Bede

So at last Vork stops making bland assertions and gives us his methodology. There are many methodologies for history, some good and some bad. I'm going to explain why Vork's is bad.

Essentially he has given us a check list which he asserts contains signals that a given source is fiction, or lies as Vork sometimes says. It has a bit of an ad hoc feel to it but let's go through it.

the re-arrangement of events and people – John's moving the temple scourging, for example, shows that the gospelers knew they were not writing history.

John's moving stuff around is probably just because his sources are not the same as Mark's which is a sign of vericity. The point is wrong anyway - MacCaulay puts George Fox's funeral at the time of William Penn's accusation of treason. This is wrong but both events happened.

indifference to geographical and political realities – Mark's geographical boners, Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!", the constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god
depiction of history in religious/supernatural frameworks – John's Seven Signs

Plenty of Romans were 'Friends of God'. Perhaps as many as the Jews themselves who were 10% of the population (see A World Full of Gods - Keith Hopkins). Many, no all, historians make mistakes which is why we need careful work in using them as sources. It is lazy to dismiss the lot for this reason. As for the seven signs, I fail to see how John choosing seven events as examples has anything to do with whether they happened.

few or no critical views of subject

Not sure what you mean here but Mark contains many critical views of Jesus including from his family.

no details of personal characteristics, habits and attitudes – did Jesus like art? Spicy food? Was he afraid of spiders? Ancient historians frequently gave detailed descriptions of character, because it was a widespread belief that it would give clues as to why events occurred the way they did

So what? Mark and John are not educated ancient historians writing in that tradition.

not merely the mentioning of, but the constant presence of the supernatural that permeates the work

Your a priori assumption. Read Bede's History of the English Church and then explain why he is so well regarded despite being full of miracles and the supernatural.

the use of passages and stories from earlier works to construct the NT – reliance on the OT prophecies and stray verses. Subtract these and what is left?

A lot. As should be obvious, many of the OT references are juryrigged into Jesus's life and clearly have not been the inspiration. Besides Simon Schama's Citizens turns the whole French Revolution into a replay of Livy as indeed many of the protaganists saw it. Historians always draw manifold parallels with earlier events and ideas.

few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.

Rubbish. Luke is full of this stuff. Mark gives lots of explanation for non-Jews.

no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made.

Rubbish again. Luke 1.

the existence of multiple redactions – were Tacitus and Polybius redacted?

Some sceptical nutters claim Tacitus is fake. All historians use sources and redact them. And your standard of proof is far too high to claim Polybius and Tacitus were not redacted.

the description of Jesus' life using themes from legends and myths – miraculous birth, redemptive death

The birth narratives are rightly cut out of HJ studies. Many historical figures have fantastic stories about their birth including Alex the G and J Caesar. The redemptive death is clearly overlaid on events rather than the events invented.

little or no explanation by historical/naturalistic/supernatural causation; causation is often supernatural – "and this was done that they prophecy might be fulfilled" Compare with explanatory remarks in Tacitus: "His men were lukewarm in their allegiance, for many came from Dalmatia and Pannonia, and these provinces were now in Vespasian's hands" or describing Vespasian's success in Judea: "Good luck, a distinguished record and excellent subordinates enabled him to within a space of two summers…."

Mark 11:18, Mark 6:17-20, Mark 15:9-11. etc

overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing

That's called honesty. To pretend to be objective (which Tacitus and Polybius certainly are not) is much sneakier.

A sense that events have complex causes -- for example, Tacitus' examination of Civilis' motives for sparing Cologne from being sacked.
discussions of disgreements between or with sources -- see, for example, Tacitus' remarks on what other writers have said about whether the two armies at the Battle of Cremona should surrender, or his remarks on causation at the end of Book Two.

So, a chronicle is fiction? Or is Tacitus the font of all truth? What about Eutropius - is his work entirely fictional as it certainly has no complex explanations.

a commitment to dating events and putting them in their proper order.

Luke has this commitment although he makes mistakes. But to err is human.

knowledge of appropriate laws, habits, customs and procedures. Is Jesus' trial really a possible and legal trial? Compare to Tacitus' detailed knowledge of how political procedures operated.

Tacitus was a senator for goodness sake. Of course he knew about the machinery of Roman government. But Jesus's trial is quite possible and what passes for legal as well. Not bad for the Gospel writers with no legal or political training.

Basically, Vork is trying to claim that the only source of historical knowledge must be bona fide historians which means the NT don't qualify. This would make him a laughing stock in any history department where getting beneath the elite's self definition as given by Tacitus and Polybius (sponcered by a Scipio, no less) is just as important. Vork's methodology is simply laziness designed to send us back to the history of the nineteenth century using the dead educated whites as the only viable sources.

