Bede

After feverish anticipation from Toto, here's an opening salvo on the <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/methodologies.htm" target="_blank">state of method and theory</a> in HJ research.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://http//www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Toto

Hi Bede -

what's a pericode? Do you mean pericope?

This actually looks pretty good - you concede that the historian's toolkit contains a lot of blunt and ineffective instruments, and you provide a useful summary of HJ research.

But your conclusion:

does nothing to persuade a skeptic that there is any reliable methodology that will show that there actually was a Jesus behind the Gospel stories, unless you start off with that assumption, as Crossan does. If the best you have are some possibly genuine facts, (or did you mean possible facts that may be genuine?) you have no call to heap the abuse on Jesus Mythers that you typically do.

I found myself agreeing with most of what you said until I got to:

In the first place, I don't think post-modernism is defined by deeming everything symbolic. Post modernists sometimes refuse to go beyond the text; a true post-modernist would claim that the question of the existence of Jesus is irrelevant, AFAIK. We are only arguing about the question because we are caught up in the "modern" concern for real facts.

But in what way is the empty tomb "well attested and credible"? The empty tomb is first known from Mark, and has all the hallmark of myth (not to mention that one of your authorities, Crossan, does not accept that there was an empty tomb). The disturbance in the temple is hardly credible, given the size and layout of the temple. You can't just throw these highly contentious statements into an essay and expect them to enhance your credibility.

Near the end you say:

desparate or disparate?

In short, a good essay, but not the proof you led us to expect.

Vorkosigan

I respect the effort you put into this piece, but for crying out loud, Bede. You've questioned our sanity, called us creationists, wrongheaded and a hundred other terms. And then you give us this stuff that is easily shown to be inadequate to the task at hand, as Crossan has already shown in a landmark work that explores this very topic (a fact not mentioned in your essay, as I recall).

You've begged the question with your quick detour through methodology. Form criticism tells us about the evolution and relationships among texts, but can tell us nothing about the historicity of contents. The criteria Meier proposes can only be used to determine what is "history" if you already know in some other way that you are working with historical materials. But that is the very question at issue here. The methods used by NT scholars are incapable of determining the very thing they so badly want, which is why Luke Timothy Johnson and NT Wright fall back on faith statements, while more objective scholars are all over the map. There isn't anything else they can do.

Furthermore, if you reference Crossan's discussion in The Birth of Christianity you will see that he absolutely toasts Meier because the latter DOES NOT use them in a careful and measured way; he uses them willfully and without clear reason. See his quotes of Meier's explanations of the dissimilarity and coherence criteria, on page 148, I believe. Also, Steven Davies has been discussing the problem of "coherence" as a criteria in recent posts to XTALK.

Your Emperor not only has no clothes, he has no skin either.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Has this subject ever been discussed on x-talk?

Actually, Michael, JDC does critique JM's criterion in saying that they are not a method but Crossan uses some of them in his own methodology. For a short reference check out Jesus A Revolutionary Biography. Check out XII to XIII. Its short and thats why I am referencing it. Crossan explains his triangulation (where three independent vectors cross) and incorporates multiple attestation as part of his methodology (triangulation). Later he seems to have used the embarrasment criterion concerning JBap. The whole situation of JBap baptizing Jesus seems to have been embarrasing for the evangelists. Each one goes through pains around the issue. "That Jesus was baptized by John is as historically certain as any thing about either of them ever can be. The reason is that the theological apologetics excersied by Josephus in telling about John are nothing compared with those exercised by the gospels in telling us about John and Jesus. The Christian tradition is clearly uneasy with the idea of John baptizing Jesus, because that seems to make John superior and Jesus sinful." Crossan JRB, p 44. Just look at the point of the Lukan infancy narrative: Jesus is superior to JBap.

Crossan says he focuses on the earliest possible stratum of material and that he never builds anything on single independent attestation. As Crossan says, "A single attestation may of course be quite accurate, but I try to build my picture upward from the most multiple toward that single one. Multiple or at least plural independent attestation in the primary stratum point ot the earliest available material. That is a methodological discipline, a process that may not garuntee truth but at least makes dishonesty more difficult."

He may argue that Mieir's criterion are not a method in and of themselves but he uses some of them in his triangulation. Though, given his comments in TBofC I doubt he will use the "discontinuity" criterion. Of Mieir's five, I think the best are multiple attestation and embarrassment. Those are the ones Crossan seems to use though he says in and of themselves they are not a methodology. They are not new nor have they produced a consensus view. They may be able to be incorporated and used in a methodology as Crossan does. But again, he admits its not a sure way of garunteeing truth.

