Rules of Historical Reasoning

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:04 pm
And now here we have Carrier doing source criticism in order to come up with a trial account behind the book of Acts which hints at a nonhistorical Jesus. I cannot imagine how he would even argue it to be a true primary text for Jesus' lifetime, since would such a text not presume events toward the end of Paul's putative life? So there is that matter (and, again, I cannot lay my hands on the book at the present time). But, more importantly for my question here, Carrier has "discovered" a source document behind Acts, one which he thinks contributes to his overall views.

So... how does this differ from what Theissen does in The Gospels in Context? You accurately point out upthread a bit that one does not have to agree with Carrier's source criticism itself; but he is still doing what historians do when he uses it. Honest question: would the same apply to Theissen (and other scholars who have dated the passion narrative to the thirties)? Unless I misunderstand what you mean by criteriology, neither Carrier (on behalf of his trial account) nor Theissen (on behalf of his passion narrative) uses the much maligned criteria (dissimilarity, embarrassment, and so on) in this particular connection. So how can we tell which of the two is doing source criticism in a way that "no other historian would dare" and which is doing things properly? Or are Theissen and his ilk (including Crossan on this particular topic, as well as Bauckham himself and a host of commentators on Mark) exceptions to your generalization that biblical scholars are cheating, so to speak, in their method of finding primary sources behind the secondary gospels?
To recap Carrier:
One argument for this being the case is the remarkable disparity between these trial accounts, and speeches and sermons that take place elsewhere. If Luke were simply fabricating the whole thing, these accounts should be consistent: the actors would say the same things when asked to pronounce and defend the gospel, regardless of where they were. But strangely, they are not. Everywhere else, the speeches and sermons in Acts are conspicuously historicist; but when Paul is on trial, where in fact historicist details are even more relevant and would even more certainly come up, they are suddenly completely absent. That is very strange; which means, very improbable. The best explanation of this oddity is that Paul's trial accounts were not wholesale Lukan fabrications but came from a different source than the speeches and sermons Luke added in elsewhere - a source that did not know about a historical Jesus. (p. 376)
My understanding of Carrier in the above passage is that in his analysis of the source he sees inconsistencies that require explanation. He posits that the author is drawing upon two different sources to create his Acts narrative. He postulates that these two different sources are responsible for two different emphases in the speeches.

We may reasonably disagree with his analysis but what he is doing is a form of source criticism on the narrative from the perspective of the author. He assumes an author fully responsible for narrative content (that is, all the details come out of his own head) is more likely to create a narrative without the sorts of inconsistencies that he (Carrier) believes exist.

That sounds like an application of Day's rule #3 -- whatever our views of the analysis itself.
(3) Source criticism is extended beyond the establishment of the identity of the author, to so-called ‘internal’ features of the source: the author’s aim, their ideological background and their intended audience. It is assumed that knowledge of these facts will aid the historian’s use of the source. (Exemplification of this point has already been suggested, in the case where the historian would be wise to find out whether the author had reason to lie, and why they might have done so.)
Compare Theissen and Merz, quoting from page 447 of The Historical Jesus 1998.
In [Pesch's] view, [Mark] took over an extensive account of the passion which will have already begun with Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah (Mark 8.27ff.), to which he made only a few changes. Pesch argues that this account had been written down before 37 CE, since the high priest who is introduced into it anonymously must still be the same as the high priest in the narrative; otherwise he would have to have been distinguished from the high priest who was currently in office. Caiaphas was deposed in 37 CE.

Stimulated by this observation, in 1989 G. Theissen systematically collected all the 'indications of familiarity' in the passion tradition (independently of any division into sources, 'Local Colouring*', (166-99). They indicate the probability that the narrator presupposes that those whom he addresses have prior knowledge of persons and events. Thus the two followers of Jesus who clashed with the soldiers at his arrest remain anonymous, although almost all the other individuals are mentioned by name (often even with their place of origin). If this is a 'protective anonymity', it would make sense only during the lifetime of the individuals concerned. In that case, the traditions in the passion narrative might already have been formulated in the first generation in Jerusalem.
You probably see the difference from what Carrier has done with Paul's speeches in Acts. Carrier was analysing the consistency of the narrative plot from the perspective of the author.

Pesch and Theissen are doing what I elsewhere said is "going beneath/beyond the text" itself and entering the narrative world and mingling with the characters as if they are all there in 3D, in some historical resurrection. Their view of Mark is not as an author but as a participant in the narrative or at least living among the very persons in his story.

Mark's narrative has become like a magical movie that Theissen can walk right into by stepping through the screen and trying to figure out who's who and what's what. The narrative world itself is now the "reality" that the scholar engages with.

Mark doesn't name the HP? The HP must be still alive at the time the story was first told! Mark doesn't name the person who cut off someone's ear? He must still be in hiding at the time the story was first formulated. Mark doesn't name the youth who fled naked? He must still be too embarrassed to come forth and claim his lost property at the time the story was set.

None of this is textual or source criticism. It is stepping in front of the author and (to use McGrath's image) digging beneath the text itself and imaginatively exploring a fantasy or narrative world as if it were all real-life. It is as if Mark was known to have been reporting history that had been relayed to him by eyewitnesses or persons who heard from eyewitnesses, and whose story had been set firm within a very short time of the actual events narrated.

I'm reminded of school classes where we would discuss the psychology and motives of Hamlet, all as a cipher for discussing ourselves, our own motives, human nature, etc. Except a true parallel would be a discussion that attempted to recreate the origins of Shakespeare's story by addressing thirteenth-century sources for the "historical Hamlet" in Denmark.

The text or narrative details in the text are used as keys to enter a narrative-come-to-historical-(true-story)-life world from which author is understood as the transcriber of reports emanating from the persons in the story itself.

This is all assumption that goes way beyond the text or the text's narrative itself. It is going way beyond an abstract author's perspective and is creatively imagining an author in a relatively specific time and place with relatively specific contacts and sources that actually derive from the story being told. (For one hint at an alternative explanation -- as if one were needed -- for Mark keeping his high priest anonymous, see How the Gospel of Mark Portrays Jesus as High Priest.)

