DCHindley

How many of us have worked for persons like this who were our bosses?
1) Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill. (CEO's of large banks and manufacturing concerns are now sure that instead of bringing their companies and the nation's economy to the brink of collapse, they have actually saved the world and deserve a big bonus)
2) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others. (if you don't play their game of "looking good is better than feeling good", you are "out" and forever barred from advancement in an organization)
3) Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy. (see my imputed CEO rationalizations in issue #1 above)

The conclusion, that such folks "can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill," is unrealistic in the case of CEOs, who are not likely to accept correction ("The impertinence of the idea, fire that man!"), and just barely possible for regular folks who could, upon deep reflection, recognize their error and seek better solutions to their intellectual pursuits.

DCH

Ted Hoffman

Ben,
Yes I got some ideas from that review of Feldman among other sources.
It is not the same. If an author says they wrote of Romeo and Juliet elsewhere, we would know that is Shakespeare. This is what Lucian did. Church fathers made up cock and bull stories to attach the name Mark to the anonymous gospel.

We can do it (for convenience) but not with certainty. A number of assumptions have to be made.
I maintain that authorial anonymity is a diversion from the general trend of ancient biographies. It makes authorial intent more difficult to discern.
I don't drop it but I think it is a weak point.
Doublets are a problem even in ancient biographies and scholars seek to account for them while most NT scholars simply gloss over the doublets in the gospels or act like they don't even exist in the gospels.

Ben, your approach in addressing my list is misleading. Take the case of the author being anonymous. You have latched on Demonax. Even if you are right about Demonax, it doesn't falsify the claim that "most ancient biographies were written authors who identified themselves" but it falsifies the straw man claim that "all ancient biographies were written authors who identified themselves."

For how long will you act like you don't know what I am arguing?

Crossley either hadn't read my review properly or is talking about the wrong kind of doublet. Literary devices didn't need to be accounted for, as we have seen, scholars attempt to account for doublets in various texts.

Yet you are writing as if Crossley was on point when he wrote that doublets are literary devices

So I was wrong on that point. Even Sanders and Robert Price have been wrong. You learn something and you move on.
Because acknowledged experts in the field like E.P. Sanders, routinely make garbage claims like Luke confusing 4 BCE and 6 CE (for Jesus' birth) and Jesus acting out OT prophecies in passages like Mark 11:1-11 and fellow experts don't call them to it and treat them with reverence.
This is the one field where underinvestigated claims and unsupported assumptions (e.g. Jesus existed as a flesh-and-blood man) are treated as fact by scholars. I don't particularly feel I have tainted the field. I do acknowledge that Crossley is to be respected. I have respected him. I may have overreached myself but I certainly didn't disrespect him. He even gave a lengthy reply to my post.

Ben C Smith

Only if we already know who wrote Romeo and Juliet. How do we already know who wrote Sostratus.

From the text and Demonax we gather that a single author wrote both Demonax and Sostratus, just as from the text of Acts we gather that a single author wrote both Acts and Luke. How do we know that the author of Demonax and Sostratus was Lucian?

Is it the same way with Lucian? Do we assume (for convenience) but not with certainty that he

How many times does Plutarch identify himself by name in the text of his Parallel Lives?

I cannot speak for most NT scholars. I personally have read lots of material on the doublets (not always called that) in the gospels. I think critical scholars by and large think either that one of the feedings, for example, was creatively doubled from the other (Crossan, for example) or that the two feedings were originally one, but came to Mark in two different cycles of tradition.

You are right. That is why I have now asked you about Plutarch.

You wrote that devices are literary devices:

There is a huge difference between (A) investigating all the known data that is relevant to the issue and then making a bad argument based on that data* and (B) claiming to have investigated all the known data or enough of the known data that is relevant to the issue at hand when one has not.

* Note that I am going to assume for the sake of argument that Sanders made a bad argument.

You did B. Did Sanders do B? Or did Sanders do A? (IYO.) If B, what data did he skip? (Not reasoning steps; data.)

Let me give you a fictional example. Suppose I am debating someone on this forum about, say, Papias. I have spent quite a bit of time on the extant fragments of Papias, even as an amateur, so I feel I can spot a lot of hoaky claims on this topic. Now, it is one thing for someone to tell me that, when Irenaeus quotes Papias, he is actually confusing Papias with Polycarp, and to use a bad argument to demonstrate this. But it is quite another for someone to tell me that nobody before Eusebius quotes Papias (this claim has been made on this board before).

