Sauron

1. The "criteria" are not used by all historians - and for those who do use them, they also admit the various shortcomings of them, such as the flaws below:

Embarrassment - if the text refers to an incident that is not embarrassing, we're asked to take it as accurate because it is fairly plausible and non-controversial. But if the text contains an embarrassment, then that somehow proves the truth of the text and again, the skeptic is asked to accept it.

Dissimiliarity - likewise of questionable use. If the text refers to an event that would be harmonious with the historical and social backdrop of ancient Palestine, then the skeptic is asked to accept it for precisely those reasons. On the other hand, if the event in question is dissimilar to what was expected, then the skeptic is told that "it couldn't possibly be made up, so it has to be true."

Any set of rules that always arrives at the same conclusion is fundamentally useless for deriving any truth.


2. "Commonly used by historians?" All historians except Crossan, evidently -- since he doesn't believe the criteria exist, he can't hardly be using them. Again: these are not as universal as you would like to make them out to be. You are trying to aggrandize your position here, but it isn't working.


I assume you mean that Meier discusses "them" in his volume, and not "him" as you wrote.

In any event, even Meier is also careful to qualify and put boundaries around his claims fo the evidence. He, too, is guarded about what he says.

The data is not "what everyone knows about". Indeed, it varies from person to person as to what constitutes evidence. Our friend Crossan discusses the evidence that he uses - which (not surprisingly) doesn't match your list:

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


So we see that Crossan's list of 'evidence' is much shorter than yours.

And I also see you've dropped your objection to my statement about Crossan being guarded; i.e., that Crossan favors careful and guarded conclusions, vs. frequently taking strong positions. Smart move on your part.

That would be a nice dodge, except I did not say that. What Crossan said is that there is no agreed-upon way to separate the fact from fiction when dealing with the Christ material. And as much as you have tried to wiggle and waffle to get away from that, it is still the truth.

In short, Crossan is calling you a liar. He says that there is no such mound of hard data, nor any such agreed-upon methodology to extract fact from fiction.

You claim that it exists. So where is it?


Yet the criteria that you claim he is aware of evidently isn't sufficient to satisfy the description: hard data and an agreed-upon methodology among historians to separate fact from legend.

Perhaps the criteria you reference is either unknown to Crossan, perhaps he disagrees with it, or perhaps he simply doesn't think it is solid enough to satisfy the definition.

In any event, it's a problem for you to solve - since you claim that such items do exist, and you also claim that Crossan is aware of them.


That wasn't my question.

Where do you find evidence that, on a percentage basis, there are:

a. more scientists from fields relevant to evolution who dispute evolution, than there are
b. historians disputing the historicity of Christ?

The fact that arn.org posted a list of such names is nice. Are they from relevant fields (i.e., not PhDs in astrophysics)? If not, they don't count.

Is the bare minimum (i.e, simple existence in history) all that you have been advocating? If so, then I may have misunderstood your argument.

Someone (I believe it was James Still) said that he had no problems assuming the historicity of Christ as a person, because it was the easiest way to explain a lot of things (Occam's Razor) and did not require violations of physical laws or great leaps of faith. I find that position to be reasonable. I don't necessarily agree with it (haven't made up my mind, actually), but it's a reasonable position that I think someone could easily come to.

But then again, so is Turton's position of agnosticism, in the fact of insufficient information.


Thou shalt not bear false witness, Layman. You're deliberately misrepresenting what Mike Turton claims again; he never said that "no one doubts it." Tell me: does the mass production of strawmen get tiring, after awhile? Oh; that's right: you do that for a living, don't you?

To set the record straight: Turton's own position is one of agnosticism: there's simply not enough hard facts and/or methodology to come to anything resembling a firm conclusion. In other words, "insufficient data, no comment".


How so?

I don't think "increases the probability" is quite accurate here. You might say that establishing the historicity of christ removes the one really big obstacle to the other stories being true: i.e., whether the subject of the story ever existed or not. But that does not really increase the probability that any given story about hiim is true.

We know that Caesar existed. There are dozens of stories - but none of them get a boost in the evidence department, merely if we all agree that Caesar (or Christ) existed. It takes a little more than that.


OK - fair enough.

No. I've just read you before. It's not like your writings or position are hidden on this bulletin board.

I am saying two things, actually:

1. I want to see evidence that, on a percentage basis, there are more scientists from fields relevant to evolution who dispute evolution, than there are historians disputing the historicity of Christ.

2. When you present that data, you need to be sure that you don't restrict your survey of historians/scholars to just New Testament historians/scholars.


As for most Jewish scholars, and their opinion on Christ - Can you cite something to show that the majority do not reject the historical Christ?


I would also doubt it, but for the same reason that I am not surprised to find that Christian scholars accept Christ: in both religions, Jesus plays a major role (albeit different roles).


It was your claim that the majority of historians accepted the historicity of Christ, above and beyond those scientists who accept evolution.

By me pointing out the need to sample from all religious backgrounds, I am merely reminding you not to bias your sampling of historians by their religious affiliation - because if you don't do so, then your "evidence" is flawed. But me pointing that out to you, doesn't obligate me to provide you with any data. I'm just making sure you don't waste your time by concentrating solely on Christian scholars.

That is because so many apologists try to "borrow" historical consensus and apply it to much more tenuous and poorly supported claims about Christ. Nomad has done so; as also Polycarp.


That would be your loss. The rest of us find this to be very useful.

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

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>

Vinnie

""""""Michael: 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.

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

Yeah, I think Layman is right here. Crossan's stated goal for the book is to determine what happened immediately after Jesus' exocution. He doesn't want to skip to the 50s where we have Paul in the picture as some scholars do. In his own words, "It [the book] asks, what happened to Jesus' first companions in the days and weeks, months and years immediately after his exocution?" (p. 15)

Its funny to note that on page 96 Crossan says this: "A majority opinion is not necessarily right, of course, but, if you disagree with it, you should argue against it and not just ignore it. It is not sufficient simply to accuse it of bias, prejudice, paranoia, or delusion."

Also, to see Crossan sum up the last two hundred years of HJ research (p 149): "You can, however, with acedemic integrity, argue to what is the earliest discernable stratum of the tradition. That, in effect, is what the last two hundred years of Gosepl research has been doing.


Vinnie

Vorkosigan

I agree. That is what everyone has been trying to do, on the assumption that if one gets down to the earliest discernable stratum, one can find the HJ (sometimes this assumption is explicit, sometimes it is implicit). Crossan identifies the problem with his further down, where he notes that what you define as the "earliest stratum" depends on what presuppositions you bring to the table. And earlier, where he is discussing NT Wright, and notes that if you think Matthew used Mark, it doesn't follow that Mark contains the historical Jesus.

The hopelessness of the "earliest stratum" approach as a historical approach is evident if we think about the Song of Roland or The Lord of the Rings. It is entirely possible, I am sure, to get to the earliest stratum of the Roland legend. Surely a clever literary critic could get to the initial construction of Tolkien's stories too. But even if you got down to that foundation, you'd still only have fiction.

Layman and other apologists frequently argue that NT scholars use methods generally accepted by historians. This is true, but only in the narrowest sense. Some of the criteria employed by Meiers are indeed used by professional historians on historical writings as arguments for the historicity of particular claims. But for the NT, there is nothing that justifies the use of these criteria on the NT writings. No one has demonstrated that they are history.

Meier's criteria are not a methodology. They are subjective, vague, not publicly usable, and contain the conclusions they seek to prove. For details, see Crossan's discussion of methodology in The Birth of Christianity. Or simply apply them to any known piece of fiction. Shazam! They'll confirm it as history.

A second problem with Layman's claim is that historians do in fact treat NT materials different from other historical writings. Imagine someone saying: "we have to dig through the strata of Polybius to uncover the reality of Roman history." There are no "strata" in Livy Polybius or Eusebius.

I do not see how any historical facts can be recovered from the Jesus cycle. I do think at least some of the figures that got sucked into the creation of this composite were real, but their reality has been lost.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Quick note on Crossan:

On an Internet Chat (Crosstalk might have records) he was asked about Doherty. He said that arguing that Jesus never existed was like arguing the moon landings were in a Hollywood parking lot. He couldn't be bothered even replying.

