Vorkosigan

Breaking the "narrative Gospels" into units hardly seems to be a controversial practice here unless I am missing something? And that is without even gettin into form criticism.

Vinnie, you've missed the point. The problem is not that breaking the narrative up is controversial, it is that Crossan says his methodology is "X" when it is really "X+several other unspecified things," one of which is the formation of complexes. I am not sure whether he is even aware of the fact that his "methodology" is bigger than he thinks it is. In fact, it is so normal to cut the NT up into pericopes that hardly anyone stops to think about how abnormal that is (Do you cut Tacitus into pericopes?).

The HJ as he now exists is an invention of the gospel writers. He's a fiction who lives in a universe of forgery. The variegated material of the NT does not necessarily go back to some single figure and there is no way to demonstrate that it does. Jesus is an axiom you bring to the text, Vinnie. If you ask the text to prove itself it cannot. That is the crux of the issue.

Vorkosigan

Brian Trafford

Just so the record is clear, I have believed for quite some time that one cannot use historical critical methodology to find the "historical Jesus."
(see, for example, my post of February 25 on Value-Free Scholarship, the last time X-Talk chugged around this track, as well as my even earlier, rather testy response to William Arnal back in December on Authentic Sayings vs. Fictive Creations. This latter discussion began with a response I had made to a post from Ted Weeden the previous month and can be found here). In the last of these posts I had said:

As a practical application, one could then look beyond what
Jesus "really said," and consider the more important question of what
kind of effect did he have on his earliest followers and their
disciples. Knowing what Jesus literally said is as retrievable to us
today as are the literal words of Socrates (in other words, they
aren't), but we can come to a determination of some of what he
believed, and more importantly, what his followers came to believe
because of the example he set for them, as well as what he taught
them. "

Attempts to demonstrate that "Jesus definitely said "X", but did not say "Y" are pretty much doomed to failure, in my opinion, as the evidence is simply insufficient to make such determinations.

At one time I was more impressed with multiple attestation than I am now, and I find myself in general agreement with Eve on this issue. I believe that if historical critical studies are to continue searching for the "Jesus of history," there is going to have to be a lot more humility than is currently found in HJ studies as a rule, and the focus will have to turn to trying to learn largely through inference. By this I mean that it is easier to determine what the earliest followers of the Jesus movement(s) believed about Jesus, and from this to perhaps learn something of the man who stood behind those movements.

If I may explain by way of analogy, it would be like trying to learn about the historical Martin Luther King Jr. 2000 years hence by studying the civil rights movement and its aftermath. The picture will not be very exact, obviously, but it is often the best that we can do given the tools of the trade.

I did this (the thread is called Possibilities and inquiry), as every once in awhile it is necessary to have these exchanges in X-Talk because historians like Davies sometimes forget that history and metaphysics are two different things. Most of the members there understand it perfectly well, of course, but for Davies, he goes even further, and asserts that if an event is not historical, then it is not worth studying at all. By this he means that the study of what early Christians believed is not important as an historical question, and that is a most astonishing claim.

Well, if we can escape the absurdities of the excesses of the Third Quest, then that will be a great achievement indeed. A great many scholars have a lot at stake in this, however, and I am not certain that there is cause for great optimism, at least not yet.

Peace,

Brian Trafford (aka Nomad)

Vorkosigan

Hmmm...well....it's good to see you here, Brian. Been a long time.

Just so the record is clear, I have believed for quite some time that one cannot use historical critical methodology to find the "historical Jesus."

Yes, I noticed that quite some time ago. In fact, I believe I posted here about it a while back, just to keep the oldtimers up to date. It is good to see that you have come around to my way of thinking on the question.

I did this (the thread is called Possibilities and inquiry), as every once in awhile it is necessary to have these exchanges in X-Talk because historians like Davies sometimes forget that history and metaphysics are two different things.

I think your position pretty much misunderstands naturalism, (although I do not feel like getting on XTALK to discuss it, so I am glad that you are here!). Naturalism does not concern itself with the natural only leaving the supernatural to some other mode of knowing; it defines the world as Natural Only. Naturalism concerns itself with the world; supernaturalism with a romanticised version of reality that confuses the wielder's hopes with epistemology. History IS metaphysics, because it concerns itself, as metaphysics does, with the nature of reality, and with truth-claims about that reality. You can't separate the two the way you do. In any case, a miracle claim is not a metaphysical claim but a truth-claim about reality and history that is eminently open to the usual methods and understandings of those things.

I would say that faith requires the acceptance of specific miracles as being true, and agree that the secular study of history accept that it cannot make a definitive pronouncement on metaphysical questions.

Thus, this comment of yours is incorrect. Secular history can and does pronounce definitely on claims about the nature of reality, such as miracles -- they cannot and do not occur. That simple, really.

That said, your posts on XTALK are extremely well-written, and knowledgeable in their approach to NT scholarship if too conservative for my tastes. Where are you in your studies? Are you in a masters program now?

Vorkosigan (aka turtonm)

Brian Trafford

Well, I posted recently on one other thread where X-Talk discussions had come up (on Robbin's lit-crit piece concerning the we passages of Acts), but thanks.

Don't get too excited Michael, there is still plenty about which we can disagree.