You asked about Q, too, but this is enough for one post. Besides, having to snatch web warps on an ad hoc basis today and the next few days ... not easy.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 12:55 amMy understanding of Carrier in the above passage is that in his analysis of the source he sees inconsistencies that require explanation.
I cannot speak for Pesch (whom you mention below), but so does Theissen. That is his starting point: inconsistencies in the text of Mark which suggest a source different than what the author/editor of Mark wrote or would have written.
Compare Theissen and Merz, quoting from page 447 of The Historical Jesus 1998.
In [Pesch's] view, [Mark] took over an extensive account of the passion which will have already begun with Peter's confession of Jesus as Messiah (Mark 8.27ff.), to which he made only a few changes. Pesch argues that this account had been written down before 37 CE, since the high priest who is introduced into it anonymously must still be the same as the high priest in the narrative; otherwise he would have to have been distinguished from the high priest who was currently in office. Caiaphas was deposed in 37 CE.

Stimulated by this observation, in 1989 G. Theissen systematically collected all the 'indications of familiarity' in the passion tradition (independently of any division into sources, 'Local Colouring*', (166-99). They indicate the probability that the narrator presupposes that those whom he addresses have prior knowledge of persons and events. Thus the two followers of Jesus who clashed with the soldiers at his arrest remain anonymous, although almost all the other individuals are mentioned by name (often even with their place of origin). If this is a 'protective anonymity', it would make sense only during the lifetime of the individuals concerned. In that case, the traditions in the passion narrative might already have been formulated in the first generation in Jerusalem.
You probably see the difference from what Carrier has done with Paul's speeches in Acts. Carrier was analysing the consistency of the narrative plot from the perspective of the author.
Does he stop there? Or does he also use this newly quarried source behind the text of Acts as a support for his view that Jesus did not historically exist, despite the fact that said text, even if it existed, cannot be considered a primary source for Galilean or Judean life of the third decade? (I am asking sincerely; I think I remember this, but I am not sure.)
Pesch and Theissen are doing what I elsewhere said is "going beneath/beyond the text" itself and entering the narrative world and mingling with the characters as if they are all there in 3D, in some historical resurrection. Their view of Mark is not as an author but as a participant in the narrative or at least living among the very persons in his story.
I am not sure what this means. Theissen does not think that "Mark" (or whoever compiled the gospel) wrote the original passion narrative, the source quarried from the perceived inconsistencies demanding at least two separate authors. So yes, he is most certainly going behind whatever "Mark" wrote, but is not Carrier going behind whatever "Luke" wrote in Acts? And is the means not the same: a putative underlying source text?
Mark's narrative has become like a magical movie that Theissen can walk right into by stepping through the screen and trying to figure out who's who and what's what. The narrative world itself is now the "reality" that the scholar engages with.

Mark doesn't name the HP? The HP must be still alive at the time the story was first told!
Pesch, IIUC, made this suggestion. Theissen contradicted it, pointing out (for example) that the Pharaoh in the Exodus narratives is not named, either. This suggestion was an inspiration for the rest of what Theissen argued; it was not one of his own arguments, nor did he adhere to it.
Mark doesn't name the person who cut off someone's ear? He must still be in hiding at the time the story was first formulated. Mark doesn't name the youth who fled naked? He must still be too embarrassed to come forth and claim his lost property at the time the story was set.
A predecessor of "Luke" doesn't include certain passion details in the trial narratives? He must not have even known about Jesus' passion.

(Again, I am confused that you are using the name "Mark" here, when that name is usually reserved for the author/editor of the gospel as a whole, and Theissen is dealing only with whoever wrote the passion narrative which eventually found its way into the finished gospel; he is very clear about the distinction.)

Once Carrier has his source text in hand, so to speak, he does not shrink from reading the author's mind; this to me seems little different than Theissen reading his source author's mind as to the reason for not including some of the names.

For my money, neither is correct; yet neither broke any "rules" (if that is the term we must use) to speak of (or perhaps both misapplied certain rules). Both pointed out discrepancies in the text; both posited a source text on the basis of these discrepancies. Carrier exercised (again, IIRC) a heavy-handed argument from silence on a situation he can not possibly have had enough information about. Theissen exercised an overly imaginative way of accounting for the way the names are used or not used in the passion narrative.

Both Carrier and Theissen attempted to read the mind of the putative author of an alleged source text, did they not?
None of this is textual or source criticism. It is stepping in front of the author and (to use McGrath's image) digging beneath the text itself and imaginatively exploring a fantasy or narrative world as if it were all real-life.
Again, the way you write this is confusing. Both Carrier and Theissen are dealing with what they consider to be a text behind the current text, so how can either of them help "digging beneath the text itself" in the process? I am not sure what you find objectionable about going behind the text when the alleged source text is, by definition, behind the current/extant text. Surely Carrier does not imagine his source author as any less real than Theissen imagines his. And both are certainly attempting to answer the implied question, "Why did this source author write this account up in this particular way?"
The text or narrative details in the text are used as keys to enter a narrative-come-to-historical-(true-story)-life world from which author is understood as the transcriber of reports emanating from the persons in the story itself.

....

