Vinny

I'm not seeing your point Kris.

If you think that there is a “good answer” to the question, why do you insist upon teasing a contrary intent out of Sherwin-White’s comments? It seems to me that he recognized the possibility that he might classify the gospels among the “most deplorable” sources if he applied the same methods that he applied to the sources he regularly examined. Since he never did such a study (Lee Strobel’s hyperbole notwithstanding), it merely becomes a question of what he expected he would have found if he had done so. As you note, it is difficult to decipher this expectation since he carefully hedged his statements. You might be right that he would have expected to find a bigger historical core than members of the Jesus Seminar generally do, although that would not necessarily be my guess. Even if you are right though, so what? Are you really going to attach any weight to the unstated expectations of a scholar about what he thinks he might have found had he studied a topic outside his expertise?

KrisK10

I'm not sure what you're asking here. I think there is a good answer to the question of why the Christian literature has less historical core than other ancient literature. Whether or not there is a good answer to this question is irrelevant to what I think S-W is saying in his treatise. In other words, even if I did not think there was a good answer to this question, I would still insist that S-W is saying that the "legendary gospels" theory would make them an exception to what he normally deals with.



I agree that S-W acknowledges that possibility, but as you know, he says that even in those cases, based on his experience, there is still a "basic layer of historical truth". Again, we're back to percentages here which S-W never talks about. One could take the technical road and say that a "basic layer of historical truth" only speaks against those who say there is zero historical truth in the gospels. While technically this is true, based on the gist of the rest of S-W treatise, I think it is reasonable to conclude that he would find a 10% historical core in the gospels also quite surprising to him.



I agree that Strobel's comment is misleading. Still though, an experienced and reputable classical historian is briefly making the observation based on all his studies up to that point that he remembers (without meticulously going through them all again), that literature as early as the gospels should have enough historical core in them to basically figure out the public life of Jesus.



This is the core of our disagreement I think. S-W appears to be speaking against the Rudolph Bultmann idea of his time that the historical Jesus was completely unrecoverable. He says no, and technically all he says is that there should be some of historical core there. S-W does not lay down a percentage of historical core that should be there, but he gives his opinion that there is a "basic historicity of the particular stories of which the Gospel narratives are composed" (pg. 188). Today we are dealing with a JS scenario of about 10% historical core instead of zero. It doesn't take a lot of imagination in my opinion to figure out what S-W would most likely think of a 10% historical core. Therefore, I think his comments are relevant even today.


Yes. Because I think we skeptics should do our best to answer any questions that come. If the gospels have less historical core than any other literature of comparable age from actual events, then there should be a reason for that. Finding that reason and explaining it helps our cause.

Kris

KrisK10

Vinny,

I'll probably be offline for several days, but I think we have probably gotten to the end of our discussion. I see S-W's comments as applicable to a Jesus Seminar type proposal, you don't.

Kris

Vinny

That is a very big “if” Kris. First we would need someone to do a detailed study of ancient literature to come up with some objective criteria to tell us how much history we should expect to find in various genres depending on the authors’ methods, the time of composition and any other relevant factors. I suspect that the criteria would not wind up being very precise. After that we would need to examine the practices of various members of the Jesus Seminar to see whether they are in fact finding a smaller historical core than the objective criteria would predict. Only then would we know what it is that we are being called upon to explain.

As a skeptic, I am happy to look at any evidence the apologists care to produce to see whether it supports the conclusion they want to draw from it. I don’t see any evidence to work with here.

BTW, as a skeptic I am skeptical of your use of the phrase “we skeptics.” Strobel’s claim that “Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world” is not simply “misleading,” it is demonstrably false. Sherwin-White considered a single ancient historian, Herodotus, and he considered a single instance where Herodotus reported the historical rather than the mythological version of the events. No skeptic I know would cut Strobel any slack on this whopper.

KrisK10

Vinny,

In the perfect world you're right. We need someone to dedicate several years (or more) to do a detailed study of all ancient literature to come up with some objective criteria to tell us how much history we should expect to find in various genres depending on the authors’ methods, the time of composition and any other relevant factors. Then, we need to quantify how much history the JS proposal entails. Only then can we make an objective comparison of the two.

Well, I don't think such a thing is ever going to happen any time soon, and I think you are taking this way too legalistically. I think the less than legally admissible opinion of S-W is still of interest here and is in fact usually of the type of opinion that people have to deal with all the time on any subject. To the best of his memory of everything he has studied (not just Herodotus!), S-W is saying that a basic layer of historical truth should be reconstructable from records written less that two or three generations from events. In addition, it is clear that S-W is taking a direct swipe at the Bultmann idea of the time that the historical Jesus is completely lost. The JS today is only one small notch away from Bultmann. In fact, many think that the JS just hasn't realized that Bultmann was right and that their reconstructions are simply a reflection of their own biases. I say S-W's comments have a kernel of truth to them that deserves an answer (and I think there is one!). However, I respect your decision to disregard S-W's remarks because they are not precise enough nor has he done a detailed enough analysis on the subject.

