The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

[neilgodfrey]

That is correct. History is both. Both are history.

Words are whatever you explain them to mean in the context of what you are saying. God does not tell us what words mean.

You may be confusing the definition of the word "history" with a view to how history ought to be conducted. But that would be a fallacy. The definition is independent of such particulars.

I am simply addressing history as per Paul's argument. If you have quite other issues I will try to adjust. I am the last person to declare that definition should comply with my own personal preferences. You said you had not read all the posts leading up to the present, so I suggest you do not presume to make outlandish judgements against any one person.

I am not interested in discussing the second question and do not see its relevance in the context of "Jesus's historicity".

It would come up, for example, in the matter of how to explain the origin of Christianity. A scenario in which Jesus had a hand in starting the whole affair will necessarily look at least somewhat different from a scenario in which Jesus did not even exist. Both propositions (that Christianity has zero grounding in an historical Jesus, whether such existed or not, and that Christianity does find its origins in something said or done by Jesus) would fall under the umbrella of historical study.

Of course it would "come up . . . in the matter of how to explain.... " etc. But ....

My god, Ben. How many times do I have to repeat myself. Sorry, you don't read the lead up posts so I should be forgiving. Okay, let's start again:

The discussion you have barged in on without bothering to consult the lead-up posts has been, from my perspective, about what facts or events or persons might be considered historical.

Yes I am very aware of the questions of historiography, of a wide range of philosophies of history, of a whole raft of different historical questions ..... So let's get to the basics:

What bloody happened. Who bloody existed. When? Where?

That's the level we are at. That needs to be established, I suggest, before you jump in with all your "why" and "origin" questions.

And if we can't answer those "what" and "who" questions, then we can't answer them.

What's the problem with that?

[neilgodfrey]

I'm wondering if I'm seeing a pattern here -- something in common with Paul and Ben and Bernard:

That pattern? That we "need" to explain the prevailing model of Christian origins (the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model) within constraints that justify that model.

[Ben C. Smith]

That is correct. History is both. Both are history.

Words are whatever you explain them to mean in the context of what you are saying. God does not tell us what words mean.

You asked me for my definition of history, and I gave it to you. That is the context. Later on in your post you seem troubled that I included the "explanation" part of the definition, and frankly I considered leaving that part out; but it seemed disingenuous to do so, especially since the "how" and "why" stuff might actually be relevant, based on some of what I have read in this thread.

My god, Ben. How many times do I have to repeat myself. Sorry, you don't read the lead up posts so I should be forgiving. Okay, let's start again....

I have read the vast majority. If I missed something crucial in the few I missed, I apologize.

And if we can't answer those "what" and "who" questions, then we can't answer them.

What's the problem with that?

I have no problem with that, as it stands. What I am wondering, as per my first post on this topic, is what standard you apply in order to arrive at a determination that the question can or cannot be answered. That was the point of the example from Tacitus and Ptolemy. The suggestion made there in no way attains to the standard of proof required, for example, in an American court room. (If that example is too much about textual history for your tastes, then just substitute any other kind of historical suggestion of similar worth.) So what is the proper standard? Ought the good historian, in your judgment, to stick with those extremely high legal standards? (In my opinion, ancient history does not have to abide by the standard to which a prosecuting attorney is normally held. What is your opinion? You wrote to Bernard that "every detective, judge and jury wants to see corroboration for any and every claim." Was that just an analogy, with nothing to do with standards, or are you saying that the same standards apply for the historian as apply for those involved in criminal justice?) Does it make a difference for you if the historian openly acknowledges how much uncertainty he or she thinks is involved? How much of a probability would you like to see for any given purported historical fact before somebody uses that supposed fact as a plank in an argument for something else? (Think of Bernard and what you characterize as his "making the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit" approach; would you feel better about that approach if the data he had to work with were more certain? If not, then do you discard parsimony altogether? But, if so, how certain must the data be before one can start appealing to parsimony?)

I simply mean that the historian needs to rely upon the data. Full stop. Does your question go beyond that? Is that a problematic statement to you?

Not at all. The historian must absolutely rely upon the data. My question is: how certain must the data be, in your judgment, before the good historian is able to start constructing hypotheses upon them or making suggestions about them?

[neilgodfrey]

Ben, I do not read long long and longer comments. If you want me to answer something specific then ask it concisely.

[Ben C. Smith]

I'm wondering if I'm seeing a pattern here -- something in common with Paul and Ben and Bernard:

That pattern? That we "need" to explain the prevailing model of Christian origins (the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model) within constraints that justify that model.

My most recent suggestion on this forum related to an historical Jesus was that Christianity was already going strong by the time Paul wrote, and that Paul did not know of any historical Jesus. How well does that fit into the model of which you speak?

[Ben C. Smith]

Ben, I do not read long long and longer comments. If you want me to answer something specific then ask it concisely.

Start with this one, then. How certain must the good historian be of the purported facts s/he is using before mounting an hypothesis based upon those facts? Is it as certain as a jury should be before convicting a purported criminal, or does the historical standard fall somewhat short of that?

[neilgodfrey]

I'm wondering if I'm seeing a pattern here -- something in common with Paul and Ben and Bernard:

That pattern? That we "need" to explain the prevailing model of Christian origins (the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model) within constraints that justify that model.

My most recent suggestion on this forum related to an historical Jesus was that Christianity was already going strong by the time Paul wrote, and that Paul did not know of any historical Jesus. How well does that fit into the model of which you speak?

I don't know anything about your "most recent suggestion on this forum". If you are asking me about "the model to which I speak" you will have to explain to me what "the model to which I speak" is, and what the connection is with what you yourself wrote about.

[neilgodfrey]

Ben, I do not read long long and longer comments. If you want me to answer something specific then ask it concisely.

Start with this one, then. How certain must the good historian be of the purported facts s/he is using before mounting an hypothesis based upon those facts? Is it as certain as a jury should be before convicting a purported criminal, or does the historical standard fall somewhat short of that?

You've lost me at the start, sorry. When you say "facts" I tend to think of information that has been decreed "certain" by the normal standards of "yes/no". But then you go on to surmise a situation where a fact is not a fact but a mere opinion.

Please give examples from real life if you think I am all at sea here.

[Ben C. Smith]

I'm wondering if I'm seeing a pattern here -- something in common with Paul and Ben and Bernard:

That pattern? That we "need" to explain the prevailing model of Christian origins (the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model) within constraints that justify that model.

My most recent suggestion on this forum related to an historical Jesus was that Christianity was already going strong by the time Paul wrote, and that Paul did not know of any historical Jesus. How well does that fit into the model of which you speak?

I don't know anything about your "most recent suggestion on this forum". If you are asking me about "the model to which [I] speak" you will have to explain to me what "the model to which [I] speak" is, and what the connection is with what you yourself wrote about.

The model of which you speak is what you are calling the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model. As for my suggestion, you read at least part of it, and even commented on it; but the details hardly matter in this case. I am wondering how well any suggestion that Paul was not writing about an historical Jesus fits into the model that you are calling the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model. In short, I am not sure my positions even fall within the constraints of that model, let alone that I have some "need" to justify it. But I cannot tell for sure until you let me know whether the epistles of Paul being ignorant of any historical Jesus is something that supports that model.

[neilgodfrey]

The model of which you speak is what you are calling the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model. As for my suggestion, you read at least part of it, and even commented on it; but the details hardly matter in this case. I am wondering how well any suggestion that Paul was not writing about an historical Jesus fits into the model that you are calling the gospel-Acts-Eusebian model. In short, I am not sure my positions even fall within the constraints of that model, let alone that I have some "need" to justify it. But I cannot tell for sure until you let me know whether the epistles of Paul being ignorant of any historical Jesus is something that supports that model.

I don't know what you are asking of me. Can you, or a third party, clarify?