Diogenes the Cynic

Only if he believed Mark.

Vorkosigan

What is the difference between Matt writing as if he believed, and as if he thought others might believe?

Vorkosigan

jjramsey

I think I made it pretty clear: the simplest explanation that fits the evidence wins.

If I treat the text as completely accurate, I have to explain away contradictions, historical improbabilities. When I've seen others treat the text as only mythical or fictional, I see them have to explain away "brother of the Lord" in Paul, the short reference to James in Josephus, why crucifixion was preached at all, why there are places that look like attempts to stretch prophecy to inconvenient facts, why the early Christians didn't treat the Gospels as fiction, etc. The truth is evidently somewhere in between, because if one assumes either of the two extremes, one ends up trying to fit the NT into a Procrustean bed. Treating the texts as embellished history makes the best sense of them.

Amaleq13

How does admitting he has no idea what happened to Jesus' body after the crucifixion score points against his critics?

Ben C Smith

Such a question should never arise. If the bodily resurrection was metaphorical for Matthew, he should never feel compelled to discuss the corpse of Jesus. All he has to say is: It is a metaphor, you fools. If the bodily resurrection was literal for Matthew, then he knows the fate of the corpse already, from Mark, and can do his best to defend what he knows, as it were, to have happened.

Ben.

Vorkosigan

I don't know whether to laugh or throw up, jj, EVIDENCE is the product of METHODOLOGY. A primer:

DATA is what you have extracted from reality using an accepted data collection methodology (a survey questionnaire with a five point likert scale with acceptable Cronbach's alpha, etc). DATA looks like "68% of females indicate that they spend less than $200 a month on t-shirts."

EVIDENCE is data that has been processed by an accepted analytical methodology. It is not EVIDENCE unless you have assembled into an argument which interacts with a MODEL that you have chosen to inform your research, and which your research informs. EVIDENCE looks like: "Our analysis of the data shows that women spend significantly less on t-shirts than on other clothing." Now that it has been processed by an accepted analytical methodology (regression analysis, t-tests, LISREL) you can then assemble that significant fact into an argument about teenage female consumption habits, based on some MODEL of consumption that is provided the theoretical background to your research.

Now, in this case, you have made a hugely basic error. You have confused DATA and EVIDENCE. To use a case from your examples below, Paul's appellation of James as "the brother of the lord" is not EVIDENCE but DATA. In NT studies one body of DATA is the Greek words of the texts reconstructed by an accepted methodology (text criticism, actually a body of methodologies). The DATA do not mean anything because they have not been processed through an analytical methodology that informs and is informed by a MODEL. Once they have been processed through that MODEL and methodology, they then are assembled as EVIDENCE to form part of an argument or conclusions about the text. "The brother of the lord" has no meaning until you operate with some kind of MODEL that tells you what it might mean. It cannot be EVIDENCE for you because you do not even understand what EVIDENCE is, and can only make surly faith statements and accuse people who disagree with you of "explaining away" stuff. Well of course, if you take your half-conscious model of the EMBELLISHED HISTORY as the default, and are not aware that you are working with a MODEL that requires methodological support, naturally you cannot but regard the analysis of those of us who DO require methodological support for our claims as operating in bad faith.

Actually, the bad faith is all on your part. When you gripe at me about "explaining away" EVIDENCE you are actually trying to get me to accept your MODEL of the text without discussing its methodological basis. You've reified your MODEL as an Absolute which I must bow to without question, just like believers reify the commands of their authoritarian Gods as Absolutes to which all must bend the knee, without question. Of course, I've seen this before. Most people who come here and yak about EVIDENCE go away from here all confused and angry. These hairy-eyeball mythicists! They ignore the evidence! How is it that these skeptics can't be convinced by EVIDENCE! Actually, we don't ignore the EVIDENCE. What we deny is that the MODEL you use to call it EVIDENCE is a valid MODEL that has acceptable methodological support and contains a reading of the texts that is consistent across them and explains the DATA in a robust manner.

I hope the depth of your failure to support your position -- nay, to even understand your own position -- is now totally clear.

You can treat any fictional text as embellished history, from WAR OF THE WORLDS to WATERSHIP DOWN, and make sense of it. The question is what methodology warrants doing so?

