Vorkosigan

Did we read the same book? I assume you are talking about The Birth of Christianity, where Meier's four criteria were shot, stuffed, and mounted by Crossan. Subsequent discussion on XTALK has turned up even more problems with them. There is no need for me to take up the cudgel; Crossan has done it effectively enough. If he were not enough, just turn to page 116 of Theissen and Merz The Historical Jesus, where, in their reponse to the very effective criticisms of Meier's criteria, they admit the critics are right and dump the criteria straight off!

There is no method for drawing fact out of these fictions, and certainly Meier is not even close. Try applying them to Lord of the Rings and you'll see how quickly they turn it into fact. Why would anyone record the embarrassing fact that in the end, Frodo was unable to complete his mission? It must be history! And look at the coherent presentation of the Ring as temptation-to-power. Clearly that coherent message implies historical fact! And look -- we have independent corroboration of the existence of elves, dwarves and orcs in many European writings. And further, the uniqueness -- difference -- of the hobbits and their world is a strong argument for historicity.

Of course, that is stretching it. But certainly any robust set of science fiction novels, such as the Darkover series, especially one where different authors (numerous stories set in that world) deal with the same locations and characters, would be turned into history by Meier. Consider Regis Hastur, the uncrowned King of Darkover, lord of the Comyn. He is written about in many books by several different authors. The main lines of the stories all agree, not merely on general events, but in fine detail (same wife, friends, hobbies, habits, appearance -- much better than the gospels). He has supernatural powers -- all authors (multiple attestation) are in agreement on this, and has a coherent vision -- in this case political -- of the world he wants to build. Finally, he is a bisexual, yet was first written about in the '50s when that was a no-no.

That is why T&M move to another criterion, historical plausibility. That is a much less certain one than any of Meier's, but it has the advantage of eliminating really obvious fictions, something Meier's cannot do. For example, just try eliminating Regis Hastur from history using Meier's criteria. It can't be done.

The problem is that Meier's criteria cannot be applied unless you already have a prior set of criteria that enable you to realize you are dealing with history. We can use Meier to check Tacitus because we have already decided, using some other methodology, that Tacitus is history. Most of us look at these works and bring to them some gut feeling that says "this is/is not history." I have several times tried to list out all of the factors that compose this gut feeling. I feel sure I have missed many.

As far as I can see, only reliable historical vectors can be used to sort out fact from fiction. And we don't have those in this case.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

My memory is just fine. It is either your reading comprehension problem that is clouding the issue or a simple mis-communication. From that thread:

"The middle ground would be those who see Jesus as neither 100% mythical nor 100% factual, such as E. P. Sanders and J. D. Crossan."

Taking the route of respected scholars like E.P. Sanders is not agnosticism on the historical Jesus. Do you mean I am agnostic about the genuineness of the miraculous material on historical critical grounds? I would dispute that as well. We cannot reconstruct "miracles" in the supernatural sense (maning we cannot say x miraculous event happened). My stance is not agnosticism on this. History (which when done prperly is based upon a methodology which assumes the world operates consistently) doesn't do miracles in that sense. It has nothing to do with agnosticism on any issue.

I am confident that you know next to nothing about HJ methodology so this is a wise decision on your part. Keeep reading though. You will have some time.

A bold challenge. Too bad you went on to say this to PK:

If that is your strongest argument you might as well start packing it in now.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I think there are several bedrock facts about Jesus that are beyond dispute.

No doubt. The only problem is figuring out which ones.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

\

Stretching it all the way to the veil of God. I could have a field day blasting those silly comparisons.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Its five primary criteria, not four.

I do not agree with all Meier's views. I find coherence lacking and his fith primary criteria is not used to reconstruct sayings and deeds anyways and my reconstruction of Jesus is not extremely detailed. It does make a valid point though. I agree with Embarrassment ( or 'with the grain' and 'against the grain), multiple attestation (sources and forms), dissimilarity (cautiously--Crossan's two-headeds God not-withstanding) and first stratum material. I agree that inventory and stratification is needed as well. Crossan's method takes first stratum material that is multiply attested. That is how my own reconstruction will start--with the Pauline corpus.

None of these criteria are used naively either. Multiple attestation is not "hey these two sources say this so its true". Its a "pinch" more complex than that.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Keep digging in Vinnie. Thats the way to go when one wants to be buried alive.

Peter Kirby

Everyday claims require everyday evidence. That seems to be the idea behind the principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Ordinary is a synonym of common.) I guess you could go up against this, but it is perhaps the most cherished and universally held skeptical principle. But that in itself doesn't mean it's true!

As Wellsian mythicists would recognize, Paul said some stuff about the human Jesus in the extant letters: that Jesus was a man (Rom 5:15, 1 Cor 15:21); that "he was born of a
woman, born under the law" (Gal 4:4), which is to say that he was born like any other man (no hint of a virgin birth here); that he belonged to the race of Abraham (Gal 3:16, Rom 9:5) and descended from the family of David (Rom 1:3). James was "the brother of the Lord" in some sense (Gal 1:19), and though some Catholic and mythicists dispute that sense (no, they were cousins; no, he was in a brotherhood; both are possible), they do not make the case such that it can actually be said that "Paul didn't know anything about a HJ" as a premise for further argument. Paul tells a story: "the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, and having given thanks broke [it], and said, This is my body, which [is] for you: this do in remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after having supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood: this do, as often as ye shall drink [it], in remembrance of me." Whatever the immediate source of the story, presumably Paul imagined that Jesus was eating with and speaking to human beings on that night. Paul says that Jesus died by crucifixion, a particularly nasty form of execution used by Romans; according to some, this conferred the curse of the one hung on a tree (Gal 3:13). Jesus was buried (1 Cor 15:4). According to Paul, soon after his resurrection on the third day, Jesus started appearing to certain people, and to Paul abnormally late (1 Cor 15:5-8); these are not presented as timeless events. Clearly people today aren't satisfied with the amount that Paul wrote about Jesus' life, but that is not enough to make your argument: you have to show that in each of these passages Paul did not have a human named Jesus in mind.

