Marxist

I found this while doing an Internet search. I don't think it has been posted here before. I will post the link, and then quote the stuff related to Doherty.

http://www.ntgateway.com/Jesus/crossan.htm

-------------

QUESTION 62

(Neil Godfrey: "Potential fatal flaw" in the BofC method?)

Your earlier comment on the implications of a "parabolic Jesus" [see Question 30 response above] reminded me of an in-depth review of BofC by an author who does indeed argue that Jesus was "parabolic" With amazon.con sales of his book reaching 27,000 within weeks of its release (and with several reviews suggesting a well-educated audience) I was wondering if you would mind replying to one section of his review of your book which I reproduce below. (The reviewer had just commented how "very little ‘flesh and blood’ sense of [Jesus] comes across" through the descriptions of him by scholars like Meier and yourself.) ......

"Thus Crossan has arrived at his methodological juncture of Text and Context, and he now proceeds to open up the Q Gospel and the Gospel of Thomas to reveal the mind and program of the historical Jesus in the Galilean phase of his career. But there is a potential fatal flaw in the method, since it passes by and ignores a more fundamental question. If there was an historical Jesus, then the earliest layer of the texts under consideration would logically be closest to that figure, and if this coincides with the established context, then there is a high likelihood that we would indeed have uncovered the "authentic" Jesus. But if there was in fact no Jesus of Nazareth, and it is possible to view the earliest layers of those texts in a different light-a ground zero which is empty of such a figure and precedes the development of an artificial historical Jesus-then these bedrock layers of text could still coincide with the context Crossan has laid out if they can be seen as residing in Galilee.

"Thus what we would arrive at is not an historical Jesus, but a broad movement which did not owe its source and wellspring to the force of one man-(or there may have been some influential individuals involved whose names have not survived)-a movement for which an artificial Jesus figure was later developed to represent or symbolize. A saying or anecdote attributed to Jesus may fit Crossan’s context, but it may equally well be a saying or anecdote which belonged to the teachings or experiences of a community, a reform/resistance movement, a sect in conflict with the establishment, only later to be placed in the mouth or at the feet of an invented Jesus. How can we tell whether "Ask and you will receive, seek and you will find," was spoken by a Jesus or simply by a Kingdom group’s spokespersons? And are there in fact indications within the evidence itself, backed up by deductive reasoning we can bring to that evidence, which point in the latter direction?

"To this unaddressed and unproven assumption by Crossan and others, that there was an historical Jesus, we must add a glaring omission: the failure to seek and find corroboration for the Galilean picture of Jesus within the earliest extant record, namely the epistles. These documents, of course, belong to that other non-identical Twin which by definition had nothing to do with its sibling, much less bear any resemblance to it. But can that dismissal be so cavalierly made? The second Twin, with its epistolary texts, may not reside in the main "context" of Galilee, but it did presumably emerge from the same womb, in reaction to the same historical figure. If we cannot find any trace of that figure in Paul and the rest of the early Christian correspondence, any trace of the same man as the wellspring of Paul’s faith, this would indicate that the earliest layers of the Q and Thomas texts were something entirely unconnected with that faith, and that the two Traditions only meet at the artificial intersection point created by the evangelist Mark. In addition to all else, if no Galilee and no historical Jesus lie behind Paul, it becomes much less likely that the earliest layers of Crossan’s texts refer to any such figure." ... Earl Doherty.

The full review is at: <http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/crossbr.htm.

[mod note - this web address is out of date. The JesusPuzzle moved, and that review is now at http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/crossbr.htm ]



RESPONSE

(John Dominic Crossan)

If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for me.

There was one other point where I think Earl Doherty simply misstated what I did. In BofC, after the initial sections on materials and methods (1-235), I spent about equal time in Galilee (237-406) , or at least to the north, and in Jerusalem with pre-Pauline materials (407-573). I agree that if we had a totally different and irreconcilable vision/program between Paul and Q (just to take an example), it would require some very good explaining. Part of what I was doing, for example, in talking about the Common Meal Tradition was showing how even such utterly distinct eucharistic scenarios as Didache 9-10 and I Cor 11-12 have rather fascinating common elements behind and between them. It is a very different thing, in summary, for Paul to say that he is not interested in the historical Jesus (Jesus in the flesh) than to say that "no Galilee and no historical Jesus lie behind Paul."

------------------

QUESTION 71

(Neil Godfrey: Ideological immunity?)

I take your point that you are not particularly interested in trying to prove an historical Jesus to a mythicist [see Question 62 response above]. However your response raises a broader question and I beg your patience in asking it.

While not a scholar I have read your BofC and Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography and I owe you a significant debt for introducing me to a deeper understanding of both content and methods in HJ studies. I have no personal stake in the "mythicist" position (nor in the more orthodox view though by far the most of my reading has certainly been the orthodox framework) but I do find myself sometimes a little dismayed when I see scholars fail to understand and even sometimes in understandable ignorance misrepresent this alternative paradigm. I am very aware of the logical and inadequate information problems that explain "why people believe weird things" (Michael Shermer) but on the other hand how can we be sure we are not falling into "the Planck problem" of building up a perhaps unnecessary ideological immunity against an alternative paradigm?