In the first case, the person has obviously taken the trouble to find the data (and probably even the time to overanalyze it), and I can even tell from his or her words that he or she has read the relevant passage (since Irenaeus mentions Papias and Polycarp in the same breath). In the second case, however, it is obvious that the person has expended absolutely no sufficient time at all in even searching out the data; his or her words betray the uncomfortable fact that he or she has not even read a decent compilation of the Papian fragments, yet is making breathmaking claims about them. Yet consider this; even in that second case the person knows a little bit about Papias; enough to mention Eusebius, for example. Why is this? Probably because the person is relying on (and probably misinterpreting) secondary information. But nothing in the tenor of the claim tells the reader that this is the case! A statement like: If you cannot find anybody before Eusebius who quotes Papias, and I daresay you cannot, then your argument is defenseless, makes it sound like one has honestly looked for Papian quotations from before Eusebius, especially if the opponent has already hinted that they exist.

Do you see the difference between these two cases?

The problem in the first case is poor reasoning. You have done it; I have done it; Sanders and Crossley have done it.

The problem in the second case is hubris. You said that literary devices (like doublets) made Mark questionable as history. Crossley responded that even histories use literary methods. Full stop. Right there you should have asked him for his data! He was claiming to have data; you were unaware of any such data; so why not ask him for what he (claims he) has that you do not have? You were not dealing with a fifth grader. You were dealing with a published scholar from a respected university. But instead you assumed either that he was speaking of the wrong kind of literary method or that he was just plain wrong, and you plowed on ahead and basically dare-double-dared him to prove you wrong.

Jacob, it would never even occur to me to speak to Crossley in the way you spoke to him.

That is excellent. Are you going to post it?

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

You mean who wrote of Sostratus. Because we already know the author of The Way to Write History (Vol II), who writes about Sostratus.
Asked and answered. Unless you need some clarification?
Not the same way. We neither know the author of Luke nor the author of Acts. But some argue its the same author.
But we know the author of The Way to Write History (Vol II), who writes about Sostratus. And the author of Demonax says he writes elsewhere about Sostrates. You want to argue that many authors wrote about Sostrates?
Are we through with Demonax? Why are you asking me questions instead of making your argument? You are implying that I argued that the author must identify himself by name in the text?
Or they were both creatively fabricated from Homer as MacDonald argues. Odyssey also has a doublet of feasts: that of Nestor and that in the story of Menelaus. And the details in the feats indicate creative borrowing. Have you considered MacDonald's argument in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark Ben?
Traditions had "cycles"? Like they could boomerang back?
Why the piecemeal, exploratory approach? Why not falsify the most in my statement and end the debate?
If you put it that way, one may think I had no argument. But Oh well...
Please cite me making this claim or withdraw the statement. All the known data? I wouldn't dream of it.
Yes. I used the word daresay. So I was daring. If I had all the data, I would not write If you cannot find anybody before Eusebius who quotes Papias, and I daresay you cannot, then your argument is defenseless. Instead, I would write "There is nobody before Eusebius who quotes Papias, and you are therefore incorrect."
Plain and simple, no daring. Just stating the facts.
So I dared a scholar from a respectable University to prove me wrong. Big deal.
That is because Jacob is not Ben. You sound like this has deeply bothered you. Do you know Crossley personally? It would probably never occur to you to do several other things I have done in my life. Don't sweat it. Plus, you have shown that some of the positions I held were not correct. The guy who had it wrong is me and I have admitted as much.
After reading Sanders saying Jesus was reading the OT and acting it out as a script, I think I can be forgiven for not revering a scholar who thinks the world of Sanders.
I can. Here goes though I sent it a while back.

> JACOB: I would be interested in knowing how you determined that whereas they
> didn't know anything 'serious' about his birth, they nonetheless knew OTHER
> stuff about him. Why did they proceed to write stuff about his birth if they
> didn't know about it? On what grounds would we lend credibility to what they
> wrote on Jesus elsewhere?
> Still, having the views on the historical Jesus that I do, I suppose Jesus
> being born roughly at the time suggested would make sense.
>
> JACOB: Why?

