Ted Hoffman

Amaleq,
You need to demonstrate this.

People disagree on evolution and on interpretation of the collapse of the quantum wavefunction. This does not mean that the issues are subjective. That people disagree on an issue does not mean that the issue itself is subjective.

One can argue that there simply isn't enough data to make a clear judgement. But I think its incorrect to treat the issue like a subjective one - like say, abortion or favorite colour: the issues are not undergirded by personal taste.

Celsus

Jacob,

I can't see why you don't understand the points Amaleq and Rick are making here. Explanatory power is all well and good, but it can still be completely and utterly wrong, especially in this field. Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis had been the reigning paradigm for over a century now, but is being increasingly abandoned by scholarship despite its "explanatory power". As I mentioned earlier, Albright's patriarchs stood standing for 40 years because of the strong parallels Albright and G.E. Wright were able to develop with great "explanatory power". It is not that either theory (HJ/MJ) is right or wrong necessarily, but you should take some pointers from Feyerabend: Explanatory power is not in itself a definitive proof of a theory, nor does it give us necessary confidence in thinking it is a reflection of reality. Again, I point you to the Documentary Hypothesis and Albright's use of the Mari and Nuzi tablets. Secondly, the mere idea of incommensurability demands that comparisons between rival theories must be much more systematic than "in my opinion, the Jesus myth has much more explanatory power than the Historical Jesus". It simply won't do any longer to take such things for granted. What is apparent to you places the burden on you to make it apparent to others.

Joel

Amaleq13

The fact that both of you have considered the same argument (ie Doherty's) and reached diametrically opposed conclusions with regard to its explanatory power would seem to be sufficient. Reasonable people can, apparently, read Doherty and reach completely different conclusions about the explanatory power of his thesis. It is my opinion that this is directly related to the insufficient amount of objective evidence involved.

I'm not so sure that is true with regard to the latter but there would appear to be more than sufficient objective evidence to establish the explanatory power of evolution. It has been my experience that the only folks who deny the explanatory power of evolution do so for subjective (primarily religious) reasons independent of the evidence. Reasonable people do not come to diametrically opposed conclusions after considering the evidence supporting evolution.

Do you suspect that Rick finds Doherty's thesis lacking because of a particular subjective bias? My impression is that he is expressing his honest opinion after considering the argument.

ichabod crane

But what you're overlooking is that interpretation of empirical evidence and assessments of explanatory power are themselves subjective. I think that was the point that Amaleq13 was making.

We have evidence: the New Testament texts themselves, as well as other writings. The problem is that it's hard to interpret the evidence in a compelling fashion one way or another. That's the case in lots of other historical debates.

Actually, the Jesus Myth theory is not dissimilar to some 19th-century radical sceptical positions. And Fundamentalism doesn't count, because it's a fideistic religious stance, not a stance based on historical analysis.

Explanatory power is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.

Ah, grasshopper, you are not far from enlightenment.

I'm all for goatherds and others trying to find more evidence - by all means. But I don't think we should just wait around for something more that we may or may not get and that may or may not clarify things. Let's study what we have and try to understand it.

Yes, but science and history are two different things. It's a bit difficult to apply the scientific method to a question like "did Julius Caesar ever conquer the area of modern Poland". That is a historical question; and the answer involves much more subjectivity. The difference is that in history, competent informed historians who know the evidence will often disagree. This happens in science too, especially the "soft" sciences like psychology and sociology.

Ted Hoffman

Celsus,
I agree completely that EP alone does not guarantee the correctness of a theory. But under the circumstances, there are questions, peculiarities and little evidence. We will go by the theory that has greater explanatory power, not because it is the correct one, but because it has greater chances of being correct and can explain to us things that we would like to understand and answer questions we need answered.

The Jesus Seminar, who are parading themselves as champions of the third quest for example, tell us that the most certain thing about Jesus is his crucifiction. But how did it take place? Is the PN original in the face of what we know from Philo's Against Flaccus and borrowing from Psalms - to what extent can history copy literature (even under the guise of contemporization (pesher) and interpretation (midrash))? How could Pilate have had mercy on Jesus in the midst of a bloodthirsty crowd yet Josephus and Philo are clear about his notorious brutality? How come Josephus never mentioned Jesus of Nazareth among the nineteen Jesuses he mentions who were contemporaries of Jesus and among whom were messiahs? How could a poor nondescript Jew who healed the sick, talked to the Jews about turning the other cheek, forgiveness and loving ones neighbour get himself crucified by Romans?

These are questions that need cogent answers.

And the theory that yields better answers will will the day. That theory can be proved wrong later like Albrights, but UNTIL THEN,...

I can compare this area of enquiry to Popperian conception of science as a series of tentative conjectures which are tested and falsified. We can keep conjecturing, but that does not render the acceptability of the conjectures to be entirely subjective.