(For one hint at an alternative explanation -- as if one were needed -- for Mark keeping his high priest anonymous, see How the Gospel of Mark Portrays Jesus as High Priest.)
It seems clear to me that you have not read The Gospels in Context, or at least not recently enough to remember it, since (as stated above) Theissen explicitly deflates the argument from the lack of a name for the high priest. If I am correct, it may hamper your ability to respond in full. I guess my main query here is why you describe what Carrier does as possibly mistaken but at least staying within the bounds of sound historical inquiry but what Theissen does as out of bounds. I mean, once you have identified a source text (rightly or wrongly), it is practically imperative to try to work out what that author (and not the author of the entire text in which you now find the source text lodged) was doing, not to mention the most likely date of the source. What, really and honestly, is the difference between (A) Carrier suggesting that his source author omitted passion details about Jesus in trial narratives about Paul (!) because he knew nothing of an historical Jesus and (B) Theissen suggesting that his source author omitted names of characters in the passion narrative because they might be in danger if named?
  1. In neither case is the conclusion assumed. The logic is that, if the suggested reason for the way the text was written is correct, then the conclusion probably follows. So the entire onus follows upon how likely the suggested reason is. If the suggested reason fails, then so does the inference.
  2. In both cases the suggested reason is technically possible; Carrier's author cannot have included details about something he was not aware of, nor can he have been aware of them if they never happened; and Theissen actually gives examples of names of historical people being omitted from the accounts which discuss them, presumably for similar reasons.
  3. In neither case is the hypothesized reason for the way the source was written the only or even the most obvious answer to the question.
  4. Both cases, in my humble opinion, are examples of overreaching. Both Carrier and Theissen are, after all, employing inherently risky methods: Carrier the argument from silence, Theissen what Gilbert J. Garraghan calls the "principle of sufficient reason" (AKA the argument from cumulative evidence).
If anything, Theissen's putative source is more likely than Carrier's to begin with, not that it matters much for the current issue.
You asked about Q, too, but this is enough for one post.
I quite agree. Q gets even more complicated from the perspective of exactly what constitutes a primary source. I am all for omitting it here and letting the passion narrative carry the conversation.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Neil,
About my methodology,

From http://historical-jesus.info/:
It took me three years doing research on the history of (very) early Christianity. Then, with no predetermined agenda, I decided to write this reconstruction about the historical Jesus and the sequence of events ('historical thread') leading to the earliest Christian doctrine. It is a sincere conclusion of a personal exercise motivated by my curiosity and not any anti-Christian propaganda or apologetic effort.

My approach, as a critical investigator, will appear radically new. The research was not based on studying extensively scholarly works; but instead by inquiring about contextual facts, scrutinizing earliest sources, getting free from past indoctrination and, above all, doing a lot of thinking. Never interested in divergent learned opinions, lofty ("high context") intellectualism, slick or bullying rhetoric, agenda-driven "studies" or ill-validated theories, I applied myself to discover the bottom of things, the facts and the bare truth, as naive as it may sound.

With its many components backed up by series of attestations & short arguments, this reconstruction (with its associated "deconstructions") is thoroughly documented and probably the most defensible among the many other ones. Furthermore,
- Contrary pieces of evidence & interpretations are flagged and addressed.
- Great care is taken about the dating, authorship & later alterations of crucial early Christian texts.
- Loose ends and miscellaneous critical issues are examined in the appendices and blog posts.
I think you will find this work, as a whole, to be solidly stand-alone and fully coherent, despite covering a lot of ground before & after the crucifixion and handling a huge amount of multi-sourced evidence! No other "historical Jesus" inquiry goes as far!

Some elements have already been reported by others. But you will be astonished, just as I was, when stumbling upon the unexpected!
The reconstruction will show that, among other things, the main events of Jesus' last year & days are best explained by the peculiar historical context, and also, with the religious/political background, were likely to start later cultic beliefs (which they did).
A far-fetched supposition? Too big of a challenge?
Not at all: surprisingly, the numerous pieces fit easily into place, like the ones of a jigsaw puzzle, with no need for delicate argumentations, convoluted interpretations and long discussions.
From http://historical-jesus.info/author.html:
More about my methodology:
a) Stay always within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts, when studying each event & writing.
b) Acknowledge that people in the 1st/2nd century (most of them illiterate) had some common sense (& religious aspirations) and were living mostly in a secular, "low-tech" (& unscholarly!) world: they thought in real time (their own day to day present).
c) Consider the (early) Christian texts as written by "flesh & blood "persons (and not necessarily scholars!) likely to have human motives (sometimes very obvious), and as addressed to contemporaries. Then research the circumstances surrounding their compositions.
d) Have an all-encompassing view: everything of any pertinence has to be investigated, from all sources available, more so the closest (in time) to the facts.
e) Determine with accuracy (and great efforts!) the sequence of events, timing and the dating of writings (that's lacking into many scholarly works), because that provides another dimension, the most crucial one: many (preceding & following) points are considerably affected by the dating & sequencing.
f) Do not charge with some theory/concept (yours or borrowed) because it suits you (unfortunately, agenda-driven works are prevalent nowadays).
g) Sort out the evidence and check it in depth (accuracy, validity, context, correct translation, etc., for each bits), by way of critical analysis. Justify any rejection with good reasons, preferably many of them.
h) Do not ignore "down to earth", obvious, mundane or trivial details (usually considered unworthy of scholarly interest). Do not overlook contradictions and oddities (as you would for the work of a subordinate, as a detective would for a suspect, as a legal officer would for an eyewitness!). Pay attention to "against the grain" and embarrassing bits (they might be telling!).
i) Follow the evidence, stay close to it, allow it to "discipline" & direct you: avoid free intellectual extrapolations & speculations (we have enough of those!).
j) Practice reality checks along the way: avoid absurdities.
k) Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).
l) Accept what you discover, rather than decide first what to find & reject.
m) Be scrupulous: "fudging" & "ignoring" NOT allowed (why should I fool myself & my readers? And this website will not advance my career or make money for me!).
n) Reject ill-substantiated assumptions, even if they are widely "swallowed" (beware of "studies" which accept them, either unannounced ("transparent") or with a short introduction!).
o) Look somewhere else if you need long discussions to justify your position.
p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.
q) Go back over all the preceding points because later findings are bound to have implications on previous understandings (and vice versa. I never said it was an "auto-pilot" one-way process. Beware of simplistic methodologies!). Examine back everything, including the options you chose along the way (everything has to fit, but keep observing all the points!). Do it over & over, again & again ...

This is what I tried to abide by, but if any one of my readers objects on these points or thinks I do not adhere to them (or missed some other ones), please let me know (but be specific!). Contact me here.

And if, (despite) complying with all the aforementioned, overall & throughout COHERENCE of the reconstruction is achieved, then you succeeded.
If not, well, either it cannot be done (according to the available evidence) OR you went wrong someplace!

