pierneef

You know that scientists with the most rigorous methodologies and empirical disciplines come up with widely differing results as well. But I dont think that this is a sign of doom...study the Vermes methodology and its application, and compare it with those of other scholars, and something begins to happen. We see that some scholars have a methodology that is far more testing and rejects supposition; and some scholars apply their methodology with a much more self-challenging spirit than others who relax and allow bias to enter. Neither of the stidies you refer to have any monopoly...and there isnt a date at which the best will be extracted and consolidated into the "final vague certainty." The studies will continue long after we are a puff of something; and who knows, new texts will emerge as well as new disciplines, new archaelogical evidence etc. There are thousands of ancient Ethiopian biblical texts, for example, that have never been translated from their original geez. We have come a far way in the last hundred years honing tools of textual analysis and integrating that with other disciplines such as archaeology and sociological-history; but there is a long way to go, and I, personally find it exhilarating to follow what is happening. I know others dont. They have just written everything off. That is their loss, in my view.

Rick Sumner

I beg to differ. What we find is that sayings considered "correct" are consistently the ones most in keeping with a given reconstruction, rather than reconstruction forming from the sayings. Complex methodologies are developed to justify a pre-existing conclusion. I liked Vermes better when he just muddled through.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

What about Mack? Doesn't he derive a Cynic Sage from the alleged initial layer of Q?

liberty707

When I talk to christians about the lack of historical evidence for jesus they always respond with something like this. "well the earliest writings of so and so famous person is so and so hundreds of years after, does that mean they didn't write it?" They always bring up plato, caeser, livy etc.


Any suggestions on how to respond, thanks

VP

Nectaris

For me, the easiest one is "so what." No one asking me to tithe to the church of Plato or give up eating bacon cheesebugers in the name of a long dead Roman emperor. Whether they existed or not has no real effect on my life. Although someone with more knowledge of history would probably argue that there is more objective evidence for the existence of certain people--writing attributed to them or contemporaries that mention them, their faces and names on coins, statutes in their honor, that sort of thing.

There are some good threads where these sort of topics:

Alexander evidence Jesus evidence

Case for Historical Jesus

I'm sure you'll find some good info in these earlier threads.

And welcome to IIDB. . .

Dave

Rick Sumner

Fair enough, we can make the exception of Mack.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

pierneef

How do you know this ? How do you know the sequence involved ? If the scholarship has been effective, there is bound to be some level of consistency in the outcomes. So you seem to be second-guessing scholars who go to great pains to lay out their methodology and reasoning for critique. When you do that, you should have some independent verification of detected bias in the scholars in question. Otherwise this is simply a chicken and egg observation of no importance.

Vorkosigan

Alas, if only that were true. Rick, however, is right. The fact is that the favorite methodology of NT HJ scholars is the "Declarative Method" -- "it is true because I say it is." In most cases the methodology used is incomplete, as the actual methodology used is much larger. And whenever methodology threatens closely held Christian belief, then it will be suspended instantly. NT historical studies navigate in the waters between the Nicene Creed, which insists on the historicity of Jesus, and the outcomes of their methodology, which will, if pushed, create a fictional Jesus.

If you want a look-see at how things work in practice, see my review of Crossan's awful The Historical Jesus here. The reality is, as Crossan notes in The Birth of Christianity, there is no widely accepted methodology for going into the Jesus tradition and pulling out facts.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Making an exception of him, of course, doesn't mean his conclusions are more helpful given that he seems to me to derive a multiplicity of Jesuses or, at least, a multiplicity of interpretations by various communities.

It would seem one either finds The Jesus one wants to find or one finds a variety.

Peter Kirby

Reading his "Historical Jesus Hooplah" in his The Christian Myth will show that Mack considers the HJ to be an insignificant part of his work (which he broaches only in a quite minimalist way in A Myth of Innocence, and certainly does not pronounce on whether this or that is "authentic"). I find his conclusions helpful because I am interested in what the first and second century groups thought about Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby