Ben C Smith

You may be right. Let us test this by analogy. Here is Antiquities 20.5.1 §97-99 from Josephus, the Theudas incident:

Now it came to pass while Fadus was procurator of Judea that a certain enchanter, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them and follow him to the river Jordan, for he told them that he was a prophet, and that he would by his own command divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them, who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of the leadership of Cuspius Fadus.

What criteria would you use to validate this event? (If you think this Josephus made this event up, then please choose a singly attested passage that you think really does describe historical events, if you would.)

This is just a way of seeing what kinds of historical methods we have at our disposal.

Ben.

Chris Weimer

It's certainly up to the proponents of the MJ hypothesis to publish more along this line.

Way off the mark? Sometimes even the best may make errors, but to say that they're "way off the mark" seems to me to be a bit excessive.

No, that's your opinion. Let's see if your opinion is founded by evidence.

I actually was saying that it's rather liberal, and was surprised that there isn't a bigger backlash against it from Christians, but considering that most are ignorant of Jesus Seminar, I guess I'm not that surprised.

No, you're not simplifying - you're misrepresenting. But that's what happens, I guess, when you take your information from a Christian thinktank rather than the organization itself.

Forgot about Q? What about other traditions? What about what really happened in Mark?

Please keep the qualifier with the statement.

Many have, after I started writing this, questioned you on how exactly you tell the difference? As it is said, nothing is new under the sun. What if American history were written down? Would George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq be a literary parallel to George H. W. Bush's invasion? What about the Kennedy and Lincoln Assassinations?

Silius Italicus wrote the Punica, but in doing so modeled much after Homer. How do you tell what is real, what is fabricated, and what is merely altered?

But they're not really saying that. You're saying that.

Chris Weimer

Done.

Malachi151

This is a different situation. I'm not a scholar on this issue and have no background on it, but assuming that there is no motive for Josephus to make this up, then it is okay to accept this as historical IMO, or reasonably believable.

However, if I discovered that Antiquity of the Jews was all patterned on a Greek story, and this incidence copied directly from an incident in the Greek source, no, I would not assume that this was real history, even if 10 other people quoted the incidence from Josephus.

youngalexander

Hypocrisy, you cut me to the quick sir. Nonetheless, I reject your unwarranted accusation.

Physics Orthodoxy = PO, Cold Fusion = CF
I was not upset at the mention, but at the analogy. However, upon reflection it was clear that there were several levels. Thus, while accepting the overall analogy at a superficial level which aptly describes the state of play re PO/CF and HJ/MJ, I got to thinking about the deeper aspects.
Firstly that with which I agreed: Fusione Fredda
"Cold Fusion is a pariah field, cast out by the scientific establishment. Between Cold Fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all. Cold fusion papers are almost never published in refereed scientific journals, with the result that those works don't receive the normal critical scrutiny that science requires. On the other hand, because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here."

As GDon is fond of suggesting, substitute MJ for CF and Biblical scholars for scientific. However, I went on to disagree with EL’s assignment of probability, which has drawn CW’s wrath, apparently upon my lack of qualifications to make such an assessment. I note that he did not complain of EL for also having done so. I do not demand that posters at S&S have scientific qualifications. I see no demand at E/C for even more specialised qualies. Do we demand a degree in Politics for the Political Forum or Moral Philosophy for …

No, it is open to everyone to contribute as they may. If we are wise we do so within our limitations, and others make their judgements accordingly. So, am I incapable of estimating a balance of probabilities for HJ/MJ? We shall see.

Returning to CF, I do not intend to discuss the physics but rather the question of the deeper analogy between PO/CF and HJ/MJ. I shall also discuss E, but not C which is irrelevant.

The PO rejects CF for the following three reasons:
1. Lack of reproducible results.
2. Questionable methodology.
3. No theoretical underpinning.

The most serious failing is theory. From the perspective of the PO, given 3., the effect of 1. is to suggest the high probability of 2. Note that theory is not under threat from 1. due to its unreliable nature.

Is this in any way analogous to HJ/MJ?
Data: There is a difference in the quantity and quality of data. Scientific data is quantitative with estimated limits, capable of being made more precise and accumulating. The HJ/MJ data is qualitative, of problematic value and relatively limited.

Lack of reproducible results:
MJ denies the existence of a human jesus. In essence that is it. There are several formulations but the Doherty Mythical Theory (DMT) is the real bone of contention here.
HJ provides a large variety of jesi such as marginal jews, wandering cynics, apocalyptic and social revolutionaries, healers both miraculous and inspirational as well as the more exotic magicians, mushroom eaters and whathaveyou.