Furthermore, this kind of study should not be a vehicle for (or driven by) anti-Christian or pro-Christian propaganda (or bias)! Also, it should not be influenced by any author's peculiar fixation(s), source of income or/and "market" consideration. And beware of those works which use the "historical Jesus" in order to showcase a scholar/professor's field of expertise, such as old-fashioned theology, in low demand otherwise.
Of course they are overlaps with Day's rules, but I had to go beyond that by necessity.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by outhouse »

The New Testament authors used fiction and rhetorical prose for Jesus to fulfill prophecy in order to “prove” that Christians replaced Jews as God’s people. All in which they proselytized from previous Jewish text.

And yet not a single Jew EVER denied this, and stated it was just a fictional character made up.

No one EVER denied he existed or even attempted to refute his existence.

When you place your hero in front of half a million people at Passover while the original people were still alive, you would not lie about it, add to that the importance of said text was held higher then their own lives value.

Claiming a fiction character is not an option without butchering credible evidence.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bernard Muller wrote: Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:21 am
Many historians just rehash tertiary evidence in order to present history in a modern format for a contemporary targeted audience. They are prone to quote other earlier (or even contemporary) historians as their evidence.
No, Bernard. What historians do is outline what previous scholars have written and argued about a question or period of history and then proceed to tackle the primary evidence themselves and arguing why their interpretation is a step forward in our understanding of the topic.

You seem to be thinking of authors who write for children or school pupils or who are writing coffee-table books for a popular market.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 amCarrier was analysing the consistency of the narrative plot from the perspective of the author.
Does he stop there? Or does he also use this newly quarried source behind the text of Acts as a support for his view that Jesus did not historically exist, despite the fact that said text, even if it existed, cannot be considered a primary source for Galilean or Judean life of the third decade? (I am asking sincerely; I think I remember this, but I am not sure.)[/quote]

I quoted the section. That's what he does as far as I am aware. From his analysis of the narrative he concludes that there are inconsistencies in the author's presentation of Paul's speeches which point to apparent use of different sources. One of the sources would appear to support his mythicist argument.

He doesn't as far as I know say anything more than that a source used by Acts appears to support his thesis.

That sounds like a reasonable surmise to me. Certainly the reasoning is open to question or debate. But I don't see any problem with the method itself:
  1. Paul is depicted as stressing X in his speeches in the first part of the gospel
  2. Paul is depicted as stressing Y in his speeches in the trial scenes just when the narrative logic gave us reason to expect a renewed stress on X
  3. Thus the narrative appears to be logically inconsistent
  4. A hypothetical explanation for this inconsistency is that the author had different sources for the two sections.
  5. One of those sources is consistent with the hypothesis argued in the rest of the book.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
Pesch and Theissen are doing what I elsewhere said is "going beneath/beyond the text" itself and entering the narrative world and mingling with the characters as if they are all there in 3D, in some historical resurrection. Their view of Mark is not as an author but as a participant in the narrative or at least living among the very persons in his story.
I am not sure what this means. Theissen does not think that "Mark" (or whoever compiled the gospel) wrote the original passion narrative, the source quarried from the perceived inconsistencies demanding at least two separate authors. So yes, he is most certainly going behind whatever "Mark" wrote, but is not Carrier going behind whatever "Luke" wrote in Acts? And is the means not the same: a putative underlying source text?
No, I don't believe so. Carrier's point is based on a literary analysis of the narrative: there appear to be inconsistencies in the logic of the narrative; at one time we read a scenario A in the narrative and at another point we unexpectedly read a scenario B that appears out of place in the overall narrative flow.

Theissen is not addressing the logic of the narrative; he is not doing literary analysis of the source itself. He is posing questions that arise solely as a result of a preconception about historical events that gave rise to the narrative in the GMark or in GMark's sources. There is nothing in GMark's narrative itself that gives rise to the Theissen's question. Some people, for example, are anonymous. That is not a problem of narrative logic; it is not a problem at all for any reader, especially in the context of a gospel that leaves many of its characters unnamed.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
Mark's narrative has become like a magical movie that Theissen can walk right into by stepping through the screen and trying to figure out who's who and what's what. The narrative world itself is now the "reality" that the scholar engages with.

Mark doesn't name the HP? The HP must be still alive at the time the story was first told!
Pesch, IIUC, made this suggestion. Theissen contradicted it, pointing out (for example) that the Pharaoh in the Exodus narratives is not named, either. This suggestion was an inspiration for the rest of what Theissen argued; it was not one of his own arguments, nor did he adhere to it.
I only had the section I quoted from Theissen and Merz. But what we have here is methodological shortcomings of both P and T. T merely disagrees with the conclusion of P but not P's approach. In fact T joins in with the same methodology as P. He is living in the world of the characters of the story as if that story (and not the text per se) is the reality (more than a mere story on a page) that needs to be understood.

(I've since dusted off my Gospels in Context.)
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
Mark doesn't name the person who cut off someone's ear? He must still be in hiding at the time the story was first formulated. Mark doesn't name the youth who fled naked? He must still be too embarrassed to come forth and claim his lost property at the time the story was set.
A predecessor of "Luke" doesn't include certain passion details in the trial narratives? He must not have even known about Jesus' passion.
Carrier's point is the narrative inconsistency at a place where we are least expecting inconsistency. Just where the narrative logic leads us to expect a repeat with thunderbolts of what we have read in earlier speeches of Paul, here we read something that according to narrative logic would appear to backfire.

That's C's method; I am not saying it is "true". We can argue with his analysis and interpretation. But it is a reasonable method and analysis of a literary/narrative inconsistency.

We expect narratives to be consistent. That's the nature of narratives. We are sometimes disappointed when we read a less than skilful author. But sometimes the author's record leads us to look for other explanations.

In the questions posed by Theissen there is no literary or narrative logic in question. The question arises for reasons that are entirely external to the source(s) -- and therefore, I suggest, not methodological sound as source criticism.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am(Again, I am confused that you are using the name "Mark" here, when that name is usually reserved for the author/editor of the gospel as a whole, and Theissen is dealing only with whoever wrote the passion narrative which eventually found its way into the finished gospel; he is very clear about the distinction.)
I will try to be more clear. I know T is addressing the GMark's sources, but he is going beyond GMark's sources. It is all the same whether he is addressing the narrative in the sources of GMark or as they appear in GMark itself.