I personally prefer an approach that fosters critical reflection rather than polarization (right/wrong). One can choose to withhold judgement on the issue and await new evidence, but one can also dare to make a conjecture based on available data and subject it to thorough tests. As Crossan says, we propose, then we push and push and push until a theory or methodology cracks. Then when it cracks, we examine the crack and make necessary adjustments and gain new insight. That, IMO, is how we can proceed.

Agreed. And thats why we are here thrashing out theories that have been propounded from all over. Feyerabend would be on our side because we are challenging the orthodoxy and questioning their axioms. From the first quest, a HJ was taken as a given. MJ hypothesis is slowly invading the strongholds of orthodoxy and getting respect even in the face of violent and volcanic disdain from theologians dressed as 'objective scholars'.

Some in the academia and orthodoxy will cross over (like Price) others, IMO, are on the way (like Darrell Doughty) others are already nibbling (like Paula Fredricksen) and slowly by slowly JM theory will have to be addressed squarely by those that have turned their backs on it. Like the Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis, slowly by slowly the HJ axiom will have to be questioned, examined and ultimately rejected. The fact of the matter is, we have scholars that believed in a HJ and later rejected or stopped taking his existence for granted, but none that believed in a MJ and later embraced a HJ.
Social sciences and other fields of study are permeating NT studies and offering new ways of examining the data and it will be impossible for a select few (90% of them with divinity degrees and other cornflake certificates) to sustain a total dominance and monopoly over this field of inquiry.

The methodologies and strata produced in order to provide objectivity to their assumed conclusions are defective so far because underpinning them are false assumptions. We have over seven different Jesuses from NT scholars - that itself shows the third quest is in serious jeopardy.

And, IMO, its not because there is lack of data. Its evidence of scholarly bias attempting to preserve scholarly bias gone bad.

Amaleq,
His 'honest opinion' is that a HJ existed. Now, there is no evidence for this. Its that simple. The evidence is so 'not there' that the orthodoxy are devising methodologies to show you 'the evidence'. By Rick's own admission, E.P Sanders' arguments and Crossan's methodologies and strata assume a HJ a priori.
None of these scholars have written books that can be referred to as definitive proof for the existence of a HJ - they just assume a HJ and attempt to dress him up. Some dress him up and a lunatic, others as a teacher, others as a rebel, others as a disenfranchised Jew and so on and so forth.

So, where is the evidence of a HJ? At least I can refer to Doherty's book for a MJ - can Rick do the same?

Should we just assume a HJ existed like the academia?

I agree with Celsus that "comparisons between rival theories must be much more systematic" than theory X has more explanatory power then theory Y. And that is being done here and elsewhere. The explanatory power bit came when Rick claimed that there is no reliable historical method and that "What we are left with is what holds the most explanatory power" and Amaleq said its because "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 explanatory power is ultimately subjective".
And Richard Carrier also brought out EP as an aspect that makes Doherty's theory 'better' than a HJ theory. Under the current circumstances, EP can be a guide for judging the better theory.

Falsifying either theory IMO entails presenting data that challenges or contradicts them as I have done above partly. And sooner or later, we will get the pearl.

Even scientific theories are accepted based on their ability to explain reality and in a sense, thats the purpose of enquiry. And the reality that confronts Rick et al is that there is no clear, unquestionable HJ outside the gospels from sources that are not dependent on gospel tradition.

BTW amaleq, there is no universally accepted QM interpretation of the wf collapse (of course the question is the place of the observer in the collapse of the wave function as Schrondiger's cat so well described it). Max Tegmark - the leading light of Multiverse Theory, supports Everret's MWI (I read his Scientific American article on Parallel Universes last year). We have other physicists embracing the Copenhagen interpretation - IIRC, Wheeler is one of them with his delayed choice thought experiment, then there is the transactional interpretation and so on and so forth. So, scientists are divided over the issue. I dont think that makes it subjective.

In addition, I think its important to note that subjective judgements are based on (personal) I 'values' not fact. As an atheist who embraces metaphysical naturalism, I have no 'value' to lose - existence of a HJ is not a challenge to my value system or worldview. I would readily accept a HJ without the supernatural trappings like the HJ of the Jesus Seminar. But I have rejected that too because of many reasons - some of which I have mentioned above. The only aspect that may require subjectivity is the question of what constitutes enough evidence for a HJ - because perhaps it cannot be quantified so one must make their own 'I' judgements about whether the evidence is enough to arrive at either conclusion.

In fact, this idea that the matter is subjective is very new. There are scholars who said the quest should be abandoned because the data is not there and so on. But subjective?

After debating on questions of subjectivity, intersubjectivity and objectivity, I have great difficulty seeing this as a subjective matter, but I understand your point of view.