CROSSLEY: Well, I think the infancy narratives are very obviously fictional. Missing in
Mark is one thing. Virgin birth and the supernatural, of course, being other
far more serious reasons. The idea of dramatic origins is common enough for
figures deemed great in the ancient owrld so it was almost inevitable that this
would happen to Jesus. That they are obviously fictional and 'legendary' leads
me to think that they would have to guess the time of Jesus' birth. It may have
been relatively easy to guess if Jesus' approximate age was known but I don't
buy the very precise dating some people give (e.g. 4 BCE, 6 BCE etc).

What this already shows is that the gospel writers were capable of making things
up. And, yes, this means elsewhere in the gospels. Miracles being the most
obvious. But I don't think it means everything is made up. If we take the legal
disputes, these are plausible enough (the question of precise historicity is
another thing of course) in the way that miracles are not.

JACOB: I find this to be a very rational and balanced view. The suggestion is not that everything is made up but that everything else in the gospels is to be treated as suspect unless it can otherwise be demonstrated. It is like dealing with a witness whose credibility has gone to hell (forgive the expression). This (that the authors could insert fictional accounts and present them as actual reports) means everything else in the gospels has to be tested against some criteria before being admitted as reliable testimony of an event.
Would you agree with this approach?

> CROSSLEY: On Meier, what do you mean bout miracles and resurrection? In terms
> of historical accuracy etc doesn’t Meier back off from the precise issue of
> whether they happened?
>
> JACOB: I am not aware that he does that. Where?

CROSSLEY: Now I'm working from memory so I could be Wrong, but I think he say things like
the virgin birth are beyond historical analysis...<snip>

JACOB: I would have a huge problem with that and so would any historian. Human experience shows that virgins do not give birth. So any document indicating that a virgin birth occured is probably not reporting history. Can we also say that the burning bush of Moses is beyond historical analysis? If that is the approach, any bird-cult can claim that, for example a bird brought back a 3 day corpse back to life and investigators would respond that the said resurrection it is beyond "historical or scientific analysis." Is that a responsible position?

It is such opaque positions that make it difficult to take some of the New Testament scholars seriously. It is a case of valiantly avoiding to face an issue head-on and making sound judgement based on clear method or reasoning that is transparent.

CROSSLEY: ... and I think he talks about the multiple attestation of the miracle stories suggesting that Jesus was *known* as a miracle worker (rather than he necessarily did miracles). I think there is some discussion of the miraculous in Marginal Jew vol. 1. There will no doubt be stuff on multiple attestation of miracles elsewhere.

JACOB: There are "miracle workers" even today of course although that is a common feature in most saviour figures in antiquity. Even Sanders carefully reports what the gospels say regarding Jesus and miracles but I am more interested in positions regarding the historicity of Jesus.

> ‘Sanders relies on the canonical Gospels for his reconstruction of
> thehistorical Jesus without explaining why Paul does not speak of an earthly
> Jesus
> in his several letters. Germane questions include: Why does Paul state in
> 1Corinthians 2:6-8 that demons (arcontes) killed Jesus and not that Pilate
> killed Jesus as narrated in the Gospels?’
> JACOB: If you are right (the overlapping view and all), you are obliged to
> adopt an agnostic position, not a historicist one.

CROSSLEY: Oh on its own terms, yes. I wouldn't use something like 1 Cor. 2.6-8 for any
historical reconstruction of Jesus's death (besides it's too general and only
tells us how Paul viewed it). I was just making the point that it doesn't
*necessarily* support a more supernatural reading. I guess we could probably
agree it supports very little.

JACOB: The gospels and other documents say that Jesus was killed by Pilate. Paul says it is demons. Most scholars agree that archontes means demons and the dispute is on how the demons did it with most historicists claiming they "stood behind" the actual earthly rulers who did it. Note that Paul never says the demons "stood behind" anybody as they killed Jesus so this is an eisegesis. Paul laso never mentions any place on earth that Jesus lived, walked or died. He doesn't mention any earthly ruler that knew or interacted with Jesus. So we have scholars importing gospel assumptions into Paul, forgetting that the epistles predate the gospels.

You maintain, despite the lack of earthly markers, that Paul's christ was still an earthly figure. Assuming that Jesus was an intermediary saviour figure who underwent salvific death in an upper realm to Paul, how would we expect him to present him?