What T is doing is asking questions about the events behind the sources (or GMark).

T is asking questions about persons that are not raised in the story itself. His questions are not related to the literary narrative but to his own beliefs and preconceptions about "what happened". The detail of the narrative that stimulates his curiosity is not a literary narrative or source problem. After all, there are many anonymous persons throughout GMark. And we presume none was in danger because the authorities were interested in "nailing" only Jesus. So we have no prima facie source difficulty at all. (Sure, later evangelists saw "issues" with Mark that they wanted to retouch, but they had other interests.)
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 amOnce Carrier has his source text in hand, so to speak, he does not shrink from reading the author's mind; this to me seems little different than Theissen reading his source author's mind as to the reason for not including some of the names.
Maybe he does do that, but if and where he does he is being naughty. He shouldn't. But in the instance we are discussing here I don't think C is "reading the author's mind". He is identifying narrative inconsistencies and seeking an explanation. That's a long way from reading authorial intentions, motives, etc.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 amFor my money, neither is correct; yet neither broke any "rules" (if that is the term we must use) to speak of (or perhaps both misapplied certain rules). Both pointed out discrepancies in the text; both posited a source text on the basis of these discrepancies. Carrier exercised (again, IIRC) a heavy-handed argument from silence on a situation he can not possibly have had enough information about. Theissen exercised an overly imaginative way of accounting for the way the names are used or not used in the passion narrative.
I'm not particularly interested in making Carrier or any one person the sole example of historical methodology. If Carrier has done bad things then they need to be criticized. (I have criticized some aspects of his book; he is not flawless.) But if I am to respond to specifics I would need to have page references so I can see exactly what was written.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 amBoth Carrier and Theissen attempted to read the mind of the putative author of an alleged source text, did they not?
No, as explained (well, attempted to explain a little, anyway) above. The first step in reading the mind of an author (not that we can do that seriously, but only as far as attempting to understand the text at hand) is to understand the nature of the work, or what is commonly called "genre". That includes literary devices used, what we know of the type of literature in its broader cultural context. That has to be the starting point -- understanding what we are reading. That also includes some attempt to understand the origins of the text -- its sources, inspirations, influences.

Carrier's question arises from the nature of narrative logic, from the source data itself.

Theissen appears to be raising his question about the anonymity of persons without regard for the genre or wider literary context of the details in the narrative of GMark. He is bypassing the nature of the source itself, as far as I am aware from the little I have seen of his argument on anonymity (Gospels in Context, pp. 184ff)

Theissen is addressing something quite different. He is taking the events and persons he reads about and attempts to reconstruct in ways that offer a certain interpretation of selected details in the narrative.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
None of this is textual or source criticism. It is stepping in front of the author and (to use McGrath's image) digging beneath the text itself and imaginatively exploring a fantasy or narrative world as if it were all real-life.
Again, the way you write this is confusing. Both Carrier and Theissen are dealing with what they consider to be a text behind the current text, so how can either of them help "digging beneath the text itself" in the process?
Carrier is not exploring historical origins in a narrative of a text behind Acts. He is concluding that there are two different sources behind a narrative. Theissen is not exploring a text but another world he assumes exists prior to the sources themselves.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am I am not sure what you find objectionable about going behind the text when the alleged source text is, by definition, behind the current/extant text. Surely Carrier does not imagine his source author as any less real than Theissen imagines his. And both are certainly attempting to answer the implied question, "Why did this source author write this account up in this particular way?"
Going beyond ("behind") the text is going beyond the evidence we have in hand. It is not going behind the text to notice that there are inconsistencies in a narrative.

At one time (let's keep the principle simple) a narrative describes a character's clothes as blue; another time he describes them as red -- without any indication that he had an opportunity to change clothes. The reader attempts to understand the inconsistency. One explanation is
  • that the author forgot what he wrote earlier;
  • another, that he wanted red for some reason and intended to go back and change the blue reference later, but failed to do so;
  • another, he was compiling details of a narrative from two different sources.
That exercise is entirely legitimate. It deals entirely with the literary evidence we have and seeks options for explaining an oddity in the narrative by asking about the mind of the author and other possible sources used by the author.

He is not entering the narrative world of characters (Paul etc) themselves and reconstructing his own imaginative historical scenarios from them.

Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
The text or narrative details in the text are used as keys to enter a narrative-come-to-historical-(true-story)-life world from which author is understood as the transcriber of reports emanating from the persons in the story itself.

....

(For one hint at an alternative explanation -- as if one were needed -- for Mark keeping his high priest anonymous, see How the Gospel of Mark Portrays Jesus as High Priest.)
It seems clear to me that you have not read The Gospels in Context, or at least not recently enough to remember it, since (as stated above) Theissen explicitly deflates the argument from the lack of a name for the high priest.
You did not give your source and I was relying upon T and M's Historical Jesus, as pointed out and quoted.

But I addressed the point above.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 amI mean, once you have identified a source text (rightly or wrongly), it is practically imperative to try to work out what that author (and not the author of the entire text in which you now find the source text lodged) was doing, not to mention the most likely date of the source.
But not at the expense of sound method, of course. If we don't know we don't know.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am What, really and honestly, is the difference between (A) Carrier suggesting that his source author omitted passion details about Jesus in trial narratives about Paul (!) because he knew nothing of an historical Jesus and (B) Theissen suggesting that his source author omitted names of characters in the passion narrative because they might be in danger if named?
A huge difference, but first, I want to clarify the question you ask. (I hope you don't think I'm trying to muddy it. :-/ )

Carrier's point about the two different sources (postulated) is that one depicted the character wearing blue and the other red. One source, it is postulated, was responsible for Acts depiction of Paul choosing to wear blue when delivering one set of speeches, and another source was responsible for him choosing to wear red when on trial. It is legitimate (we can disagree with the argument but it is still a legitimate one) to hypothesize that one source knew of Paul in blue; the other only knew of him in red. It is legitimate because the hypothesis goes no further than the data we have before us in the narratives.

