Celsus

I've raised the issue before, but here is a clearer exposition, for those who asked. Someone please bite so we can have a fight.

Joel

Toto

I have not been involved in the minimalist-maximalist debate to know what is going on there.

As far as the HJ controversy, your position is exactly the one taken by Robert Price, who said that if there was a Jesus of history, there is no more. It is not possible to recover him.

I am not sure why you think this is so controversial.

Celsus

As a methodological approach, I agree Price does have a similar stance. However, as I said, people seem to think this means Jesus didn't exist: it doesn't (and I think Price is seen as a mythicist because of this confusion, and I'm also not sure that Price recognises this distinction). He doesn't know where to go once he's made his conclusions (alternatively, he writes books on Jesus because they will sell, unlike books on the socio-cultural milieu of first century Palestine). Unfortunately, I don't have Deconstructing Jesus any more (lent to friend, never got it back), but I would say that Price misses the point in looking for Jesus. We should instead be looking for the residual information of the material culture, their mode of thought, and sod looking for some itinerant preacher. Anyway, it's been a while since I've read Price, but his anti-apologetic agenda is plain just like everyone else's (my agenda, at least, has nothing to do with theism).
Who said it's controversial? I would say it's become a standard among modern historians, but the NT/OT scholars are still battling it out on shaky foundations. Last time I put up an antirealist position (note where I agree with and quote Price, and also that my position then was still very primitive), Vork, Peter, Jacob Aliet, godfry n. glad, my girlfriend, Hugo, and Bede all found they had something to agree upon in that I was wrong. So, this time, I'm better armed.

Joel

Toto

Price is not a mythicist. He describes himself as an agnostic. He is not looking for Jesus. I don't know why you think you have to say that he doesn't know where to go with his conclusion. He does what he does - he analyzes the texts for a living.

Celsus

Ok, I withdraw the remarks about Price. Please don't derail this thread so early.

Joel

Amaleq13

I'd love to scrap a bit but you've apparently given a new name to my agnosticism with regard to a historical Jesus and less reason to expect that position to be changed.

I do have questions about some things Hugo says but I'm not sure if they belong here or on Ebla.

Is there some sort of treaty between the sites I should consult?

DramaQ

Um.....

If you expect people to "bite" and "fight", doesn't that mean you think it involves some controversy? :huh:

Celsus

My apologies, DramaQ. I'm an old cynical veteran of BC&H these days and so my comments are of course meant firmly tongue-in-cheek for those regulars who can still remember me.

Joel

jbernier

I don't think that I can fight with you on this one. I more or less agree completely. An autobiographical note: I came to similar conclusions not through Biblical scholarship but rather through a couple papers I did on Iroquois oral traditions during my undergraduate (one of which turned into my first published article; fortunately for me my department published a student journal 'cause, looking back at that paper, it really sucked). Anyways, I looked at the traditional stories about the founding of the Iroquois league and initially wanted to argue that these should be accepted as accurate records of the past (I was a bit naive at the time, I will fully admit). I quickly realized the history of these stories made such a simple view too, well, simple. It was there that I came to the conclusion that such stories were most meaningful for their role in making sense of the world - i.e. that meaning was not primarily grounded in the degree to which the story referenced real, literal, history but the way in which a text lives in the here and now. In applying this insight to the Biblical text, this became a cornerstone of my theological thought.

DramaQ

Nada problem. Anyone bothering to check the few meager posts I’ve made may note a hint of cynicism and tongue-in-cheek as well. I have nothing but respect for it.

Now as to Historical antirealism:

I’ve been trying to take the time to sift through the prolific posts on the matter. Whew! With luck, I’ll be getting a handle on it soon. In the meantime, I wonder if you can tell me if I am getting it close to right:

With regard to history (and by this I am assuming we mean textual history and not physical things like pottery shards and fossils), it is impossible to arrive at any kind of “truth� because 1) The evidence is incomplete being lost in time. 2) The content is hopelessly biased by the writer.

Because of this, I take it your conclusion is summed up by:

In other words, don’t waste time trying to understand what “really� happened. Just organize the data.

Or, in your own paraphrasing: “the question is: where do we draw the line on whether something is essentially historical or otherwise?�

Well… I’m neither an historian nor a scientist, so I’m liable to make a poor debater here. However, it occurs to me that if Person A in history wrote about something then you CAN say with a fair degree of confidence that Person A BELIEVED what he wrote. Regardless of the validity of his statement. That much seems like a reasonable, historical conclusion to me.

And what good does THAT conclusion do us?

Well, frankly I’m not sure why this is being discussed as a historical concept as if it only exists in historical writings. The fact is we deal with this type of “reality� every day of our lives. In a court of law it’s called “eye witness testimony�. EVERYBODY sees their reality differently. And while eye witness testimony is generally regarded as the least reliable, it’s still admitted as evidence.

The trick is to compile as many accounts as possible and try to come up with a consensus or composite “reality� based on the divergent perceptions. Also, the bias of the witness CAN be taken into account. We can listen to the testimony of a “hostile witness� and learn something about the situation based on that person’s hostility (rather than the actual statements). We don’t need to “construct a psychological model�, only take what is said with a grain or two of salt. (In the case of the NT preferable kosher salt. )


I would agree with that and go further. Not only science, but all aspects of life require our perception and interpretation of the environment. Communicating that information from one person to another is not an issue of histocracy. Recording my perception doesn’t make it get better or worse over time. It’s equally reliable/unreliable at all times.

How do we do it now? Suppose you read my description of a city you’ve never been to. The tone of my letter is generally hostile with sneering descriptions of smog, noise, jostling crowds, and confusing lights. This is not a photographic record you can extract “history� from. But it nevertheless tells you things: it tells you my attitude about cities (at least this one). You can use that attitude as your grain of salt. You may develop your own picture of the same city as being bustling, bright and energetic.

Does your (vastly different) “reinterpretation� make my account unusable?

Now suppose you had three more descriptions from other people who went on the same trip. How much better a composite picture of this city can you develop now?

More importantly, had you visited the city yourself, do you think that YOUR perception of this city is any more “real� than the others?

And what if we DID have photographic evidence? How is that any more an "objective" reality? After all, someone using their own bias chose the type of camera, film, angle, lighting, and what to focus on. The best any of us can do is build our own interpretations. That's just life.

I guess to boil my own point down to its simplest form it would be:

Why should textual history be any more “antireal� than anything anyone says to you right now?

I hope I didn’t totally miss the point of this discussion.

Cheers,

DQ