If Doherty superficially dismissed your methods and analyses in BofC I agree he would have no more credibility than someone who refuses to believe man has landed on the moon or that Julius Caesar was merely an Augustan propaganda myth. Similarly if he had cavalier "explanations" for the non-Christian sources. His "potential fatal flaw" comment was specific to one point of your method. He in fact dedicated a major portion of his review (several lengthy pages) to the evidence you argued was pre-Pauline (including the lament tradition of the women, the Cross Gospel) and probably went into the greatest depth on your treatment of the Didache. I only singled out 3 paragraphs of his review for your comment and it would be a mistake to glean from that small section that Doherty misrepresents your methods in BofC. If I am mistaken in this then I do apologize and would like to know.

If we dismiss an alternative paradigm with possibly inadequately informed "either-or" scenarios then how can we be sure we are not risking falling into the pitfall waiting for the orthodox that Michael Shermer spoke about in his "Why People Believe Weird Things"?

"Ideological immunity is built into the scientific enterprise, where it functions as a filter against potentially overwhelming novelty. As historian of science I. B. Cohen explained, "New and revolutionary systems of science tend to be resisted rather than welcomed with open arms, because every successful scientist has a vested intellectual, social, and even financial interest in maintaining the status quo. If every revolutionary new idea were welcomed with open arms, utter chaos would be the result" (1985, p. 35)."

RESPONSE

(John Dominic Crossan)

I am not certain, Neil, that I have much to add to my previous post. I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition. My very general arguments are: (1) that existence is given in Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources; (2) it is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a bastard and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!); (3) there are no historical parallels that I know of from that time and period that help me understand such a total creation. There is, however, a fourth point that I touched on in BofC 403-406. It is crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly what he was doing (not in his name, but as part of the Kingdom of God). The most basic continuity that I see between Jesus and those companions was, as I put it, not in mnemonics, but in mimetics. In other words, they were imitating his lifestyle and not just remembering his words. I find that emphasized in the Q Gospel’s indictment of those who talk, but do not do, and in the Didache’s emphasis on the ways (tropoi) of the Lord (not just words/logoi). When, therefore, I look at a phrase such as "blessed are the destitute," and am quite willing to argue that it comes from the historical Jesus, I am always at least as sure that it represents the accurate summary of an attitude as the accurate recall of a saying. For analogy: If Gandhi had developed a large movement after his death of people who are living in non-violent resistance to oppression, and one of them cited an aphorism of Gandhi, namely "if you do not stand on a small bug, why would you stand on a Big Bug," I would be more secure on the continuity in lifestyle than in memory and could work on that as basis.

Marxist

It really is amazing how shallow Crossan's response to the Jesus myth is.

yalla

My interest in this entire field started when I accidentally borrowed Crossan's "Jesus, Life of a Med. Peasant'' whatever the exact title was.
I was deeply impressed.
Forgive me I was young.
I took no notes and haven't been able to get the book again but, IIRC, he had a [snide?] comment in there about ''the village atheist'' when mentioning the in-credibility of an MJ.
In BOC, again IIRC, he mentions how a customer at a book signing got him to the point of questioning the whole box and dice but he realised......and was still in the fold, I think his saving grace had something to do with his dating of the Didache.
I'd love to re-read those books to see what he really said and what my memory tells me.

Vorkosigan

It's the same old bullshit. The historicist position on mythicism is a caricature.

Jesus H. Christ. It's essentially the same argument that the fundies make, dressed up in more nuanced words.

It's defintely worse than I thought on the historicist side.

Vorkosigan

RUmike

Crossan's position is entirely respectable. He admits that's the only evidence he has, but that it's enough to convince him. He doesn't even hint that it is beyond dispute or that it should be enough for others.

Toto

No, he just compares people who disagree with him to the loonies who think that the moon landing was staged.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's what disappointed me. It's not his position per se, which is based on the standard arguments for historicity (Josephus, Tacitus, "nobody said he didn't exist"), and which he kind of acknowledged was his own scholarly conclusion but was not something he couldn't be proven wrong about. I don't think he's especially unreasonable in that regard (or at least not unusual), But his strawman comparison of mythicists to moon hoaxers and conspiracy theorists is really beneath him. Crossan is an ex-priest and is in his 70's. I wonder if he's actually read Doherty or Wells or Price, or if he still sees mythicism as a completely loony, non-scholarly position.

It's a shame because there is a lot about Crossan to admire. I think he has shown academic courage and moral independence in many regards, and whatever he says about mythicism, he's still probably done as much or more than anyone in is field to bring a critically honest view of Christian origins to public attention. The Jesus Seminar may not be perfect but I think, on balance, It has done a lot to get the pants off of historical Christian assumptions and Crossan deserves credit for his contributions to that.

NOGO

This is the statement that I find surprizing.
It is definitely not the historian speaking here.

Vorkosigan

....and that from a man who a few years earlier had noted that there was no widely accepted methodology for excavating the material.

Vorkosigan

yalla

But he has one thing going for him at least and that is his attack on the anti-semitism inherent in a fair chunk of Christian analysis of their canon. He wrote a book directly attacking it, and some other scholar, and thats one of only 2 times [I think Funk was the other...oops Spong also?] that standard scholars have addressed the issue AFAIK.
Meritorious.