The NT is not written as history but there is plenty of history in it. Skill and careful method are required to extract it. That Vork neither has these skills or understands the methods shows us he is not much qualified to comment.

Yours

Bede

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

Steven Carr

So Bede castigates Vork for saying that the Gospellers were not writing history, while Bede claims that the NT was not written as history.

Seems Bede blames Vork for being right.

Bede

No Steven, Vork thinks there is no history recoverable from the NT. I think there is. What we agree on is the NT contains no highly polished historical writing by the educated elite which is what Vork takes his examples from in his list.

I appreciate this might be a bit subtle for you, but do try and pay attention if you want to participate in a debate.

Yours

Bede

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

Toto

What Vork has claimed is that you have no methodology for extracting the history from the myth, and I still don't see any evidence of it. You can't just edit out the supernatural, like Thomas Jefferson did, and assume the rest is fact.

You can't assume that Luke 1 proves Luke was writing real history any more than a declaration in a fictional work that "all this really happened" means it was true.

Bede

Hi Toto,

I wrote a huge long article on methodology. Apart from Vork saying it is garbage and you kindly pointing out some typos, no one has addressed it. At least I've done Vork the honour of replying to his argument, poor as it is.

There are methodologies and these, in the least extract, the undisputed points listed by Sanders.

History to be extracted from the NT includes, I suggest, the crucifixion by Pilate in the early 30s AD, a disturbance in the Temple, existence of disciples, John the B baptising Jesus, teaching with parables, the content of some of that teaching as discussed by Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, Jesus being a Jew from Nazereth and his having a reputation as a miracle worker.

Perhaps a discussion about the methods used and abused on these points would be a good one. Certainly better than Vork's sweeping statements.

Yours

Bede

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

Family Man

Let's assume that this is true. How does it follow that Jesus was really God and we should worship him?

Or is that another thread?

Iasion

Greetings Bede,

"probably"?
Hmm - do you have any evidence for that opinion?

Contradictions are a "sign of vericity[sic]" ?


So, there is a particular history which has dating mistakes in it - so what? That does not make the dating problems in the NT any less suspect.


Hmm - you ignored the points about
'Mark's geographical boners'
'Matthew's depiction of a Jewish crowd shouting "His blood be on us forever!"'
and answered the 'constant depiction of Roman centurions faithful to the Jewish god'
with :
What exactly is a "Friend of God"?
How many is "Plenty"?
How does that explain all the Romans being (allegedly) faithful to the Jewish God?


Indeed - thats the point - they do not appear to be writing history.


Pardon?
Are you arguing there is NOT a "constant presence of the supernatural permeating" the Gospels?

What does Bede, many centuries later, have to do with it?


So?

Are you claiming that P and T WERE redacted?


What?
You argue that Luke has a commitment to history, then claim that admitting propaganda is honest, yet pretending objectivity is sneaky?

So, that means Luke's commitment to history is sneaky and dishonest.


What is the evidence for this commitment? A vague comment to give an orderly account? The Book of Mormon is MORE valid than the Gospels according to this argument.
But when we read the evidence we see no such commitment - as you admit to, noting his mistakes.


Really?
It is my understanding that the trial story does NOT represent either a legal Jewish trial, nor a legal Roman one - a trial in the middle of the night? a man found innocent then executed?
You really think that was "legal"?


So you keep saying, without ever producing any methodology.

When are you going to tell us your method?
So far, its all opinion, theory, conjecture.

We have yet to see any method described - the constant failure to come up with any method shows there is NO METHOD - your attacks on others does not in any way make up for your lack of methodology.

Hmm.. this comment suggests you don't understand the arguments at all - even "bona fide" historians writing must be checked, tested, verified.
Writings like Tacituss stand up fairly well to such scrutiny (not perfectly though).
The Gospel writing does NOT stand up to such scrutiny - claiming the Gospels are historical does not make them so, it has to be tested and proven - and the Gospels fail this test by many measures.

Quentin David Jones

Toto

Could you expound on this? I don't read it that way. The implied criticism is of Jesus' family for not understanding him. What other critical views are there? You don't see Mark talking about a person who meant well, but failed to understand Roman politics, or anything else that would diminish Jesus as an ideal man-god.

Okay - you say that Luke is an educated historian. But one of Luke's primary sources is Mark. There's something missing here.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/014044565X/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">Ecclesiastical History of the English People</a>

I will try to read it. From the excerpts on the web, it appears that Bede was the only source for a lot of history (so its not clear how you can validate him.) It also appears that he records a lot of basic down-to-earth observations, sometimes with a supernatural explanation. He doesn't record virgin births, tombs opening up, etc., just a few miracle cures.

A dedication to an unknown, possibly mythical person shows that it is history?

But Vork is not talking about the historian redacting the material. He is talking about variations in different copies of the documents.

Why is this clear? The death reads like a dramatic play, not like a courtroom scene.

