Celsus

Hey spin (welcome back!),

I thought Rick was talking about Christianity?

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Thanks to the mods for opening this thread. I hope this one doesn't mutate. But if it does, what the heck, this is our conquest of abundance.

Bede,
Layman attempted to question Doherty's 'radically late dating' of Acts. I showed they were not radical. Then asked for scholarly support. I gave him. Then he complained that those were only a 'handful' of scholars. When I gave him more, he resorted to saying some of them are old. This tactic involves raising any available objection one can grasp from the air and flinging red herrings in a haphazard fashion. Goal-shifting is the last straw after all things have been explained. Because the conclusions are unpalatable. The thing with MJ hypothesis is its an underdog so it cannot afford to be smug. Thats why it is able to 'explain' every piece of factoid in the jigsaw. Its no suprise Doherty called it The Jesus Puzzle.

Doherty doesn't 'explain away' Josephus. The things you mention need explaining because many take them for granted. MJ proponents arent trodding a beaten path. We are beating a new path and thats why we have to explain things from the ground up. A theory in gestation is often questioned rigorously before it gains acceptance - and Doherty et al are willing to be engaged in any way. You have any serious challenge to the theory, bring it on and I can email him - you will get a response in due course.

Its a very poor argument to complain that a theory explains something, or many things. A theory that can explain things is a successful theory.

Provide evidence that silence has been invented in the apostolic fathers. Simply provide one, just one passage from the apostolic fathers that Doherty handles, that points unequivocally to a Jesus of Nazareth. Just one. IIRC, they are: 1 Clement, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas and Odes of Solomon - I don't remember whether Polycarp was included.

Rick,
What you are calling 'prima facie' evidence is truck loads of institutionalized myth indoctrinated upon people. Thats why I said the HJ scholars assume a priori that a HJ existed. I use a priori here to mean 'made before or without examination; not supported by factual study'

There is a difference between an assumption and a working hypothesis. A Hypothesis, by definition, is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. The phenomenon here is a HJ. They don't address the question of his existence - no hypothesis tested, just methodologies for 'historically' mining a HJ from mounds of myth. Their hypothesis is not a HJ: its the many Jesuses I have mentioned below and in the past. The methodology is supposed to eliminate some of them and retain one. Thats why we have Crossan undercutting Meier: signs of a household at war.

By definition, Q is a hypothetical document. Enough said.

Doherty does not employ any named criteria in his book. However, he does explain why 'Jesus of Nazareth and the Gospel story cannot be found in Christian writings earlier than the Gospels, the first of which (Mark) - composed only in the late first century.' and it also explains why 'There is no non-Christian record of Jesus before the second century.[References in Flavius Josephus (end of first century) are later Christian insertions]', why Paul never once refers to Jesus as son of man, or mention Mary or Joseph or mention that Jesus was ever tried. And why 'Well into the second century, many Christian documents lack or reject the notion of a human man as an element of their faith' and so on and so forth.
You don't need criteria to think. Even in court, judges look at the evidence and reach decisions without criteria.

Its what we need.

Not true. They only need a method because they have a variegated multiplicity of competing Jesuses among the third questers. When we state: May the Real Historical Jesus Please stand up, many people stand up noisily: a cynic sage, a charismatic miracle worker, a itinerant preacher, wandering Jew, disenfranchised galilean peasant, Jewish messiah, a radical reformer, a social prophet, Hellenistic Hero, Jew with a false eschatological vision...

So we ask again. May the real Historical Jesus please sit down?

And they all sit. All manners of expressions etched in their shadowy faces, their deep-set eyes glinting resolutely behind the rugged faces.

They've got a problem. They need an objective methodology to help them know who the real Historical Jesus is.

We don't.

Plain and simple.

Amaleq,
I am unaware of this.
I would like to see this. I will check it up.

Rick,
Now, why would he do that - would it strengthen their case? I think its not sensible to expect to see a scholar jeopardizing their case in that manner.

There is no reason to assume that this is a working hypothesis and not an assumption.

I have defined my application of a priori above: not supported by factual study.