> JACOB: First of all, even if this were true (and it has not been
> demonstrated), it would not explain why he presents Jesus and presumably
> earthly activities (like the crucifixion) in purely mythological terms. And
> there are several incidences where Jesus Paul was involved in debate that
> could have easily been resolved by reference/quote to an earthly Jesus as a
> teaching authority, yet he did not.

CROSSLEY: Yes, certainly Paul does see Jesus in strongly mythological terms. This is
presumably because he has a grand elaborate scheme of salvation and a
down-to-earth Jewish teacher in Jesus would not be of great use really. In most
of his cases the Jesus I reconstruct (and indeed a fair bit of the synoptic
tradition) is not of great use at all.

JACOB: I dont understand. On the one hand, you are saying that for a saviour figure to be of "use" in recruiting converts to a religion, they need to be earthbound. On the other hand, Paul did not need an earthly figure because he had a "grand elaborate scheme of salvation." Your argument seems to be that an earthly (Jewish) Jesus would fail to attract gentile converts. But this notion is challenged by his total and transparent reliance on Jewish scriptures for authority and support.

CROSSLEY: On gentiles, Jesus seems to have had little care for them in the synoptic tradition so this is of little use for PAul. On the Law, Jesus had next to nothing to say that would be of use to Paul on the Law and gentiles. A term like 'son of man' is a basic Aramaic idiom and
some have no serious Christological impact that the Gospels tried to elaborate but are pretty fixed in the Gospels (see esp. Mark 2.27-28 and compare with the changes made by Luke and Matt). Again, Paul would never have much use for such. The different ethnic audiences for Jesus and Paul may also count for a lot.

JACOB: I think Paul's reliance on Jewish scriptures seriously challenge your explanation.

CROSSLEY: I'd still hesitate from saying 'purely' mythological - what would you make of the divorce tradition in 1 Cor 7 and Paul's use of tradition?

JACOB: This is unclear (1 Cor 7 has 40 verses). Do you mean to say that in 1 Cor 7 Paul relies on an earthly tradition left by Jesus? Which specific passages support this view?

>
> JACOB: This is assuming that Jesus was an ordinary Galilean, which has not
> been demonstrated. Plus, I thought you favored him as being an eschatological
> prophet? Were "ordinary Galileans" eschatological prophets who pilgrims
> spread clothes in roads for them to walk onto as they entered Jerusalem?

CROSSLEY: Ok, by ordinary I didn't mean so literally but rather to distinguish from a
figure deemed to be divine in a strong sense. I think the eschatological
prohphet is important but so are a lot of other descriptions. The gospel
tradition has a lot of material that is plausible in Galilean and Palestinian
contexts (e.g. issues of legal debate as mentioned) and generally like other
prophets mentioned by Josephus.

JACOB: Is it plausible that a prophet who made a triumphal entry in Jerusalem as described in the gospels would have failed to catch Josephus' attention? This same prophet whipped moneychangers out of the temple and got himself crucified. And he was just an ordinary prophet who no writer contemporary to Mark knew about?

> JACOB: It has not been demonstrated that the OT references are merely
> "frames." Around an actual story. Again, this would at the very leat leave
> you agnostic.

CROSSLEY: Well in some cases, OT stories may well be the inspiration (e.g. Moses and
Matt's infancy narrative). But I would point to a lot of material like the
legal material and the predictions of the imminent kingdon that at least
suggests something very early and of not great use to much of Christianity that
we at least know. That's why I favour there being a historical figure of Jesus.

JACOB: These early materials, they are sayings? Like in Q? Are you saying that if it was fabricated, it had to be fabricated ex nihilo and they could not have used old materials to fabricate a mythical figure? And that since there are early materials in the gospel, then that is evidence against Jesus being mythical? Is that your argument? Or is this simply dissimilarity criterion rephrased?

CROSSLEY: This figure may or may not have used the OT to describe himself but he was
pushed into this, so to speak, after he died..

JACOB: So you are arguing that he was an ordinary man who was apotheosized? It is mostly kings who got apotheosized. Why would an ordinary man be apotheosized?
Plus, he has to exist before he can be embellished in mythical terms. We are placing the cart before the horse by even considering this.

> ‘Sanders' historical criticism fails to recognize literary, tendenz, and
> redaction criticism.’
> CROSSLEY: To be fair to Sanders, he has worked with such methods elsewhere
> and written intro stuff on the Gospels in such contexts.
>
> JACOB: He does not apply them in his reconstruction so it doesn't help that
> he has written about them - unless you want to argue that they are not
> applicable here?. Its like someone involved in solving a problem that
> requires calculations and who does not do any calculations and explaining
> away that failure as "I have written math books".

