Rick Sumner

Where would you suggest that level of consistency is? It certainly doesn't appear on my bookshelf, where reconstructions as diverse as Crossan and Doherty mingle.

Saying X is considered authentic because it conforms best to construction Y, construction Y is very rarely considered authentic because of saying X.

The latter is how it "should" run. I'm more of the belief that it shouldn't run at all. I find the notion that we can determine whether or not a given saying is authentic in the form it survives to us to be quite laughable. To use the JSem's coloring, no saying should score better than pink.

Such methodologies are a waste of time. The more effort spent laying it out, the more it's presented to indicate a pre-existing conclusion. That's why Crossan and Meier can use such similar methodologies to arrive at such incredibly disparate conclusions. I've yet to see one employed that is 1) Consistently effective and 2) Not primarily subjective. If there are any in particular you'd care to defend, then by all means please do so.

Objectivity is obtained only through an external source. Unfortunately, we have none.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

That has been on my "to read" list since capnkirk recommended it. So many books, so little time...

Those diverse "thoughts" are where I find the multiplicity of Jesuses but I agree that considering what he offers independently of the issue of historicity is interesting enough.

Peter Kirby

I might add that Mack was invited to the Jesus Seminar but bowed out; I heard it was primarily because of the exercise of deciding which little bits are true.

best,
Peter Kirby

pierneef

I read your review, and I have very mixed reactions to it. But I want to study it a second time, before responding in more depth.

But given that you portray yourself as objective and non partisan, I would still challenge you to answer my original questions. You seem to be so sure; but how do you know ? Explain why you are so sure that this is a matter of pre-determined outcome driving methodology and its application. It is OK to show where a scholar has been sloppy. But it requires more than just assertion to show how a scholar has been dishonorable, in defending a position already held rather than reaching that position through his scholarship. That is a very serious charge, and as you hold yourself as a critic, you should be called on that to prove your contention, or admit that is simply your own subjective impression.

Vorkosigan

Great! But have you read the original book?

Did I? I was merely pointing out errors. One does not have to be objective or nonpartisan to do that, merely analytical and critical.

Three ways, first, because scholars frequently say so about other scholars:

As Crossan notes:

"I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer layer from all later strata."

..and of course:

"It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography

Second, because I have read many works on the topic of the historical Jesus, and none has offered a viable methodology. A good survey work might be The Historical Jesus by Theissen and Merz. See what you think of their methodological standpoint.

Third, I have read people writing about methodology. As Crossan, perhaps the leading thinker on it, wrote in 1991. "Methodology in Jesus research at the end of this century is about where methodology in archaeological research was at the end of the last."

It hasn't gone anywhere since. Read his section on methodology in The Birth of Christianity. John Meier reviews some of the problems in this article but recall that he is a conservative writing as if he really had a methodology. If you read [i}A Marginal Jew[/i] you'll soon find that his work is as good or bad as everyone elses's. His discussion of the Testamonium Flavinum is so bad, it is downright disingenuous.

In my view HJ work suffers from two flaws. First, it is accepted as an axiom that Jesus existed and the gospel Jesus somehow comports with the historical one. Second, the hunt for the HJ uses positive criteria which aim at extracting the historical. But anything you get with those is almost completely subjective. Crossan has tried to get around this with that methodology built on stratification and multiple attestation, but if you pay close attention to The Historical Jesus you'll soon find that again and again he simply chooses things because he likes them. Positive criteria simply cannot work.

Whoa! I am accusing no one of dishonor. Rather, I am accusing them of finding their assumptions in their conclusions. It is an axiom of historical Jesus research that there really was a Jesus whose career somehow comported with the Gospels. The basic problem is that there is no credible outside vector on Jesus. They are either too late or, like the famed passage in Josephus, interpolated or reworked.

I have made a prima facie case. But I suggest before you continue this conversation, you invest in a copy of The Birth of Christianity and read the section on methodology.

