GakuseiDon

One of my pet peeves is that Doherty will point out what he says is a problem for a HJer, without considering that it is a problem for the MJer as well. Doherty doesn't see that Tatian not mentioning the words "Jesus", "Christ", "crucifixion" is a problem for him as well. I'm glad you do, Vork!

Anyway, if Tatian wasn't a Christian as you suggest, then we have nothing to argue about, correct? We know from the writings of Justin Martyr (Tatian's teacher) that there were gospels and the idea of a historical Jesus, so if Tatian wasn't a Christian, then no argument is necessary.

Correct. Tatian became a Marcion-like Gnostic, and apparently believed that Jesus came to Earth fully grown, and wasn't composed of flesh and blood. And of course before that, Tatian was a student of Justin Martyr, for whatever that's worth.

Well, we have one of two scenarios:
(1) He wasn't a Christian
(2) He was a Christian (either HJer or MJer), but still didn't mention these things.

Now, if it is (1), then there is no problem. If it is (2), then there has to be a reason for why he didn't mention those things. But this is something I should take up with a MJer.

Steven Carr

So why didn't Paul do much of that? All he came up with (AFAIR) was Jesus being the rock in Exodus.

Why doesn't Paul even hint at the idea that Jesus said that Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed? You can look up the answer to this question in Vol. 2 of Wright's work and post it for us, if you wish.

Vorkosigan

Yes, there's no cheerleading section for you. Ya gotta do it all on your own. Also, I would have been much nicer had it not been for the tone of your piece. DOn't accuse people of gross naivete if you want them to engage seriously with you. Since we've done the tone thing at each other, let's just talk now.

Tercel, you cannot stand methodological naturalism on its head and then claim to be a scholar. NT Wright is worse than Josh McDowell, for McDowell at least does not appropriate the language and authority of scholarship to write his apologetics. I don't think you really understand what being a scholar means, Tercel. Wright does not excite my contempt because he is wrong, Tercel. He excites my contempt and anger because he has appropriated something he has no right to -- the title "scholar" -- in order to push his ideas.

Tercel, it appears "neutral" to you because it appeals to your biases. It does not appear nuetral to other scholars, who have widely rejected it.

We'll have to see. But you are aware that Wright has publicly claimed that faith and history should be mixed, right?

It's your understanding that's backwards. I didn't say they made up either prophecies or events. Rather, the Jesus stories are made up out of the OT, using the OT as a proof text and a story frame, particularly the Elijah-Elisha legend cycle, as the basis for Jesus' life and activities (I just finished Brodie's The Crucial Bridge that discusses this. See also Gospel Fictions). It is not really possible to prove what the authors were thinking when they borrowed the stories to refashion them into Jesus' life, so I cannot comment on how how they saw the prophecy element when they invented the Jesus stories.

Yes, because I see all the time around me. It's very easy. I do not, however, regard the early J-Cs as Labelbots "I am an early J-C therefore I believe X" under the control of a "mindset." I suspect that they were human beings just like everyone I know today, and that most of the people reporting resurrection experiences were plain liars, though probably sincere in their belief, just like today, and that some were out-and-out frauds, and many in the movement had a pretty good understanding of the myths and beliefs they were manipulating, and that they manipulated them in order to obtain status and power in the new order -- humans being social primates who compete in status heirarchies. There is a scarily common trend among scholars to assume that ancient humans were like modern humans, only more sincere and more under control of their own cultural background, a kind of orientalization of history. The vast majority of religious leaders, in that time as ours, were scoundrels and cheats. The writer who borrowed Acts from Josephus and Luke from the OT knew perfectly well what she was doing, and did it consciously. She may have been sincere in her beliefs, but that does not make her invention unconscious.

I agree. And....?

No, there's where you go wrong. They used the OT to create Jesus' life. You see, the problem with the way you've posed this is that you've made some historical assumptions about Jesus' life without the corresponding proof. Everything we know about Jesus occurs within the context of a fiction. Therefore....we know nothing about Jesus. First you need an outside vector that tells you that Jesus did the things ascribed to him. Then we can talk about the relationship between the gospels and Jesus' life. Right now, Jesus has no life. It is all fiction.

