Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sauron · 06-03-2002, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Even though I have sympathies for some critics of evolution, I realize that the scientific consensus strongly supports the theory.

Really?

On what specifics do you have sympathy for the critics of evolution?

Sauron · 06-03-2002, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
Okay. I forgot what time of the day it was Turton. Are you arguing against the historicity of Jesus or not?

Crossan, despite your limited selection of his writings, affirms the historicity of Jesus, the Testimonium Falvianum, and Jesus' death by crucifixion.

Which Crossan somehow manages to do, without having any methodology or a body of hard data.

Why should anyone be swayed?

Furthermore, considering how guarded and cautious Crossan is about making bold statements, why should anyone take the strong affirmative stance for historicity here? The agnostic position is respectable, precisely because of the insufficiency of the kind of hard data and methodology (unless you're going to finally bring that forth for us?)

By introducing evolution, you open up another can of worms. Evolution has a testable, provable scholarly consensus from numerous independent lines of evidence. The conclusions are testable for human error and can be used to cross-reference the results from other disciplines.

Let me give you another example: there exists scholarly consensus on the history of the Revolutionary War in America. But that consensus, as a scientifically demonstratable set of conclusions, falls far short of evolution, or physics, or any other objectively measureable science.

You seem to think that scholarly consensus in one field of study is equally as rock-solid as scholarly consensus in *any* field of study. It doesn't work that way. Consensus in one field doesn't mean nearly what it does in some other field. You don't get to appeal to the bedrock solidity of consensus for evolution, and then claim that a similar level of certainty exists for the historicity of *any* ancient person.

Toto · 06-03-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
...

Layman, I am truly honored by your contempt. I must be doing something right. I have no intention of jumping into your thread on the Testimonium. You can try to nitpick Peter's conclusions all you want.

Sauron · 06-03-2002, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Actually, I have not misrepresented Stein. I quoted him directly. You offer a paraphrase of what you think he meant, but that is not what he said.

Remember, he said "In spite of all the negative evidence against this passage, evidence of which
McDowell seems aware, he still uses the passage to try to support his case for the historicity of Jesus. Such a procedure is both dishonest and futile. The only people who are fooled by this are the ignorant."

Stein is clearly condmening the use of the TF to support the historicity of Jesus. Not just McDowell's reading of it. The "procedure" that is condemned is the use of the TF despite the evidence of interpolations. That is a procedure that very-well respected scholars, from J. Dominic Crossan, to Paula Fredrikson, to N.T. Wright, use.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

This is not true; you are taking only one piece of what Stein wrote here, and trying to make the entire case off of it. But Bill is correct; Stein is specifically targeting McDowell here. The accusation of dishonesty is leveled against McDowell because he seems to be aware of the "hotly contested" controversy, yet brushes over it without discussing it or refuting it.

One step at a time:

[1]
Stein begins by showing that McDowell is already aware of the controversy over the TF:

Quote:

Lardner's work on the Josephus passage was merely the first detailed analysis of that passage. Many other scholars have written about it since Lardner, so McDowell can't plead ignorance of their findings. In fact, the very phrase McDowell uses hotly contested") indicates that he is at least aware of the fact that most scholars do not accept the genuineness of the passage.

[2]
Then Stein goes on to enumerate several other reasons why this passage is suspect:

Quote:

Why should we suspect that this passage is a forgery? First because, although the church fathers were quite fond of quoting passages which supported Christianity, and though these early church fathers were quite familiar with the works of Josephus, not one of them quotes this passage in defense of Christianity until Eusebius does in the fourth century. We also know Eusebius to be the man who said that lying for the advancement of the church was quite acceptable. He was probably the one who inserted this suspect passage into Josephus' works. Origen, the famous early Christian apologist, even quotes from other parts of Josephus, but somehow neglects to quote our passage. Origen wrote his book Contra Celsus in about 220 A.D.

Secondly, the passage comes in the middle of a collection of stories about calamities- which have befallen the Jews. This would not be a calamity. Thirdly, the passage has Josephus, an Orthodox Jew, saying that Jesus was the Christ. That is a highly unlikely statement for him to have made. The whole passage reads as if it had been written by a Christian. Josephus is made to call the Christian religion "the truth." He would hardly have said that. Although Josephus reports the miracles of a number of other "prophets," he is silent about the miracles attributed to Jesus. Again, this makes no sense when compared to Josephus' known genuine writings. The last phrase in the quotation, ". .. subsists to this time," referring to the Christians, would not make any sense unless it were written quite some time after Jesus had died. Josephus, on the other hand, wrote the Antiquities in about 90 A.D.