Vorkosigan

pierneef

I have read most of the Crossan books and a great deal of other Christology. Much of what you have written suffers from exactly what you use to criticise Crossan. You make assertions, throw in a quote, and draw a conclusion that suits you. I am really most unimpressed with the critique, now that I have read it a second time. I find it highly subjective and biased...doing exactly what you condemn Crossan for..."proving" your own assumptions.

I do not agree with everything Crossan has written, and I Do, from time to time, find that he settles on a conclusion rather thinly, but he often concedes that. In fact, he is very scrupulous about stating his assumptions, and accepts that if his assumptions can be shown to be faulty, his conclusions are wrong.

Your insistence on an "outside vector" seems to me inconsistent with the fact that you even bother to read these books. What on earth can your motivation be, except to ax them. I do not regard these studies as a Quest for the Historical Jesus, but instead an investigation of what has happened to the original Jesus Tradition, by peeling off as many as possible of the overlays, interpolations and editorial tricks carried out by the early Christian fathers. In pursuing this, Crossan has used a range of disciplines that can shed some light. I have never seen from him a single statement that his goal if definitive proof (I challenge you to provide one). But that is the position, a strawman position, from which you launch most of your attacks in what I have read of yours so far. If you have other material which you think may persuade me otherwise, I will gladly review it. Until then, my motivation is to learn as much as I can, while wearing a critical hat. Its anybody's guess what your motivation is, but what you have said has not impressed me at all

:down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:

Vorkosigan

I'll tell you what. Show me an example of where I do that in my review of Crossan. I will accept any criticism, provided it is supported by concrete examples. I do not speak emptily, for I have a large website on Taiwan which I regularly update in response to reader complaints and suggestions.

Yes, he appears that way on the surface. It isn't until you read the whole book very carefully that you begin to realize that he suspends his methodology whenever it doesn't take him where he wants it to go, as in the miracle traditions, the Temple Ruckus, and in the several times he short-circuits it by "cheating" as he piously informs the reader. This is a rhetorical device to get the reader to do what you have done, buy into Crossan's show of integrity so you can sympathize with his conclusions. I simply have refused to make that buy-in, because I am highly suspicious of anyone who wants me to accept their conclusions because they are a really nice guy. Crossan's "declarative idiom" may be more simpatico, but his statements remain unsupported declarations, just like Meier's or Sanders'. As Eric Eve once observed, in NT studies too often the level of acceptance of an idea rests on the rhetorical skills of the exegete. It's very important, pierneef, that when you encounter an author who writes brilliantly and oozes integrity and whom you want to like, that you not suspend your critical judgment in the face of such a dual seduction of the critical faculties. It's at that point that you must force yourself to swim upstream against that soothing current of self-deprecation to find the spring from which all these ideas flow. Like as not you are simply swimming through fog to find the wellspring dry.

Be fair. I didn't attack your motivations. Don't hack on mine. If you read my reviews of Wells and Price there, as well as Ludemann, you'll soon see that I am no kinder to them. As a matter of fact I am writing a historical commentary on Mark, which I have posted examples of in several places. I think tomorrow I am going to put up my enlarged list of criteria. You can hack on them, if you like.

Me too.

That is a very unfair charge. Not once do I attack Crossan for his conclusions or for arguing for definitive proof. Rather, I point out that his method of arriving at them amounts to simply declaring what is right and what is not, counting on his brilliant prose to snow the reader (you will notice that I imitated it) into imagining that he is doing something else. The issue for me with The Historical Jesus was how Crossan claimed to be using a methodology to do what you say, yet in fact was simply following his own prejudices. That's most clear in the Temple Ruckus sequence, where he declares the whole thing a symbolic event that never occurred, but then decides he better resurrect the idea lest someone suddenly realizes that once the Temple is gone, we are stuck with the position of the Gospel of John that things happened because that's the way Jesus wanted them to happen.

Again, leave my motivations out of it (you have no idea what they are). That's too bad. Have you tried Stanley Porter's book on Criteria? How about The Historical Jesus by Theissen and Merz? T&M are German Christian conservatives; you might enjoy their compilation of stuff. And best of all, I haven't reviewed either.