That's the problem, Tercel. These events are made up out of scripture. For example, Jesus' healing of the withered hand is taken right out of the OT. Never happened. Similarly, the raising of Jairus' daughter is an obvious fiction, even quoting the OT. These events were not "recast" in OT terms. As far as anyone can tell, they were invented from it. Your view is plausible only if you posit that the underlying historical frame is true. But there is no evidence to support that belief.

No, the writers invented it out of scripture. That is why Matthew had two animals for Jesus' entry. That is why the soldiers at the cross divided Jesus' robe.

I DID NOT say that the events were fabricated based on prophecy. In fact I SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED that conclusion by pointing to the division of Jesus' robes. I do not know what was in the authors' minds when they wrote these fictions. So I do not speculate on how they saw these stories they were inventing. Similarly, I do not know what was in James Cameron's mind when he borrowed the Orpheus Myth for Titanic, or in Lucas' when he created Star Wars out of The Wizard of Oz. The relationships are there, however.

Well, since it ain't my hypothesis, I don't blame you.

Incorrect. By all sound historical standards, the gospels are fictions. Why do you think so much time and energy has gone into analyzing the sayings? Because, although they don't talk about it much, NT scholars have pretty much concluded the narratives are fictions.

This is what i mean about being a scholar. While you participate in the confraternity of scholars, you must subscribe to methodological naturalism. That is the only explanatory game in town. When you leave that you are doing something else -- literature, apologetics, poetry, travel writing, whatever. But when explaining history, only one option is available to you.

Alas, here in non-Christian Taiwan, most libraries don't carry books about Christianity. So tracking them down is difficult. I was quite cheered to find A Marginal Jew V I,II and III, the other day, though.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I've read Wright on this. In his popular joint work with Marcus Borg, there is a chapter called, "The Divinity of Jesus". Jesus thought he had to be and do for Israel what only God could do and be. If you do and be only what God can do and be, well then you know what the conclusion to that is (can't distinguish between function and ontological here can we?). He does his best to avoid caricaturing the sitation but that none the less makes what I wrote inaccurate.

If Jesus thought he was God, and had to do only what God could, I would say he was probably crazy. Not to mention Wright's entire reconstruction is ridiculously tenuoes.

But if you or anyone else would like to defend Wright on historical grounds, formally or non formally, I'm game. Wright's canonical Jesus taken from the Gospels of the New Testament will get shattered.

Also, Wright explicitly states "Jesus thought himself to be the focal point of Israel's history" the one who would save Israel.

Wright also writes, "if Jesus' death did accomplish the real defeat of evil that had infected Israel along with the rest of the world--if, in other words, his actions in Jerusalem did somehow accomplish the kingdom of God"

I have read Wright. I made my comments knowing full well the nuanced position he believes. I know full well how he interprets "dieing for the sins of the world" or "dieing for our sins".

I have also read "What Saint Paul Really Says". One major complaint is a lack of footnotes and dealings with other scholar's views. Its hardly a scholarly tome, despite the fact that Wright demonstrates himself to be learned throughout it.

Jesus thought he was God and was going to reconcile the world to God. How did I misrepresent anything?

Vinnie

the_cave

Gee, I do all of that...maybe he thinks I'm a crank! Perhaps I'll try again.

the_cave

Ehh, that's true, but it's kind of an empty argument. I and probably most Christians would gladly agree that many, if not most, residents of the Roman Empire had not heard of either Jesus or Christianity by the mid-second century--or if they had, they were unaware of the details of the religion (or even badly misinformed.)

Granted, it is perhaps an example of the kind of religion that Doherty is talking about. But we kind of already had that example with Philo (not to mention the Gnostics, Christian and otherwise). So I'm tenatively willing to admit it as a small plank in support of Doherty, but not much more than that.

Vorkosigan

I spoke badly, if that is what you understood. Doherty's position is that many so-called Christians had not heard of these tales. In fact, well into the second century -- and he gives several examples -- there were Christians who had never heard of these tales. Their Jesus was a mythical intercessory being who was not a historical figure. Doherty claims that these beliefs all existed concurrently in the second century as the mythical Jesus evolved into the historical one, and the historicist wing suppressed its competitors.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

I don't get it. Many people in the 2d century had not heard the legends about Jesus? What point does this actually make.