CROSSLEY: I agree that it would be helpful to mention this background work. But I was just
pinting out that Sanders has done a lot of the 'dirty work' so to speak. But,
yes, for an evaluation of the book alone it might well have helped.

JACOB: So it is fair to state that it is strange that he does not employ tools or methods he otherwise presumably had at his disposal?

> JACOB: Thank you. The problem with the gospels is almost everything can be explained as
> narrative structure /literary style hence it appears more likely to be a work
> of fiction. Which historical books have been written with literary styles
> like doublets? If you cannot cite examples, as I daresay you cannot, then you
> have no defense for Mark being historical.

CROSSLEY: Well, doublets only show an author's style. They say nothing about general
historicity or not. Everything is framed artifically, everything. Mark used
conentions he knew and modern historians (and many others) use conventions of
their day.

JACOB: It is not necessarily a "convention" at a narrative level - perhaps at a phrasal level. If two almost identical events or scenes appear in a text, it could mean the following:

A) One of them is a tradition that grew out of the other (in which case one of them is not historical).
B) If its a Chronological narrative (like Josephus), the author may be confused about the chronology (in which case one of the events is not historical); see Josephus BJ II.434 and BJ II.408.
C) One of the events is artificially modeled after the other.
D) Or they could be two accounts of a single event or narrative like the two miracles of loaves and fishes in Mark 6:35-44 and Mark 8:1-9.

D) Seems to apply for the doublets in Mark like the Sanhedrin trial (Mark 14:53-65) and the trial before Pilate (Mark 15:1-20). After all, you yourself agree the author could fabricate things. Why should we believe that he did not fabricate one or both of these trials?

> CROSSLEY: While I’m not so sure on Lukan and Matthean views of Jesus, I
> wouldn’t rule out Sanders so quickly. There is no hard development of a ‘son
> of God’ Christology in any strong sense. Old Testament figures were born in
> remarkable ways and rabbinic literature expands the details more
> dramatically. The term ‘son of God’ had (as I think Sanders mentions) a wide
> range of uses, from good Jew or king through to supernatural figures. Given
> the lack of Matt and maybe Luke expounding the details, I think Sanders could
> still be right…
>
> JACOB: You express uncertainty on Lukan and Matthean views of Jesus then
> conclude by saying you still think Sanders is right. With respect, I think it
> would be more consistent to say something like, since you are not sure about
> Lukan and Matthean views of Jesus, you are not able to tell whether Sanders
> is right?

CROSSLEY: Not quite (though this may be pedantic), I'm not 100% sure because we don't have
a precise social/historical/theological context for Matt or Luke's narrative,
but Sanders' reading is at least plausible. I gave those reasons why Sanders
might be right but given the lack of precise context I would stress that this
is a modest or qualified agreement.

JACOB: Ok, fair enough.

> CROSSLEY: I’m also not sure why Sanders is ‘engaging in apologetics’? If
> anything, it is not a very Christian idea to suggest the Jesus of the Gospels
> is not really that much of an elevated figure.
> JACOB: It depends on his brand of Christianity, whether he is liberal or
> conservative and so on.

CROSSLEY: That's a big, big question in historical Jesus scholarship, at least in more
gossipy circles! In Jesus and Judaism he talks generally about his background
in caring-for-the-poor type of Christianity but not much on his present and he
says it matters little to him if this was grounded in the Bible (or something
like that). A lot of people think he has no real Christian faith and his online
autobiography stresses how he has little concern for theology etc and much as
an ancient historian.

JACOB: Bart Ehrman appears to be in good company then. Farther on is Robert Price. I dont know where Crossan would lie in that scale.

> JACOB: That may be so (early material) but it does not tell us about the
> historicity of the event; just that it was constructed from Jesiwh sources
> (the OT).
CROSSLEY: Ultimately, yes we cannot know on precise details. But this is not the sort of
stuff that concerned Christianity too much so we have to ask why would someone
invent it?

