The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

Paul, if you are sure you grasp what I have attempted to argue sufficiently to offer your advice then I want you to sum up my view in your own words to demonstrate that you have,

I don't see the value to my summarizing your position. Since you're not going to take the advice any time soon (something I didn't know when it was offered, although I know it now, but who's to say what the future holds?), then perhaps it's best seen as a statement of my position on some issues that you'd raised, and we move on.

because everything you say in response to it otherwise indicates to me that we are talking past each other.

That does happen on the internet, but the current issues between us couldn't be more straightforward, upon which I hold as follows:

* There is little or no role for cannot, must, ... in nondemonstrative reasoning; if there were, then it wouldn't be nondemonstrative.

* As is typical of scholarly groups, there are currently well regarded, domain-specific heurisitics peculiar to those who study and teach about the human past.

* Within a subject as vast as the human past, there will predictably be problems where those heuristics perform well, and other problems where the same heuristics fail to produce information or even to apply. If the latter were not true, then the "rules" would not be heuristics.

* In heuristics, the person doing the investigation ordinarily and usually determines which heuristics to use in which problems. People will differ about this. It doesn't follow that one of the disputants is not a historian, even if the critic is a historian, which is not always the case. Nobody owns the words history and historian.

* Since shortly after the turn of the Nineteenth Century (and so before there was a contemporary sense of history as an academic pursuit), there have been well-developed, rigorous domain-independent norms for managing uncertain reasoning, including reasoning about evidence - and reasoning when it's scarce or even lacking (which is, blessedly, hardly ever). These norms are themselves heuristic, and are subject to development and adaptation to each specific domain's characteristic needs.

* The adaptation most easily occurs if there is conversation among the parties in interest.

* Few things could shut down conversation more reliably than someone telling a student or teacher of the human past that they aren't entitled to describe themselves as historians, because the heuristics that they judge suited to their chosen problems aren't the same as those used by other people who also self-identify as historians, who study and teach about different problems and different aspects of the human past.

Anything in the above that is unclear, I'd be delighted to explain.

[neilgodfrey]

I don't see the value to my summarizing your position.

That is standard in communications. To be sure one understands another's position one repeats what one believes one says just to be sure that communication is working meaningfully, not always, but in formal situations, and often in less formal ones, too, when it is important that there be no misunderstanding and there is room for some doubt.

Especially if one is going to presume to offer advice to another, it is most essential that one ensures one does indeed understand the other.

I frequently do that myself online -- in discussions I try to ensure I understand what I am replying to by summing up what I believe the other person to be saying and checking if I have understood their point correctly.

Lots of value in doing that. Potentially avoids wasted time (and advice).

[neilgodfrey]

* Few things could shut down conversation more reliably than someone telling a student or teacher of the human past that they aren't entitled to describe themselves as historians, because the heuristics that they judge suited to their chosen problems aren't the same as those used by other people who also self-identify as historians, who study and teach about different problems and different aspects of the human past.

Anything in the above that is unclear, I'd be delighted to explain.

My comment about the claim of biblical scholars calling themselves historians was said in the context of the history as an academic discipline that exists "as history per se" in history departments. Of course anyone can call themselves a historian, etc. And there are all sorts of books we would describe as history in everyday talk, but that are not what we mean by history as an academic discipline in dedicated history departments.

That was the context in which I have always made that comment, because the biblical scholars who say they are doing history say they are doing so as scholars, and some of them have explicitly equated their activity with the work of their historian peers in history departments of universities.

I challenge their claim on the grounds that they demonstrate little to no awareness of the history of historical studies, of the philosophical discussions of the nature of history, or the discussions about historical methods, etc. that characterize the conversations in history departments.

I justify my claim by pointing to the fact that many biblical scholars who do call themselves historians (in the academic, scholarly context) deploy methods that are contrary to what is considered the most fundamental of sound methods in history departments.

My criticism applies to persons who I am sure are in every way fine and good people, people I could probably in many cases enjoy conversations with, and who stand for causes I applaud and support myself. My criticism in no way impugns their "character" or "behaviours" as persons.

[neilgodfrey]

The Hebrew bible is a unique document of antiquity explaining in some detail the creation of a nation- state from the void; it explains the formation of the Kingdom of Israel and its laws from year zero when the Israelites wandered as nomads in the desert . This new kingdom was based on a particular understanding of something named god, who was acting as the constitution and legislative assembly of those peoples .

The NT is a modification of the same thought found in the Hebrew Bible and it also became the foundation history of a new commonwealth .

Actually stories of foundations of kingdoms, peoples, colonies, were common in the ancient Greco-Roman eras. Virgil's Aeneid is the most famous, but we have evidence of many others that have only survived in summary form -- foundation histories of the Spartans and of the kingdom of Cyrene come immediately to mind. They, too, began in "mythical times" of gods and heroes, involved wanderings, prophecies, divine destiny, establishment of civil society, etc.

[toejam]

Does anyone know if this book is just a reprint of Craig's 2015 'The Historical Jesus', or are they too totally different books?

[neilgodfrey]

* Since shortly after the turn of the Nineteenth Century (and so before there was a contemporary sense of history as an academic pursuit), there have been well-developed, rigorous domain-independent norms for managing uncertain reasoning, including reasoning about evidence - and reasoning when it's scarce or even lacking (which is, blessedly, hardly ever). These norms are themselves heuristic, and are subject to development and adaptation to each specific domain's characteristic needs.

