Vorkosigan

New article by Eric Eve on Multiple Attestation rips Meier

LOL. Hey! It's always good to see the academics arrive where we at Infidels were ages ago.....soon they will all be mythicists and agnostics. Hehehehehe.

Steven Davies, on the list, writes:

• rehearse Eve's argument, because you all ought to be
  reading it for yourselves, it being interesting, only 18 pages long,
  and right. The conclusion is a little waffley because it seems to
  assert that while there isn't actually any valid evidence that
  will sustain the thesis that Jesus was a miracle worker, we do not
  want to draw the conclusion that Jesus wasn't such because, heck, there might be some sort of unknown evidence out there somewhere so that it might be possible to make a good case anyhow: "it may well be possible to make a good case for this on other grounds," citing moi, as a matter of fact, for this. But I dunno.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I'm reading it now. I especially like the angel who aided the Brits in WWI - multiply attested by 1915 - who can be traced to a fictional story.

Toto

The emperor is not really naked, just underclothed, or perhaps this will turn out to be the latest Paris fashion, more evidence is needed, and not that there is anything wrong with being stark naked anyway.

That's how I interpret this:

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Vork, for the link. Its a great paper. But I feel that Eve doesn't confront Meiers arguments head-on. He only raises questions about them and he succeeds in demonstrating that the place of MA as an objective methodology for gleaning a historical Jesus is not secure because its unreliable and "loose" because it has plenty of loose ends and isnt "watertight".

He points out plenty of possibilities that Meier tacitly overlooked and waters down what Meier might have implicitly or otherwise achieved. I wonder why he doesn't refute them outright. It seems to me he has the ammunition to demolish the arguments right down to the ground, but for some reason, he chooses the nuanced, even "muted" approach.

Maybe I am too much of a layman to understand the decorum of scholarly discourse and the subtlety of their approach. No rush of adrenaline, just sober, gentlemanly discussion, muted criticisms.

But he does demonstrate that MA, at least as per Meier, is inadequate as a methodology for the purpose to which it has been employed. Since criterion of dissimilarity, embarrasment criterion and others are equally disproved as workable, I feel more comfortable in our mythicist armchair. I will contact Doherty to make room for some more. Even some of our neighbours, whom we sometimes refer to snidely as "historical agnostics" need to prepare room for more people.

<snuggles comfortably in the vast armchair, a relaxed expression in his face ...his outstretching left leg snaps back reflexively as it touches Dohertys...Vorks footsteps are heard outside and his silhouette appears on the window. He peers in the room pensively>

[ZZZzzzzZZZZZZ...zzzzzZZZZZ....]

Ted Hoffman

To follow up on Toto's analogy, the scantily dressed emperor should be stripped stark naked, grabbed roughly by the hair, then ruthlessly kicked out to the streets. Unceremoniously.

Vorkosigan

Alas, with so many scholars faith-committed to an HJ.....I fear the Emperor will sit up there for quite some time to come. In the end, instead of honestly declaring that there is no historical basis for a Jesus, they will simply declare the HJ search over and move on to other things.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Perharps they will try sweeping it under the carpet. In that case, I would suggest mythicists pull it right out and place it on the table.

I remember early last year the gruff responses I used to get whenever I raised the myth hypothesis: "majority of scholars admit that there was a historical Jesus and only idiots believe otherwise..."

Well, now they (HJ scholars) are trying to turn it over in their heads. The bible is being chopped up to strata, criterions are being manufactured and all sorts of handwaving stunts are being pulled. It's a good sign. The more books come out, the more the public gets to know that the existence of a HJ is not secure and established.

When is someone refuting Dohertys thesis - besides JP Horsemanure?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Yeah, Toto, that's about it...

Still, Eric Eve's new effort is to be welcomed. Finally we're seeing some rumblings within the Establishment that some of their favourite hobby-horses might be a bit irrelevant.

I've read some other of Eve's contributions on the Synoptic-L, and generally he _is_ a bit long-winded, and prefers to qualify everything with a thousand of little qualifications...

The Multiple Attestations criterion is an obvious problem case. In my experience, some of the earliest and the most genuine-looking material in the gospels has survived in a single out-of-the-way manuscript here and there... What is multiply attested is usually the latest and the most politically correct (at the time) stuff.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Vinnie

Here is the low-down on MA and Meier:

Without stratification MA is absolutely useless in HJ research.

Unless it is something that clearly goes againt the theological grain of a gospel (e.g. paucity of Gentile related material in GMark or the pericope where Jesus labels the woman a dog), if your not in the first stratum then chances are I'm not even going to bother with your arguments anymore.

I find Meier's whole methodology to be entirely bankrupt in this regard. It hardly ever securely gets us back to the thirties or even the forties.

Look at Meier's basic sources:

Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Q, L and M

Look at his probable dating of these sources in my estimation:

Mark ca. 70 ad
Matthew and Luke 80-100
John ca 90 C.E.
Q same time as GMark

L and M can't even really begin to be dated with any degree of certainty let aloneb e viewed as single sources, IMO. Meier's sources and stratification don't allow him to even come close to the thirties (Ground Zero!)

If Meier didn't dismiss Paul as telling him nothing the Gospels don't already he would have a slightly better method (like Paula Fredriksen's). Unfortunately, he thinks the gospels are so reliable that he doesn't need to bother with lowly first stratum material. Crossan was right, stratification is not optional in Jesus research, its a requirement!

Of course, Meier's disuse of the first stratum is perfectly understandable in my eyes. He has no real first stratum aside from a few sparse Pauline references.

The Birth narratives provide the perfect problem with Meier's methodology. The VC is multiply attested and most likely the VC predates both Matthew and Luke. No matter what though, we never get back to the thirties. Once in a while Meier probably gets us to the forties.

If Material developed in the forties or fifties it could have potentially effected all his present sources to reflect this development.

That is why Crossan's focus on first stratum material that is multiply attested makes for a much better methodology.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

But when you go down to the earliest, you only get the earliest. It could be the earliest fiction. You then have to have a methodology for determining whether there is any history in "the earliest" or whether its just fiction.

I think chopping up the sayings, narratives etc into strata is like sitting on a rocking chair: keeps you busy but takes you nowhere.