Rick Sumner

deleted

Toto

I'm glad that's cleared up.

For the record, The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative As an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model of the Gospels

Amaleq13

I believe that is only because I have taken up the task of dragging the information from you but I will let him answer for himself. To my knowledge, he continues to be just as interested in whether you have any other reason, besides an apparent absence of motivation to fabricate, to suspect the story contains history.

If he can provide the answer, I would greatly appreciate it.

I agreed that the reasoning was valid "in the abstract" but I also clearly denied it appeared valid for the specific example. Premise 1 is too broad to support the specific conclusion alone and premise 2 is, at best, under consideration though I haven't seen any explanation why the motivation provided by the story, itself, is not sufficient. In response, you repeated that you were reconsidering the conclusion. Your reconsideration suggests that the answer to the question is "yes" (ie the absence of motivation is the only reason you might suspect that there is a kernel of history in this story) but this most recent post suggests otherwise.

Obviously, it isn't clear to me. I don't see how the Grant example provides another reason to suspect the story contains history if premise 2 cannot be sustained. Please explain what else, besides premise 2, suggests there is a kernel of history in the story.

I don't know how to make this any more clear but I am not arguing with premise 1. As I have clearly stated, premise 1 is a mind-numbingly obvious, necessary presupposition for the conclusion that any particular story contains history. As I (and Vorkosigan) have also clearly pointed out, it is not sufficient to establish any such specific conclusion by itself. Given that premise 2 is under consideration, the question continues to be relevant:

Do you have any other reason to suspect the story contains history?

Perhaps it will help to restate the question:

If you find Brodie convincing and completely drop premise 2, will that result in a reversal of the conclusion or is there some other reason to think the story contains history?

added later:
I think this finally definitively answers the question. As far as you are concerned, there is no reason to suspect this story contains a kernel of history if a plausible motivation to fabricate it exists.

Rick Sumner

No, as you agreed (though I'll note below that you may have confused what you were agreeing to), I don't need one. The question is whether or not the premises hold up. As I've already noted, premise 2 doesn't.

Premise 1 is integral to the argument, in that it leads through to premise 2, not in that it is the deciding factor. The narrative needs to have characteristic 1 for premise 2 to lead to conclusion 3. If it doesn't have characteristic 1--if there is not an historical background--then premise 2 doesn't lead to conclusion 3; it leads to any one of the numerous other conclusions I suggested, doubtlessly countless more.

Using the Grant example, if there is no premise 1)--if there was no historical framework to the story--then the conclusion 3)--that Grant was drinking at Shiloh--is quite impossible. The first premise is necessary to the argument at large, the second premise determines which way the conclusion will run.

Without the initial framework, premise 2 is useless. Premise 2 is the determining factor of how to analyze a source with the characteristics noted in premise 1. Premise 1 is, in essence, a definition, but it is integral to my argument that that definition be accepted.

And if an argument is valid, that means that plugging true premises into it will make it sound. It can't only be valid "in the abstract."

A valid argument is one that will give the correct conclusion if the premises are correct. It is inescapable that it will do so, by definition. A sound argument is one that is valid, and has true premises--a valid argument *will* give you the right answer, if the premises are true. A sound argument *does* give you the right answer, because the premises *are* true. Perhaps the confusion stemmed from a misunderstanding of terminology?

http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/philosophy/arggen.htm

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I've already indicated I understand that Premise 1 is a necessary presupposition for any conclusion indicating a particular story contains history. I've also already indicated that I recognize it is insufficient, in and of itself, to establish the conclusion.

By "in the abstract", I meant "in theory" but I guess it really comes down to whether the reasoning described applies to the specific example.

Your consideration of Brodie, if I understand you correctly, is intended to establish just that. I continue to be interested, however, in why you do not consider the apparent motivation contained within the story I described earlier to be sufficient to eliminate Premise 2 (ie the author needs something to serve as the final motivation for the Jewish conspiracy to have Jesus killed).

Also, can Premise 2 ever be established objectively or does it inherently depend on a subjective judgment of what constitutes a "credible" and/or "sufficient" motivation?

Rick Sumner

Of course it's insufficient, in and of itself. I never said otherwise. If I thought 1) was sufficient, I wouldn't have added 2). But 2) does not stand on its own either, which was my point.

Not if an argument is valid, it doesn't, which is where it seems we were running into confusion.

What we've been going with, thus far can loosely be described as follows:

You: What leads you to believe there is an historical kernel to this?
Me: Premise 1, Premise 2, leading to conclusion 3.
You: That's valid. What else do you have?
Me: Huh? If it's valid, I don't need anything else. *reiterates argument*

And 'round and 'round we go. You asked for my reasoning: That *is* my reasoning. That is what led me to suspect there was an historical core. I stated as much repeatedly.

How would you suggest that the conclusion does not follow from the premises? If nobody had motivation to make it up, then nobody made it up--this seems pretty reasonable.

Because there's better ways he could have gone about it, because the Scribes and the Pharisees (as always in Mark) take offense at What Jesus said and How Jesus was received by his audience rather than what he did. Because, using that as a motivation, it seems that Mark is shaping his sources to his aims, rather than creating a narrative outright. Most importantly, because of premise 1. There was a Jesus, he was crucified. There must be a reason for that.

I've expressed my reservations about reaching anything approaching a truly objective method many times before. There's no such thing: "Historical method" is a non sequitor. That doesn't just go for this field, it goes for any field of ancient history.