Are you claiming that this is serious history? It looks more like anti-Semitism written into the Bible some decades after the events are supposed to have happened, reflecting the struggles between Christians and Jews well after Jesus was supposed to have been crucified.

Mark 11:18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching

Mark 15:9 "Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.


Enough for now. You still haven't produced a historical methodology. Your earlier essay was a very good summary of the state of the art - but did not solve any of the real problems.

Vorkosigan

How inopportune! I handed in my resignation yesterday, and am taking a leave of absence due to tendonitis. And there you go starting a thread on my favorite topic.

All I can say, Bede, is that your article on historical methodology did not solve any of the problems raised by Crossan or others who have critiqued those methods, nor does it give any way to determine whether the original material, the gospels, are history or legend.

Your a priori assumption. Read Bede's History of the English Church and then explain why he is so well regarded despite being full of miracles and the supernatural.

This is one attack I am literally sick of. The fact is that in good scholarship no one considers supernatural causation. This is a fact of life that believers have to find a way to live with: good scholarship discounts the supernatural. Mark and Luke do not "contain" supernatural events, Jesus himself, as portrayed in the gospels, is a supernatural event. How are we to regard the stories about him?

..few or no historical asides/digressions to explain to the reader what is going on, or who was such-and-such in history.

Rubbish. Luke is full of this stuff. Mark gives lots of explanation for non-Jews.

Mark gives litle one-sentence asides. Luke is hardly "full" of this stuff. There's nothing like the richness of a real history, with long digressions.

no stated commitment to history such as Tacitus, Thucidydes or Polybius made.

Rubbish again. Luke 1.

• Luke 1:
  1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[1] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Please, Bede, show me the part where it says Luke is committed to writing an unbiased account of events, as both Tacitus and Josephus claim they are (whether they do is another question). Further, Luke is lying -- he did not "carefully investigate" but simply copied such documents as he could find -- Mark, Q, a couple of passion legends and perhaps John. Nowhere does he overtly allow the reader to know he is using sources -- sources that sometimes disagree or contradict. He's just harmonizing legends. If he had "carefully investigated" why did he use someone else's story?

A lot. As should be obvious, many of the OT references are juryrigged into Jesus's life and clearly have not been the inspiration. Besides Simon Schama's Citizens turns the whole French Revolution into a replay of Livy as indeed many of the protaganists saw it. Historians always draw manifold parallels with earlier events and ideas.

The gospelers aren't "drawing parallels" or connecting ancient and current events. They are using scenes from ancient events and rewriting them as current events. Whatever events actually occurred have been lost as a result. That's basic historical method. Whenever events from one era replace events from another, the story is treated by scholars as fiction. For example, the austere Njal's Saga uses 13th century events set in the 10th century, that is one reason scholars consider it entirely myth -- even with its detail, digressions, sober tone and lack of the supernatural.

Further, it's not the presence of a single one of these flaws that's indicative -- it's the presence of all at once. Does Schama explain the french revolution in supernatural terms? Does he state that he is writing propaganda? Does he use past events to invent current ones? Does he fail to think about his characters in well-rounded ways? Does he fail to offer a theory of events? Is causation supernatural? it's easy to find one history with a flaw or two. But not all at once.

the existence of multiple redactions – were Tacitus and Polybius redacted?

Some sceptical nutters claim Tacitus is fake. All historians use sources and redact them. And your standard of proof is far too high to claim Polybius and Tacitus were not redacted.

The question stands and you have not answered it. The gospel of John was rewritten 3-5 times, with new material added and some deleted, some borrowed from other gospels. Show me the literary seams in Tacitus, Polybius, Thucydides that indicate multiple redactions and rewriting. Nobody seems to have regarded them as stories that could be rewritten and redacted at will. I never said they didn't redact prior sources (although, unlike Luke "I have carefully investigated, and copied Mark," they indicate that they used differing sources), only that nobody redacted them.

overt declaration of propaganda motives in writing

That's called honesty. To pretend to be objective (which Tacitus and Polybius certainly are not) is much sneakier.

Thanks for admitting that the gospelers were writing propaganda....

Basically, Vork is trying to claim that the only source of historical knowledge must be bona fide historians which means the NT don't qualify.

Rather, Vork is saying that the source of history is historical resources, and legends such as the NT writings about Jesus contain only worthless legends with little of the history preserved, just as Robin Hood preserves a great deal of history, but little reliable history about its central figure, who appears entirely invented.

[ Vork's methodology is simply laziness designed to send us back to the history of the nineteenth century using the dead educated whites as the only viable sources.

I don't know how to respond to accusations like this that border on accusations of racism. So I won't.

The NT is not written as history but there is plenty of history in it.