Theissen's point about a character possibly being in danger if named, however, goes completely off the page of the narrative at hand. We could probably imagine several other possible motivations if we wanted to because we are not constrained by anything in the narrative itself, it seems. We can just as easily imagine that the characters were in no danger (if we rely upon the narrative itself and no more -- e.g. the authorities were not interesting in pursuing them but only in taking out Jesus).

The former is a hypothesis within the constraints of the source material itself; the latter is a hypothesis that steps beyond those constraints and imagines motives and scenarios that are nowhere in evidence within the source itself.

Carrier's hypothesis is based on inconsistencies within the Acts narrative and postulates a source explanation;

Theissen's hypothesis is based on questions about why a source depicted a person anonymously in a certain scene. Theissen steps outside the text itself and suggests the author was intending to protect the real-life persons he is writing about. Yet there is nothing in the source to tell us that any such problem existed for the author or his characters. Theissen's problem is not generated by the source but by his own curiosity about "what really happened?" and "why does this gospel not tell me more about what I want to know?"

Those may be interesting questions in their own right, but they are not source critical questions.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
  1. In neither case is the conclusion assumed. The logic is that, if the suggested reason for the way the text was written is correct, then the conclusion probably follows. So the entire onus follows upon how likely the suggested reason is. If the suggested reason fails, then so does the inference.
Historical reasoning rule #3 as per Mark Day is a source critical rule. Carrier's question and hypothesis arises out of source criticism. Theissen's does not.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
  • In both cases the suggested reason is technically possible; Carrier's author cannot have included details about something he was not aware of, nor can he have been aware of them if they never happened; and Theissen actually gives examples of names of historical people being omitted from the accounts which discuss them, presumably for similar reasons.
Some might consider Theissen's examples ad hoc. But even if sound, they are only relevant if they support a point that is proved; otherwise appealing to them is begging the question.

In both cases the suggested reason is technically possible, yes. But in only one case are we dealing with a source-critical question.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
  • In neither case is the hypothesized reason for the way the source was written the only or even the most obvious answer to the question.
I possibly agree.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 am
  • Both cases, in my humble opinion, are examples of overreaching. Both Carrier and Theissen are, after all, employing inherently risky methods: Carrier the argument from silence, Theissen what Gilbert J. Garraghan calls the "principle of sufficient reason" (AKA the argument from cumulative evidence).
Carrier is not simply arguing from silence. He is arguing from a situation in which an argument from silence does indeed carry weight. When we have silence where we had very good reasons to expect noise (the dog that didn't bark) then the argument is not so weak.

The "principle of sufficient reason" would apply to the evangelist IF all the other presuppositions about the when and where of the evangelist held, and IF the evangelist was intending to record events that had been relayed to him by certain persons at a certain time, etc etc etc. But the "principle of sufficient reason" is misplaced here because there is no source-critical problem to address.

In fact, had Theissen focussed on rule #3 I venture that there would have been no cause for him to raise the questions he raised in the first place.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Sep 20, 2017 12:06 pm to Neil,
According to my quotes, about Carrier . . . . . he claimed to use several sources, but they are so bad, weak, foreign, far fetched, he had to appeal to peshering, imagination, interpretation, plausibility, very late medieval Jewish legends . . . .

And you call that the work of a professional historian?
So you do not agree with Carrier's arguments that he draws from the sources, but you do not object the use of a wide range of sources yourself.

I am sure you are aware of the historian Daniel Boyarim. Boyarin in The Jewish Gospels appeals in part to sources even as late as the sixteenth century to support his argument that the concept of a dying messiah was not at all alien to pre-Christian Judaism or unique to Christianity. And yes, he appeals to midrash, too, in late sources, including those of
So use of very late sources can in principle be justified by professional historians. You may not agree with their arguments or conclusions, but you cannot fault Carrier or Boyarim in principle for their application of Day's rule #5.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Ben C. Smith »

neilgodfrey wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:37 pmTheissen is not addressing the logic of the narrative; he is not doing literary analysis of the source itself. He is posing questions that arise solely as a result of a preconception about historical events that gave rise to the narrative in the GMark or in GMark's sources. There is nothing in GMark's narrative itself that gives rise to the Theissen's question.

....

(I've since dusted off my Gospels in Context.)
The Marcan narrative says on the surface that Jesus was crucified on the Day of Passover, but there are indications of a source behind the Marcan text in which Jesus was crucified on the Eve of Passover. This is Theissen's starting point. How is this not addressing the logic of the narrative?
In the questions posed by Theissen there is no literary or narrative logic in question. The question arises for reasons that are entirely external to the source(s) -- and therefore, I suggest, not methodological sound as source criticism.
????
I'm not particularly interested in making Carrier or any one person the sole example of historical methodology. If Carrier has done bad things then they need to be criticized. (I have criticized some aspects of his book; he is not flawless.)
Nor am I, and I understand your view. But what I am querying is your seeming disparity of treatment of the two situations.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:13 amBoth Carrier and Theissen attempted to read the mind of the putative author of an alleged source text, did they not?
The first step in reading the mind of an author (not that we can do that seriously, but only as far as attempting to understand the text at hand) is to understand the nature of the work, or what is commonly called "genre". That includes literary devices used, what we know of the type of literature in its broader cultural context. That has to be the starting point -- understanding what we are reading. That also includes some attempt to understand the origins of the text -- its sources, inspirations, influences.
Did Carrier do this? I have since been able to lay hands on his book again, and I cannot see where he discussed the genre of his putative source at all.

Carrier's question arises from the nature of narrative logic, from the source data itself.
Theissen appears to be raising his question about the anonymity of persons without regard for the genre or wider literary context of the details in the narrative of GMark.
I can agree that Theissen does not discuss, to the best of my memory, the genre of his putative source text, either.
Theissen's hypothesis is based on questions about why a source depicted a person anonymously in a certain scene.
Again, Theissen's hypothesis is based on the issue of which day is said to be the day of Jesus' crucifixion. The text as it stands is uneven on that score. I am not sure how you are justifying to yourself the notion that this is not a source-critical question.

Theissen starts to address this issue of the timing of the crucifixion as an indicator of a source text being modified in his very second paragraph of the chapter, on page 166, immediately after the introduction to the chapter. He continues the discussion through at least page 169, referencing other scholars' works on the topic, including dissenting scholars such as Werner Kelber.

