Ted Hoffman

Rick,
I liked your post back at ebla and you were right about the burden of proof issue even though we could go into the question of argument from silence and proving negatives, disproof by counter example and so on and so forth.
I want to address the HJ methodology comprehensively in my next post.

This (the increasing difficulty) is your problem but since you seem intent on writing a response, I assume you have found a way to live with it.

You really shouldn't "bother writing lengthy responses to him" or even think about doing so: write "lengthy responses" to his work or the concept of a mythical Jesus. I am sure Loisy, Price and others will be interested.

Doherty came and he will go, but the MJ hypothesis is here to remain. So focus on it. It is very easy to distract yourself with the perceived flaws of a particular author or work. Look at the bigger picture. I have also realized that mainstream scholarship, do engage the mythicist theory and I will soon show who and how.

In any event, you have my saliva dripping uncontrollably. Could you email me the germane articles that are ready?

Rick Sumner

This is, ironically enough, exactly what is increasingly my problem not only with Doherty and the Jesus-Myth, but even with many mainstream scholars and academics (such as Crossan, or our own Vinnie Sapone).

There's no such thing as a consistently employed and consistentally reliable historical method. There is no criteria that isn't reversible. You don't get to appeal to one for or against an historical Jesus--neither in establishing/denying historicity, nor in reconstruction. "Historical method" is a non sequitor.

What we are left with is what holds the most explanatory power.

Alas, none are quite finished yet, though a few need only finishing touches. Gimme about a month, and I'll have three or four ready to go.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Isn't this the inevitable consequence of the nature of the majority of the evidence (ie texts)? There are certain aspects of textual evidence that can be objectively measured, I suppose, but when it comes down to it we are dealing with interpreting the thoughts, motivations, and intent of authors writing thousands of years ago.

And "the most explanatory power" is, of course, as ultimately subjective as the majority of the evidence.

Am I correct in this or have I become infected from reading too many of Hugo Holbling's essays?

Rick Sumner

That's exactly what it is, I would suggest.

Which is exactly the problem: The more criteria or methodology a book manages to put together, the harder time I have taking it seriously. If you like it because you think it fits, then by all means say so. If you need to devise fifteen different criteria and thirty five strata, you're probably going about it the wrong way.

I do think ancient history can be reconstructed in broad strokes. But I think that's about the best we're ever going to do without external sources of evidence. General terms. Any "comprehensive" reconstruction of the birth of Christianity in the first century is doomed to fail: We simply don't have enough information to be terribly comprehensive.

I've always tended in that general direction--it's why I've always held that Sanders is generally right, Meier is generally right for the wrong reasons, and Crossan generally isn't. I'm just tending more in that direction than before.

I think Luke Johnson may have been on to something--"The quest of the historical Jesus is historically impossible and theologically illegitimate." Johnson may have overstated the mark a little regarding the historical approach, but not by much. I'll leave the question of theological legitimitacy to those who need to legitimize their theologies.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

Rick,
I agree - contra Amaleq. Explanatory power entails accounting for all factors while explaining away or accounting for the pecularities.

Doherty's theory wins hands down in terms of explanatory power. Of course Rick does not agree.

Its possible that there could be a methodology. But the current methodologies, including Vinnie's unfinnished and variegated cocktail, are off the mark.

And I will show how within a week.

Awright, take your time. Alack, alas I may not be able to put up a counter-website immediately you put up yours.

Amaleq13

How can you claim to "contra" me and then provide a sentence that clearly supports me?

I contra your contra!!

Ted Hoffman

On the contrary. You asserted that explanatory power is ultimately subjective. I took that to mean that you were delegitimizing it as a means of deciding which theory is better.

Vorkosigan

LOL. I have the same problem with Meier. A Marginal Jew is little more than three volumes of erudite illogical apologetic smugness.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

As far as an objective means of making that determination, it had no legitimacy to begin with as far as I can tell. You and Rick continue to differ with regard to how well Doherty's thesis explains the evidence. I'm saying that is entirely due to the subjective nature of the judgment. I don't see how it can be established as an objective criterion for comparing theories.

ichabod crane

Amaleq13, you are right about the subjective nature of these judgements. But the same thing is true throughout disciplines such as history, literature, and art. Nonetheless, despite this subjectivity, the process of scholarly debate helps us to understand things better, gradually, over a period of time. Individual subjective biases tend to average out in the long run. And in the process of the debate, more and more interesting details about the subject become known. So the real point is not to persuade everyone of the rightness of your own theory - that will never happen here. The main thing is to enjoy the debate, and keep at it. This kind of debate can be frustrating - but also really enjoyable.