Vorkosigan

jakejonesiv

I am always suprised when a vague reference to Jesus' alleged brother, or flesh, or lineage is used to leap to the conclusion that the Jesus portrayed in the gospels is true. Leaving aside that all of these references have good explanations consistent with ahistory, the gap in logic here is truly astounding. Gospel Jesus would still be a myth.

Just having some guy named Jesus who has a few similarities to the gospel character does not a historical Jesus make. Even weaker is offering some guy who was born or had a brother as evidence is meager to the point of comedy.

Jesus, son of Ananias, could have been one of many potentially historical persons that were used in the creation of the composite Gospel Jesus. Josephus, War 6.5.3.

Then how about the King of the Jews, bound to the cross, flogged and executed in Jerusalem at the order of the Roman ruler? According to Cassius Dio, Roman History Book XLIX chapter 22 sections 3-6, this happened. But it was about 37 BCE, the King of the Jews was Antigonus and the Roman in charge was Mark Antony.

Another pled for "Historical Jesus" is a wandering sage, Cynic or otherwise, who spouted aphorisms. Could there have been such a guy? We have no record of him (unless you accept the hypothetical "Q"), but it sounds possible. He might have even have been named Jesus, a fairly common name, but he was not the Jesus of the Gospels.

No, just offering evidence that some aspect of the Jesus story has some kernel of history behind it does not prove that Gospel Jesus existed. Not at all. That guy is a construct, a composte, a myth made up from many dissimilar parts.

Here is a receipe for making Jesus. Take one part crucified King of the Jews (Antigonus), one part apocalyptic prophet (Jesus, son of Ananias), one part sage (legendary founder of Q?), and a whole heaping of OT tales retold and recast to supply the details for the fictional "Life." Add a dash of Homeric epic or Julius Caesar to taste.

Jake

Damian

You are misunderstanding me slightly. Approaching the evidence for the first time, the first question is "was there a historical jesus?" If one comes up with "no" to this first question, based on all the data, then it is reasonable to go to the next rung of the ladder, either "was he a myth?" or "if no HJ, then what?" This seems to me what the systematic approach to alleged historical figures should be, i.e. "we have this Robin Hood guy, did he exist or not? No? Hmm, well, what are some alternative possibilities?" "God created man. Well, we can't disprove that, but there is absolutely no evidence for it, what are some alternative possibilities?" etc.


I agree with you here, which is what I was trying to articulate. We just disagree with its application to the present issue. I think the "simplest" explanation seems to be that, we have all these "stories," and some documents that purport to be historical, so he must be historical, right? We are starting with the assumption that he was historical and working from there, rather than vice versa. This is the opposite of the scientific method, for example (conclusion before fitting the data to a theory).

Granted, the Santa Claus example was extreme, but you're still exaggerating. Strip away the magic, and you still have old folk tales of some guy that showed up to give presents to kids in villages. But, take some other examples, like King Arthur. Strip away holy grail and lady in the lake, and you have a warlord king that attempted to unite the land. These and other features could be easily belong to a historical human.

Further, when you strip away the magic attributed to Jesus and you're left with the "facts" like he was a jew that preached and got crucified, you have a very non-descript, unoriginal man from that time period. There was nothing he accomplished that was historically noteworthy, so those attributes could have belonged to anybody, or any two or three somebodies. There is nothing that happened, that we know happened, that had to be attributed to someone, much less to a someone named Jesus. Applying Occam's (Occum's?) Razor, i don't understand why "Paul invented it" isn't a valid conclusion, for example. I also don't why apparent or intended appearance of historicity gives any weight to historicity, when we have Illiad's and Odyssey's that also have the intended appearance of historicity.

Ben C Smith

How would you demonstrate that Jesus son of Ananias himself was historical?

Ben.

jakejonesiv

He doesn't have to be historical to be a component of the Jesus composite. That is why I used the word "potentially." The connection could be purely literary, so the historicity of Jesus son of Ananias is irrelevant.

It's the same thing for Elijah in the wilderness (1 Kings 19). There didn't need to be a historical Elijah, just the tale.

It is the same for the "empty tomb." For the Jews to object, they didn't need any independent historical knowledge, they were just reacting to the tale. I think Richard Carrier made this very point in his article in "Jesus Beyond the Grave."

Jake