Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KrisK10 · 06-09-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny

I was attending my daughter’s college graduation so I was gone for the weekend as well.

I would go back to the nature of the book. As a historian of Roman society, Sherwin-White was commenting on the accounts of Jesus’ trial and the discussions of Paul’s citizenship and how they lined up with what he knew about Roman law and practice at the time. For the purpose of his book there was no need to make any overall determination of the ratio of legend to fact in the gospels and I don’t find any evidence that he did so. I have no doubt that he had an opinion on the subject, but I find no assertions that are not equally consistent with fact-to-fiction ratios of either 95%-5% or 5%-95%.

I think it would be like a Civil War scholar commenting on the extent to which Gone with the Wind gets historical details right. The scholar would no doubt have an opinion on the extent to which Margaret Mitchell’s tale came from actual events that she heard about from her parents and grandparents and the extent to which it came out of her own imagination, but he would not have to reach any firm conclusion on this in order to discuss whether Mitchell got known facts right.

My perspective is that of a lawyer rather than a historian. When a lawyer seeks to use a judicial opinion for precedent, he has to be wary of the fact that judges tend to run off at the mouth. In deciding a case, a judge may comment on a number of legal issues that really weren’t necessary to decide the case before him. In legal parlance, such comments are considered obiter dictum which are not binding. Only those legal conclusions that were necessitated by the facts of the case are considered precedent for later courts.

Sherwin-White acknowledges in his preface that he is an amateur in the field of New Testament scholarship. He is very careful to hedge his comments on the historicity of the gospels for this reason. His book was concerned with a very small segment of the New Testament stories. His book did not require him to make any overall conclusions about how much of the gospels were legend and how much were fact. It did not require any original research to develop any precise rule to estimate the overall percentages of legend and fact in any ancient document. Given that, I think it makes sense to view his comments about legendary accumulation as casual observations.

As far as whether any such rule is generally accepted among historians, I can say that my internet searches didn’t turn up anyone other than Christian apologists citing such a rule. The only historian I have heard from is Richard Carrier who was kind enough to compliment my posts on Sherwin-White.

Vinny,

Thanks for your comments. S-W is very careful about making an absolute statement about the gospels, but he is in my opinion giving as strong a statement as any classical non-NT scholar could give against the position of those like the Jesus Seminar today who would propose that the gospels are on the order of 90% legend or, said another way, those that propose that the legend is so prevalent in the gospels that sifting out the history is impossible or nearly impossible.

I think S-W is wrong, but I think it's splitting hairs to say that he doesn't spend enough pages on it, or that his wording would not be admissible in court. The man is giving a serious opinion based on his experience, and the evidence suggests that he never changed his mind over the next 30 years (e.g. his obituary and Craig's use of it since 1981). My only point is that the man's opinion is worth tackling head on, not labeling it as non-admissible or declaring that it has been misrepresented.

I think S-W is wrong because he, and probably most historians, are used to looking at records of people who held substantial positions in history when they were alive. For such people, the historical footprint is usually big enough to allow the later historian to sift fact from fiction. Not so with Jesus. To all but those who thought of him as a God, he was just a sage that became a victim of Roman justice. So naturally, we would be left with just the legendary records, something which is not normally encountered by historians. This explains both the literary record we have and S-W's frustration with it based on what he's used to seeing.

Kris

spamandham · 06-09-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

To all but those who thought of him as a God, he was just a sage that became a victim of Roman justice.
Kris

There are no nonchristian contemporary records of Jesus. If there were, the whole discussion would be moot.

Even if you assume he was historical, we don't know how nonchristians of the time viewed him, because we don't know who he was. He could just as easily have been a rebel leader at Masada or the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, as a wandering 1st century sage.

Toto · 06-09-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

.... The man is giving a serious opinion based on his experience, and the evidence suggests that he never changed his mind over the next 30 years (e.g. his obituary and Craig's use of it since 1981).

I don't think that British academics are in the habit of paying any attention at all to American apologists like Craig, who has no credentials in history or classics.

KrisK10 · 06-09-2008, 02:36 PM

Vinni,

Here's another way to look at what S-W is saying IMO.