Or maybe, the question of whether or not its subjective is subjective too?

I would appreciate Toto's input here, Vork and the rest. I think this is an important matter that raises questions about the epistemological foundations of this field of enquiry and its relevant to the OP because its about questions that christians ignore.

Rick Sumner

I'm not overlooking it at all, I'm endorsing that wholeheartedly. It is almost entirely subjective. Most people generally find the same sorts of things persuasive, which is why it generally falls into neat groups.

The distinction I'm making is the difference between the empirical evidence itself, and the interpretation of it.

That, again, was rather my point. We take what we know--these texts exist, this sect developed--and then try to explain them. The best argument explains them with the most force. Which one has the most force is a subjective interpretation.

One could argue the same of the Jesus-Myth, though I'm not going to embark on that road--at least not yet.

The point is that it hasn't levelled out at all--there are probably more divergent reconstructions now that at any point in the past, even without citing the extremes.

And I said "centuries" specifically for that reason.

Exactly.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Exactly. Which, I suppose, is the great irony of it, because it's frequently all we have.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Bede

Be careful Jacob. There is a vast amount of evidence for the HJ, its just that you have chosen to reject it. That's your perogative. But it is no use pretending it doesn't exist. That's why Doherty has to spend so much time on his radical re-interpretation of Paul's letters, his explaining away of Josephus, dating the Gospels/Acts way after the internal and external evidence says they were written, inventing silences in the apostolic fathers and ignoring historical method (as used for all history outside the weird world of HJ studies).

You cannot say there is no evidence. You can only say that it does not convince you. To take one example:

Because he trashed the temple at a sensitive time of year and an itchy procurator strung him up without a thought. This is so well attested that the MJ argument ceases to be meaningful unless, like Doherty, you devote a book length study to explaining away evidence that cannot reasonably be explained away.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Rick Sumner

This is so oversimplified as to be laughable. The prima facie evidence alone is massive--that's why the Jesus-Myth attempts to account for it in other manners; so that it can no longer be taken prima facie.

Do you understand what the term "a priori" means?

Neither have claimed to.

On what basis do you contend that they "just assume an HJ?" Simply because the existence of one is their working hypothesis?

You've put forth more than one post discussing Q, without a single argument in favour of its existence. Have you assumed Q a priori? Or have you reached the reasoned conclusion that Q exists based on your analysis of the evidence?

Employing working hypotheses is standard scholarly method--in absolutely every field of inquiry.

Can you name a single criteria Doherty presents that hasn't been reversed?

If not, referencing Doherty's book isn't going to do you much good.

And if the best "evidence" you have for 2000 year old events is a book written in the late twentieth century, you're in big trouble. Doherty certainly wouldn't consider his book "evidence." It's an interpretation of evidence, not evidence itself.

I'd still like to see a quote from Sanders or Crossan stating "I have assumed an HJ to exist."

You're kidding, right? Schweitzer was struck by the subjective nature of the Quest a century ago.

It's really not relevant to the OP, but that's neither here not there--you've misrepresented what I said in such a fashion as to make it appear more conducive to your rebuttal. I'll reiterate:

No methodology, for or against an historical Jesus, has yet been presented that is not reversible. Doherty's silence fell with 2 Peter, Dissimilarity falls with Seneca. And so on. Not a single one. I am not persuaded that such a method *can* be developed.

Incidentally, you're still mixing up Peshar and Midrash, and attempting to treat the two as though it makes no difference which is being employed.

If you don't understand the distinction--something I've asked you repeatedly--then ask for clarification. You aren't bolstering your argument by misusing terms.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Just to expand on this a little, because cries of "no evidence" are entirely too common, and wholly inaccurate.

We have a lot of evidence. Great gobs of it. The question is how do we account for it.

Which, of course, is where the two way street that is perpetually ignored comes into play. The absence of any kind of irreversible historical method is not only damning for the historicist, it is equally damning for the mythicist.

The mythicist is every bit as obligated to provide an irreversible way of determining fact from fiction as the historicist is--you don't just get to presume that everything should be read exactly as you'd like it to be, that every event with a scriptural parallel is "midrash" by default, and so on. You need to come up with a methodology supporting that. None has been presented yet--or rather, those that have have been reversed or refuted.

If you develop a criteria that sometimes fails, and sometimes seems to hit, your criteria is useless. Regardless of whether or not you accept the historicity of Jesus.

And this, I'm afraid, is the last I'll say on the matter. As I outlined above, employing working hypotheses is standard scholarly method. I employ one. Scream "a priori" or "theological bias" or "blindly following NT scholarly consensus," or whatever else on the usual run of ad hocs/ad hominems I may have missed. I investigated the matter, I'm satisfied with my conclusion. Barring new evidence, that conclusion isn't likely to change.

Regards,
Rick Sumner