The Jesus Myth is a very sexy subject and we have no apologies to offer for that.

Bede,
Now, excuse me while I laugh. I can't help myself. The hilarity here is simply too ecstatic to contain.

Muuuu hahaha he hehehe ho ho ho ho <backflips> Ooooh haaahahahaha <tears streaming> Oooohh haaaahahaha hehehehe <saliva drooling> Hahahahaha ho ho ho. He he he he.

Eh he he

Ah... haha

he.. he

<collecting himself>
Huh.. huh
<finally collected and tears dried>:

Bede,...<thinks of what to write>...anyway, I don't know what to add in the face of Steven Carr, Amaleq and Toto's posts - even Fredricksen's dismissal.

But, seriously, you could have handled it better without getting all comical and bungling like a cartoon character - why do you have to go and destroy my composure and get me convulsed in uncontrollable laughter like that? Now everyone thinks I am a snot-faced nut and my handkerchief is soaked with tears! Causing this kind of excitement should not be allowed at all! I totally lost it there. Damn!

To Celsus: The Case for an Instrumentalist Approach

In studying the Philosophy and History of science (Prof. Holbling is the one that created my interest in that field of study), I learned that Laudan declared the 'demise of the demarcation problem' when all attempts to propose a criterion for demarcation failed - demarcation being what separates science from non-science.
It is my prediction that we shall have a 'demise of the quest for historical Jesus' after all the methodologies have failed. The riotous psychedelic mutation of Jesus variants and the tussles we see between Crossan and Meier are just beginnings of the crash-and-burn destination that the historical quest has taken.

Now, reminescent of Kuhn's treatsie on scientific revolutions, here we have two theories. The mainstream scholarship are holding onto the old theory and have ganged up against any theories that challenge it. Their collective approach is to turn their backs to the new theory and attempt to pretend it does not exist - or does not merit their attention.

Lakatos talked of negative heuristics - core parts of a theory that we are reluctant to change and positive heuristics which are the additional auxilliary ideas that try to defend a theory against anomalies. NT scholars are well-informed, sharp, articulate and thoughtful. However, the chink in their armour, the negative heuristic, is a HJ.

The reasoning of NT scholars reasoning is fine and reading their works gives one new insights: we dont disagree with them because they reason falsely - we do so because they procede from premises we consider false. Because we dont concede the premises from which they reasoned. What has compromised these quests, IMO, is that in the past, documents relating to early christianity were largely handled by the church or studied by theologians. The idea that a man called Jesus once lived pervaded 'all' corners of this planet and 'all' minds. From the shanties to polished desks in academic libraries and classrooms. It hung everywhere. It became a fact without anyone ever bothering to question it.

Every book, scholarly or otherwise, treated the existence of Jesus as a given. Instead, the skeptics were distracted with disproving the miraculous claims and the like. And this a priori acceptance of a HJ found its way in NT scholarship and made a home for itself. It became almost sacred. Any perceived threat to it excited a lot of anxiety - even volcanic hatred. Jesus myth was anathema and did not even exist.

Until 'outsiders' started examining the early christian writings alongside the 'questers'. This is why, at the onset, 'german professors' and other non-NT scholars became the vanguards of the Jesus myth hypothesis: because they could think outside the box. And of course, they were dismissed because of their lack of acceptable credentials and also because they truly did get some things wrong, owing to their lack of familiarity with other factoids and ways of thinking that only 'the initiated' were familiar with.

Of course, the now 'orthodox' academia capitalized on the mistakes these early mythers made and effectively banished them to the world of crackpots, conspiracy theorists, cranks and ignoramuses. And the scholars turned their authoritative and dominant backs and proceeded to carefully drink from the same cup even as they disagreed here and there. The inevitability of the doom of this approach could only be matched with the historical fatigue that ran through their 'quest'.

But some, like Price, started stealing furtive glances at what they had turned their backs on. He started becoming skeptical where the rest were only critical. He boldly rushed to domains that were untouched by 'scholarship'. He asked the 'wrong' questions and gave thought to the unmentionables. He even read and Endorsed Doherty's work. His studies and books have turned several tables and Incredible Shrinking Son of Man is just an indication of where we are headed. Its just a matter of time.

