Doug Shaver

The constancy of human nature is just a reasonable inference from everything science has discovered about how we came to exist. If you're going to claim that the earliest Christians differed from us in some respect relevant to what we should infer from what they wrote, then you need to demonstrate that the difference was due to some difference between their socio-cultural environment and ours.

They were not writing about just anything. They were not writing history in any general sense. It is fatuous to argue, from their failure to mention Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, that we're guilty of special pleading if we say that their failure to mention any facts about Jesus' life seems inexplicable under a historicist assumption.

That would depend entirely on whether those particular DSS documents are relevantly analogous to the writings of Paul and other first-century Christian writers. They could be, for all I know, but I don't need to prove any dissimilarity. The burden of proof is on those who claim they are similar enough to affect our interpretation of the Christian record.

I base my expectations on my understanding of human nature. My understanding of human nature could be mistaken, of course, but if you are saying it is mistaken, then you are the one who needs to come up with some evidence. You say the wider literature proves me wrong? Fine. Show me how it does that.

That depends. Are you talking about all the second-century apologists, or most of them, or just one or two of them? Nobody is claiming that the number of historicist Christians was zero throughout the second century. We are claiming that the number was zero or close to zero at the beginning of century. The number at the end of century is hard to determine, but we're admitting that it was significantly greater than zero by the year 200.

Doug Shaver

You're welcome, and I appreciate the comments. I will certainly be rephrasing that portion of the essay in my rewrite.

To your particular point . . . my argument would be that, of all the noncanonical Christian writings that could possibly predate Ignatius, none reveals any knowledge on the author's part of a life that Jesus might have lived in this world. It does not matter to my argument whether any of them actually do predate Ignatius. There are some writings that a lot of people believe do predate Ignatius, and most people are pretty sure about at least one -- Clement of Rome. But if it should happen that Ignatius is actually the oldest extant noncanonical Christian writing, we still have all the canonical writings that predate him, and historicists still have to account for the lack of any biographical data in them. It is not clear to me that the canonical-noncanonical distinction is all that pertinent to the issue at hand, the issue being Christians' awareness of a historical Jesus during practically the entire first century of their religion's existence.

GakuseiDon

Well, not really. The pattern exists. We don't need to explain it in order to recognise the pattern. See my quotes from Doherty and Wells in my review for how they explain the silence in the Second Century.

It's not in my review, but it's probably something to do with high-context/low-context societies, as well as a suspicion of the written word as inferior to rhetoric (as Plato has Socrates say, and Papias refers to).

On high-context/low-context societies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_context_culture

High context culture (and the contrasting 'low context culture') are terms presented by the anthropologist Edward T. Hall in his 1976 book Beyond Culture. It refers to a culture's tendency to use high context messages over low context messages in routine communication. This choice of communication styles translates into a culture that will cater to in-groups, an in-group being a group that has similar experiences and expectations, from which inferences are drawn. In a high context culture, many things are left unsaid, letting the culture explain. Words and word choice become very important in higher context communication, since a few words can communicate a complex message very effectively to an in-group (but less effectively outside that group), while in a lower context culture, the communicator needs to be much more explicit and the value of a single word is less important.

Here is a study of how high-context/low-context (HC/LC) cultures pass on information:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue1/wuertz.html

LC cultures tend to emphasize logic and rationality, based on the belief that there is always an objective truth that can be reached through linear processes of discovery. HC cultures, on the other hand, believe that truth will manifest itself through non-linear discovery processes and without having to employ rationality.

In conversations, people in LC cultures will shift from information already stated to information about to be given, while HC communication will jump back and forth and leave out detail, assuming this to be implicit between the two interlocutors... HC cultures are thus characterized by indirect and cyclical approaches in their conversation and writing styles, often communicating without mentioning the subjects directly, whereas LC cultures will get straight to the point.

My interest in this topic came about because I lived in Japan for a number of years and took courses on Japanese society in a Japanese university.