[3]
Then, *after* he has informed the reader of the evidence which McDowell also knows about (i.e., the evidence that makes McDowell characterize this as "hotly contested")-- it is then and only then that Stein says that the procedure is dishonest - but precisely because of what McDowell has avoided in his discussion:

Quote:

In spite of all the negative evidence against this passage, evidence of which McDowell seems aware, he still uses the passage to try to support his case for the historicity of Jesus. Such a procedure is both dishonest and futile. The only people who are fooled by this are the ignorant. Scholars will only wince at the dishonesty involved and disregard this "evidence."

Layman · 06-03-2002, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:
[QB]

Which Crossan somehow manages to do, without having any methodology or a body of hard data.

Why should anyone be swayed?

Actually, I think a better understanding of the two positions, is that Crossan does not think, as Turton seems to imply, that no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus can be recovered.

Quote:

Furthermore, considering how guarded and cautious Crossan is about making bold statements, why should anyone take the strong affirmative stance for historicity here?

I haven't noticed this reluctance of Crossan to make bold statements.

Quote:

The agnostic position is respectable, precisely because of the insufficiency of the kind of hard data and methodology (unless you're going to finally bring that forth for us?)

The hard data has been gone over here a thousand times. So has much of the methodlogy. That some on this board keep saying it ain't so doesn't mean it ain't so.

Quote:

By introducing evolution, you open up another can of worms. Evolution has a testable, provable scholarly consensus from numerous independent lines of evidence. The conclusions are testable for human error and can be used to cross-reference the results from other disciplines.

Let me give you another example: there exists scholarly consensus on the history of the Revolutionary War in America. But that consensus, as a scientifically demonstratable set of conclusions, falls far short of evolution, or physics, or any other objectively measureable science.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't recall claiming that the consensus of historians is just as probative as the consensus as scientists. But the consensus for the historicity of Jesus is much stronger than that for the theory of evolution. And I think it's silly to suggest that that the fact that almost all historians think the historicity of Jesus is assured is irrevelant.

Quote:

You seem to think that scholarly consensus in one field of study is equally as rock-solid as scholarly consensus in *any* field of study. It doesn't work that way. Consensus in one field doesn't mean nearly what it does in some other field. You don't get to appeal to the bedrock solidity of consensus for evolution, and then claim that a similar level of certainty exists for the historicity of *any* ancient person.]

Most of the arguments about the "consensus" has been about what a consensus is. Toto and others seemed to be arguing that there was no consensus because one guy--Price--disagreed with everyone else. I referred to the consensus about evolution and noted that there were probably even more PhD/Professor dissenters from the theory of evolution than there was from the historicity of Jesus. I then asked if that meant that there was no consensus about the theory of evolution. I actually said on a couple of occasions that I wasn't discussing the comparative worth of those consensus.

Layman · 06-03-2002, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:
Then, *after* he has informed the reader of the evidence which McDowell also knows about (i.e., the evidence that makes McDowell characterize this as "hotly contested")-- it is then and only then that Stein says that the procedure is dishonest - but precisely because of what McDowell has avoided in his discussion:

Does it really take so many of you to try and make the same points?

I'm aware of the context of Stein's argument. And I'm perfectly aware of how he ends it. His criticism is not only that McDowell did not give sufficient attention to the controversy. He quite clearly remarks that anyone who is aware of the controversy would know that the TF provides no support for the historical Jesus.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 06-03-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


Layman, I am truly honored by your contempt. I must be doing something right. I have no intention of jumping into your thread on the Testimonium. You can try to nitpick Peter's conclusions all you want.

Good news. Maybe the thread can actually maintain its focus on the substance of the issue.

Sauron · 06-03-2002, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Actually, I think a better understanding of the two positions, is that Crossan does not think, as Turton seems to imply, that no historical evidence for the existence of Jesus can be recovered.

However, that isn't what Crossan said. Your re-worked statement above is neither was Turton said, nor what Crossan said.

Quote:

I haven't noticed this reluctance of Crossan to make bold statements.

This is sufficiently guarded.

Crossan, Birth of Christianity, p. 149
"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 from all later strata."

