Vorkosigan

Michael,

Keep you hair on. Calling respected scholars 'reprehensible', sick' and servants of 'fascist' systems strongly suggests your argumentation is driven by emotion and anger. It would explain your inability to think clearly about this.

No, it strongly suggests that people who serve the Christian Right and its goals have serious problems. Do you think it is good scholarship to use Bayes theorem to announce that there is a .97 chance Jesus was resurrected? Do you think that in a world run by the people Swinbourne and Wright are playing to, things like Infidels and sound Bible scholarship will be permitted to exist?

In any case, still waiting for that methodology.

Vorkosigan

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Anunnaki

This is exactly what Bede is doing and it`s quite sickening and shameful to watch. I find myself having to constantly turn my head away from my monitor while reading the last distressing gasps of a man who refuses to admit that he and his ilk lost the argument a long time ago.

Peter,
Please do something about the Macintosh compatibility problem. Your work is too important to be seen only by those using Windows PC`s.

Btw,
Bede`s website of apologetic garbage loads fine on a Mac.

Jayman

I'll present one criterion for finding the historical Jesus. I'll present the criterion of embarrassment.

The Gospels are documents written to show that Jesus was the Son of God. In order to make this argument they have to show Jesus in a good light. Therefore, whenever Jesus is shown in a bad light it is very likely that that story or saying goes back to the historical Jesus.

Critique away!

Toto

There is nothing in the Gospels that is inherently embarrassing. Jesus is portrayed as perfect, and every thing there contributes to that picture or furthers the plot.

I know that some consider the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist to be embarrassing, because Jesus should have been born perfect and sinless, but that's really not very persuasive. There is an old thread in the archives on the subject.

You'll have to do better than that.

edited to add:

Did you read the link I gave you in another thread to some course notes on the historical Jesus?

<a href="http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/method.html" target="_blank">http://www.courses.drew.edu/sp2000/BIBST189.001/method.html</a>

which labels the use of the criteria of embarrassment "largely apologetic reasoning."

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Thanks for your bold contribution, Jayman. In order to use that criterion, you first have to know that you are dealing with history. In other words, you need a set of resources that lie outside your story to tell you about it. For example, if you applied it to something like Njal's Saga, where there are many incredibly embarrassing stories amid a brilliant and austere narrative, you'd have to accept it as history. Yet the Icelandic sagas are all known to be fictions based on historical characters. Similarly, if we had no Einhard, we might conclude that Roland really was beaten by the Saracens at Roncesvalles (how embarrassing), but in fact we know that he was not beaten by Muslims but by Basques, and was not the leader of the rearguard.

Another problem is that "embarrassment" is a highly subjective criterion. One man's embarrassment is another man's belly laugh. In Njal's Saga the good man Hrut is cursed and his member become too engorged to enter his beautiful wife Hallgerd. Embarrassing and therefore true? Or what?

A third problem with embarrassment is that embarrassing fictions sometimes hide even more embarrassing truths. As I recall, In Kunene's Epic of Shaka, the king of the Zulus, a problem between Shaka and his mother is invented to hide the even more embarassing truth that he was illegitimate, and probably not even of royal blood.

A fourth problem is that even if you showed that some portion of the gospels is historical, it by no means implies it goes back to Jesus. It may well go back to one of the several individuals whose stories seem to have been swept up into the legend cycle. Or it simply demonstrates that it belongs to the lowest substratum of the legend.

Let's look at Crossan's remarks from page 144-5 of The Birth of Christianity

*Meier's criteria have no basis in any theory
*Meier's criteria are not a methodology -- there is no method telling us when to use one and not another
*They are not publicly usable -- cannot be repeated by other scholars
*They are vague and weak

I suggest you get hold of that book, and carefully read the section on methodology, with particular attention to page 149.

Vorkosigan

Jayman

Fair enough. I think it's safe to say that there was a historical Jesus. We have multiple witnesses (Mark, Q, L, M, John, Josephus, Paul) to the fact that a Jesus of Nazareth existed. We know that a Christian movement began and that they traced their beginnings to Jesus. Since the Gospels give us the most information about what Jesus may have been like I think we should examine them in order to find the historical Jesus. After reaching this conclusion we must find a methodology for extracting the historical Jesus from the Gospel stories. I agree completely. We have to make sure a story was embarrassing to the author before we make a judgment using this criterion. Note, I'm not familiar with the story you've cited (or the others in the post for that matter). This might be the case, but before declaring it to be the case we have to show that it is, in fact, hiding a more embarrassing story. Otherwise, it's just pure conjecture. Your first sentence has me confused. When you say that part of the Gospels is historical what do you mean? You seem to contradict yourself by saying that even if you found part of the Gospels to be historically true (about Jesus?) that it doesn't mean it went back to Jesus. I disagree. If you have a story that is embarrassing then obviously you can use the criterion of embarrassment, otherwise you cannot. If a story has multiple sources then you can use the criterion of multiple attestation, otherwise you cannot. Etc. Again I think this is wrong. If Meier defines a methodology that methodology can be used by anyone. This doesn't mean the methodology is right of course. This debate has made me want to read a lot more books on methodology, I'll admit.

Vorkosigan

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Jayman.

Fair enough. I think it's safe to say that there was a historical Jesus.

Oh, I agree. The issue is whether the stories we have reflect anything about his life. For example, was he from Nazareth of Bethlehem? Did he speak in discourses or parables? Was he arrested by a Roman cohort, or just a few men? Was his ministry 3 years or one? Was he descended from the line of David?