On the one hand he is giving his personal opinion, on the other hand he is giving his professional judgment. His personal opinion is that the gospels are mostly history. His professional judgment, which is much more reserved, is that there is no way that the basic history of Jesus' public life is indeterminable from the gospels. As you've noted on your blog, the Jesus Seminar would agree with the latter, but the difference in amount of history that S-W is thinking and what the JS is thinking cannot go unnoticed. It is a huge gap. So I think what traditionalists correctly take away from S-W's comments is that here is a classical historian who is saying that if no history can be determined from the gospels, or nearly so, this would be a first for him to see such records so totally overwhelmed with legend so quickly. S-W may not word everything so well, but the point of relevance is that the skeptics view of the gospels (e.g. Jesus Seminar) is an exception to the bodies of literature that a historian usually deals with. This is the point traditionalists are making IMO, and the one that skeptics should tackle. Nitnoiding S-W's comments seem almost insignificant in comparison.

Kris

Based on those two

KrisK10 · 06-09-2008, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

.... The man is giving a serious opinion based on his experience, and the evidence suggests that he never changed his mind over the next 30 years (e.g. his obituary and Craig's use of it since 1981).

I don't think that British academics are in the habit of paying any attention at all to American apologists like Craig, who has no credentials in history or classics.

Toto,

Good point. But I would find it hard to believe that he would not leave some trace that he changed his mind if he did.

Kris

KrisK10 · 06-09-2008, 08:12 PM

Vinni,

One last thought. The problem here I think is that Sherwin-White's personal opinion is much stronger than any rule he is willing to insist applies to the gospels. I think this sort of split personality in his treatise is out of professional courtesy to the fact that he is not a NT scholar. If you look at his treatise in this light, all of his oblique statements seem to make sense, and I think you will find a man who is honestly saying that he has not seen in his studies the absence of historical core in a body of literature that those of the Jesus Seminar and futher left propose is the case in the gospels.

Kris

Vinny · 06-10-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

Vinni,

One last thought. The problem here I think is that Sherwin-White's personal opinion is much stronger than any rule he is willing to insist applies to the gospels. I think this sort of split personality in his treatise is out of professional courtesy to the fact that he is not a NT scholar. If you look at his treatise in this light, all of his oblique statements seem to make sense, and I think you will find a man who is honestly saying that he has not seen in his studies the absence of historical core in a body of literature that those of the Jesus Seminar and futher left propose is the case in the gospels.

Kris

What makes you think that members of the Jesus Seminar propose “the absence of historical core” in the gospels? That is not what I have found in books by Crossan, Spong, Pagels, and Mack. I see their goal as trying to recover the historical core of Jesus’ life and ministry by applying the same types of historical criticism that Sherwin-White applies to his sources for Graeco-Roman history.

In Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament, Sherwin-White says wrote: “Subtle techniques of source-criticism have been evolved for the detection and elimination of various types of bias and anachronism, whether of the intermediate or of the original sources, or of the writer who actually survives and transmits his work to us. To judge by what is published, we are satisfied with our methods, and believe that a hard core or basic layer of historical truth can be recovered even from the most deplorable of our tertiary sources--be it Diodorus or Florus or even the Epitome de Caesaribus.” I haven’t read everything written by every member of the Jesus Seminar, but the books I have read seem to be consistent with Sherwin-White’s approach.

I just don't think you can imply any particular percentages for legend and fact from Sherwin-White's comments. It might be interesting to see what classical historians think about those sources that he refers to as the "most deplorable." If Sherwin-White is comparing the gospels to sources in his field that were considered to be of only limited (but not negligible), that might suggests that he was not intending to make any stronger statement about the gospels.

KrisK10 · 06-11-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny

What makes you think that members of the Jesus Seminar propose “the absence of historical core” in the gospels?

Vinni,

I meant the degree of absence of historical core envisioned by those in the Jesus Seminar and further left. The JS is probably on the order of 10% historical core, those further left going to zero. S-W does not mention percentages, but it doesn't take much in my opinion to conclude from his treatise that he would disagree with the amount of the historical core proposed by the JS. I think the Christian literature is simply something he isn't used to seeing and in fact doesn't show up very often in classical literature. Anyway, thanks for the insights into S-W on your blog. I think the relevant ones are his qualification that he's an “amateur” in the field of New Testament scholarship and that his comments on gospel historicity are not intended to be of the same rigor or carry the same authority as the rest of his book ("how the various historical and social and legal problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian. That, and only that, is the intention of these lectures”_. That said, I think the more important issue is to deal with S-W's honest even though amateur and qualified opinion about the gospels in comparison to all the other bodies of ancient literature that he has studied. I think we've gone round and round a few times on this Vinny and I hope we can agree to disagree. All the best.