I don't know your expectations of human nature, so I don't know how to show you that I'm afraid. What would be an interesting experiment would be to have you list out all documents from the first two centuries into two piles: one pile that is consistent with human nature (assuming a HJ), and another pile that isn't. There aren't that many documents, but it would be a long task, so I'm not expecting you to do it. But that is the sort of experiment that might be worth doing. I have read through everything on Peter Kirby's earlychristianwritings website several times, albeit in English translation only, since I have no language skills in ancient Greek or Latin. It's an interesting experience. By the time you get to Origen, Paul doesn't look so strange.

Start with Tatian's "Address to the Greeks". Is that what you would expect from a believer in a historical Jesus? Should we conclude that Tatian was a member of a non-historical Jesus Christianity?

Juststeve

Toto:

If you can actually support the proposition that "There is no evidence that Mark was actually written before the mid second century" you might write it up and submit your case to a scholarly journal. You might really shake up the current consensus that places Mark around 70 C.E., a consensus of which you are well aware. That's the way it works in the world of serious scholarship. You publish your ideas and try to convince reputable scholars. You don't just repeat your views ad nauseum on the internet.

Although you bristle when I say it, your approach is the approach of fringers of all kinds. Holocaust Deniers, Creationists, Flat Earthers and Ancient Alien Theorists don't submit their ideas to scholarly review, they claim all the scholars are biased against their truth, and self publish, publish on the internet, and rail against the unfairness of it all. They produce a television show for the History Channel. They rope in the boobs.

If you're so sure that "There is no evidence that Mark was actually written before the mid second century" submit it to a reputable journal. Let people with the skills necessary to evaluate your claim have a look at it. Fame and fortune may well await.

Steve

Toto

Why would this change the consensus? There is in fact no evidence in terms of texts or references in other Christian literature that Mark was written before the second century, and everyone knows it, but scholars still date Mark to 70 CE. This is not totally unreasonable. It is based on inferences from Mark's content and assumptions about the time for oral transmission.

You can read a good summary here.

But there is no physical evidence to disprove Herman Detering's conclusion that Mark was written after the time of Bar Kochba, as he argues in "THE SYNOPTIC APOCALYPSE (MARK 13 PAR): A DOCUMENT FROM THE TIME OF BAR KOCHBA" pdf here

You didn't know this?

And your approach is the approach of intellectual bullies who don't have the facts or logic on their side and have to use insults, isn't it?

I don't bristle. I yawn with boredom at your lack of creativity, which matches your lack of knowledge.

Juststeve

Toto:

I am fully aware of the fact that a small minority of scholars place Mark quite a bit later than the standard dates. Dissent is to be expected and is observed even with regard to well established s theories, evolution for example. Having neither the necessary knowledge (which would include more than your manifest ability to quote from others work, or inclination to enter the fray myself I proceed from the position that the generally accepted dates for the Gospels are correct and not some outliers that place them either earlier or later. If you think this is unreasonable I don't really care. If you think you have a cogent argument for a second century Mark you are free to publish it, if you can find a journal that will credit the argument.

Steve

Toto

Why bother posting then?

You have a vague idea that there is a particular consensus, but you don't know what it is based on or how robust it is, and you don't care to find out. You don't even know if this is a well established theory, or if it is about to be revised with new interpretations or a new paradigm. But you feel free to insult someone who merely points out the lack of hard evidence behind the consensus? What's the point?

Juststeve

Toto:

Like any fringer you are also dishonest. By truncating my quote as you did you created the impression that the things I don't care about went beyond your opinion of how reasonable I am. Shame on you.

Steve

Toto

Back at you. Since your exact quote is right there for anyone to read, how can it create a misimpression? And how can you claim that you care about any issue here when you refuse to discuss it beyond appealling to a putative consensus that you clearly don't understand?

ApostateAbe

Juststeve, as you know, I have taken to ignoring Toto, and you may want to consider doing likewise.