In science, the failure of a theory draws attacks from other scientists. In NT scholarship, it draws apologetic special pleas, convoluted arguments, disdainful dismissal, defensive 'scholarly consensus' and collective non-response to the perceived challenge.

Its clear to me that the third quest will fail. Its unlikely that a goatherder will stumble accross a scroll hidden in a cave somewhere in the middle east. We have seen 'shroud of Turin' James ossuary and other attempts at securing the case for a HJ. They have failed. So that leaves us with examining the evidence available. Methodologies based on a HJ premise are failing and are incapable of providing answer to the simplest questions or resolving paradoxes.

That leaves the question open to inquiry. By historians, sociologists, linguists, paleographers and so on and so forth. Because, as I said earlier, the orthodox academia can no longer hold other theories down: their own HJ theory has run riot and they cannot agree on a methodology to package him and sell their HJ to all and sundry. If Feyerabend was alive, he would have said, like he said about science, that the quest for a HJ is a bastard quest that does not have even a single discovery to its credit. But alack, alas, the quest for a HJ is not about making discoveries and Feyerabend (PBUH) is not with us.

That brings in Feyerabend's theoretical pluralism - all theories must be given a chance. If it involves epistemological and methodological anarchism, it doesn't matter. The theory that can answer questions and account for apparent anomalies will necessarily win the day.

IMO, we need to adopt an instrumentalist and perhaps eliminativist approach in HJ studies - not a realist one. The realist one is grounded on an assumption that there was an objective, single reality or setting back in Galilee that we can capture and place our Jesus in. Now, in my opinion, even if such a reality existed, its gone. We cant get it. The ship has sailed and we can not affort to spend the rest of our lives hankering for that reality. Josephus is talking about cows giving birth to lambs and all other crazy stuff.

The instrumentalist approach treats a theory as an instrument for providing answers. A theory that can tell you whether Jesus cleared the temple or not, one that can tell you whether pilate was brutal as Josephus and Philo note or whether he was a moral, merciful man as the gospels indicate. A theory that will tell you why Paul, not even once, refers to Jesus as the son of man yet the gospels do somany times and so on and so forth.

A theory that is a useless instrument will have to go. This will be irrespective of how close it is to our hearts or to the hearts of the scholars.

Now, to objectivity: Did Bede answer the question above cogently - that is: sensibly and realistically? Can Amaleq answer that (since he brought the subjectivity issue) - in the face of what we know from Josephus about Temple usage, the passover period, the contradictory accounts, lack of multiple attestation by Paul and Josephus, guards, the size of the temple and Bede's response.

Is Bede's response objective? Is it sensible? Does it account for the facts? Does Rick Sumner agree with Bede? Do other Scholars in the NT fold agree with Fredricksen over the issue?

These are answers we can obtain objectively IMO. But how ?, because we have facts, some are questionable and some are not. But we do have textual sources.

As Toto stated:
Does it?

If not, why not yet its subjective?

Rick Sumner

We're discussing Christianity, not the Qumran community. Unless you're suggesting the two are one and the same, I'm not sure where you're going with this. Perhaps you've misunderstood the topic?

Are you aware of a reason to date Christianity earlier than the first century CE?

Besides which, how pertinent is that to my point? I can change it to "We have a sect that developed at time X" if you'd like, it's really not relevant--we still need to explain its origin, at any time.

In the absence of secure evidence, what would you suggest we use in its stead?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

This is precisely my point--"how probably these hypothesis are" refers to how forceful you subjectively find their conclusions.

I didn't mean "subjective" in the sense that arguments can be put forth by fiat. Agree with either party or not, there's no getting around the fact that there's a huge difference between E P Sanders, and Michael Baigent.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

And here I was worrying I had created a messy monster. Your thanks are appreciated solitary as they might be.

"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:34-39)

The problem, as I see it, is that Gamaliel is unapologetically depicted by the author of Acts as considering Jesus to be in the same category as Judas of Galilee and Theudas. Yet the Gospel stories clearly depict Jesus as a different sort of Messiah.

