reviews because christians don’t like that professor sheehan is removing mythology from history and looking at things through a historical lens. but this class is amazing if you’d really like to learn about yeshua and how he became what he is today.

It is very sad that this class is taught at Stanford. This guy uses The Da Vinci Code book as fact which is a work of fiction and was made simply for entertainment. From the first episode, according to the syllabus, it was apparent that it was not going to be based in fact but in opinion. However, I made the decision to listen to the entire thing to be able to give it an honest review. I was highly letdown by the lack of actual fact. I encourage everyone to do your own research and don’t take what this guy says at fact. I only gave it two stars because he does, on rare occasion, give actual historical fact.

In his introduction he notes that Biblical scholarship over the past 4 decades has developed a strong consensus for a historic Jesus. Huh? Exactly the opposite is true. Modern Biblical scholars along with archeologists and various historians are reaching the conclusion that the Bible is almost entirely a work of fiction. Outside of the Gospels, there is no historic evidence for Jesus or the things that supposedly transpired at that time. And the Gospels are not themselves histories. They are religious texts and do not purport to bear witness to history. It is outrageous that Stanford University would allow religious proselytizing to replace scholarship, and furthermore to associate with a non-scholar evangelist and confer professor title upon him. SHAME!!!

He makes a lot of unsubstantiated claims and argues opinions and not facts. Would be shocked if this guy was/is actually a scholar.

This is a great listen, high quality, good rigorous academic look at a topic that usually involves a lot of motivated reasoning. But read the syllabus. The episodes were all posted at the same time so they are not in the order they are supposed to be listened. There is a list of the order you’re supposed to listen in the syllabus.

When you want to state historical facts and then the very first lines of the syllabus are historically proven wrong, then how can the professor be trusted? He obviously is more focused on sharing the bias of his “faith” than the historic facts that can be helpful for all backgrounds.

Excellent

Sadly, this "teacher", doesnt have a clue of what he is talking about, he dont even read the apocrypha writes from the Apostolic Fathers, that for sure! Also he assumes that one guy from India said that Jesus died there, and he believes that right away like a fool, without any proof other than one ancient write which is far less credible than the Gospel of John, he is looking for a "perfect and matched text" in the Gospels, while he prefered to believe, as I said before, on one half burned piece of manuscript... It is sooo funny.. Also, I dare you professor to be crucified as The Christ was, and then get a walk right to India... ARE YOU KIDDING??? That could fit better to Super Man or the Wonder Woman, and I am sure you believe in them too coz it seams that you've only read comics!!

Finally, someone who has expertise in the subject separates the historical Jesus from the mythical Jesus. This won't go over well with those who think the two are synonomous, but that should be expected.

Take a religious piece of literature (BIble), and discredit it as not historical. Okay, granted. Then what historical document should we turn to in order to establish the Historical Jesus? According to Thomas Sheehan, the Historical Jesus can be discovered by mocking and making the Bible out to be ludicrous. This is not an historical endeavor at all, this is a pilgrimage of Sheehan’s opinions. Very disappointing from a seeker of the Historical Jesus.

This is heresy plain and simple. Clearly he hasn't had contact with the philosophy dept. Take your pick, ad hominem, prejudicial conjecture or unargued bias. What a joke. And this is Stanford? Should be called relativism 101.

You cannot approach this course with a pre conceived notion and the professor adresses that in his opening lecture. The question really is - whether someone is ready to look at hardcore facts or wants to follow the 1000 times edited Bible done for political reasons. Jesus was awesome and if you want to know the real "Yesua" - this is the course you need to invest time and energy in. Hats OFF !!!

Excellent execution of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD! Very well structured overall. And a brief response to those who don't even finish the first lecture: Da Vinci Code? Give me a break. Prof Sheehan used it as an example showing how hot the topic of Historic Jesus is. People who are wise enough won't take this as proof that he actually believes this novel as historical accounts. Indeed, no one in the audience of this lecture would.

The oldest, best manuscripts of Mark do not include anything after Mark 16:8. The story stops with the women at the tomb. Honestly, don't the remaining verses, from 9 on, sound suspiciously like the Reader's Digest version of the Matthew post-resurrection story, Great Commission and all?

1. Poorly pieced together, making it hard to listen to. 2.No basis to anything he says....He expects you to just accept it which is quite ironic and pretentious. 3.Try prepping for your speech next time buddy.

I was interested to hear Sheehan claim The DaVinci Code as a historical source as mentioned in some earlier reviews. As I suspected that's obviously NOT what he does (instead relating that it is one of the popular [as in Pop Culture] mythologies of Jesus that we see sprout up on TV and big screen). I realized very early into this that the negative reviews are from overly sensitive Christians who can't tolerate an objective view on the Jesus of history. Pathetic, butt-hurt Christians.

I really enjoyed this course. I had never considered taking a religious class but after listening to these lectures I have to say I found the subject totally interesting. The instructor is great however the audio quality could be improved

Warning… this guy sounds as though he knows his subject matter,…but in very many words he is able to construct his own rhetoric that is well beyond the historical account of the facts given by the historical and archeological records of biblical reference. Be careful not to take this as true or serious scholarship, but only as a constructed prefabrication of some accounts. He is very wide of any trusted hermeneutic pattern.

Very thorough and well-organized. Whatever your views on the subject, this is a perspective you should listen to

Thomas Sheehan presents a very accessible and informative look at Jesus from a historical, not a theological, perspective. Some of his discussion is clearly dismissive of beliefs held by modern Evangelicals, but I think for the most part he presents the material as dispassionately as possible, and allows room for the student/listener to reach his or her own personal conclusions based on a combination of what likely happened historically along with their own faith or traditions. Highly recommended.

This guy perseverates on things that are conjecture, not fact. Also, his beginning rant on Jesus' real name doesn't even explain WHY He is called Yeshua, (um, how about some history here?) except to make the point that for this class, we need to separate ourselves from the religiosity of Jesus... Which, personally, takes away at least half of the point of the historical Jesus (sorry, Yeshua). As others before me said, as soon as Sheehan started talking about the DaVinci Code as historical fact, and the supposition that we have "photographic evidence" of Jesus' grave in India, he lost all credibility. I'm not talking from my religious knowledge, but from other historical documentation that has been widely accepted since before Sheehan was born. Lastly, he talks about the Gospels not fitting together, yet being selected from others "not chosen for one reason or another" without realizing that the Gospels chosen were from those who had first-hand experience with their contents. And the idea that "we don't know who really wrote them because the church put the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to them" is simply ludicrous. Luke, for example is known to have interviewed, first hand, the original followers of Christ. We also know he was a physician. Why would we know so much about a non-existent author? Why would we need to? Admittedly, I only listened to 2/3 of the first lecture, but considering what Sheehan's basis is, I don't think I need to hear the rest.

Pontification is not a substitute for teaching content that is not "factually" correct. Some of the statements presented are just plain false. To each his/her own.

Having read some of the other reviews on here about this series of lectures, I decided to write a review which will do it justice. This series on the historical figure of Jesus is wonderful! Prof. Thomas Sheehan discussion is highly accessible and informative. Not only have I listen to this set of lectures, but I have also listen to other scholars on this subject. While all of the scholars agree on most of the major issues, each one has different ideas on some of the details. Hence, these differences should not be taken as evidence that either one professor is wrong or not, it should show the differences in opinion by these scholars and show the complexities of the issues in question. You will never regret listening to this lecture series.

Sheehan spends too much time showing how smart he is and belittling Christians of all stripes and wondering how they can be so stupid to believe what they do. He seems unable to be impartial and that makes it difficult to listen to. He loses all credibility when he treats "The DaVinci Code" as an historical source.

Warning:phone review. I am enjoying listening to this lecture. The negative reviews are from Christians that dislike the historicity of j. Or that think historians should consider the gospel a history book. If you want to get an idea about j. The man, this is a good intro. If you are blinded by dogma, not so much. Magic has no place in history. But just like people do not ascend to heaven today, Jesus did not in his time. No more than Mithra did or any of the Greek gods. I am positive that few 1star reviewer listened past the first issue before getting back here to review. May I suggest a theology course instead? It is my understanding one of the differences is that people can fly but it still looks like academia.

The oldest, best manuscripts of Mark end with the women finding the tomb empty. The thinking among scholars -- secular scholars, anyway -- is that the later chapters were added later based on information in the other Gospels (you'll find a short version of the Great Commission there).

@JWTSR re Mark 16 It's not as clearcut as you would imply. See this Wikipaedia entry: "Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying "nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus' resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus' appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declaring that believers that have been baptized will be saved while nonbelievers will be condemned, and pictures Jesus sitting at God's right hand.[1] Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1] Textual critics have identified two distinct endings—the "Longer Ending" (vv. 9-20) and the "Shorter Ending," which appear together in six Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies. The "Shorter Ending," with slight variations, runs as follows: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

I couldn't believe my ears when he says that there is not a word of Christ's ascention into Heaven in the gospel of Mark. I guess he failed to read Mark 16:19. Beware!!!!