JACOB: Maybe it concerned Mark's community (the moneychangers doing brisk business in the outer temple) but was not a widespread position. At any rate, many have concluded that an action like that would have drawn swift reaction from the Roman soldiers and therefore the story arises from theological interests rather than a historical event.
>
> CROSSLEY: As for the problem with money changers, I don’t see that the
> objections necessarily carry weight. They were there and Jesus could have got
> angry. Thesethings happen. But we simply don’t have enough detail to
> speculate e.g. that money changers would have wrestled with Jesus. What if
> there was a large crowd around him? What if the moneychangers were more
> concerned with the loss of money everywhere?
>
> JACOB: That very concern would have made them restrain Jesus.
CROSSLEY: We can't possibly know this one way or another. Seeley speculated. He might be
rigth, he might be wrong. There's simply no way of knowing so my point is that
the speculation of Seeley doesn't get us anywhere. As for wanting to restrain
JEsus what if money spilled over everywhere and they went to pick it up? What
if the money changers were intimidated. Again, we just don't know and for every
speculation there is a counter speculation.

JACOB: It is not speculation that there were Roman soldiers stationed because Jews often rioted on the eve of important holidays.
It is not speculation that the passage claims that Jesus actually whipped moneychangers OUT of the temple and overturned their tables. This kind of action would have drawn the Roman soldiers reaction.

> CROSSLEY: What if it were a small scale incident?
> JACOB: No one would have noticed. It is not narrated as a small incident
> since the narrative claims that he "drove" the money changers out of the
> temple hence shutting down economic activity. You dont think you ought to
> address Paula Fredricksen's concerns at all?
CROSSLEY: All of them? some of them? Mark exaggerates, like many human beings so it could
still have been a small scale incident (it might not of course and then there
is the problem of perspective). I'm not sure how Fredricken's concerns counter this.

JACOB: If it was such a small incident, how did Mark know about it? From a tradition that is not mentioned elsewhere? He was a disciple of Jesus?
If it was so small, how come it drew the retaliation of the High Priests? As Fredricksen says:

"If Jesus had made such a gesture, how many would have seen it? Those in his retinue and those standing immediately around him. But how many, in the congestion and confusion of that holiday crowd, could have seen what was happening even, say, twenty feet away? Fifty feet? The effect of Jesus' gesture at eye-level would have been muffled, swallowed up by the sheer press of pilgrims. How worried, then, need the priests have been?"

You have admitted that Mark creates. You have now admitted that Mark also exaggerates. How do we know that he did not create and exaggerate this temple ruckus incident? What method or evidence do we use here?

> CROSSLEY: Of course Jesus wasn’t ultimately left unmolested: this incident
> led to his death and thesolution prevented a possible riot. Whether this is
> right or wrong, this seems to me a perfectly plausible explanation.
>
> JACOB: Please note that you haven't done anything to address the objections?
> You simply erect your own set of questions. Plus this was a violent incident
> that would have drawn immediate reaction from the people involved from the
> moneychangers and the Roma soldiers on standby. You only talk of an ultimate
> consequence.

CROSSLEY: I say this because Romans were very careful from experience not to incite a full scale riot. This point is often made (with reference to examples - I don't have the precise references at hand) on analysis of Mk 11.15-17

JACOB: On the contrary, his actions would have drawn a reaction from the Roman soldiers or the temple polics, at the very least an arrest. We see from Josephus that the Romans soldiers were ruthless toward messianic pretenders and royal claimants. We see the case of Simon the Slave of Herod in War 2.56 and Ant. 17.271-72 and Anthronges Ant 17.278-85 and Theudas in Ant 20.97-98 they were treated brutally and crushed even though they posed no immediate threat to temple Hegemony. Yet Jesus and his followers were supposedly allowed to disrupt temple activities that was a source of tax?

> CROSSLEY: The lack of reference outside the gospels does not against its
> historicity.
>
> JACOB: With this simple statement, you have declared as not useful Robert, E.
> Van Voorst's work, Jesus outside the New Testament.

CROSSLEY: How?

JACOB: Many scholars have used Jospehus and Tacitus to argue that Jesus' mention outside the NT is evidence of his historicity. This idea is the basis for Multiple Attestation historicity criteria.

> CROSSLEY: Josephus may simply have been unaware of it and it is not really
> the sort of thing that Paul would have much interest in.
>
> JACOB: These all need to be demonstrated, not just asserted.