Kris

Vinny · 06-11-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

That said, I think the more important issue is to deal with S-W's honest even though amateur and qualified opinion about the gospels in comparison to all the other bodies of ancient literature that he has studied.
Kris

Why in the world would that be important? Why not just deal with the individual works of the members to the Jesus Seminar on their own merits based on the extent to which they apply good historical practices in reaching their conclusions? Is there really any point in lumping them together and attributing some single opinion on percentages to them? Is there really any point in trying to tease some particular percentage out of Sherwin-White’s “brief” and “general” consideration of the topic? Is it anything more than wishful thinking to attribute an opinion to Sherwin-White about a group of historians he did not know?

KrisK10 · 06-11-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny

Quote:

Originally Posted by KrisK10

That said, I think the more important issue is to deal with S-W's honest even though amateur and qualified opinion about the gospels in comparison to all the other bodies of ancient literature that he has studied.
Kris

Why in the world would that be important?

Because S-W examples (Pisistratus, Hipparchus, Gaius Gracchus, Tiberius Caesar, Cleomenes, Themistocles) and the intent behind his comments point to something that seems to me to be correct. We do usually find much more historical core in literature written within 2-3 generations (60-90 years) of an event than what the JS proposes for the Christian body of literature. Do you know of any literary example where there is such a small historical core in an early 2-3 generations record?

Don't get me wrong, I think the JS does some great work, I'm merely suggesting that on top of that it is good for us skeptics to explain why the Christian literature is an exception to what historians usually look at. And I think there is a good answer. But if one thinks S-W comments can be completely dismissed, then I suppose you are correct that that answer serves no purpose.

Remember too, I'm not trying to tease some particular percentage out of Sherwin-White’s comments. But you're correct that I am trying to tease out what I think was the intent of his comments. Trying to nail that down exactly is difficult, but it's pretty clear to me that he would find a JS amount of historical core extraordinary compared to the amount of historical core in the ancient literature he normally deals with. Now if S-W listened to the arguments of the JS, he might change his mind. But that is a different matter. And even if he did change his mind, his next task would probably be to figure out why the Christian literature is an exception to what he normally looks at. And to that, I think there is a good answer.

Kris

Kris

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-09-2008, 02:36 PM	#84
KrisK10 Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Midwest Posts: 140	Vinni, Here's another way to look at what S-W is saying IMO. On the one hand he is giving his personal opinion, on the other hand he is giving his professional judgment. His personal opinion is that the gospels are mostly history. His professional judgment, which is much more reserved, is that there is no way that the basic history of Jesus' public life is indeterminable from the gospels. As you've noted on your blog, the Jesus Seminar would agree with the latter, but the difference in amount of history that S-W is thinking and what the JS is thinking cannot go unnoticed. It is a huge gap. So I think what traditionalists correctly take away from S-W's comments is that here is a classical historian who is saying that if no history can be determined from the gospels, or nearly so, this would be a first for him to see such records so totally overwhelmed with legend so quickly. S-W may not word everything so well, but the point of relevance is that the skeptics view of the gospels (e.g. Jesus Seminar) is an exception to the bodies of literature that a historian usually deals with. This is the point traditionalists are making IMO, and the one that skeptics should tackle. Nitnoiding S-W's comments seem almost insignificant in comparison. Kris Based on those two

06-09-2008, 08:12 PM	#86
KrisK10 Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Midwest Posts: 140	Vinni, One last thought. The problem here I think is that Sherwin-White's personal opinion is much stronger than any rule he is willing to insist applies to the gospels. I think this sort of split personality in his treatise is out of professional courtesy to the fact that he is not a NT scholar. If you look at his treatise in this light, all of his oblique statements seem to make sense, and I think you will find a man who is honestly saying that he has not seen in his studies the absence of historical core in a body of literature that those of the Jesus Seminar and futher left propose is the case in the gospels. Kris

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.