First of all, much of the passion narrative is not historical. The virginal conception is not historical. The "facts" of the Gospel narratives may not be exactly known but most of the Gospel narratives are fictional with just a core of material.

Jesus had followers, that he spoke and taught in parables, that he was crucified are facts that are well known. A high number of documents and people know these things--whether dependent on one another or not--al lthroughout the first and second century.

Also, Oral tradition was still strong in the first half of the 2d century.

". . . if ever anyone came who had followed the presbyters [elders], I inquired into the words of the presbyters: what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord's disciples, had said, and what Ariston and the presbyter John, the Lord's disciples were saying. For I did not suppose that information from books would help me so much as the word of a living and surviving voice." Papias ala Eusebius.

Papias sought attentively to find out the words of Andrew, Peter and the rest. He also did not apparently trust all the material in books. This means that there probably was not a strict, apostolic core of oral tradition precisely memorized and carried on by their students to future generations or any such books.

Jesus material was not precisely transmitted and the fact that the early church was urgent in its eschatology might be a good indication of why.

The same thing with the Gospel of Luke. Why did Luke decide to write "an orderly account" when so many others had already undertaken such narratives if their was a strict, precisely memorized and transmitted apostolic core or oral teachings? Further, Luke's many" documents others who know the HJ stuff.

So are we keep score here? What is it? How many authors know HJ details vs how many are silent on them (whether they know them or not is not obvious)? The tally is?

Can I have a listing of the 2d groups of writers that do not know of a histoical Jesus 100 to 170 years earlier?

Then also a list of the ones that do for balance.

Vorkosigan

I wrote badly. Many Christians had not heard of them. Their Christianity was a Logos religion with a mythical son, if they had one. It is evidence that the mythical Logos-Jesus religion persisted into the second century.

No, there is no "core." It is fiction all the way down. The "core" is an unproven historical axiom, with no evidence to support it.

These are not well-known "facts." There is no evidence that Jesus spoke in parables, outside known fictions. There is no evidence that Jesus had followers in his own lifetime, outside fictions. The Crucifixion is assumed, not proved, as a historical axiom. There is no reason to accept any claim about Jesus as a fact. That's what solid conservative historical method says, Vinnie. The paradox of mythicism is that it is sociologically radical, but methodologically conservative.

You could make similar claims about Robin Hood. The only difference is that in the case of RH everyone agrees it is all fiction, because no one has creedal commitments to RH.

If this quote is real, then Papias testifies to the existence of an oral tradition in the second century, much too late for your needs. There is no evidence of any oral tradition from the first century. Claims of "orality" in the gospels are unsupported by good evidence. The oral tradition is an invention of scholars invented so that they could take the gospels back to the alleged time of Jesus.

In any case, by "living voice" Papias is probably testifying to direct contact with the Holy Spirit speaking in the heart. There is no good reason to imagine that he is even talking about an oral tradition here, except of course, the need for an oral tradition among creedally committed scholars.

Yes, there was no oral tradition at all. At least, there is no evidence for one.

Because it was invented, not transmitted. Transmission is an assumption that no one has demonstrated. As far as I can see everything in the gospels is a literary fiction. There is no good reason to assume otherwise.

Are you serious? Vinnie, Luke was a propagandist for her religion who had her own point of view. Her documents bear all the hallmarks of literary creation, and there is no reason to assume otherwise. Luke's comment about writing an orderly account in the face of many others simply notes what the situation was in the second century when she wrote that piece -- Christianity was fluid and many different things had been written about Jesus. Luke's "many" may simply be self-aggrandizement!

Most of the mid-second century ones. The HJ crops out with a vengeance later.

Can I have a listing of the 2d groups of writers that do not know of a histoical Jesus 100 to 170 years earlier?[/quote]

Earlier than what? Doherty says none of the first century writings knows an HJ.