To say that we can garuntee truth in this area is going to far. Our sources aren't exhasutive or good enough to do that. We can't calculate the HJ as we would calculate the velocity of an object falling to the surface of the earth no matter how complex the methodology. Different sciences, different methods, different data, different causality, different types of conclusions. Ergo, Luke Timothy Johnson.

But maybe a child playing in the sand tomorrow will change everything.

Vinnie

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Jayman

But don't all of us have to fall back on faith when it comes to things historical? It's just the name of the game. Not everything can be learned from science. I have to have some faith to believe that I just wrote the last sentence. I have to have some faith to know that the Civil War was fought from 1861-5 (I hope I got the dates right). Ultimately all history has to incorporate a certain amount of faith and we all have to live with it. Can't you say that about every person or event from history? If not, justify your answer.

Bede

Toto,

Thank you very much for pointing out the typos. I do really appreciate it. A more considered responce to your points and Michael's when life settles down a bit.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Family Man

Absolutely not. This is a claim regularly made by theists that simply doesn't hold much water.

The real keys to determining whether an event is historical is the amount of evidence, how objective it is, and whether it has independent confirmation. The amount of evidence for the civil war is overwhelming. We've got reams of newspaper reports, personal accounts, and government records from both sides. While some of it is polemical, much of it isn't. And since it comes from both sides, we have independent confirmation. Add in the artifacts that have been found on the battlefield, graveyards containing the remains of soldiers, and even photographs of the time, and the historicity of the Civil War is very well grounded. The only way to claim that we need to take the Civil War "on faith" is to claim that we live in a Matrix-like world where everything is an illusion. You'll understand if the rest of us consider that a bit silly.

Compare that to the empty tomb, which Bede puts so much stock in. There is very little mentioned about it, even in the four accounts we have. All the accounts come from Christian sources in works that were obviously polemical in purpose; they weren't writing objective history, they were trying to persuade people to believe in their religion. There is no objective evidence to verify the empty tomb.

In short, while it is possible that there was an empty tomb, it is also possible that it was a later Christian invention, designed to explain and justify the Christian claims of resurrection. That it appears in four gospels is hardly an indication of independence (especially as it is clear that Matthew and Luke depended on Mark) but rather of communication among Christian communities (i.e. I don't think much of Bede's multiple attestation claims). The claim for the historicity of the empty tomb is very weak and I don't think it holds up to critical analysis. Compared to the historicity of the Civil War, the evidence is virtually non-existant.

While I'm not quite as skeptical as Vorkosigan is about historical claims, the bottom line is that he is right that historical claims for Jesus are very weak. At best, the conclusions scholars have come to are so general that it tells us very little. In my view, what I've read simply reinforces the view that so much of what was written about Jesus is legendary, which I think argues against his divinity.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Jayman

This works well in the modern world, but what about ancient history? I agree completely with you on the historicity of the Civil War. But note how you have faith that we don't live in a Matrix-like world (as do I). Of course they are! If you believe (or even know) the resurrection took place you have virtually no choice but to be a Christian. They have to be polemical, they're written about a controversial topic. They have to make an argument because resurrections don't happen every day. This is another can of worms. How do you know if it's objective history? Assume the resurrection took place. It would be kind of hard to write about the resurrection without persuading people to the Christian faith. Again, can of worms. What is objective evidence and how do you find it?

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Jayman ]</p>

Family Man

Um, Jayman, why are you talking about the resurrection when I'm talking about the empty tomb? No one claims (at least no one with a brain) claims that the resurrection is a historically verifiable fact, so that's not even worth discussing.

Here's the point, Jayman: the Bible is not, nor did it ever pretend to be, an objective book of history, and it seems to me that you almost recognize that. The evidence of the lack of objectivity is strewn throughout the book. Read Bede's essay if you doubt me. The scholars Bede mentions readily concede that the NT writers mined the OT for stories to apply to Jesus's story. Didn't Bede write that the birth narratives are largely written off as fabrications? And that's only one example.

Furthermore, even if they were being objective, that still wouldn't make them reliable. To reapply the Civil War example, would our histories be as reliable if all we had were the Northern versions of the war? Of course not. The fact that the early Christians truly believed in the resurrection is besides the point. The polemical nature of the NT gospels makes it a problem for those trying to mine fact from fiction. The reasons they're polemical is irrelevant. In the case of the empty tomb, in my opinion, it is impossible to tell.