We have multiple witnesses (Mark, Q, L, M, John, Josephus, Paul) to the fact that a Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Paul has almost no "historical" details about Jesus; Josephus says nothing that is not in Christian legend (and is probably an interpolation); Q is a sayings collection with little historical detail (sayings are notoriously easy to get swept up into a tradition; see Confucius and Buddha); Luke and Matt depend on Mark; John contradicts the others where it doesn't copy from them; none is a witness; all depend on prior sources. Further, in some interrpretations, the gospels are written to supply a mythology for the legend of Jesus spread by Paul, which would make them worthless as sources. By the time the gospels were written, legendary accretion had already begun. The gospels are mythology and propaganda, not history. Little in them can be traced back to the movement's putative founder.

Note, I'm not familiar with the story you've cited (or the others in the post for that matter). This might be the case, but before declaring it to be the case we have to show that it is, in fact, hiding a more embarrassing story. Otherwise, it's just pure conjecture.

Jayman, suppose we find an embarrassing story in a heavily mythologized account. How are we to know what it reflects? Embarrassment is only one option among many. The point is, knowing that multiple explanations are possible, how can you pick a single interpretation? There's no justification for it. Embarrassment is pure conjecture, as much conjecture as any other interpretation.

Your first sentence has me confused. When you say that part of the Gospels is historical what do you mean? You seem to contradict yourself by saying that even if you found part of the Gospels to be historically true (about Jesus?) that it doesn't mean it went back to Jesus.

Yes, I wrote it badly. Suppose you show that some portion of the gospels indeed is older than the others. What would that mean? The gospels are composites, reflecting several traditions. How would you know that such-and-such a datum went back to Jesus? That's an unfounded assumption. Old does not necessarily mean Jesus. Further, as Crossan points out, what you take for old depends on your assumptions about Jesus. When you reach the oldest stratum of a legend, that's all you have -- the oldest stratum. The Faust legends have an oldest stratum in the biography of 1587, but it is entirely legendary and seems a composite of several figures.

I disagree. If you have a story that is embarrassing then obviously you can use the criterion of embarrassment, otherwise you cannot. If a story has multiple sources then you can use the criterion of multiple attestation, otherwise you cannot. Etc.

Alas. It is not so simple. How do you know when something is embarrassing? It's a bit like the judge said about pornography: "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." For example, is Jesus' crucifixion embarrassing or not? Is the story that the Jews instigated his execution embarrassing or not? Mohammed marrying a 9 year old, embarrassing or not? Robin Hood defeated by Little John -- embarrassing to the writer and therefore true? Or what?

We know that a Christian movement began and that they traced their beginnings to Jesus. Since the Gospels give us the most information about what Jesus may have been like I think we should examine them in order to find the historical Jesus.

So does everyone else, but no historical Jesus has emerged. Or rather, too many HJs have emerged. Which gospels? Thomas? The Infancy gospels? Secret Mark? The historical Jesus you find depends on what assumptions you make about the sources. Does Thomas date from 50, or 150? Does the gospel of Peter contain anything useful?

Further, we don't know the Christian movement began with Jesus. We know the Christians said it did. The Hongs, Ming nationalists in 18th century China, traced their movement back to a Founder of the same name. But scholarship has shown he is entirely mythical. In the New Hebrides cargo cult, they believe the carrier of the cargo is named John Frum (who will also drive out the whites and restore native power -- sound familiar?), but Frum is mythical, as far as anyone knows. Moreover, the cult contains airstrips and airplanes -- so most people mistakenly believe that they reflect WWII -- but in fact cargo cults arose in the 19th century, and were updated and redone to reflect events in the 20th. Current Chinese scholarship believes legendary Taoist founder figure Lao tzu is entirely legendary; just a name around which many stories and sayings were hung.

After reaching this conclusion we must find a methodology for extracting the historical Jesus from the Gospel stories.

There isn't one. You can't get truth out of mythology, unless you have a non-mythological source that tells you something about the legend. And then you don't need the legend.

I think this is wrong. If Meier defines a methodology that methodology can be used by anyone. This doesn't mean the methodology is right of course.

That's Crossan's point: the "methodology" lacks even the most basic elements of a methodology. Meier has not "defined" a methodology; he's just listed some arbitrary criteria, which are vague and useless. Above you agreed that "embarrassment" can be subjective. If so, how are we to use it, if everyone has their own definition of it?

Vorkosigan

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Jayman

I think you can make an arugment from the text itself. For example, if you can demonstrate that a book is trying to make a certain point and you find another part of that book that undermines that point, then the criterion of embarrassment can come into play.

Vorkosigan

Hmm...so you would consider tLotR historical based on Frodo's embarrassing failure to toss the Ring into the volcano. Instead he claimed it, and then Gollum did the deed. Would that fall under embarrassment or not? I could adduce thousands of examples.

If we take the "embarrassment" criterion as being the presentation of information embarrassing to the writer's thesis or beliefs, would you take Starship Troopers to be reality based on the many characters in the book who criticize the military lifestyle he sentimentalizes in that work? I could adduce thousands of such examples.

In other words, we cannot deduce historicity from the text of a legend alone.

Vorkosigan

NOGO

I believe that the intent of baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was two fold. First it is a way of giving Jesus, John's seal of approval. John was a stepping stone for Jesus. Second, Jesus' baptism reads like David's anointing as the "Christ" ie the anointed on of God.

Here are the elements which I believe coincide.

Samuel pours oil on David.
John pours water on Jesus.

The spirit of God descends on David.
The spirit of God descends on Jesus.

David is henceforth guided by the spirit of God.
Jesus is guided by the spirit into the desert.

David starts a new role as King/leader of his people.
Jesus begins his public life.


In my opinion the original author of Jesus' baptism intended to show John as a priest figure, admired my many, effectively anointing Jesus as King of Israel.

No embarrassment there.
Perhaps the embarrassment came later when Jesus was made God.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

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