Vorkosigan

Tercel

Occaisionally in discussing things with you Vork, I get the strong impression that you are stating something equivalent to "2+2=5". This is one such occaision.

I take it to be basically axiomatic that true scholarship must be pragmatically methodologically agnostic in terms of its metaphysical assumptions. If it is not metaphysically agnostic, it is not scholarship, it is apologetics, or something else. I take this to be a completely and obvious truth, like 2+2=4, it follows by defintion:
If a person starts off with a predisposition to a certain position, or they follow a methodology or assumptions that are guaranteed in advance to lead to a certain position, then they/their methodology is biased. That, to me, is an uncontroversial definition of biased.
Now if something is biased, then it is not scholarly to the same extent that it is biased - the word for "biased scholarliness" is apologetics. Now there is nothing wrong with apologetics per see, it is just not scholarship though, which seeks always to be a neutral and unbiased investigation into the facts.

Thus when you say that scholarship must be methodologically naturalistic, it does not simply come across to me as wrong, but as non-sensical. It strikes me as saying something like "a square circle" - the very definitions of the words mean that putting them together makes no sense whatsoever. If a shape is square, then it isn't circle; correspondingly if an investigation uses methodological naturalistism then it isn't scholarly. It's still an investigation, it could well be an intelligent investigation, but to the extent that its outcomes are rigged in advance in favour of naturalism, it is biased, and to that extent unscholarly.

Perhaps, what you are meaning is that the only investigations you consider worth reading are those done using naturalistic presuppositions. That is fine, you are fully entitled to your opinion. But the word the english uses to label such investigations is "apologetics" not "scholarship".

Now if that is your opinion then I disagree with you: If the outcomes are rigged in advance by the presuppositions and/or methodology, then I see little point in doing the investigation. What reason is there to spend time performing an investigation whos outcome has been decided upon in advance? I can think of two reasons:
1. To present a complete hypothesis for comparision with an alternative hypothesis. Eg "X is the conclusion we come to if we use methodological naturalism, and Y is the conclusion we come to if we assume the truth of Christianity"
2. To mislead people into believing that an apologetical work is true scholarship.

I consider 2 to be a bad alternative, but 1 to be acceptable. However, although 1 is useful, its use consists primarily in the fact that neutral scholarly investigation can use both hypothesis side by side while not in itself making any judgement between the two, nor having any metaphysical position or biased methodology.

In conclusion, I regard your idea that scholarship must follow methodological naturalism to be both incoherent, and -when made coherent- wrong. It may well be that you prefer reading apologetics to actual unbiased scholarship - you would not be the first nor the last person in the world who likes to see their own beliefs "proven". But regardless of your like or dislike for the conclusions, true scholarship is tied to metaphysical agnosticism in any situation where there is significant disagreement over the existence and interference of the supernatural.

For someone who is supposedly a "skeptic", you often appear to me to subscribe very gullibly to some very strange ideas in the face of evidence.

My "historical assumptions" are based on some 30+ writings mentioning Jesus written within a hundred years of when he supposedly lived. If that is not "corresponding proof" then nothing is. Certainly it is 30+ items more proof than there is for your many amusing hypotheses.

Do you think that if you repeat it enough times it might be true? The simple fact of the matter Vork, is that you've got no evidence for any of your giant assertions. The best you seem to ever do is say "the existing evidence is worthless, and therefore [insert some strange hypothesis here] is true".

Outside of what? We don't go to non-Roman sources when we want information about the ancient Roman empire. Why would we go to non-Christian sources in wanting information about Christ? None of them gave a damn about a crucified criminal, only Christians.

And those "outside vector"s that we do have, you simply dismiss like you do the Christian accounts. It is a pointless argument, you irrationally dismiss all the evidence and construct some fantasy of your own.

If you ever come out of your imaginary world where true scholarship is atheist apologetics, and any amount of evidence is worthless if it implies conclusions you don't want to hear, and any hypothesis is believable on no evidence so long as the hypothesis is non-theistic, then let me know and I might respond to your posts again. Otherwise, this is goodbye Vork, I may well continue to post here but I won't be responding you your posts. Have fun.