Questionable methodology:
MJ has been attacked by Zeichman re Q, Gibson re translation, GDon re sublunary & 2ndC apologists, Krosero re …
HJ has been attacked for the shear inconsistency of methodology employed which is often held to account for the variety of jesi.

It would seem, in a sort of hand waving manner, that the analogy is not holding up. Instead it appears to cut both ways with both MJ and HJ perhaps at fault.

No theoretical underpinning:
I was attempting to keep the discussion succinct and pithy. By No I actually meant extremely small probability. Science deals with probability as a matter of course, so that when I tossed off balance of probabilities, I had in fact considered them. It is the way I think. All propositions are subject to a balance of probabilities. Which is why I become irritated when some MJers make dogmatic assertions and call those with whom they disagree idiots.

So let’s crack some numbers using Bayes Theorem! From Goodstein’s entertaining account of CF above, we may extract the following probabilities:
P(CF) the probability of CF being a real phenomena
At the inter-nuclear spacing in the deuterium molecule, the probability is too small by forty or fifty orders of magnitude. ~10^(-45)

P(R) the probability of obtaining positive Results. Pick a number between 0.01 and 1, it doesn’t matter.

P(R|CF) the probability of the Results given CF is occuring.
In conventional nuclear physics, fusion results about half the time in a, half the time in b, and one millionth of the time in c. To account for the observations reported, with some consistency, by various researchers in Cold Fusion, fusion inside a metal would nearly always result in reaction c. ~10^(-6)

P(CF|R) the probability of CF given the Results

P(CF|R) = P(R|CF) x P(CF)/P(R) ~ zero

Similarly a calculation for evolution not being true given the evidence P(~E|e) = zero.

Contrast this with the probabilities for HJ/MJ. My own, only slightly tongue in cheek calculation yielded,
Don’t take my word for it, Richard Carrier gives us (note the different definition of H)
And
Now, I do not expect that HJers will accept those results. Yet fiddle the probabilities as they might, there is no way upon god’s earth that a result similar to the two scientific cases discussed above may be obtained.

What is the upshot of all this comparing and analogying? Except at a superficial level of social phenomena in the debate of ideas in the case of CF, there is no comparison with HJ/MJ. Let’s cut the crap and get back to history.

GakuseiDon

But "the superficial level of social phenomena in the debate of ideas" IS the analogy. This is from the OP:

One of the reasons that I do not accept Creationism is that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists - if not all of them - tell me that the evidence indicates it is wrong. Nevertheless, I DO accept the possibility that there may not have been a historical Jesus, even though here the overwhelming majority of professional biblical scholars - if not all of them - tell me that the evidence indicates there was such a person. In one case I reject a theory because it is fringe, in the other I allow a theory is possible despite it being fringe. This is clearly double-standards, but is it justified?

That's what I've responded to, and most others have as well. The reason I rarely use analogies is that people start attacking the analogy at points not related to the subject at hand. No-one is saying that the MJ case is as weak as the case for creationism. The question is how mythicists view the authority of experts in the field. How do creationists view scholars? How do MJers view scholars? I won't rehash the arguments, but here are some of the comments from this thread:

An awareness of the many pitfalls of historical research should tell you that what the "majority" of Biblical scholars and historians claim probably happened must be taken with a grain of salt.

I see no reason to be confident that Biblical scholars and historians as a group are as interested in discovering "the real truth" as biologists are. Large numbers of them have confessional interests. Large numbers of them work for seminaries, and others work in the religious studies departments of universities that depend on alumni largess, which might be withdrawn if too many controversial studies and papers are found to be emanating from those departments. When I read commentaries in various Bibles it's amazing what many of these so-called "scholars" get away with claiming.

If you think Bible scholars as a group, many of them believers, are eager to overturn 1800 years or so of religious doctrine and tradition, upset millions of believers, and anger and embarrass their employers by embracing the MJ thesis, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

As long as there is any uncertainty or ambiguity, most Bible scholars are likely going to play it safe and go along with the majority opinion. But the simple fact is, that majority opinion is not based on lots of hard evidence.

The majority of people who believe that Jesus existed are irrational people who have also never even been exposed to the facts of the matter...

... the institutions to which they people look for authority or belong to do everything they can to shield their followers from the types of information presented by those like Doherty...

The overwhelming majority of the defenses of the existence of Jesus and the historical reliability of the gospels are totally bullshit, and are totally un-scholarly.

Trust your own knowledge and instincts. Do you really think, after examining the evidence and arguments for and against the HJ that are available, that the HJers have a slam-dunk case? If not, do you believe that Bible scholars, by virtue of their vast knowledge of the relevant material and intimate familiarity with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, must possess some information unknown to the rest of us that does render it a slam-dunk case?