In addition, it would be possible for an independent report of an empty tomb. It could have been reported to the Roman authorities; if we had a report like that then we'd have something, but we don't. One does not have to necessarily believe that an empty tomb = resurrection. There are other, more natural explanations.

In short, nothing you said affects my thesis. Please note, I'm not saying the empty tomb is impossible; simply that it is not a historical fact.

Oh, as for my "faith" that we don't live in a Matrix-like world, that's because I don't believe, and see no evidence, of fantastic events that would imply. My disbelief in the resurrection is simply an extension of my naturalistic belief, and is entirely consistent with how I view the world. And I would change my position if given adequate reason to.

If you had read my analysis of the evidence for the Civil War, then you'd know the answer to that question.

[ June 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Actually, Michael, JDC does critique JM's criterion in saying that they are not a method but Crossan uses some of them in his own methodology. For a short reference check out Jesus A Revolutionary Biography. Check out XII to XIII. Its short and thats why I am referencing it. Crossan explains his triangulation (where three independent vectors cross) and incorporates multiple attestation as part of his methodology (triangulation). Later he seems to have used the embarrasment criterion concerning JBap. The whole situation of JBap baptizing Jesus seems to have been embarrasing for the evangelists. Each one goes through pains around the issue. "That Jesus was baptized by John is as historically certain as any thing about either of them ever can be.

Read that last sentence carefully. Note how it is actually quite tentative....."...ever can be."

This is one of the worst abuses of the embarrassment criterion in NT scholarship; it is hard for me to believe that a scholar of Crossan's stature takes it seriously as an argument. Crossan lays out the conventional view:

• The reason is that the theological apologetics excersied by Josephus in telling about John are nothing compared with those exercised by the gospels in telling us about John and Jesus. The Christian tradition is clearly uneasy with the idea of John baptizing Jesus, because that seems to make John superior and Jesus sinful."

Yep. The problem is that the criterion of embarrassment can only be applied if we know the author's point of view -- and we do not know what Mark thought of the whole affair. We have no information about Mark at all.

Let me suggest several possible alternatives. All of the theological propaganda on the John-Jesus relationship implies tension between the two figures, each of whom was seminal for differing groups. Assuming for the moment that this represents tension between two actual people (and not between two factions of some nationalist movement or religious belief represented mythically by Jesus and John), other approaches are equally likely.

Put yourself in the position of the gospelers. They confront a tradition of tension between Jesus and John. Each has his own solution. Mark eliminates the tension by making Jesus John's successor (to a certain extent Q reflects this approach), Matt and Luke downplay John and upgrade Jesus, John eliminates JBap's baptism entirely. Mark may have seen his story as a way to paper over/eliminate the differences between the two sides. Other gospels, like Ebionites, make both men vegetarians, for example, a strategy that emphasizes similarity.

Crossan JRB, p 44. Just look at the point of the Lukan infancy narrative: Jesus is superior to JBap.

&gt;shrug&lt; I have no trouble seeing Luke as embarrassed by Mark's story. But Luke's embarrassment does not make Mark's story historical. That's why the embarrassment criterion fails here; it cannot be applied to Mark, because we do not know what he thought; we only know what later writers thought.

Crossan says he focuses on the earliest possible stratum of material and that he never builds anything on single independent attestation. As Crossan says, "A single attestation may of course be quite accurate, but I try to build my picture upward from the most multiple toward that single one. Multiple or at least plural independent attestation in the primary stratum point ot the earliest available material. That is a methodological discipline, a process that may not garuntee truth but at least makes dishonesty more difficult."

But as Crossan points out in BoC, even if you get down to the earliest stratum, you just have the earliest stratum. You don't have history. Further, he notes that what you regard as "the earliest stratum" depends on what assumptions you make about dating and the relationships between the texts. For example, Crossan has more "independent attestation" because he takes the minority line that GosPeter is independent of the canonicals.

NT scholars operate on the assumption that if you reach the earliest stratum, you are closest to history. The problem is, the earliest stratum of fiction is still fiction. If you obtained a copy of Sword of Aldones you'd have the earliest version of MZB's story of Regis Hastur, Lew Alton and Sharra, but it would still be fiction.

To say that we can garuntee truth in this area is going to far. Our sources aren't exhasutive or good enough to do that. We can't calculate the HJ as we would calculate the velocity of an object falling to the surface of the earth no matter how complex the methodology. Different sciences, different methods, different data, different causality, different types of conclusions.

I don't want a guarantee. What I want is solid reasons to regard these stories as anything other than the myths they obviously are.

Vorkosigan