CROSSLEY: I have demonastrated it (given the constriaints) and I never asserted about
Josephus: I said he *may* not have been aware of it. We don't know so we can't
say. He has minimal (if any) interest in the Christian movement and that's a
pretty obvious point, I'd have thought. As for Paul, I have said that his
interests were not with down to earth issues such as disputes like these. He is
interested in 'higher things' if you like. Why on earth would the cleansing of
the Temple of use to Paul?

JACOB: I was thinking more in the lines of Paul saying "Remember, dear brethren, when the lord was in Galilee, he told us not to divorce" Or something like "I beseech thee, dear brethren in Christ to remember what Christ told the Woman in Nazareth...."
Dominical sayings and some sort of clear apostolic authority would give his theology that punch and make his message more persuasive compared to his vague references to "the scriptures".

Ben C Smith

That is (almost certainly) a different Sostratus (Sostratus the architect from Cnides, not Sostratus the Boeotian referenced in Demonax). You were right the first time when you said that the work Lucian is referring to in Demonax is not extant anymore:

And now you seem to be implying that you really meant that Lucian was referring to How to Write History all along. Are you pulling my chain?

Nevertheless, let us go with your line of reasoning here and see where it leads. Let us assume that the work on Sostratus that Lucian is referring to is not lost, and that it is in fact How To Write History, which does mention a man named Sostratus. Here is the reference in Demonax:

I have written of Sostratus elsewhere, and described his stature and enormous strength, his open-air life on Parnassus, sleeping on the grass and eating what the mountain afforded, the exploits that bore out his surname — robbers exterminated, rough places made smooth, and deep waters bridged.

Where in How To Write History does Lucian describe the stature and strength of Sostratus, his life on Parnassus, and his many exploits?

No. You are still not acknowledging the obvious, to wit, that Lucian does not name himself in the text or in the title of Demonax. Plus, you seem to be making stuff up as you go along (such as identifying the book on Sostratus with How To Write History) just so as to continue not acknowledging the obvious.

Because my only argument on this thread is that you are making claims that you ought not be making. In order to make that argument, I have to ask you to defend your claims.

You are implying that I argued that the author must identify himself by name in the text?

Yes, I have read the book.

That is a question you perhaps should have asked about Demonax, which is only one biography. But here I am asking you about the collected biographies by Plutarch, who wrote at least 40 something of them. Tell me about Plutarch, and you will have told me about a great deal of ancient biographical texts, maybe even most (or at least approaching it).

This is in response to doublets as literary devices, and I do not know whether you have an argument or not; I am trying to figure out what it may be. Can you help me figure out what your argument is on this matter from the following statements of yours?

My exact words were all the known data or enough of the known data that is relevant. If one claims that there is no one who cites Papias before Eusebius, one is either (A) implicitly claiming that one has reviewed all the known data on Papias or enough of the known data on Papias to reasonably well know that this statement is true or (B) just plain bluffing.

So yes, I withdraw my statement and put in its place a new one:

There is a huge difference between (A) investigating all the known data that is relevant to the issue and then making a bad argument based on that data and (B) either claiming to have investigated all the known data or enough of the known data that is relevant to the issue at hand when one has not or simply bluffing.

Now, regarding your original claim...:

Were you claiming to have reviewed enough of the known data to inductively reach this conclusion, or were you bluffing?

In doing so, you were either (A) implying that you had reviewed enough of the relevant data to make your claim or (B) bluffing.

Never met or conversed with the man in my life; I have read his book on dating Mark (which does not convince me) and some of his blog posts. I am not concerned in this connection about Crossley himself, per se. (Hopefully his personal self worth is neither damaged by silly dares from amateurs on discussion boards nor dependent on praise from the same.) No, I am simply doing my part to reduce the number of unfounded claims being made on this forum.

That is super.

Thanks for posting this.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

You are right. It is a different Sostratus.
I acknowledge that Lucian does not name himself in the text or in the title of Demonax.
That is not your only argument unless you want to withdraw your other argument. You argued that Mark is an ancient biography. I indicated my reasons for objecting to that and indicated how you can prove me wrong. You have not proven me wrong. Neither have you argued that my falsification criteria is wrong. You have however showed that I have knowledge gaps in this "ancient biography" field.

Your argument seems to be that amateurs should not make arguments, especially in the face of credentialled, respected scholars. I reject that position.
I am not interested in being exposed as an amateur because I am. I am more interested on whether my reasons for rejecting Mark as being ancient biography, are valid.
So far, you have spent the past three days attacking an argument I never made:

No ancient biographies fail to identify their authors by name.

