rhutchin

The Internet Infidels background on Gerd Lüdemann says:

Pressured by the church in the wake of Professor Luedemann's deconversion, the University and the Theological Faculty have effectively barred him from offering courses or advising students. Jesus Seminar Chair Robert W. Funk and other signatories wrote this open letter on Luedemann's behalf.

Although Lüdemann has renounced his Christian faith, he has been giving a series of lectures at First Presybterian Church in Forest Hills, Tennesse.

Gerd Lüdemann no longer believes in Christianity, and he suspects a lot of Christians secretly agree with him.

His book seems consistent with his faith.

Toto

The quote is translated from a longer work in German. Perhaps he explains his methodology there. I suspect it is a more sophisticated version of what Chaucer has hiding behind his back until we make three guesses.

Chaucer

The distinction between making a good servant but a bad master is relevant here. The methodology that makes somewhat better sense than some others is termed "multiple attestation". Now, the reason why even that should be used circumspectly is that it may sometimes merely point to a "bad penny" having circulated one too many times. One has to acknowledge that all Jesus scholarship ultimately deals in varying levels of likelihood, rather than proof, anyway. Consequently, multiple attestation, as a servant and not a master, would indeed help in showing a somewhat greater likelihood re certain sayings being possibly more historical than others. It still doesn't prove anything beyond a greater level of historical likelihood. And since likelihoods and probabilities are the best coin in this field anyway, that counts for a great deal in this instance.

Ultimately, "multiple attestation" -- MA -- does serve (and I use that word deliberately) to highlight a saying as having been more closely associated with Jesus early on than many another -- for whatever reason. Therefore, candidly, since nothing regarding Jesus can be proved anyway, and since all conscientious Jesus scholarship ultimately deals in varying levels of likelihood only, I confess to viewing multiple attestation as a marginally better method of showing historical likelihood -- that's all, nothing more -- than many another.

View it this way: Since true scholars are ultimately dealing with likelihoods only, would it really make sense to view single-attestation sayings in literally the same light as multiple-attestation sayings? Of course not -- all things being equal. Now granted, an individual saying here or there might seem a special case sometimes because of intrinsic tone, and so on. No question. But as a group, can one really say that one group of singly attested sayings can be logically viewed in the same light as a group of multiply attested sayings? Again, of course not. If we're dealing in levels of likelihood, I would think not. I would think, provided no kind of proof is claimed, that multiply attested sayings should still be viewed in a somewhat stronger light than singly attested ones.

The thing is, in order to assess cogently which aspects in the written record are more probable than others, any and all aspects that may help in that endeavor should be factored in. The fact is that multiple-attested sayings remain part of that mix -- a small part, but still a part -- essential to evaluating in each case whether or not we're seeing much evidence to support such-and-such or not.

Candidly, for instance, I don't think it negligible that the Gospel of Thomas, the parallel sayings in Matthew/Luke -- sometimes termed Q -- and the Gospel of Mark all coincide in 7 specific sayings. Depending on which scholars one consults, one or the other of these three texts has each been judged at one time or another as the earliest in the sayings record. Consequently, because there is no agreement on any one of these three at all, even as it is still the case that no additional text beyond one or the other of these three has ever been singled out as the earliest by any scholar of the past century, that means that the very rare agreement among all three of these texts on a bare half dozen or so of the many Jesus sayings out there could possibly be significant. The fact that all 3 coincide in no more than these 7 (sometimes Q/Mark coincide in a couple of dozen, or Thomas/Mark do the same, or Q/Thomas, etc., but all three together do not coincide beyond these 7) should not, of course, be taken as meaning automatically that all sayings outside these 7 are therefore fictional. But I still maintain that common sense really places these 7 in a pretty central light.

Now obviously, once we've culled these 7, then a proper critical evaluation is needed for each saying in its own right. The problem is, how does one assess quality? How does one keep such an assessment from being subjective? Maybe sometimes its quality, pro or con, may seem obvious, yes. But sometimes not. That's why I still view multiple attestation as a good _backup_ -- remember? a good servant but a bad master? The bad penny syndrome does exist, but these 7 at least reflect some objectively viewable pattern -- arising for whatever reason.

Yes, it makes sense to evaluate each of the 7 on its own. But I don't see how that evaluation can proceed independent of the central importance these 7 sayings _may_ have in view of their appearance in all three of the earliest presumed strata of Gospel text.

I now welcome a case-by-case discussion of each of these 7 in their own right. I provide them here as rendered in Luke --


Luke 11

21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace:
22 But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.

33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

Luke 12

2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.

10 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

Luke 13

18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it?
19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and was a tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

Luke 19

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.


-- One poster whom I once encountered happened to remark: "Too much historical Jesus scholarship is about assuming your conclusions and erasing evidence that contradicts your conclusions." Now this is something on which I couldn't agree more. It sums up (in my experience) the frequent method of many a myther, for instance.