Yeah, I know all of this already, and this is a metaphysical view of the world that claims to know what all of reality happens to be. Suffice to say that not everyone is convinced, especially as it also happens to be wrong.
This is nothing more than a straw man. You will have to do better than this if you want to debate the merits of metaphysical naturalism verse metaphysical theism. In any case, this is a critical history of the Bible forum, so as with X-Talk, we can safely skip it and stick to discussions of the Bible as history.
I'm afraid that it isn't Michael, any more than psychology is metaphysics. As it is understood in critical studies, it is a science that studies the natural world, and makes no statements about anything that might exist outside of the natural world. Repeated insistence that there is nothing outside of the natural world is hardly going to make it so.
You appear to have too narrow a view of what the study of history happens to be. Of course we want to try and learn as much about what really happened in history, but the truth of the matter is that we rarely get quite so much certainty, and typically have to content ourselves with probabilities and possibilities. Once historians disabuse themselves of the idea that they are somehow producing "reality" we will have made considerable progress, and, from what I have read from many of them, they are already aware of this fact.
This is pretty confused reasoning Michael. You had just finished telling me that history is metaphysics because it is the study of "the nature of reality, and with truth-claims about reality." Now you want to insist that a miracle claim is not about metaphysics because it is a truth-claim about reality. I'm afraid you will have to make up your mind about what you mean by the term metaphysics, as you are using it rather incoherently right now.
It looks like it is time to quote Meier:

"Gratuitous assertions can be gratuitously denied."
Thank you for the compliments. I am not enrolled in any formal studies, and continue to read and write as a hobby, rather than as a profession.

Thanks again for the welcome back Michael, though I don't expect that I will be back as a regular here.

Peace,

Brian

Toto

Without trying to derail the thread, how does focusing on Jesus' impact on his followers solve the problem of historical sources?

Are there any of Jesus' immediate followers who have left a definitive historical trace? There are mentions of the pillars of the Jerusalem church in Paul's letters, but 1) we don't know that Paul wrote those passages, as opposed to later interpolators and 2) it is not clear that the three men mentioned - James, Peter, and John - were direct followers of Jesus. We don't know if James was the biological brother of Jesus or merely the head of the brotherhood of Jesus.

In any case, the earliest Christian writings indicate that there was a lot of contention and disagreement about Jesus' message. Jesus' impact on his followers appears to have been inconsistant, so much so that perhaps he didn't have a very big impact at all.

Vorkosigan

This is pretty confused reasoning Michael. You had just finished telling me that history is metaphysics because it is the study of "the nature of reality, and with truth-claims about reality." Now you want to insist that a miracle claim is not about metaphysics because it is a truth-claim about reality. I'm afraid you will have to make up your mind about what you mean by the term metaphysics, as you are using it rather incoherently right now.

Alas, the confusion is all in your head. There is no contradiction between saying "history is metaphysics" and "miracles are truth-claims about reality." When you say that some Canaanite Deity came down to earth in human form, that is a truth-claim about reality. It many be investigated using the tools we have to investigate reality. Far from being "incoherent" it is your position that has no coherence, because under your metaphysics, history is rendered irrational and incoherent due to the possibility of miracles.

As we know, there are no miracles. If there are any proven ones, please let us know. When you left a while back you had no answer to that simple demand, and you still haven't. Because -- there aren't any.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Vorkosigan:

Just had to say that quote from Steve Davies made my evening.

--J.D.

Brian Trafford

Please go back to your post Michael. You had defined history as being metaphysics because it is the study of "the nature of reality, and with truth-claims about reality." You then went on to say that miracles are not metaphysics because they make a truth claim about reality. Your confusion is as to what metaphysics happens to be, as opposed to the methods we use to help form our metaphysical worldview.

A statement that miracles do not happen is a metaphysical statement that is entirely untestable by naturalistic means. On this basis it has as much meaning to the study of history as does the opposite statement that miracles certainly do happen. When studying history faith statements like these are meaningless, and should be set aside as we confine ourselves to the study of history by means of historical critical methodology. My suggestion is that you take a look at Eric Eve's most recent post on Common Ground for Study in which he outlines the difference between an anomaly and a miracle, and so far as historical inquiry is concerned, I think that his distiction is important to understand and accept.
Miracles are, by definition, acts of the divine/supernatural with in the natural world. As science and history can only examine one half of this equation (ie. what happened in the natural world), it cannot determine if that event was a miracle or not. Thus, as I told Davies, asking science to "prove" a miracle is as realistic as using a metal detector to find raw diamonds.

As I said, go take a look at Eve's latest post. It contains a very good working model for how we can examine miracle claims and anomalies in historical documents.

Peace,

Brian

Vorkosigan

Brian, on one hand I note that history is metaphysics, because you can't do it without concerning yourself about what reality is, and on the other I note that when you make a claim about the nature of reality, it is subject to such tests as we have available. There is no contradiction between these postures, they are distinct and complementary.

Actually, it is nonsense as I am about to post....

That is because miracles cannot be "proved" any more than it can be proved that there is an invisible massless pink dragon in my garage. Like the pink dragon, they exist only in the mind of the believer.

Vorkosigan

Sauron

Actually, miracles are (by definition) impossible events that are claimed to have happened, but have never been observed or proven to occur.

Until you first prove that they have occurred, or even *can* occur, then your stated definition above is just a sly attempt to assume your desired conclusion.