gstafleu

Let's take a datum D. One can then form two (in our universe of discourse) hypotheses about D: (1) it is historical and (2) it is nonhistorical. Since (2) is just the negative (opposite) of (1), it is methodologically not a different hypothesis, so let us just focus on (1): D is historical.

In order for this (or any) hypothesis to be valid (as opposed to true), one needs two things. First one needs corroborating evidence ("this is why I think it is historical"), a process called verification. In addition, one needs to show how the hypothesis could be falsified: "If this happens, or that is found to be the case, then my hypothesis is false."

So you are quite right: you need both criteria that, if met, would show historicity, and those that would show nonhistoricity. If your hypothesis is historicity, and you only have criteria for nonhistoricity, then you can only falsify your hypothesis, not verify it. If you only have criteria for historicity, then you can verify but not falsify (a tempting but strictly illegal situation ).

The reasoning above is of course exactly the same, be it with a "change of sign," if your hypothesis is nonhistoricity rather than historicity. What is missing here is the non liquet. That is because that is not a hypothesis, so you can't do anything with it. It is at best a starting attitude of the scientist. To avoid bias, a starting attitude of non liquet is no doubt preferable, but it has no effect on the methodology.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

This kind of human action and decisionmaking is a very soft form of implausibility. I am thinking of harder forms. Making pacts, for example, is what leaders of nations do.

Exactly. As the rule says, when the person benefitting from the heroic parallel is the one enacting the events, this criterion does not apply. Other examples would (potentially) be Theudas trying to cross the Jordan river and Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey (just that action, BTW, Ted Hoffman, not the entire scene).

Of these Australian political maneuvers I know absolutely nothing. Sorry.

Yes, I am not happy with this first positive criterion. Genre has to be there somewhere, but I am still working on how best to use it.

I am not envisioning using much imagination in this process; I am talking about actually tracing the chain (X quotes Y, who claimed information from Z, who was contemporary to the event).

This is why the datum has to pass all of the positive tests. No single one is infallible.

I mean that the datum is accepted on all sides by contemporaries or near contemporaries (hence the importance of tracing back the chain of transmission). It does not matter how many sides accept or reject the datum two millennia later.

Once again the chain of transmission test has already been passed, so we are basically back in the contemporary period.

I think these are basically the rules for nonbiblical studies. I gleaned most of these test straight from the pages of Garraghan, of Howell and Prevenier, and of Gottschalk. I am just repackaging them in a tighter format, including the tests that are necessary in early Christian studies but not always necessary across the board. (Rules for oral tradition, for example, have been formulated by and for historians before, but not all branches of history require them, so they do not get mentioned as much as some of the other methods; that is one reason my chain of transmission rule is there; it comes straight from Garraghan.)

I completely object to having special rules for biblical studies. This is why I wrote of...:

I think both you and spam are misinterpreting me on that score.

Ben.

Ted Hoffman

I am saying the positive is superfluous given the ubiquity of the positive regard toward the Bible.
I recall very clearly and if you read the article published online, I give you due credit. Back to the point, you forgot the following:
That is the question.

S.C.Carlson

It seems to me that there's a tendency for the historicity criteria in HJ research to be sui generis. If one is going to do these criteria right, I'd like to see them applied to other cases, e.g., Mohammed, William Tell, Apollonius of Tyana, Gamaliel, Theudas, the "Egyptian," Hercules, Paul, Marcion, Tatian, King Arthur, etc.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

Then I refer you to Neil Godfrey for a rousing discussion of whether one ought to treat the Bible differently from other ancient texts.

Okay, but you wrote about the plausibility of Jerusalem urbanites throwing garments before Jesus. Where does Mark say that these were Jerusalem urbanites? I had pointed out to you that those scholars of whom I am aware think the crowd would have consisted mainly of pilgrims coming to the feast, not residents of Jerusalem. That is what I meant by showing no awareness of our past discussion. (I was not hitting you up for due credit! )

I think I addressed this somewhat with Neil. I am talking about general implausibility. I happen not to know how hard or easy it is to ride an unbroken donkey, so I cannot comment on that in particular. Other details in the triumphal entry have to be studied one by one for their likely background.

Ben.

gstafleu

I'm not sure if I quite understand this, but nevertheless I'll propose a generalization. We are primarily dealing with mythology and reports from/about believers in the mythology. We have a reasonable idea as to what that mythology (at that time) was. Hence:

2. If the datum fits in well with the mythology, it is likely of mythological rather than historical origin. This fits Occam's razor: in this case we do not need historicity in order to explain the datum.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

That is the solution. It was used on Homer's Achilles with amazing results accepted universally. I used the same method for Jesus and it worked extremely well.

Achilles and Jesus are of the same kind of myth.

Ben C Smith

That is essentially what I am saying, but I am also adding a crucial distinction. Some historical personages intentionally act out mythical templates. For example, the fact that Josephus portrays Theudas as going out to cross the Jordan river is no strike against historicity, even with the Joshua story firmly in the background. This is Theudas acting intentionally in accord with ancient scripture. However, when we find Roman soldiers fulfilling an obscure line from the psalms about gambling for clothing, we are right to be suspicious; why would Roman soldiers wish to fulfill a Hebrew psalm they probably had never even heard or read?

Ben.

gstafleu

Good point. The difference between the two scenarios you sketch is that, at least as far as we know, Josephus was writing from outside the mythology that motivated Theudas, while the data we have about the gambling comes from inside. So:
mythology (at that time) was. Hence:

2. If the datum fits in well with the mythology, and the datum is found (only) within the mythology, then it is likely of mythological rather than historical origin.

Gerard

mountainman

But shouldn't the question also be as to why in not just one but a number of the apochryphal acts the apostles themselves are presented as casting lots for the dividing up of the nations. Is this suspicious also?


Best wishes,


Pete