As an admitted layman, I've still tried to avoid falling into such traps myself as best I can. I'm probably not perfect here, but I _think_ I've usually tried to apply some discipline at least in this regard.

Looking at these multiple-attested sayings, for instance, I find it both astonishing and disconcerting to see that both --


-- [Luke 13] 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last. --


-- and --


-- [Luke 19] 26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. --


are included in this highly select bunch of 7 sayings. On a personal basis, I freely concede that the first of these two sayings has often struck me as among the most advanced ones ever attributed to Jesus, while the second one has always seemed among the most reactionary. Yet I still feel it incumbent on me now to seek to resolve how one and the same individual could utter both sayings. Maybe this multiple attestation for both hardly proves for certain that Jesus did indeed say both things. But it does oblige me, if I'm going to be rigorous, to at least consider the possibility that he did.

And if I'm going to address the possibility that he did, then what might his having possibly said both things -- contradictory as they may seem to me -- mean for either him or to his contemporaries or to readers like me in the twenty-first century?

Things to ponder!

Thoughts?

Chaucer

aa5874

But, a person does not have to be a christian to make up sayings of a fictitious character.

Once Jesus did not exist he said nothing.

Some body must have first invented the lies that people now believe.

spin

That's Herr Doktor Lüdemann to you, if you would like to be accurate.

If you have problems with what Lüdemann says, how do you explain the existence of the letters between Abgar and Jesus or between Paul and Seneca? You know in your heart of hearts that they are downright bogus, so you learn how to compartmentalize. You'd know that you were not acting deceptively, but rather [you] believed that by [your] actions [you] were responding to a higher truth. And when material was added to gospels, such as the long ending of Mark or the woman taken in adultery in John, you know the redactors were not acting deceptively, but rather they believed that by their actions they were responding to a higher truth.

It is prudent to think that additions to religious texts were don't for higher motives. Do you who believe there was a Jesus think that the repellent rubbish put into Jesus' mouth to demean the Pharisees reflects his nobility?


spin

Toto

Criterion of multiple attestation or multiple sources
There is more discussion at that link. This is one of those criteria that becomes as firm as jello when it is examined. For one thing, Q is a hypothetical source, and the case against Q, or at least the case that Luke knew Matthew, looks fairly convincing. Suppose there is no Q, that all the authors of the gospels had a single source, that the author of gThomas had read all the gospels, then there is no multiple attestation. There might be one single unreliable source at the root of everything, or, for that matter, multiple unreliable sources.

This may be why the more careful scholars only talk about "evidence of an early tradition," without making claims of truthiness.

Loren Rossen considers multiple attestation to be "poor criterion; may need redefinition" - and he considers the lame criterion of embarrasment to be useful. So your criteria might raise the probability from 1% to 2% - where does that get you?

Roger Pearse

I agree; as given it sounds weird. We mustn't judge people on translations they may never have seen.

Some of the English versions of continental works are TERRIBLE. The English translation of Maarten Vermaseren's book (Englished as "Mithras: the secret god") has material he never wrote and misunderstands stuff he did write in such a way that anyone reading it will be misled.

Likewise the English version of only part of Franz Cumont's work did even that bit a disservice, as I have recently had occasion to find out.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Chaucer

I made pretty much the same point. Why are you pretending I didn't --

"Ultimately, "multiple attestation" -- MA -- does serve (and I use that word deliberately) to highlight a saying as having been more closely associated with Jesus early on than many another -- for whatever reason" --

Something closely associated with the early stages of a textual tradition is not necessarily historical -- DUH! You pretend that I never implied otherwise. Are you only interested in gotchas -- even when they're not legitimate -- As to "your criteria might raise the probability from 1% to 2% - where does that get you?" -- That's easy: it gets you on firmer RELATIVE ground -- however jello-ey -- than we are with notorious pericopes like the adulteress being stoned in John.

Chaucer

Toto

I thought you were pretending to be able to show that some sayings could be associated with Jesus with some signficant degree of probability.

My example of an increase from 1 to 2 percent was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum, in case that wasn't clear.

Chaucer

No -- with a greater degree of POSSIbility than some others. Evidently, that distinction got through to Avi, but not to you.

Quite clear. Since I'm not a proper myther, evidently everything I say, no matter how carefully parsed -- and I really thought my main post on MA was reasonably precise and nuanced -- must be reduced to as absurd a "reductio" as possible.

Just doing your job, obviously. I also note you were careful not to extract one solitary thing I said to Avi, in case it might appear too reasonable.

Of course, there's no fear that these follow-up remarks of mine here will not be extracted quite faithfully in any follow-up post, since they show me in an admitted snit fit, which fits in more with the stereotyping you require for all anti-mythers.

So hey, this snit fit is actually doing you a favor. That's O.K.: I've found another skeptic site in which mythers are being taken to task far more for their doctrinaire, faith-over-reason, knee-jerk ways --

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/view...3497&start=150

Chaucer