Vorkosigan

pierneef

Thanks for your explanations. I will take some time to go through your critique as you proposed. It is a little insulting to suggest that I (and other readers) would be seduced by Crossans prose and not notice if he is "cheating" on applying his methodology. In fact, I find his style rather tedious and repetitive and have to work quite hard to follow his thread. So for me it is nothing like seduction.

Why, if you feel that the Search for HJ is pointless without an "outside vector" do you read these books ? Why are you reluctant to reveal your motivation ?

pierneef

You begin with invective. You dont even allow the reader to study your case and draw his/her own conclusions. You begin with the verdict. Exactly what you criticise about Crossan. Hardly an auspicious or congruent start !

More sniping before you have argued or presented anything. The reader would have no doubt what your starting assumptions are. Describing a scholar of "dressing it up" is to accuse him of academic falsification. Creating a false veneer to convey an impression that the argument itself cannot sustain. This is a very serious charge.

Continued belittlement, and you have presented nothing yet.

How do you know with such certainty, that no historical core can be had ? If that is your opinion, state it as such. Otherwise present some foundation for regarding this as preposterous.

If he doesnt state that this is part of his methodology, how do you know, with such certainty that it is ? He is simply dealing with compex material. I see no problem with this at all, and you havent explained at this point why it is a problem. Again, you simply attack it, based on your own undeclared assumptions. Once again, not very congruent, given your accusation that "This is a rhetorical device to get the reader to do what you have done, buy into Crossan's show of integrity so you can sympathize with his conclusions."

..you can say the same thing about any ideological framework derived from any era. This is casuistry.

It appears that way only to those who need historical narrative as a crutch to help them understand an historical tradition. Crossan is dealing with many layers, and to redice them to a homogenous narrative would be niave in the extreme. Once again, a put-down: he charges at his topic like a brigade of panzers, mindless and destructive. Any reader who doesnt know your underlying assumptions and purpose at this stage, would be an idiot !

How do you know this was his purpose ? Why do you automatically jump to the most unflattering interpretation of his motives, that you can find ? Have you never heard of the use of converging data models in social science disciplines ? There are many other alternative conclusions that you could have drawn, but you have gone for the one that discredits him most; accusing him of using an intellectual trick to avoid problem issues, rather than design a methodology that aims for rigor.

That is your baggage, and I see no reason why Crossan has to address it at all. It is apparent to anyone who has studied the emergence of the biblical text, that there wasnt a simple act of forgery, but a mass of layers, with tradition interacting with community discussion, passing on of remembered events, myth, deliberate interpolation etc. To simply package this complex, dynamic process, as an act of forgery, is so simple-minded, I am staggered.

I wont bother to comment any further on this review, because it is simply more of the same. Your position is crystal clear, and it shines through what you write. I do not regard this as in any way scholarly. You are pursuing a motive through what appears to be a critique, and I think it is a bloody nerve that you have ever criticised a scholar like Crossan for doing what you yourself do in almost every paragraph.

(If you want the rest of my response to your critique, I will email it to your Taiwan site, but I think it is unfair to other posters to indulge in this further on the Forum).

Vorkosigan

Where is the invective? I am simply echoing YOU. Didn't you just blast Rick Sumner for this crime:

"So you seem to be second-guessing scholars who go to great pains to lay out their methodology and reasoning for critique."

Isn't that exactly what Crossan is doing -- second-guessing scholars who go to great pains to lay out their methodology? You seem to think such behavior is arrogant. So the question is not why I am criticizing Crossan but why you're not supporting me!

Also, pierneef, it is traditional when writing an essay, to give the reader some idea of where one is going in the introduction.

Finally, in your haste to defend Crossan you have missed the fact that my "invective" is not directed at him, but at the incompetence of a field in which the most prominent scholar of methodology can say of it: "our methods are two centuries out of date!"

I think you missed that this is sarcasm in which the writer has assumed the point of view of a dullard reader who hasn't quite grasped what is going on. In other words, this is not an attack but a form of praise of Crossan's subtlety. The attack on Crossan is not contained in the words "dressed it up."