Crossan uses good methodology and much of his two big books are taken up with discussing it. His break down of the pericodes at the back of HJ is the basis for his analysis of the words and deeds of Jesus. I am sorry Sauron's reviewer found HJ a hard read but I thought it was brilliant, if also wrong in parts. The great thing about Crossan is he is so clear you can see exactly where you part company with him.

This thread is a bit unweildy but I'll be following up the methodology problem. First we need to dispense with the ridiculous Tell-Arthur-Robin strawman though.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Peter Kirby

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/139" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/139</a>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/146" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/146</a>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/155" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/155</a>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/159" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/159</a>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/163" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/163</a>

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/167" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/167</a>

"I did not intend to say that the arguments for or against the historicity of Jesus were exactly the same as those for or against the historicity of America's moon-landing. That may or may not be true. My point was that I recognize the difficulty of proving that something happened when somebody argues that it did not and that all the evidence you adduce can be explained either by
fraud or myth."

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

Thanks for digging this up. The Crossan quote I was thinking of:

"I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had
landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster
their cold war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am
not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed
against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even
interested in trying."

As I correctly summarised, Crossan is saying (and is still saying after his additional clarification that you supplied) that if someone wishes to disregard all evidence and claim it is myth/fiction there isn't anything we can do about this. It is the same with creationists/Graham Hancock/Kennedy conspirators/9-11 Jewish+CIA plot etc etc.

Historians cannot disregard the evidence. They must accept the evidence we have and cannot use special pleading to get rid of it. Neither can they force the evidence into a paradigm of their own making (although admittedly nearly all do). Crossan continues:

"The existence, not just of
Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to
convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore,
in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody
ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for
me."

The evidence is there and forces him (and anyone else) to the conclusion Jesus existed. To disbelieve everything is dead easy. True scepticism is about knowing what to believe - a much harder proposition. This is something Vork, for instance, has not managed yet.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://http//www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan

Crossan said:

"It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called
Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for
me."

Crossan gives the reason last. Nobody ever suggested it was all made up. So, the entire edifice of Crossan's methodology rests on this one point.

Let's look at that again:
Nobody ever suggested it was all made up.

Bede, look carefully at that statement. It isn't positive evidence of anything. Proper application of skepticism is knowing when authority is full of shit. And here is a clear instance where authority admits it has neither clear evidence nor methodology, so the best it can do is -- what was that sentence again?

Nobody ever suggested it was all made up.

That's devastating. As good old Celsus put it:

• "It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie, and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction: I have heard that some of your interpreters...are on to the inconsistencies and, pen in hand, alter the originals writings, three, four and several more times over in order to be able to deny the contradictions in the face of criticism." (37).

But nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. They just said it was a monstrous fiction. Just not one of them made up, monstrous fictions.

That's just fucking pathetic. That's the best that 200 years of critical NT scholarship can do?

It gets worse, though. Interested readers should read the whole exchange, especially Neil Godfrey's extremely polite questions, and then Crossan's last post, where he trundles out a version of the old "if we believe Jesus is a myth then we must believe Augustus is a myth" horseshit.

The only positive evidence Crossan can give is given a couple of posts after the moon one, when he quickly clarifies what he meant, in which he adduces the existence of a movement as evidence for the existence of a person. The issue is of course whether the gospels reflect the life of that person, and the answer is of course: who knows?

Note, Bede, that Crossan's position is very close to mine. Crossan considers the details to be "creative interpretation." He says: Jesus was born and he died by execution. Controversial position to take, that, a human was born and then he died. That's my position too. Do the Gospels reflect any details of that life? Crossan doesn't appear to think so. Maybe you should write him a note, Bede, and tell him that his skepticism is all wrong.

BTW, we're up to 115 posts and still no sign of any methodology that would show that Jesus' existence was -- what was that word? -- "watertight."

The sad part is that I was really hoping to get a clear explanation of how the evidence was viewed, but the best even a skeptical scholar can do is nobody ever suggested he never lived -- which isn't even true -- and "well, there was a movement, so there must have been a person" which is also refuted by the actual existence of movements with mythical founders.