Where can I read about these domain-independent norms some of which are not yet but are waiting to be developed by historians? Are you suggesting historians are unaware of them or avoid using them for some reason at present? (Sorry, I'm asking to understand your argument once again.)

* The adaptation most easily occurs if there is conversation among the parties in interest.

For a conversation to be meaningful both parties need to understand one another's arguments. I do not understand yours, but I am open to being shown that you understand mine.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

That is standard in communications.

No, actually it isn't. In any case, your request was considered and declined for good cause stated courteously.

Especially if one is going to presume to offer advice to another,

Actually, Neil, our present messages are in the form of "open letters." What is nominally addressed to you is also addressed to the community. If you personally find that what I have to say is uninteresting, then perhaps some other reader, somewhere, sometime, will receive it more gladly.

but that are not what we mean by history as an academic discipline in dedicated history departments.

"What we mean" is the subject of the discussion, assuming that "we" includes people who self-identify as historians and are employed full-time by teaching or research institutions (regardless of what their "department," if any, calls itself).

because the biblical scholars who say they are doing history say they are doing so as scholars, and some of them have explicitly equated their activity with the work of their historian peers in history departments of universities.

OK. We didn't need me to state your position - that is just what I understood you to have said, and I couldn't have said it better, which is reason enough for me not to say it again.

My criticism in no way impugns their "character" or "behaviours" as persons.

Good, then we are making progress; progress that can only be made by you clarifying your remarks, and not at all advanced by any summary I might have made about them.

Now, I will go the next step to observe that these people, by challenging the silo-mentality of academic history departments, are opening the door for domain-independent improvements in the practice of historical inference. That process isn't necessarily pretty, and maybe there are individuals doing that whose character and behavior suck (to borrow some of Carrier's technical vocabulary).

But the heurstics as you stated them are facially domain-dependent and applicable only to data-rich situations, while the people you pointed to have chosen to study data-poor problems. Regardless of domain, there is no cure for data poverty except more and better quality data, but there are ways to make the most of what data one has.

Where can I read about these domain-independent norms some of which are not yet but are waiting to be developed by historians?

I recommend George Polya's short book, available for free download at archive dot org, whose link resides at the tail end of my modest introduction on the subject of historical application:

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/201 ... obability/

(Polya's Volume 1 is good, too, but it's chiefly addressed to maths teachers. Full disclosure, I do disagree with a very few of Polya's points, but these are "inside baseball," and I don't hedge my recommendation.)

Are you suggesting historians are unaware of them or avoid using them for some reason at present? (Sorry, I'm asking to understand your argument once again.)

Silo building is a human trait, not peculiar to historians. So, it's a long discussion why there may be resistance. But even without resistance as such, it's a lot of work to acquire the needed facility with the methods, and then adapt them to the problems of interest. Also, let's face it, if you're drowning in data, then it matters less what approach you use, so why use one that you need to learn? Why not just do what feels good and sounds good, when many conclusions will mainly rest on interocular trauma anyway? (= it hits you between the eyes; credit the late Ward Edwards for the phrase)

[neilgodfrey]

I have no idea what you are talking about and even less idea how it is relevant to historical research, sorry. Maybe you could try to persuade a professional historian instead of wasting your condescending tone and time on me.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

I have no idea what you are talking about and even less idea how it is relevant to historical research, sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about. The burden is mine to convey my message, which I failed to meet in your case.

Maybe you could try to persuade a professional historian...

We already have a vigorous professional historian spreading the word to his peers, Richard Carrier. I don't know what "try to persuade" would mean, though. The norms are what they are, they have nothing to do with anybody personally, or anybody's success or failure in "advocating" for them.

Nobody tries to persuade anybody else about the Pythagorean Theorem, except to inform them of the proofs. The only issues are how best to apply the theorem and related matters to specific problems.

However, the issues between us were far narrower. Some parts of the legacy of Laplace are especially robust. For example, almost anything works well in data-rich environments; heuristics that depend on data-richness may well be sub-optimal when data are sparse, if they can be applied at all.

Finally, even if it's off-topic (as is all discussion of participants' personalities),

... instead of wasting your condescending tone and time on me.

You can really detect tone in mute text? How totally awesome! Do you have independent evidence about your accuracy?

[Peter Kirby]

I have no idea what you are talking about and even less idea how it is relevant to historical research, sorry. Maybe you could try to persuade a professional historian instead of wasting your condescending tone and time on me.

I detect hints of this "proof of Jesus' existence" (plus or minus various important things), pulled from the archive of such proofs. (Forgive how crude it is, everyone, but simple ideas are easier to get across to be sure.)

When suitably transformed to make it a lot better, of course! (And perhaps it is actually sound? Not commenting on that just now.)

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=301&start=10

ARGUMENT FROM REALLY WEAK EVIDENCE
(1) In ancient history, we're usually okay with saying someone existed, even if the evidence isn't that great.
(2) The evidence for Jesus isn't that great.
(3) Therefore, Jesus existed.

About some of those differences...

It appears that parts (2) and (3) aren't really a part of what's being talked about here; just (1) is. Also, there's less interest in what the usual practice is in ancient history and more interest in interdisciplinary study and using any methods that could be applied in a "data sparse" (not "data rich") situation.

Some may notice that I'm engaging in summarizing (badly) someone else's position, which may not be "standard," but certainly helps. Now another party to the conversation can chime in and point out how horribly wrong I misinterpreted everything... although that typically involves just refining some edges of inaccuracy (... and re-emphasizing the overall rightness of the position and the correct framing of the topic ...), so, yes, such exercises are useful, especially when one person or other claims not to understand. They help us stumble forward.