This is a strawman argument that you erected and I rejected it already. Whether you prove that Lucian didn't place his name in the cover of Demonax, of whether Sostratus the giant and Sostratus the architect were different people does nothing to address my argument which I repeat below:

I used the word often. I never mentioned anything to do with mention himself by name himself in the text or use an absolute expression like No ancient biographies fail...
Why? What if I don't? I never claimed to be a Plutarch scholar. Why should I care about telling you about Plutarch?
I was expressing a belief that is based on the data I had come across. I was making a claim. Is that such a giant infraction?
(emphasis mine). The issue is how to know when one has reviewed "enough" data. I clearly had not. And I was wrong. How many times do you want me to concede error Ben? It is not economical to spend so much time on the same issue. You cannot go beyond proving me wrong on that. Once you have proven me wrong and I have conceded, it is over. Let it go.
That is a great undertaking and certainly worthwhile (though I don't envy you). You don't seem to be equally spending enough time trying to reduce the number of unfounded claims made in books like The Historical Figure of Jesus (which has been called "pulp junk" by the likes of Peter Kirby), which actually have a wider readership than this forum. And Oh, what about NT Wright? Have you addressed his unfounded claims?
Why is that?

Ben C Smith

I do think that the gospels are forms of ancient biography; but my argument on this thread is really simply against your claims about ancient biographies.

Do you mean on all points? No, I have not proven you wrong on all points; it has taken too long on only a couple of points so far, and they were the most obvious ones!

I am not sure what you mean. You were wrong about self identification as a criterion for ancient biography. You were wrong about clear historicity of the subject as a criterion for ancient biography. If you think those are the only two criteria you were wrong about, and that the others are all safe and sound, you are quite mistaken. We just have not gotten far enough to discuss all of your claims.

I suggest that you just back up, then, read some ancient biographies and some modern treatments of the genre, and come up with another, better list of criteria for determining whether the gospels are ancient biographies of some kind.

Well, I reject that position, too. I never argued that. You are putting words into my mouth.

What I reject is arrogantly making unsubstantiated claims and then daring anybody, including and especially respected scholars, to prove them wrong. Nota bene: I reject making unfounded claims; I do not reject making arguments. Do you see the difference?

Nor am I interested in exposing you as an amateur, or exposing you as anything. I am interested in exposing your claims as underinformed.

No, I spent one post attacking that argument. Once I mentally adjusted your claim to most (elsewhere you called it a biographical convention), I added Plutarch to Lucian, precisely because we have so many texts by Plutarch.

This is what you wrote:

You claimed that authorial self identification was an ancient biographical convention. This is why I mentioned that the author of the Demonax does not identify himself as Lucian. This is why I asked you how many of the Lives by Plutarch identify their author as Plutarch. Let me add that we have no idea whatsoever who wrote the Life of Sophocles. It too is anonymous, and in this case we have no external evidence has survived to tell us whose it is. Is authorial self identification really an ancient biographical convention?

Because Sanders and Wright do not post on this forum.

Frankly, I do not feel quite qualified yet to offer thoroughgoing critiques of credentialed scholars; mainly I am just (slowly) gathering data on my website. I am reluctant to reach very many firm conclusions that target particular scholars. So what you are likely to see from me in the present is tentative, general statements like the following:

Heck, even when I mentioned Mark as ancient biography to you I said that I tend to regard Mark as biography. If I am that tentative about my own views, how do you expect me to be with the views of bonafide scholars, even where I disagree?

I am sincerely appreciative of the efforts scholars make to elucidate the ancient texts. Even when I disagree with their reasoning they almost always list the data that is necessary either to falsify or to verify their hypotheses (or to conclude that we do not have enough data either way). They almost always list the books of scholars who disagree with them in their footnotes and bibliographies.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

I repeat:
I think I will take your advice and see if I can get some time. This discussion has been far too protracted for my liking. I have learnt a lot from you Ben and I am grateful for your time and patience. For now, I think I will just have this in my "to do list" and leave it at that. I cannot find time in the near future for the amount of reading required for me to tackle this subject with the seriousness it deserves. I may have done it enough disservice as it is.
Cheers

Ben C Smith

Not that it matters to the debate, but your stock just went up about 20 points in my book.

Ben.