Thanks for the links, Peter. They were very helpful.

Vorkosigan

Bede

Michael,

You'll get your methodolgy chat in about three weeks.

You've read Crossan's books so know he believes a whole lot more than just Jesus lived and died. He pretty much subscribes to EP Sander's list of facts. He also gives excellent reasons which you should know too. Discussion here must wait.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

godfry n. glad

Greetings,

I've found the latter portion of this thread and it's discussion of "consensus" and Crossan's particular viewpoint on the historicity of Jesus to have been interesting. It seems that the argument from authority seems to live and breathe amongst Christain apologists.

Before everyone expends a great deal of time and energy on methodologies, I'd recommend a quick read of the first third of Burton Mack's latest tome, _The Christian Myth_. Dr. Mack is an eminent and esteemed member of the NT scholar coterie and the first portion of this book is a
condemnation of the mispent energies of the most recent "quest" for the historical Jesus, including a specific condemnation of Crossan. In short, Mack accuses NT scholars of finding what they went looking for, rather than having engaged in truly honest research. He says, explicitly, that this most recent "quest" has been guided by liberal Protestant scholars trying to scavange a scrap of reality from what is obviously a great collection of mythical, allegorical and legendary materials. All in all, it sounds very similar to the accusations made by the Copenhagen school against the prevailing paradigm of Christian archeologists using the Old Testament to guide, and subsequently, confirm their archeological findings. It's all been a great deal of circular reasoning, based upon the presupposition that the literary source was historically accurate. And, keep in mind, Mack is on record as thinking it possible that there may have been a shadowy Galilean mendicant preacher who may have served as a possible source for the Jesus stories, but there is no way to provide definitie evidence for such.

I've also been bemused about claims of "scholarly consensus". I was educated in the field of economics, which, during the early 70's touted the scholarly consensus in support of the validity of the Phillip's Curve, which asserted that unemployment rose as inflation dropped and vice versa. Needless to say, the entirety of that consensus dissippated in the reality of the "stagflation" of the mid- to late-70's. Of course, this didn't stop the floating of the Laffer Curve by those who should of known better.

Social sciences and humanities, such as New Testament studies and history (and economics, despite what the economists want to think) cannot provide the same level of confidence in the results as do the sciences and any comparison of the two fields, or comparison of one subdiscipline within one field to a subdiscipline in another should be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

Lastly, keep in mind Anatole France's admonition:
"If fifty million people believe a silly thing, it is still a silly thing."

The press of authority or numbers means nothing in the press of new information or interpretation which is more compelling.

As to what each of us finds compelling...well, that's subjective.

godfry n. glad

Toto

From Crossan (<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hjmaterialsmethodolgy/message/146" target="_blank">msg 146</a>

Well, he just said it. He doesn't think he can show that Jesus existed, and he's not interested in even trying.

If he knew more, he could have proven to his friend that the moon landing was not a fake - see the <a href="http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html" target="_blank">Bad Astronomy</a> deconstruction of the Fox News program.

Crossan then says

When I first read this, I thought that he was admitting that all of his evidence could validly be explained as either fraud or myth. But on second reading, perhaps it is ambiguous.

If your theories cannot account for fraud or myth, you have no basis for studying history at all.

Bede says:

This is patently false, as shown by Crossan's own words. He cannot argue against the hypothesis of fraud or myth. And if we know anything about history, it is that fraud and myth are ever present. And there is no indication that the evidence "forced" him to the conclusion over his objections - just that he himself found the amount of evidence adequate (including an argument from the silence of Christianity's critics.)

Bede also says:

Crossan is not talking about disregarding any evidence. He is saying he cannot disprove the hypothesis that Jesus was a mythical being. Certainly Doherty does not disregard evidence - he uses it and accounts for it, even if you do not approve of his results.

It is definitely not the same with creationists or other theories that lack a basis in fact. You can visit the evolution-creationism forum on the board and find creationist assertions being disproven all the time. There are several skeptics organizations that put their efforts into researching and testing urban myths and fringe science. I doubt that the hypothesis that Jesus existed could pass any of their tests.