Once a separate source is hypothesized, then Theissen starts to ask questions about its provenance, eventually leading to hypotheses about motives for omitting names.
Carrier is not simply arguing from silence. He is arguing from a situation in which an argument from silence does indeed carry weight. When we have silence where we had very good reasons to expect noise (the dog that didn't bark) then the argument is not so weak.
I profoundly disagree with your assessment of his argument here. But I also accept that you are not necessarily trying to justify his conclusions, and have averred that it is possible he overreached.

I want to get more feedback from you on the issue of the timing of the crucifixion being the initial and main reason for suspecting a passion source behind Mark before writing more on the topic, since you seem to be under the misapprehension that the anonymity of certain characters is the starting point for Theissen. I have given the page numbers to consult above.

In the meantime, I wonder what you might think of the case for or against the "historical Siddhārtha Gautama" (as it were). I am not an expert in Buddhist origins, but I have gathered over the years that there is absolutely no primary evidence for his life and times, that the very date of his flourit has been debated within the range of a couple of centuries, that the first historical notices about him come nearly two centuries after a commonly purported date of his death, that the first biography written about him dates to about 300 years after his death, and that all the potential archaeological evidence for his existence is of a solidly indirect nature (such as the existence of a structure thought to be a shrine at the alleged place of his birth). The Wikipedia article summarizes:

Scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of the Buddha's life. Most accept that he lived, taught and founded a monastic order during the Mahajanapada era during the reign of Bimbisara (c. 558 – c. 491 BCE, or c. 400 BCE), the ruler of the Magadha empire, and died during the early years of the reign of Ajatasatru, who was the successor of Bimbisara, thus making him a younger contemporary of Mahavira, the Jain tirthankara.

....

The times of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain. Most historians in the early 20th century dated his lifetime as circa 563 BCE to 483 BCE. More recently his death is dated later, between 411 and 400 BCE, while at a symposium on this question held in 1988, the majority of those who presented definite opinions gave dates within 20 years either side of 400 BCE for the Buddha's death. These alternative chronologies, however, have not yet been accepted by all historians.

....

The sources for the life of Siddhārtha Gautama are a variety of different, and sometimes conflicting, traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sūtra, Mahāvastu, and the Nidānakathā. Of these, the Buddhacarita is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Aśvaghoṣa in the first century CE.

I know this is only Wikipedia, but I have done some reading and have confirmed at least the broad outline of the above information.

On the one hand, as the article says, scholars are hesitant to make unqualified claims about the historical facts of Gautama's life. I will readily admit that biblical scholars' claims are not always qualified as they should be; and, if that is your only point on this subject, then I concede it immediately. That is, if you are happy for biblical scholars to carry on as they are, just with the single proviso that they (more accurately) characterize their conclusions as quite tentative, then I am in agreement.

On the other hand, however, I gather that the article is correct when it asserts that "most accept" that Gautama lived and taught and so forth. They are accepting these basic facts based solely on patently secondary sources (you can scan the first biography of the Buddha here: https://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/ ... carita.pdf, comparing it to the theological content and overall approach of the gospels) and highly indirect inferences from archaeology and other points of converging history.

In India: A History, for example, John Keay writes:

Only the dates remain problematic. Buddhist sources show a healthy respect for chronology, and usually disdain the mathematical symmetries and astronomical exaggerations found in Vedic and Jain texts.

....

Obviously, if the Buddhist chronology had commanded international regard, an agreed date for the parinirvana would long since have emerged, and it would then be the uncertainties about when Christ was born in terms of the Buddhist reckoning which would be considered unsettling. Euro-centric, or Christo-centric, assumptions about the measurement of time should be viewed with caution. .... Nevertheless, the widely divergent dates adduced for the Buddha’s parinirvana do pose serious problems. That of 544 BC derives from a much later Sri Lankan tradition and is usually discarded. As between the 486 BC of Indian tradition and the 483 BC of a Chinese record, the difference is slight and not too important. Indeed, it was the near congruence of these two dates which led the majority of scholars to accept their validity; one or other was used to deduce a date for the Buddha’s birth of c566–3 BC, which thus became ‘the earliest certain date in Indian history’. Recently, however, opinion has swung towards a much later dating for the parinirvana, in fact ‘about eighty to 130 years before Ashoka’s coronation [in 268 BC], i.e. not a very long time before Alexander’s Indian campaign [327–5BC], i.e. between c400 BC and c350 BC’. This reappraisal of the evidence, mainly by German scholars, shunts the Buddha forward by around a century.

....

Adopting, then, not the conventional 486–3bc for the parinirvana but some date between 400 and 350 BC, one may place the birth of Siddhartha Gautama, the ‘Buddha’, some time in the mid-fifth century. Like his contemporary, Mahavira Nataputta of the Jains, he was a ksatriya, the son of Suddhodana,raja of the Sakyas. The Sakya state being one of those republican gana-sanghas, it had many rajas. And since their chief was elected, the ‘Prince’ Siddhartha of later legend must be considered a fabrication.

So John Keay and the German scholars upon whom he relies argue that Gautama died between 350 and 400 years before Christ. Implicitly, they accept that he existed, as well as certain other "facts" about his life. By what kind of Glubbdubdribbian sorcery are they asserting this information, then, when they have zero primary sources to work with, and their secondary sources are just as religious and hagiographic in nature as the gospels are, and even chronologically later in relative terms?

I think the answer is obvious and simple, and I already quoted Howell and Prevenier's version of it upthread:

But historians never have just what they want or need. At one extreme is the historian limited to one source. Einhard's Life of Charlemagne is, for example, the only source scholars have about the private life of Europe's first emperor. Like many of the political biographies written today, this one is more hagiography than critical biography, and in the best of worlds historians might well refuse to use it as evidence about Charlemagne's life and his character. But historians, although conscious that they are prisoners of the unique source and bear all the risks that this involves, use it because it is all they have. At the other extreme are historians studying the recent past. They have a great many sources, and in many ways their problems are thus fewer. But even here there is no certainty.

