Layman

You think N.T. Wright, J.P. Meier, E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes are moving towards a post-modernish literary criticism? I know that your hero Robbins certainly was, but he's not convinced many other New Testament scholars that he has a point.

Vorkosigan

Yes. Like postmoderns, NT HJ scholars have taken a class somewhere in which they learn how to make ex cathedra pronouncements; interacting with their works is like taking my PHD seminars on postmodernism over again. Ironically, they often make this criticism of each other; read, for example Crossan's comments on Wright and Meier in The Birth of Christianity, or Meier's comment in Vol 1. "Koester's influence [re Gospel of Thomas] is reflected in the views of many of his American colleagues and students, including Ron Cameron, Stevan Davies, James M. Robinson, and John Dominic Crossan. So convinced of their position are some of these scholars that they do not even bother to argue for their stance; it is simple taken for granted." (p.128) Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus, certainly the worst HJ book I've read so far, is simply one long list of Sanders' opinions about Jesus, long on declamation, short on argument.

So yes, Layman, reading HJ scholars is like reading postmodernists, especially postmodern feminists, who have exactly the same combination of smug moral certitude, insularity, and methodological lightness.

But let me ask you a question, Layman. I have two shelves of books on the HJ and not a single one starts off with a discussion of historiography as it is done in history, with reference to major figures and ideas in historical methodology. Why do you think that is?

Vorkosigan

Layman

Far from being postmodernists unconcerned with "what happened," the scholars I listed are intent on determining "what happened." It's like calling white, black.

I have read many books on the historical Jesus, New Testament criticism, and early Christian history as well, some by respected classical historians. They often discuss historical methodology. So I can't say we've had the same experience.

Steven Carr

Sarcastic? Simply stating Christian exegisis of 1 Cor. 15
us being sarcastic?

Steven Carr

Please do. If Wright does not accept Markan priority, I would
be interested to hear about it. I would also not be impressed
if he is sitting on the fence about it. Being agnostic about Q is
a much more respectable position, but being agnostic about Markan priority is left-field stuff.

I confess to not having seen his new book (Is it available in the
UK ?), which is why I am relying on you to provide these
references. If you could summarise his reasons for rejecting
Markan priority, people on this forum would be grateful.

Steven Carr

I was being a little unfair.

But Wright , at least in his books on the Pauline epistles, beats around the bush on Paul's belief that some of his readers would never die, and dismisses altogther the talk of Jesus coming down from Heaven.

Toto

From the BBC interview with Wright posted earlier:

These are not the words of a modernist scientifically-minded searcher for what actually happened.

Layman

Actually, they are the words of a theologian. Of a member of the clergy. Neither of which is the role that Wright takes on in The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Llyricist

Steven
okay perhaps sarcastic was the wrong word... what I meant was those were not YOUR thoughts, or you weren't representing what YOU thought, cuz frankly them comments made NO sense

Vorkosigan

Layman -- which postmodernist thinkers and writers are you familiar with, in the same way you might be familiar with EP Sanders or John Meier -- that is, in an intimate, critical, and reflective way?

And postmodernists are very concerned with "what happened." Indeed, contesting "what happened" is one of their favorite pastimes. The structural resemblences between postmodernists and HJ studies, in their reification of ideology as scholarship, their blanket proclamations of the nature of reality, their impatience with sound method, their slanted presentations of evidence, and their attacks on science. Reading a discussion of miracles in HJ studies is like reading one of Stanley Aronowitz's articles on how multicultural science will revolutionize the content and conceptual foundations of science:

"How can metaphysical life theories and explanations taken seriously by millions be ignored or excluded by a small group of powerful people called 'scientists'?"

"Just as a historian must reject credulity, so a historian must reject an a priori affirmation that miracles do not or cannot happen. That is, strictly speaking, a philosophical or theological proposition, not a historical one."

One is from postmodern writer Andrew Ross, the other from Catholic Priest John Meier. Each expresses the same fear that their pet theological belief is going to be destroyed by the awesome power of science.

Of the three groups you name, that is quite true of the second two. But HJ discussions of historical methodology are few and far between. Perhaps, though, you could name a couple of HJ books where there is some discussion of how historical methodology actually works.

Vorkosigan