Instead of taking the strong affirmative position, Crossan bemoans the lack of hard data and the unavailability of any methodology.

Here is part of a book review of his work, "The Historical Jesus":

Quote:

The book has three main sections. The first, and shortest, looks at the general nature of first-century society in the Roman Empire. The second focuses on Jewish life at that time within the empire, while the third deals with Jesus himself, though without attempting anything approaching a biography. Throughout the book, Crossan casts his net very widely and draws on material from non-Christian literature, history, and archaeology as well as on the canonical gospels. This approach results in a very complex work and it is difficult to know whom it is intended for. Is Crossan writing for his fellow scholars? Probably. Is he writing for readers, whether Christian or not, who are not professional scholars? Perhaps, because his actual writing style is informal; but I doubt if many non-professionals will read it, since there is simply too much information and not enough sense of direction. Arguments and counterarguments weave their way through the text but it is difficult to discern what Crossan himself thinks about it all.

This lack of clarity appears most strongly in connection with what is surely the most important question facing anyone writing about Jesus: what are we to make of the Resurrection? Crossan discusses the texts in great detail, skirting all round the subject but not saying what he thinks actually happened. I suspect that he is being deliberately circumspect here, because in his later book, The Birth of Christianity, he does state rather more explicitly that "Bodily resurrection has nothing to do with a resuscitated body coming out of its tomb."

Perhaps the most startling idea to emerge from Crossan's account is that we should see Jesus as a kind of Jewish Cynic. The Cynics, Crossan tells us, were "hippies in a world of Augustan yuppies". They looked, dressed, and behaved in ways that challenged the establishment, and Jesus and his followers, Crossan believes, did likewise. The Greco-Roman Cynics, however, were principally urban, whereas Jesus was a peasant Jewish Cynic. This theory may seem farfetched, but Crossan says that Jesus's peasant village was near enough to a Greco-Roman city like Sepphoris to make it likely that he would have encountered Cynicism. This intriguing idea certainly suggests a new way of thinking about Jesus and his place in the society of his time.

If you want to read a scholarly account of the world in which Jesus lived and the kinds of issues that preoccupy New Testament scholars, this book would be a good place to start; it provides ample references to primary sources, which are quoted extensively. It is, however, likely to baffle the casual reader, who will obtain valuable insights in passing but will probably not emerge with a coherent picture of Jesus or his life. (Crossan has now written an abridged, and more accessible, book about his ideas: see Jesus: a Revolutionary Biography).

I am not faulting Crossan for being careful and circumspect about his claims - indeed, it is a characteristic that most christians should also share. But it is a position that is literally forced on them, because of (once again) the lack of really hard data and a sufficient methodology to separate fact from legend.

Quote:

The hard data has been gone over here a thousand times. So has much of the methodlogy. That some on this board keep saying it ain't so doesn't mean it ain't so.

If it's been gone over a thousand times, then it shouldn't be hard to bring it forth, right?

I've watched the debates on here for awhile. I've yet to see either hard data or a methodology that separates the historical from the legendary. Even Crossan says that such things don't exist, in his quote above.

So if you think you've discussed them here, perhaps you should inform Crossan?

Quote:

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't recall claiming that the consensus of historians is just as probative as the consensus as scientists. But the consensus for the historicity of Jesus is much stronger than that for the theory of evolution.

Really? Where is your evidence for this comparative statement? On a percentage basis?

Quote:

And I think it's silly to suggest that that the fact that almost all historians think the historicity of Jesus is assured is irrevelant.

It's not silly at all. Establishing the historicity of an individual is not the same as the veracity of the stories/tales about that person's life.

You assume that if historicity is established, then the rest of the stories can "borrow" that same validation as well. As Michael said, "the issue is to what extent the early writings reflect the reality of that existence."

And the historical consensus you speak of among historians covers far fewer points and is sparser in details than the various claims you want to attach to it. For example:

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/reallyknow.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/reallyknow.html</a>

Quote:

Holland Lee Hendrix
President of the Faculty, Union Theological Seminary

In my own view, the earliest layer of evidence is still an interpretation, so what we can know is only the range of interpretations that we first encounter in Jesus' traditions. And that is really a plurality of Jesuses. A Jesus that's understood as a sage and wise man in some traditions, a Jesus that's understood as a superhero, a great performer of miracles in another, divine person in another tradition. A Jesus who is understood as primarily the sacrificed, now risen and enthroned savior in another tradition. One finds the plurality of Jesuses even at the earliest stage of interpretation. That's why as far as we keep going and excavating the tell of Jesus, the earliest stage is still interpretation.