Plenty in Robin Hood too. And in the cargo cults. And in the Confucian legends. And in Taoist legend. And in Roland. The central figures of these stories, however, are almost pure invention.

Skill and careful method are required to extract it. That Vork neither has these skills or understands the methods shows us he is not much qualified to comment.

After two hundred years of "skill and careful method" we are no closer to the HJ than when we started. Looks a lot like Robin Hood to me. Looks like I understand it pretty well, thank you.

No Steven, Vork thinks there is no history recoverable from the NT. I think there is. What we agree on is the NT contains no highly polished historical writing by the educated elite which is what Vork takes his examples from in his list.

No, Vork thinks that there is no history about Jesus recoverable from the NT.

Apart from Vork saying it is garbage and you kindly pointing out some typos, no one has addressed it. At least I've done Vork the honour of replying to his argument, poor as it is.

You rehashed criteria that are proven failures. We've been over them, and Crossan and others have annihilated them. Look at the state of HJ studies.

But I promise you this: when I get back in a couple of months, my first post will be on that article.

History to be extracted from the NT includes, I suggest, the crucifixion by Pilate in the early 30s AD, a disturbance in the Temple, existence of disciples, John the B baptising Jesus, teaching with parables, the content of some of that teaching as discussed by Crossan and the Jesus Seminar, Jesus being a Jew from Nazereth and his having a reputation as a miracle worker.

Sure, and in the Charlemagne legend cycles he always has a court of Peers, sometimes the Twelve Paladins, but he doesn't appear to have had any such thing in real life. In the Cargo Cults, one can find many details (aircraft, markings, boxes) that place the Cargo Cults as originating in WWII (just 50 years ago). But guess what! Cargo cults predate WWII, and <a href="http://enzo.gen.nz/jonfrum/index.htm" target="_blank">Jon Frum</a>, the leader of one such cult, was never a real person. After all, You're talking to a man whose grandfather-in-law is now an Earth God in southern Taiwan. Do you think the local oral tradition preserves the fact that he was a lazy, dissolute sponge of a Buddhist scholar in the Twenties who sojourned in China, married a second wife there, had two wives he couldn't afford and sent his daughter to his relatives every day to beg for food and money? Not a chance.

In other words, Bede, practically anything can happen in legend, and relatively fast. Widespread agreement -- and you have no independent documents -- is meaningless. Nearness in time is meaningless as well. Humans, when not editing reality because of cognitive dissonance, lie a lot. As Luke did -- "I have carefully investigated, and after due consideration, have copied Mark."

All of the things you mention have viable alternative explanations, and almost all of them are disputed by some scholars. Further, you do not know which of these events go back to some putative original figure, and which go back to other figures in this composite story. For it is the nature of legend that it borrows freely, and reconstructs what it borrows. John the Baptist in the gospels is a good example, of semi-legendary figure, borrowed for the gospels, and reconstructed there.

Jesus, like Ogier the Dane, Barbarossa, Robin Hood, Arthur, Roland and a thousand others, is a creation based once upon a time on a real person whose story is now gone. No doubt there was a man named Jesus. There was a real John, apparently. Did he baptize Jesus? Not a chance. The gospelers lied about him because the John movement was a threat to their movement, as GLuke, Acts, and the GJohn clearly show. It is possible to recover history from the gospels (the John the Baptist story is a good example), but not about Jesus. It's the nature of legend that central figures are mostly fiction. Sad. But there it is.

Let us know when you have a methodology that can distinguish fact from fiction in the NT. I do not have to supply such a methodology, the onus is on NT scholars who claim that Jesus was really whacked by Pilate (when would that be again? -- the formative event of their religion and they don't even know when it occurred!) to show us a valid historical methodology for pulling truth out of legend (not out of historical writing). So far, NT scholars have none. Nada. Zero. Long after you and I have turned to dust, they'll still be arguing and inventing new historical Jesus-s to fill an much-expanded version of Kirby's page.

This has gone on much too long. My arm is aching. My deepest apologies, Bede, but this will be my last post for some time to come.

Vorkosigan

PS for Peter:
Here is the cite for the 21 AD date of Jesus death off of XTALK today. I am sure you saw it.

"As for 'official papers,' I am aware of a book by Robert Eisler (_Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist_, Methuen, 1931, pp. 13-20, and Appendix I, pp. 591-592) that takes up the question. The eastern emperor Maximin Daia published what he said was the actual 'acta' of Pilate about 311 CE, with an internal date of ca. 21 CE, which causes it to be generally poo-poohed as this date is at variance with the chronology implied by the NT and the received text of the works of Josephus. Whether these acta are genuine, of
course, is open to question."

Clearly, there are several traditions about how and when Jesus died.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Vork
The 2000 pigs are drowned in Mark.
Lepers are healed in Mark and the wounds disappear.
Jesus rose from the dead in Mark.