"Unbiased" scholars in the field of Biblical scholarship must be as rare as the dodo bird.

The historicists are like creationists in the 18th century explaining the data. An entire paradigm shift is needed in Biblical scholarship in order to even be able to approach the data.

Is this the same as how creationists view those authorities of evolution? If yes, then IMHO the analogy succeeds. If no, then the analogy fails.

Zeichman

I just got back from "hanging out" with friends, so please excuse the quality of this post.
There are well-known problems with the Jesus Seminar, picking them as the quintessential HJ advocates is absolutely the worst kind of straw man. There is no scholar whose arguments are perfect.

You have incorrectly assumed that Funk's paragraph-long commentary is representative of the substance of their discussion regarding the saying or deed. This is doubtlessly incorrect. As I said before, this was written for the public, so more nuanced views a) won't be understood, b) won't be interesting and c) sell books. Please. If you want to criticize HJ scholarship find someone more worth reading about this issue. Allison's brief discussion and Sanders' extended one is worthwhile, even if I don't agree with them.

Except that IS the case. If you knew ANYTHING about the Jesus Seminar, you'd know that it wasn't a matter of one scholar saying a few sentences about a saying, then voting on its authenticity. I strongly suggest you look into their methods more before criticizing them, or suggesting that they are representative of mainstream scholarship.

Except you've completely removed anything resembling nuance from the JS's methodology. Nowhere is it as simple as multiple attestation = authentic, though it does strongly play (and rightfully) play into their conclusions. Again, you assume, incorrectly, that there is a monolithic consensus over things like the synoptic problem among the fellows of the seminar, which there is not. Again, if you were familiar with them, and not just parodying and caricaturing them, your criticisms might be worth considering.

You are right that number one is assumed, as it would be silly to try to "prove" the existence of an HJ in an already fairly comprehensive volume. Number two is wrong, they assume that the gospels are myth laden, though there are historical reminiscences. Number three is partially true, given that not all member identify the same solution to the synoptic problem. Number four doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe it's the "hanging out" I've been doing this evening.

Argument by assertion.

I'm not exactly leaning towards authenticity of this deed, so I'm not sure what you expect me to say.

No one, to my knowledge, has provided good reasons to go against these long-held assumptions. Especially Doherty. These assumptions are less so than you might think, also. If you were more familiar with NT scholarship, you might be aware of several points at which a belief in an HJ is necessitated by the text.

Nor would they be able to tell if it were the result of some conspiracy.

Yawn.

Why not both?

But you're claiming that this was done in a much different way than is typically accepted, and you're not even approaching the burden of proof.

Familiarize yourself with scholarship about literary dependence, then I'll take back my charge about silliness.

You're assuming this, and not demonstrating it. If you had actually read Funk's commentary, you would know that he nowhere assumes the independence of the gospels. I shouldn't have to tell you this. It seems to me that you're just BSing, in the Frankfurtian way. Again, many people have criticized many aspects of the JS.

Arnal has written against it, but the thing is, there is plural independent attestation of a relationship between John and Jesus (Q, Mark, Thomas). Embarrassment, though somewhat dubiously, is often appealed to as well.

First off, can you say this about Q and Thomas?

I repeat my previous objection. If I weren't so tired, I'd offer more, but instead I'm going to bed.

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Carlson. I intend to do this sometime soon. I recently got published in a Turkish Journal of International Relations (Alternatives) but will be seeking to get published in Harvard Business Review (in my area of training) and then NTS.

Ted Hoffman

This is not true and you know it. The expression "Doherty proponents" is nonsensical because Doherty is not a concept or a theory. I have engaged you rigorously and my efforts have exposed me to certain error's in Doherty's work through the participation of others like Gibson. The extent of my rejoinders to your arguments has been such that Doherty has put up my articles on his site. I have even on occasion disagreed with Doherty and agreed with Gibson. The past accusations were that we dont read "critical scholars". Now it has been shifted back.
In fact, I have now stopped "investigating" and defending Doherty. I will be writing a critical review of Sanders soon enough.
We will do the work. I have no interest in cutting shortcuts so if you want to see published articles, you will see them. But we will still engage you at all levels. Call us what you will. This is not going away.
I encourage efforts like Zeichman's and whereas Chris Weimer like-minded friends dont agree with MJers on several things, the debate shall continue. Bede and Layman are raving apologists and it is not particularly helpful to cite them as serious people. They lump easily with Holding.

Toto

Can you be more specific and identify those points?