In other words, you haven't grasped the point there yet, pierneef. You're accusing me of your own errors of understanding.

The comment about axioms is again directed not at Crossan, but at the larger problems of the field. Once again you missed the point.

Again, you misunderstand. I did not claim there was no historical core (I do not know whether there is one or not). Rather, I accused the NT HJ scholars of having an unsupported axiom under their research. In other words, I say that they have a belief which is unsupported, not a belief which I know is wrong. There is a profound difference between the two.

As I said, you really do not get this review. That much is very apparent.

LOL. Have you actually read this book?

Once again, you missed the point. The issue is not what I have to show, but what Crossan does. Speaking not as Vorkosigan the poster but Michael Turton the published academic who has a couple of papers to his own name, and has been in on the writing of thirty or forty others, when you do anything methodologically you have to spell it out very carefully. So I am asking why Crossan never gives us a rationale for breaking up the gospel the way he does. This is important because how you break the gospel up determines what kind of sources you will uncover underneath it, and also, it contains an inherent assumption about how those sources are worked into the gospel.

For example, if you split up the sequence in Mark 3 when he appoints his disciples, from the next pericope, where his family gives him a hard time, you might treat it as having two separate sources, as Crossan in fact does. But in reality that sequence of two pericopes probably has only one source, a sequence in the OT, and thus, should not be split up.

Can you see my point now? Crossan has no justification for one of the most important moves of his methodology -- indeed, he never recognizes it as a move. Yet it has profound implications for his analysis.

Since you have failed to grasp what is going on, this comment is way out of line.

This is not me but Barbara Foley, and I am making a point -- which you have again mised -- that the assumptions that mythicists make about the narrative are like the assumptions that people make about WWII. In other words -- irony of ironies! -- I am not hacking on Crossan here, but on my allies!

Pierneef, you have turned this paragraph upside down. You really do not understand either Crossan, the mythicists, or this review. I am PRAISING Crossan for attacking the mythicists from an unprotected flank, and hacking on mythicists for leaving that flank unprotected! You have understood this ENTIRELY BACKWARDS!

I don't see much point in going on with this, but....

By reading him. I must ask, again: have you actually read this book? One reason that Crossan makes this move toward the sociopolitical is because the narrative has basically been destroyed. Crossan discusses the problem of narratives on pages XXX and XXXI, and then explains why he makes the methodological moves he does. As he says "it is, at heart, precisely that fourfold record, even if there were no external documents whatsoever, that constitutes the literary problem."

How is it "unflattering" to move to a successful strategy from an unsuccessful one? It is clear you just don't get this review at all.

For the record, I have had two pieces accept in academic journals the social science disciplines (due out this winter and next spring), (I am currently a reviewer for a social science journal) and yes, I am aware of the concept of data triangulation.

I cannot respond to the utter cluelessnes of this remark. Apparently you understand neither my review nor Crossan.

Once again, you have missed the point. To give one trivial example, scholars believe that except for the half-dozen authentic Pauline epistles, every epistle in the NT is psuedoepigraphic. In other words, forged. When the writer of 1 Tim took Paul's name, don't you think he was aware that he was committed forgery? Forgery started early and often in Christianity -- as the complaints of Bishop Dionysus in the second century show -- and has continued down to the present day. Crossan simply will not countenance such talk. Like you, he would prefer to shy away from the fact that the New Testament is in large part -- almost totally, some would say -- a forged text constructed to rationalize the emerging proto-orthodox position. Consider Acts, for example, a Catholicizing ficition designed to bring together the Pauline and Petrine versions of Christianity, or Mark, a riff off the Old Testament that seems clearly intended to attack the apostles and the Petrine Church.

Also, you seem to be suffering from the same problems you accuse me of. For example, you talk about "passing on of remembered events." How do you know which ones are remembered?

By all means continue. I can easily clear up more of your misconceptions.

By all means put it up! Many posters would be happy to see it.

Vorkosigan