Vorkosigan

No Layman, let me remind you again: "there is no accepted reliable historical methodology." That's Crossan, not me.

The events in the NT are constructions out of the OT. I have no idea whether that renders them "inauthentic." It does render them fiction, however, which means they cannot be used to support any assertions about the HJ.

That there is some one real person down there is a good explanation. That the events of the gospels are true is both impossible and poor historical explanation. Arguing that Jesus lived is different from arguing that the Gospels faithfully portray the life of that person.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Until you answered it, yes. Vespasian is a historical figure -- none of the stories about him appear to be made up out of earlier religious documents. Outside vectors exist on Vespasian, as does archaeological evidence. None of that is true of Jesus. In the case of Vespasian, positive and negative evidence confirms his existence, in the case of Jesus, it disconfirms. Of course, we also possess good methodologies for working with the historical and archaeological evidence of Vespasian and his life. We possess none for Jesus; the only stories we have are apparently fictions and we do not possess reliable methodologies for pulling facts out of them. As Crossan notes. If you know of any reliable methodologies for doing so, please reference them.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Riiiight. And I could quote Stanton or Meier or Wright or Sanders or any number of just as respectable NT scholars on historical methodology and declare the debate over.

You obviously have no interest in a real discussion.

Celsus

Vork & Layman,

Let's keep it civil, please. If you find that you can't, then please bow out of the discussion.

Joel

Vorkosigan

Absolutely untrue. But for real discussion to take place, you would have to supply the widely accepted, reliable methodology that Sanders or of those other figures uses. None of those scholars has any such methodology. Indeed, Sanders alludes to the very problem I am pointing out in his discussion of the Passion in tHFoJ, where he notes in passing that an inability to determine what is fiction and what is fact is the "usual problem" facing exegetes when they grapple with the passages invented out of the OT. Which, in fact, most of the NT fantasies about Jesus appear to be.

Meier has been quite satisfactorily ripped to shreds, most notably by Crossan, and most recently by Eric Eve on XTALK, whose satisfying paper echoed everything Toto and I and others have been saying for years here. Sanders proffers no methodology anywhere. Neither does Stanton. So I am at a loss to understand why you imagine that citing the failures of Meier or the nonexistent methodologies of others will advance you anywhere in this discussion.

The sad fact is that neither you nor Vinnie nor Crossan nor Sanders nor Wright nor me nor Toto possesses the kind of methodology that permits some degree of historical certainty. You have nothing that can sift out the real nuggets of Jesus' life. That is why I remain agnostic with respect to Jesus' life. The methods and evidence that we have currently do not permit us to know anything about him.

Vorkosigan

Layman

Deleted --Celsus

Layman

I disagree completely with this stacking of the deck deletion.

Vinnie

""""Sanders proffers no methodology anywhere. """"""

I distinctly remember stating directly to you (in a new thread if I recall) that Sander's states his methodology in the end of Studying the Synoptic Gospels.

Then angain, its normal for me to have to repeat everything around here.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Crossan did not rip Meier to shreds. The criteria are valid. Crossan uses them himself in his methodology. It was his argument that Meier needs to describe how they are theoretically based. He did not rip anything to shreads.

More important for Jesus reconstruction is questions of source and stratification. Thats the largest problem in scholarship today.

Is q early? Is Q late? Is Thomas dependent? Is it early? is it late? Is john independent of Mark?

There you have three texts which a decision on will have huge ramifications for a historical Jesus study. Scholars disagree on these so its not any suprise they disagree on Jesus.

We could also bring a host of other texts into it: Which version of Mark came first ?Was there a secret Mark? etc. Does x Gospel date early or late? How is Gospel of Hebrews to be used? etc etc.

The theoretical basing of Meier's criteria has minimal effect on a lot of his study (e.g. baptism). In certain areas it could become important (imminent return). You merely attempt to overstate problems. Crossan seems to himself. The larger problem is wat sources does one use and when do they date and whats dependent or independent.

Crossan is correct to ask for stratification of sources and Jesus tradition.

Vinnie

spin

He may be correct, but how does he avoid arbitrary criteria for analysing that stratification?


spin