Moving along....

Quote:

Most of the arguments about the "consensus" has been about what a consensus is. Toto and others seemed to be arguing that there was no consensus because one guy--Price--disagreed with everyone else. I referred to the consensus about evolution and noted that there were probably even more PhD/Professor dissenters from the theory of evolution than there was from the historicity of Jesus. I then asked if that meant that there was no consensus about the theory of evolution. I actually said on a couple of occasions that I wasn't discussing the comparative worth of those consensus.

I disagree that there are more PHds who dispute evolution (as a percentage of all PhDs in relevant fields) than those who would dispute the historicity of Christ. Especially when viewed in other religious contexts.

But if you were merely debating what constitutes "consensus" then I may have misunderstood the thrust of your argument.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]

jlowder · 06-03-2002, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


And thanks for dropping in. Without commiting you to further debate on the issue, did Peter Kirby's laudable article on this issue alter your opinion?

Just curious.

I haven't had a chance to read Peter's article.

Layman · 06-03-2002, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sauron:
I've watched the debates on here for awhile. I've yet to see either hard data or a methodology that separates the historical from the legendary. Even Crossan says that such things don't exist, in his quote above.

We had several posts months ago about this issue. The criteria are those commonly used by historians. Meier gives a good discussion of him in his A Marginal Jew, Volume 1. The "data" is what everyone knows about. Four Canonical Gospels. Several undisputed Paulines. Other New Testament documents. 1 Clement. The seven letters of Ignatius. Josephus. And to a lesser extent, Tacitus and the Babylonian Talmud.

Quote:

So if you think you've discussed them here, perhaps you should inform Crossan?

Maybe you should be the one to inform Crossan that you take his statement to mean there is no historical Jesus or we can't know if there is a historical Jesus. I think he'd be much more surprised to learn of that than to learn abou the criteria he is already aware of.

Quote:

Really? Where is your evidence for this comparative statement? On a percentage basis?

New Testament history is my hobby. I have read an immense amount of literature about it. As for the evolution item, arn.org has posted a couple of things related to this. One is a list of 50-something Ohio scientists who favor teaching ID in classrooms. Another is a new release signed by a hundred or so scientists questioning evolution. I have found it much easier to find scientists who disagree with evolution than historians how disbelieve in the existence of Jesus.

Quote:

It's not silly at all. Establishing the historicity of an individual is not the same as the veracity of the stories/tales about that person's life.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I am claiming that it is silly to suggest that the fact that almost all historians agree that Jesus was a historical person is irrelevant to an investigation into whether Jesus was a historical person.

Quote:

You assume that if historicity is established, then the rest of the stories can "borrow" that same validation as well. As Michael said, "the issue is to what extent the early writings reflect the reality of that existence."

No, I did not assume that. I've been discussing the bear minimum: the historical existence of Jesus. Mike claims no one doubts that. He's obviously flat wrong. Do a search for "Did Jesus Exist" and you will find dozens of websites on the subject.

Obviously, if Jesus did exist, it increases the probability of some of the sayings and events attributed to him having happened. But it certainly does not--and I have never suggested that this--establish that all the stories about Jesus are valid.

Quote:

And the historical consensus you speak of among historians covers far fewer points and is sparser in details than the various claims you want to attach to it. For example: ...

You are only guessing what I would attach to it. Are you reading my mind like Toto?

Quote:

I disagree that there are more PHds who dispute evolution (as a percentage of all PhDs in relevant fields) than those who would dispute the historicity of Christ. Especially when viewed in other religious contexts.

Are you claiming that, say, Jewish scholars would be likely to reject the historical Jesus? Most don't. How about Muslim scholars? I rather doubt it. Hindu? Buddhist? Sikhs? While I doubt that most of these religions have many historians who have focused on the issue, I'd be interested in seeing any data you have that shows that they often reject the historicity of Jesus?

Quote:

But if you were merely debating what constitutes "consensus" then I may have misunderstood the thrust of your argument.

I think you are misunderstanding it again. The comparison to evolution was an analogy regarding what constitutes a consensus. I have also argued the silliness with which so many of you think that the historical consensus is irrelevant to the issue of Jesus studies.

ahh, I see you are omnedon. I give up any hope of a real discussion.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.