For example, how many people would take offense if I were to cite Seneca as a source on crucifixion? Not many, I've done it lots of times, seen many other people do it, and never seen anyone object.

Seneca is a playwright, the entire narrative is outright fiction, and it's at the very least plausible that he simply made up the information he provides about crucifixion. But it's generally accepted (by myself as well) that he more or less depicts it accurately. I can't give you a terribly strong argument for this, other than an ad hoc suggestion that his audience wouldn't have understood the cross if he wasn't depicting it accurately (which doesn't hold up very well--he was, after all, writing a play, not a history), but I accept it nonetheless. I could spice it up with some cross-references to Josephus or Herodotus on crucifixion, but I rarely do. For that matter, neither does anyone else. Seneca is just taken as a viable source.

This sort of arbitrary selection is pretty standard. Biblical criticism is, so far as I know, the only branch of ancient history where this is problematic--the only area where we sit down and pretend we're scientists.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I hesitate to drag this out, but this does not sound at all reasonable to me. Writers are motivated to invent things for a variety of reasons, among them adding color to the plot, creating dramatic tension, etc. And if you think there was a historic core, the fact that some story could have been made up is not necessarily proof that it was.

I don't see this as related to the JM hypothesis. There could be an historic core to the gospels, in the form of a wandering wisdom teacher who was put to death unfairly and whose followers carried on his traditions (more or less) - but the impossible temple scene and the improbable trial and the role of the Jews and even the details of the crucifixion could be legendary accretions.

You could have shortened this by saying "I have no reason to believe that this scene is historical except that I can't think of a reason to make it up."

Rick Sumner

I agree, but if they are "motivated to invent things" for any one of those variety of reasons, then they had a reason to make it up--thus premise 2 is not true, and the argument isn't sound.

That doesn't make it invalid.

I agree. I'm only running the argument one way, however.

I explicitly stated that it is not the JM hypothesis that is integral to anyone's argument, it is the HJ hypothesis that is integral to mine. You're getting it backwards.

You still haven't explained to me why the temple scene is impossible.

And much of that is legendary, I've certainly never contended otherwise.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

But there is no need to beat this horse's corpse any more. The only question remaining is whether you will conclude the Brodie's argument/theory/thesis provides sufficient motivation for you to agree that Premise 2 does not hold true for this particular example.

Premise 1 is clearly an enormous concession that makes the conclusion far easier to reach but Premise 2 seems to be inherently problematic if only from a "establishing a negative" standpoint.

I thought I was clear in indicating that is precisely what I understand the author to have done. Your summary hits it right on the head. The primary focus is on what was said with the actions essentially ignored. (In fact, one could argue that the actions depicted are entirely out of character for a guy who usually restricts himself to besting his opponents verbally) If we reconstruct the author's process in that same way, you get basically what I described earlier. The author needs Jesus to motivate the Jewish leaders to conspire to have him killed and, consistent with his usual MO, Jesus must be given a saying that would anger his opponents to the point of murder conspiracy. Combing through the HB with the help of the Spirit, he finds a passage from Jeremiah and a passage from Isaiah that combine to form a perfect saying. This process is only made easier if he also starts out the search with Elijah-Elisha's Temple cleansing in mind. I'm not sure it matters which took precedence because the process works in any order.

Yet even the Gospel stories fail to identify the Temple scene as that reason.

As somewhat of an aside, (assuming the scene to be historical) if Jesus had been arrested immediately in the Temple, do you think it likely he would have been crucified as a result?

Rick Sumner

I stated forever ago that premise 2 was questionable. You then kept asking me what else I had, and I continually inquired as to what else I needed. I wasn't maintaining the position anymore, simply wondering why you were suddenly finding fault with the argument.

And you're still confusing the terms. A valid argument does not need to have true premises, it only needs to render a true conclusion when it has true premises. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

Valid arguments generally run "If. . .then." Thus, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. The qualifier *if* is what distinguishes it from a sound argument. In a sound argument there is no "if," because the premises are, by definition, true.

It's largely a situation where the negative is presumed, we do that with ancient history the same as we do it when speaking with a known boaster. If he stands nothing to gain, we generally give him the benefit of the doubt, and presume he isn't making it up.

Is it a perfect method? Nope. I'm not aware of anything better though.

My concern with the emphasis being placed on what was said, rather than what was done, would be that Mark has taken an actual event, and ascribed sayings to it in order to fit it into his narrative. That looks like Markan redaction of a prior source, not Markan creation.

How perfect is the saying for offending the Pharisees? Why? Were they part of the temple priesthood?

It's a neat fit with the Elijah argument, it's not so neat with yours. Mark was pretty creative, he could have done better.

Do the gospel stories provide us with any explicit reason that makes a modicum of sense?

I think it's a tough call. Pilate was vicious, it's quite possible that he would have.

But I'd suggest, if it was historical, it would serve as a catalyst, not a cause--that's what I meant regarding combining Fredriksen and Sanders' arguments. Fredriksen argues that Jesus was executed for making an apocalyptic prophecy specific to that Passover. Sanders that he was an apocalyptic prophet who was executed for offending people in general, with the temple being the catalyst. Combing the two, a solid argument can be formed in which Jesus is executed for preaching apocalyptically regarding that Passover, with the temple serving as a catalyst.

Regards,
Rick Sumner