It is good that Louis W. Cable has provided specific examples, because the reason may be different in different cases.

How could he have missed Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to Matthew 21:9-11, attracted great multitudes. How could he not have heard about Jesus'so called "cleansing"of the temple which incurred the wrath of the chief priests and the scribes (Matthew 21:15)? As an enforcer of the law, how could Paul not have known of Jesus' betrayal by Judas Iscariot resulting in his arrest by soldiers and police from the chief priests and the Pharisees (John 18:3)? He does not refer to Judas' accidental death which, according to Acts 1:19, was known to all of the residents of Jerusalem. Cable is arguing that Paul would have known about the event if it had happened. That is one half of the equation. What Cable neglects to argue is that Paul would have written in the extant letters about the event if he had known about it.

Paul must have been aware of Jesus' trial before Pontius Pilate and the ensuing crucifixion with its attendant anomalies such as darkness at noon and earthquakes. Why didn't he mention the resurrection of the saints (Matthew 27:52-53), certainly the most astounding event in history? He never mentions the amputation by Peter of the right ear of Malchus, the chief priest's slave (John 18:10) and its miraculous reattachment by Jesus (Luke 22:51). The simplest explanation for the miraculous portents mentioned here is that they did not happen.

Surely Paul encountered Jesus sometime during those years so crucial to what was to become the Christian religion. I'm sure there were a few people in Jerusalem who hadn't met Jesus.

Yet, not a single reference to these important events appears anywhere in his writings. What makes it stranger still is that in Luke 24:18-20 Cleopas says that everybody in Jerusalem knew about Jesus whom he described as "a prophet mighty in deed and word." Yet, the Apostle Paul apparently never heard of him. This conclusion, that Paul never heard of Jesus, is unsupported by evidence.

As for the general question of the quantity of references to the human Jesus, Maurice Goguel wrote: "True it is that in Paul are only found fragmentary and sporadic indications concerning the life and teachings of Jesus, but this is explained on one hand by the fact that we possess no coherent and complete exposition of the apostle's preaching, and on the other hand by the character of his interests. He had no special object in proving what no one in his time called in question--namely, that Jesus had existed." (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 109)

best,
Peter Kirby

Felsenmeer

My understanding is that the Gospel narratives were cribbed from each other piggyback style at increasing increments of time and space. The "communities that produced it" leapfrogged rather quickly in terms of audience and geography, so....plenty of opportunities for a creative author/editor to work his magic while raising few objections from the mushrooming "community".And as I recall, this "expanding fish tale" syndrome can even be observed in some of the 4 canonical gospels..

I'd wager that the mythic elements outweigh the reality by a vast margin. But I'm thinkin' the myth needed some nucleus to serve as a starter (even as a snowflake builds itself from a tiny dust particle by extrapolative geometry). My point about Pilate is that the gospel narrative DOES (at some points) contain a troublesome flavor of historic verisimilitude despite all of its blatantly fabulistic elements.

In a nutshell; it's what the zeitgeist wanted.It was a widespread "will to believe" on the part of a credulous population, combined with editorial trimming, stretching, splicing, interpolating, etc.. Recall, likewise, that the process took years, and that data storage & retrieval systems weren't quite up to modern snuff in those days...yada yada yada. You get the drift...

Regards to All..

Ted Hoffman

Extraordinary, from my POV, means something that challenges common sense, perharps violates natural laws.
Rare, does not mean extraordinary - in the context we are discussing in. Do you agree?

Dionysos was also born of woman. Paul doesnt mention the name of this woman at all neither does he place her anywhere on earth. Doherty argues that this Pauline phrase was almost entirely governed by Isaiah 7:14.

The Jews were writing their own "vaunted" history and the figures of Abraham and Moses might or might not have been real. Compare the story of Moses for example whose name was an Egyptian name, meaning "son of," as in Thutmose (son of Thoth) and Ramses (son of Ra). I have read texts that have plausibly demonstrated that most of the early biblical partriarchs correlated with Egyptian Pharaohs/gods - that must have been Alan Alfords When the Gods Came Down. Price said "History does repeat itself, but not nearly as much as myth does" .
I can make a finer point on this later. But let me see your take on it thus far.
kata sarka - in the "sphere of the flesh" says Doherty and C. K. Barrett. I dont think I have to visit that with you - you probably have a better grasp of the argument.

This too - the word "brother" is open to interpretation. James the Just - we have spent too much time on it - Eusebius, origen - incongruence etc etc.

Its simple - he doesn't place him anywhere on earth. Even Attis was killed hung on a nail, died and resurrected - proof of concept.
Nothing is to compel us that the story of Jesus is any more real than that of Asherah.

Even if Paul could have had no point to prove, there is no clear reason why he never bothered to mention actual places while referring to Jesus.

And an explanation is needed for this unfathomable silence.
And I dont agree that Paul never needed to prove that Christ existed. I dont have the verses now but I remember Doherty made a fine point of it.

Vinnie

Mark, Josephus, and Paul isn't enough eh?

Vinnie