Thomas Sheehan acts as though he is very certain of some very controversial claims. He tells his students they should be amazed that "Q" makes absolutely no mention of the resurrection. Meanwhile I'm amazed how he can make an such an absolute statement about a writing that no one ever saw and indeed may not even exist. Indeed the fact that no one ever even saw Q in no way lessens his certainty that this writing - if it exists and if it is ever discovered - will not even mention the resurrection. This piling speculation on top of speculation in order to produce something that is then claimed as fact is quite common in this area. Of course, this claimed fact about a speculative document "Q" is then used to as a proof that no early followers of Jesus believed his body was resurrected. What about 1st Corinthians and Paul explaining that hundreds had seen the resurected Jesus? Well Sheehan explains that Paul just means that he and others converted - or saw some vision or - well he really isn't to clear on what Paul is saying those 500 people saw. If Sheehan wants to just say they all realized they should be a follower of Jesus, then why does Paul say he was the "last" to see Jesus? Does Paul not think anyone became a follower of Jesus after him? Why does Paul say it's as if he was like one born late? None of that makes any sense on a Crossan or Sheehan's interpretation. But by glossing over that part of the text it really doesn't cause a hic up for his lecture. He seems to be unaware that Paul's letters by an large were not intended to retell the gospel but instead to respond to specific concerns of the churches. Romans is an exception, but even there Paul knew he was writing to people who already knew the gospel, so rehearsing it would be out of place. I have no issue with people raising different theories that I don't agree with. And I, of course, realize that you can't cover everything. But Thomas Sheehan not only claims these far flung theories with astounding certainty - he even refers to those who disagree as "stupid" and guilty of a biblical malpractice of sorts. I'm sorry but the reason not everyone agrees with Crossan and Sheehan isn't due to stupidity. It's because Sheehan and Crossan make a weak case. Other very controversial liberal claims about the bible and religion are taught as though they are established fact. The Jesus's resurrection is just an example. I gave it 3 stars because I am always interested in hearing different opinions on this topic. But in the end I can only say how thankful I am that I am not attending this class at Stanford where I would likely be expected to parrot this stuff back. I really cringe at the thought. edit re cdgraves: He misquoted me. I said readers of pauls letters "knew the Gospel" not "read the Gospel". Paul refers to the Gospel he preached in several of his writings eg., 1st Corinthians and 1st Galatians. So the churches he was writing to would have already been aware of the Gospel and likely some other basics of the faith. The letters were usually written to respond to specific issues that arose. As far cdgraves claim that "there was no gospel until the Nicene Convention in the 4th Century" I think he is confused. "The Gospel" means "the good news." There was "the Gospel" i.e., "the good news" pretty much as soon as Christ rose from the dead. Exactly what was written about that and when is unclear. However we do know the four Gospels in the Bible were written long before the 4th century. They were likely written between 60 ad and 100 ad.

The basic assumption of the lecture is this: the Jesus in the Gospels cannot be the 'historical Jesus' , so let us tell you who the real 'historical Jesus' is.... Well I can tell you that this assumption is fundementally flawed! the historical Jesus in the Gospels IS the 'historical Jesus'. The Gospels is the most reliable source we have about him!

I guess I'm being picky here cdgraves but you quoted joemccarron as saying "read the Gospel" when he actually said "knew the Gospel." Many laymen of that day in and around Palestine would have heard the Gospel orally from people like Paul who first introduced them to it. I don't see anything wrong with cdgraves' point..

I like this lecture series, but it's important to keep in mind that this particular course is a Continuing Education offering. It is designed as a survey and is definitely not as academically rigorous as an actual undergraduate course would be. It's not as good or thorough as the Yale course by Dale Martin, but that's to be expected in Cont. Studies. In regards to the course methodology, this is "Historical Jesus" - not "Who Christians Think Jesus Was". From the standpoint of historical science, it is all but impossible to make a credible claim of resurrection or other miracles without imposing some sort of metaphor. This flies in the face of theological interpretations, but that's the point. This course is not about interpreting the bible, it's exploring which parts of it we can determine are genuinely historical. Sources like Q are reconstructed sources, not necessarily literally a text on paper. Reconstructed sources are a necessary tool in examining all sorts of historical and scientific fields. Many would be surprised to learn how many of our well-known ancient languages are barely attested in text and are actually reconstructed and deduced from later languages. The previous review also contains an anachronistic objection: Paul could not have been writing to people who "read the Gospel" during his lifetime because there was no Gospel until the Nicene Convention in the 4th century. It is also unlikely that any lay person of that era was literate enough to read such a collection, anyway. I would suggest listening to the Dale Martin course at Yale first, as that introduces much more thoroughly how the critical historical method applies to the New Testament and deals with much more of details concerning who Jesus became to theologians. After listening to that, it's much easier to tell where Dr. Sheehan glosses over details to make a point.