Kris

Vinny

Kris,

I did not say that Herodotus was the only thing that Sherwin-White had considered. I realize that he discussed a number of ancient historians throughout his comments However, in the section where he claims to “test the tempo of myth making,” he only discusses a single event reported by Herodotus and the extent to which that report had been subject to legendary corruption. Thus, Strobel’s claim that “Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world” is utter hogwash.

Apologists love to claim that they are the only ones providing comprehensive explanations of all the available facts. To a great extent this is true because the rational skeptic is forced to acknowledge that there is not enough evidence on many points to reach any very definite conclusion. How in the world can anybody say with any degree of confidence what, if anything, happened to Jesus’ body when the only accounts we have are theologically motivated writings composed thirty to sixty years after the events. The skeptic must admit that he can do little more than speculate.

I agree that Sherwin-White is taking a direct swipe at the idea that the historical Jesus is completely lost. However, I am not convinced that the Jesus Seminar is only one small notch away from this position, in part because I don’t think it makes any sense to talk about the Jesus Seminar as if all its members adhered to a single unified position on any specific issue. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that Sherwin-White is not committing himself to a position that is much more than a small notch away. Besides describing himself an amateur in form-criticism, consider the language he uses: “would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material;” “the falsification does not automatically and absolutely prevail;” “the material has not been transformed out of all recognition;” and “historical content is not hopelessly lost.” Thus for all of his study and knowledge, Sherwin-White is not willing to stake out a position that is anything more than a rejection of “form-criticism of the extremer sort.”

Nevertheless, just like Habermas, Craig, Strobel, and the others, you think that you can read between the lines to find some stronger opinion that Sherwin-White was not willing to articulate. I do not think that I am disregarding his comments. I think I am respecting the limitations that he chose.

KrisK10

Vinny,

I don't think Herodotus' account of the Persian wars is a single sample that led S-W to formulate his 2-3 generations comment. He uses this example because it is the most comparable he can think of to the gospels: "retold by Herodotus from forty to seventy years later", "regard their material with enthusiasm rather than detached criticism", "events which they regard as a mighty saga". I think S-W thinks his 2-3 generation remark applies to every example of ancient literature he can think of. You are correct that Strobel's claim is inaccurate, but I don't think it is near as far off the mark as you think.


I was referring to the JS's main published results: The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus (e.g. Trial never happened, Burial account is entirely fiction, about 15% of the quotes of Jesus are historical, etc.)

This is your strongest point. I agree that S-W did not commit himself to directly criticize anyone beyond those that say there is zero history in the gospels. As I've already mentioned, S-W seems almost like two people in his treatise, on the one hand arguing for a basic historicity in the particular stories of the gospels, on the other hand he only criticizing those that say there is none. Either the guy is a little psycho or, my conclusion, he recognizes that he is an amateur in NT studies and out of professional courtesy is holding back when he lays down any criticism. This is a judgment call, and that's the way I see it.


I don't share the religious beliefs of those guys but yes, I do think there is a stronger opinion than you see. Given S-W split personality mentioned above, I believe it is a responsible reading of between the lines. To do otherwise is to conclude that S-W was a little nuts, or to just take his most conservative statements and ignore the others."

Kris

thentian

I think it is utterly wanton for someone to compare possible myth-growth around Alexander to myth growth around Jesus. Alexander was unarguably the most famous person of his time while still alive, and was extremely well known by the approximately 70 000 soldiers who followed him on his campaigns. Many of these -at the very least the officers- were highly literate and well educated for their time. So, sure, any myths would be very likely to meet resistance for the next forty years or so (at the very least!). Compare to Jesus, who had a dozen illiterate followers.

Still myths can grow quickly, especially if it is to someone's advantage. They can even persist in the face of documented fact. There are actually still some people who believe that Napoleon grabbed the crown from the pope's hands to coronate himself instead of letting the pope do it. Here's a site that says so, and can you guess what kind of site it is without looking?

KrisK10

Exactly, And that's why the idea of a largely legendized Christian literature is so alien to a classical historian like S-W.

Kris

Solo

There are several known medical conditions which create spontaneous pregnancy (Google) in humans. The issue with parthenogenesis, as pointed out, is that this sort of reproduction, is known to produce only females (or sexually transient specimen), and in great majority of cases the offspring is seriously deformed or non-viable. However, succesful deliveries of healthy humans are also known.

Jiri

ETA : For GM sake, I hope this one goes well, also