Toto

Giveaway

Enter before October 8 to win a Baker Academic Historical Jesus Book Package (retail at $180)! including

A Hitchhiker’s Guide to Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bruce N. Fisk
"a fresh and imaginative approach to Jesus studies and biblical criticism, providing a gripping fictional account of one student’s journey to the Middle East to investigate the New Testament and the life of Jesus for himself."

Constructing Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Dale C. Allison Jr.

The Christ of the Miracle Stories (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Wendy J. Cotter

Jesus Among Friends and Enemies (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Chris Keith and Larry Hurtado

Jesus and Scripture (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Steve Moyise

Are You the One Who Is to Come? (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Michael F. Bird

aa5874

Who wants another FICTIONAL account?

dendrast

Sorry, you'd have to pay me to take those books. Pay me quite a bit. Coupons will not do.

Maybe I'd read, 'Deconstructing Jesus'?

ApostateAbe

You are not alone in that way of thinking. A book with the title, Deconstructing Jesus, is actually a favorite book among the Jesus minimalists. It is all about promoting uncertainty about the historical Jesus, and I am sure you would love it. I think it is unfortunate, though. This point is often neglected among those with a mentality of opposition, but the best criticisms supply better much better explanations for the data in question, and Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History is highly reputed among critical scholars of New Testament history for that reason.

Toto

I got a different impression from this previous thread on Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I think Steven Carr's reaction is characteristic. Pointing and laughing at the best explanations for the data is taken as preferable to explaining the data.

Steven Carr

What's wrong with pointing and laughing ,when I have been trained as a scientist to evaluate arguments and look for evidence-based judgements?

I remember reading McGrath's review of Allison's book - 'Even fabricated material may provide a true sense of the gist of what Jesus was about, however inauthentic it may be as far as the specific details are concerned.'

Allison writes in his book 'All this is why fictions may contain facts; an accurate impression can take any number of forms. Even a work as full of make-believe as the Alexander Romance sometimes catches the character of the historical Alexander of Macedon. Similarly, tales about an absentminded professor may be apocryphal and yet spot-on because they capture the teacher’s personality. The letter can be false, the spirit true.'

Just how much does the word 'fictions' mean to you? Is it a word that you are likely to confuse with 'facts'?

Do you think real scholars work with facts or with fictions?


Allison also writes 'I can think of no line of reasoning that is not, in the end, strictly circular.'

So circular reasoning based on fiction, and you insist that the naughty boys stop laughing at this, because a good boy wouldn't point and laugh?

ApostateAbe

I really do think that legitimate historical knowledge can be inferred from fictional stories. Suppose that all we knew about the people of 18th century England was Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice--I think you would agree that quite a few legitimate historical conclusions can be inferred from it, but it does not follow that you are conflating fact with fiction. Not that I think that the Christian texts are fictions (they are more like religious myths), but, I think even fictional material can provide an abundance of historical knowledge, the same as with religious myths. The point is to explain the data. If you can't explain the data with as nearly as much probability as your opponent, then you can point and laugh, but I think the joke is on you. You need to better explain the data. I am pretty sure that is the way it works in the sciences, also.

Toto

Nice example.

Pride_and_Prejudice
One could learn a lot of accurate historical information from a novel, but it would not include the historical Elizabeth Bennet or the location of Meryton.

Allison and McGrath only make sense once you realize that they assume the existence of the historical Jesus, and are using the gospels to provide background details.

ApostateAbe

OK. We are in agreement, at least, that we are not conflating fact with fiction if we choose to infer historical facts from a work of fiction, and that goes to the topic of disagreement between Steven Carr and me. And I agree that you really wouldn't be able to rightfully infer the conclusion that Mr. Darcy existed based on the novel alone. In the case of the gospels, the best explanation for the contents of the texts entails the conclusion that Jesus existed as a historical human, so it is not assumed, but it is inferred. If you can explain Jesus of the gospels the same as you can explain Mr. Darcy of Pride and Prejudice, with more probability than scholars, then you win.