If the historical Jesus was not at all a Messiah like Theudas or Judas, why would Gamaliel think he was? Or, to avoid assuming this to be a historically reliable story, why would the author of acts depict Gamaliel as thinking he was?

The problem doesn't appear to go away if we come at it from the mythical position either. If the Gospel stories depict the mythical living Jesus as a Messiah not at all like Theudas or Judas, why would the author of Acts portray Gamaliel as thinking he was?

According to Maccoby, this is a piece of actual history surviving in the midst of a general attempt to downplay/disguise/rewrite the actual activities of the historical Jesus.

In terms of explanatory power, I subjectively consider Maccoby's to have more given that I can't imagine how Doherty might address this.

My subjective evaluation of his reply's explanatory power is that it is utterly lacking. As I stated, he ignored what I considered the more problematic questions but even his attempt to address the "why wasn't Jesus caught at the time?" issue doesn't appear credible to me because the comparison isn't valid. The Passover holiday was a politically charged event and there can be no serious question whether the Romans had this in mind. The guards were specifically looking for exactly the kind of disruptive activity the Temple Disruption story depicts. This is a completely different scenario from a random and unexpected shooter going beserk in a mall so I don't see how the comparison can be considered legitimate.

That is my subjective opinion of his reply and the rational basis upon which it is founded.

Amaleq13

How about the Theraputae?

When Eusebius read Philo's description of them, he considered them to be Christians.

"On a Contemplative Life or on Suppliants, after affirming in the first place that he will add to those things which he is about to relate nothing contrary to truth or of his own invention, he says that these men were called Therapeut' and the women that were with them Therapeutrides. He then adds the reasons for such a name, explaining it from the fact that they applied remedies and healed the souls of those who came to them, by relieving them like physicians, of evil passions, or from the fact that they served and worshiped the Deity in purity and sincerity. Whether Philo himself gave them this name, employing an epithet well suited to their mode of life, or whether the first of them really called themselves so in the beginning, since the name of Christians was not yet everywhere known, we need not discuss here." (Church History, 2.17, emphasis mine)

Actually, it might be more appropriate to say that Eusebius considered them to be pre-Christians.

Vinnie

I'll throw my methodology at the temple incident here or there

Fredriksen certainly raises points in Jesus of Nazareth on the Temple and it allegedly leading to Jesus' Death that NEED to be responded to by those who state otherwise.

Crossan has the incident receiving triple attestation. A saying in Thomas (#71) and of course Mark and John. The different placement of it by each evangelists also makes the attestation stronger along with the multiple attestation of sources (narrative and sayings) if JDC is right about logion #71 of Thomas.

Crossan senses a slight embarrassment as well. One might chime in with coherance and explaining Jesus' death but as I believe Fredriksen showed, this is not necessary. Even without her its not altogether fitting as Jesus' death could be guessed to have occured in any number of ways. There is a connection there in the Gospels though.

Historically it also makes sense for an action against the temple at this time to result in death of said individual. I think Crossan documents three other similar examples.

Depending on where one takes the embarrasing route, I honestly only see one strong criteria in favor. Multiple attestation. If Crossan is right and Thomas is included then this attestation is certainly EXTREMELY GOOD. That is what probably causes most all scholars to accept it.

Mark//John attestation without Thomas would significantly lower the quality of the attestation IMO as we would still have to discuss Markan//Johannine dependence.

But I'd like to throw it through all my criteria and see what comes up.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

How relevant is Eusibius' generally dismissed assessment of them to their actual nature, particularly given that Philo gives no features uniquely Christian, gives a glowing review of what Eusibius likely wishes Christianity was, and that Eusibius dates several centuries after the fact?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I have an article on a CD somewhere around here that Fredriksen emailed me a year or so ago. I'll post a synopsis of her expansions on her earlier arguments once I track it down.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vinnie

Cool, I would love to hear it. JofN was a fascinating read.

I also haven't read Sander's Jesus and Judaism which I believe Fredriksen states was one of the more forceful defenses of the temple incident being historical (pp. 290-291 of J of N).

Vinnie