Historians do not back down from the challenge of reconstructing the Buddha's life and times just because their available sources are several grades below even what we have for Jesus. They make their best attempt to reconstruct, knowing full well that they are working with far less solid information than other historians have for figures like any of the Caesars or whatnot. They do what Bernard does: they dive in and give it a try. I have read you before as basically taking Bernard to task for doing this, and I hope I am wrong. I hope you are merely chiding him for not always reminding the reader of how sketchy the evidence is compared to the evidence for (a scant few) other figures in ancient history; if that is the case, I would join you, since I agree that Bernard can overstate the certainty of his case. But I do not fault him in the slightest for creating hypotheses, testing them, and seeing if he can account for all the evidence thereby. Jesus does not have his own Thucydides or Tacitus, so we must make do with what we have. Do you agree?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:07 am, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2816
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by andrewcriddle »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:16 am ......................................


In India: A History, for example, John Keay writes:

Only the dates remain problematic. Buddhist sources show a healthy respect for chronology, and usually disdain the mathematical symmetries and astronomical exaggerations found in Vedic and Jain texts.

....

Obviously, if the Buddhist chronology had commanded international regard, an agreed date for the parinirvana would long since have emerged, and it would then be the uncertainties about when Christ was born in terms of the Buddhist reckoning which would be considered unsettling. Euro-centric, or Christo-centric, assumptions about the measurement of time should be viewed with caution. .... Nevertheless, the widely divergent dates adduced for the Buddha’s parinirvana do pose serious problems. That of 544 BC derives from a much later Sri Lankan tradition and is usually discarded. As between the 486 BC of Indian tradition and the 483 BC of a Chinese record, the difference is slight and not too important. Indeed, it was the near congruence of these two dates which led the majority of scholars to accept their validity; one or other was used to deduce a date for the Buddha’s birth of c566–3 BC, which thus became ‘the earliest certain date in Indian history’. Recently, however, opinion has swung towards a much later dating for the parinirvana, in fact ‘about eighty to 130 years before Ashoka’s coronation [in 268 BC], i.e. not a very long time before Alexander’s Indian campaign [327–5BC], i.e. between c400 BC and c350 BC’. This reappraisal of the evidence, mainly by German scholars, shunts the Buddha forward by around a century.

....

Adopting, then, not the conventional 486–3bc for the parinirvana but some date between 400 and 350 BC, one may place the birth of Siddhartha Gautama, the ‘Buddha’, some time in the mid-fifth century. Like his contemporary, Mahavira Nataputta of the Jains, he was a ksatriya, the son of Suddhodana,raja of the Sakyas. The Sakya state being one of those republican gana-sanghas, it had many rajas. And since their chief was elected, the ‘Prince’ Siddhartha of later legend must be considered a fabrication.

So John Keay and the German scholars upon whom he relies argue that Gautama was born between 350 and 400 years before Christ. Implicitly, they accept that he existed, as well as certain other "facts" about his life. By what kind of Glubbdubdribbian sorcery are they asserting this information, then, when they have zero primary sources to work with, and their secondary sources are just as religious and hagiographic in nature as the gospels are, and even chronologically later in relative terms?

.....................................................
Hi Ben

The parinirvana (which John Keay dates between 400 and 350 BC) is not the date of the Buddha's death but the date of his passage into Nirvana i.e. his death. John Keay appears to be dating the birth of the Buddha around 450 years before Christ.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Rules of Historical Reasoning

Post by Ben C. Smith »

andrewcriddle wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:50 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:16 am ......................................


In India: A History, for example, John Keay writes:

Only the dates remain problematic. Buddhist sources show a healthy respect for chronology, and usually disdain the mathematical symmetries and astronomical exaggerations found in Vedic and Jain texts.

....

Obviously, if the Buddhist chronology had commanded international regard, an agreed date for the parinirvana would long since have emerged, and it would then be the uncertainties about when Christ was born in terms of the Buddhist reckoning which would be considered unsettling. Euro-centric, or Christo-centric, assumptions about the measurement of time should be viewed with caution. .... Nevertheless, the widely divergent dates adduced for the Buddha’s parinirvana do pose serious problems. That of 544 BC derives from a much later Sri Lankan tradition and is usually discarded. As between the 486 BC of Indian tradition and the 483 BC of a Chinese record, the difference is slight and not too important. Indeed, it was the near congruence of these two dates which led the majority of scholars to accept their validity; one or other was used to deduce a date for the Buddha’s birth of c566–3 BC, which thus became ‘the earliest certain date in Indian history’. Recently, however, opinion has swung towards a much later dating for the parinirvana, in fact ‘about eighty to 130 years before Ashoka’s coronation [in 268 BC], i.e. not a very long time before Alexander’s Indian campaign [327–5BC], i.e. between c400 BC and c350 BC’. This reappraisal of the evidence, mainly by German scholars, shunts the Buddha forward by around a century.

....

Adopting, then, not the conventional 486–3bc for the parinirvana but some date between 400 and 350 BC, one may place the birth of Siddhartha Gautama, the ‘Buddha’, some time in the mid-fifth century. Like his contemporary, Mahavira Nataputta of the Jains, he was a ksatriya, the son of Suddhodana,raja of the Sakyas. The Sakya state being one of those republican gana-sanghas, it had many rajas. And since their chief was elected, the ‘Prince’ Siddhartha of later legend must be considered a fabrication.

So John Keay and the German scholars upon whom he relies argue that Gautama was born between 350 and 400 years before Christ. Implicitly, they accept that he existed, as well as certain other "facts" about his life. By what kind of Glubbdubdribbian sorcery are they asserting this information, then, when they have zero primary sources to work with, and their secondary sources are just as religious and hagiographic in nature as the gospels are, and even chronologically later in relative terms?

.....................................................
Hi Ben

The parinirvana (which John Keay dates between 400 and 350 BC) is not the date of the Buddha's death but the date of his passage into Nirvana i.e. his death. John Keay appears to be dating the birth of the Buddha around 450 years before Christ.

Andrew Criddle
Thanks. I actually do know what parinirvana means, but wrote "birth" for "death" by mistake. I have corrected the error.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply