Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Thought I'd resurrect this thread because there are folks on here who weren't active when it was posted. Many of our discussions have to do with methodology. Matthew Ferguson's proposed criteria for weighing sources in ancient history seem a good point of departure. Here is the link to Ferguson's blog post:

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... t-history/

His criteria are:

1. distance from the event to the record. on rapid growth of myths, he cites Kris Komarnitsky on A.N. Sherwin-White’s two generation rule for the historical core to be erased:
http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

2. first-hand vs. second-hand accounts

3. oral vs. textual sources (the latter being more reliable, esp. when long time separates event from later writers about it)

4. genre of literature (e.g. laudatory biography or hagiography less reliable than straight record)

5. authorial bias (e.g. forged genealogies common in antiquity)

6. authorial license (the more intricate and inventive the structure and portrayal, the more suspicion of authorial creativity in the presentation)

7. plausibility vs. probability – uniformitarian principle. what’s the prior likelihood of that sort of event?

David Hindley and some others suggested refinements.

See OP: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=721#p14749

1. distance from the event to the record. on rapid growth of myths, he cites Kris Komarnitsky on A.N. Sherwin-White’s two generation rule for the historical core to be erased:
http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

2. first-hand vs. second-hand accounts

If we have a 'first hand account' where the ancient writer claims to have personally seen, had one on one conversation with, and been taught his theology by a zombie's ghost.

Just how much weight would that genuine 'first hand account' have? 100lbs? 12oz? Or perhaps about as much as a zombies ghost?

ficino wrote:
1. distance from the event to the record. on rapid growth of myths, he cites Kris Komarnitsky on A.N. Sherwin-White’s two generation rule for the historical core to be erased:
http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

That is demonstrably false.

How many generations in Noahs myth do we go back to the original flood? 2500 years ish

Noahs myth states the man in the flood came from Mesopotamia [check]

Noahs myth mentions a boat, our earliest river flood mythology claims a boat [check]

and on and on.

ficino wrote:
4. genre of literature (e.g. laudatory biography or hagiography less reliable than straight record)

The other thread did not get to this. It's obviously useful to know the genre. One of the criteria of the historical method is that any given document can be forged or corrupt. Is there a way to test for different types of genres? History, biography, hagiography, fiction, etc. If you wanted to run a book I'll put $10 on fiction.

Normally we have a text an author and a date. With Early Christian Literature unless you give Paul a free pass into the halls of historicity then all of the canonical and non canonical Christian texts have unknown authors and unknown dates. I think that it important to understand that in "THE PROBLEM OF ANONYMITY AND PSEUDONYMITY IN CHRISTIAN LITERATURE OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES", Aland stresses that the authors were instruments of the "Holy Spirit".

This MIGHT suggest that another genre to test for would be "Inspired Religious Writings" (as a subset of fiction? Everyone can make their own call on that).

6. authorial license (the more intricate and inventive the structure and portrayal, the more suspicion of authorial creativity in the presentation)

AFAIK the Canon Tables used to preface each gospel. Was such a cross reference system as the Gospel Canon tables ever used in other literature in antiquity?

Under this you might like to also consider the almost universal system of "nomina sacra".

See OP: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=721#p14749

Interesting thread.


Individual or School?

I think that another aspect that's important to know is whether any given series of documents was written by an individual, or whether it was produced by a "school" in the sense used by the author Thomas Brodie.



LC

Glad to see Sheshbazzar and outhouse attacking the same point!

Both of the cavils that you raise are, I think, already addressed in Komarnitsky's blog piece, which is linked in Ferguson's piece.

Komarnitsky spends a lot of time on objections to Sherwin-White's conclusion. For example, the Alexander Romance seems to have introduced fabulous elements into the Alexander story soon after A's death, and these persisted in later tradition/legend. Shesh, your point is addressed by Ferguson in his #7: we don't assess highly the veracity of a source that reports events of extremely low intrinsic probability.

outhouse, S-W's contention was that in the ancient world, it took on average only two generations for a historically authentic story about someone to be erased by legend. That's how fast myth outpaced history, in his view. The problem is in the word, "erased," or perhaps "historical core," in Komarnitsky's interpretation of S.-W. Komarnitsky is talking about S.-W. talking about replacement of a substantially historical account by a heavily fictionalized account, not about complete eradication from the legend of all elements of the history (no one is claiming that later romances about Alexander forgot that he was a great conqueror, etc.).

Sheshbazzar wrote:

1. distance from the event to the record. on rapid growth of myths, he cites Kris Komarnitsky on A.N. Sherwin-White’s two generation rule for the historical core to be erased:
http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

2. first-hand vs. second-hand accounts

If we have a 'first hand account' where the ancient writer claims to have personally seen, had one on one conversation with, and been taught his theology by a zombie's ghost.

Just how much weight would that genuine 'first hand account' have? 100lbs? 12oz? Or perhaps about as much as a zombies ghost?

#7 applies: do we see today people 3 days dead riise from the grave? DO we see today pelple floating off into outer space? All that would go to the reliability of the source. It has been pointed out that althougn some historical figures known to have existed are sometimes credited with miraculous powers, those powers are usually incidental to the person's impact on history. If you remove the miracles, itndoes not take much away from the historical figure and nothing from that fivure's legacy. The exact opposite is true of Jesus: remove the miraculous and there is little left to be found. Even the success of Christianity is indeoendent of the histoorical Jesus.

Contrast the methods of Theopompus, a historian of rhetorical bent of the 4th century BCE, to those of the gospel writers (even Luke). Theopompus did not scruple to point out moral lessons as he wrote history. In my view, less trustworthy as a historian than Thucydides, more trustworthy than the evangelists:

"Chapter 4 deals with the constant conflict between the demands of rhetoric on the one hand and those of authenticity or ἀλήθεια on the other. Gehrke makes it clear that both elements, the rhetorical-epideictic as well as the intellectual- rational, are characteristic elements of Greek historiography and are often found in combination. He demonstrates this common technique by a close examination of Theopompus, and concludes that in his historical writings Theopompus uses elements of rhetoric as a way of allocating praise and dispraise. But Theopompus also distinguishes carefully between moralizing censure on the one hand and on the other hand political material for which he carried out meticulous research, including the not infrequent interviewing of eyewitnesses with a view to confirming the plausibility of his account. Gehrke points out that this ambivalence is typical of Greek historiography. The entire genre was characterized by a combination of myth and history and was designed for a readership that was accustomed to a rhetorical representation of the past."

Hendrik Müller in review of Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Geschichte als Element antiker Kultur: die Griechen und ihre Geschichte(n). Münchner Vorlesungen zu Antiken Welten, Bd 2. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2014, in BMCR 2014.12.31.

cienfuegos wrote:#7 applies: do we see today people 3 days dead riise from the grave? DO we see today pelple floating off into outer space? All that would go to the reliability of the source. It has been pointed out that althougn some historical figures known to have existed are sometimes credited with miraculous powers, those powers are usually incidental to the person's impact on history. If you remove the miracles, itndoes not take much away from the historical figure and nothing from that fivure's legacy. The exact opposite is true of Jesus: remove the miraculous and there is little left to be found. Even the success of Christianity is indeoendent of the histoorical Jesus.

Likewise the credibility and veracity of 'Paul's' (or however many unknown pesudo-'Paul's 'adjusted' or contributed to) personal testimony of his 'experiences' needs to be weighed,
and whether this 'Paul's' impact upon human history is accompanied by a commensurate measure of credibility.

One common view voiced by non-apologetic Bible scholars is that (the real, original "Paul") had suffered either a heat-stroke, or Grand mal epileptic seizure during his famed Damascus road conversion experience, resulting in his thereafter addled mind constructing his own unique and elaborate imaginary theological 'Christos' gospel.

There may be some grain of fact in that view. However that needs be tempered with the knowledge and the acknowledgment that Hellenic "Christos" theological conceptions had been circulating and developing since the time the Hebrew texts were first translated into LXX Greek vorlage.
When Matt 1:1 announces the 'birth' of the Χριστοῦ, the assumption of the author(s) is that the audience of readers will be so familiar with the term that it requires no translation nor explanations. Which could only be the case if the term and concept was already well known topic of discussion;
Χριστοῦ "Christu" ("Christ") was something that had already been taught and discussed (midrashed 'explained') for several generations prior to the time of "Paul", and the composition of the 'Christian' Greek NT.

So, "Paul" ((the real, original "Paul") most certainly DID NOT derive all of his elaborate Christus theological hooey from private 'visions'. It was informed by the beliefs, teachings, and sayings of generations of Hellenic LXX reading, reciting, and expounding 'Christus' expecting believers that had came before.

In sum, "Paul" (the real, original "Paul") addle-brained, may have sincerely believed he was the exclusive and principal 'pipeline' to the Doctrine of Christus .....or he may have simply been a bit dishonest as to his Christus 'revelations' source origins.
In whichever case, addle-brained and deluded, or being willfully dishonest, living in a world colored by his mental abberations and delusions of self-important and self-promoting grandure, he is not any trustworthy witness to either contemporary religious beliefs of others, nor as any credible source of contemporary history.


Sheshbazzar

ficino wrote:Thought I'd resurrect this thread because there are folks on here who weren't active when it was posted. Many of our discussions have to do with methodology. Matthew Ferguson's proposed criteria for weighing sources in ancient history seem a good point of departure. Here is the link to Ferguson's blog post:

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... t-history/

His criteria are:

1. distance from the event to the record. on rapid growth of myths, he cites Kris Komarnitsky on A.N. Sherwin-White’s two generation rule for the historical core to be erased:
http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

Please, this is essential reading if we are going to discuss the historicity of Jesus. If you don't understand standard methodology, then you are doing something other than historiography (probably faith-based theology--all the way believing yourself to be an atheist or skeptic)

ficino wrote: ... Matthew Ferguson's proposed criteria for weighing sources in ancient history seem a good point of departure. Here is the link to Ferguson's blog post:

https://adversusapologetica.wordpress.c ... t-history/

His criteria are:

1. distance from the event to the record. on rapid growth of myths, he cites Kris Komarnitsky on A.N. Sherwin-White’s two generation rule for the historical core to be erased:
http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

I think generation-change in memes is relevant, especially with respect to theology, myths, and legends; and two (or more) generation-change is particularly relevant.

The problem is what the core that was started with was; or what was believed to have been the core -

"Sherwin-White meticulously examined the rate at which legend accrued in the ancient world. His conclusion: not even two full generations was enough time for legend to develop and to wipe out a solid core of historical truth.2"

Whether there was a solid core is an issue for many ancient figures, particularly for the NT character Jesus of Nazareth.

and, Note that that ref 2 is

• Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, August 18, 1998), 357 (pg. 264 in the September 1, 1998 publishing),
  
  not Sherwin-White.

Despite that, the corollary can be true:

• two full generations may or may not be enough time for legend to develop enough to overcome a lack of solid core of historical truth.

If the synoptic Gospels reflect traditions that grew and were remoulded in the changing experience of the Palestinian Church, how can we objectively distinguish between what is original and what is accretion, seeing that the Gospels themselves must be almost our only evidence for that changing experience? …Sherwin-White has not provided, as he thinks, conclusive reasons to reject the view…that the history of his [Jesus’] mission cannot be written.8

8 Peter Brunt, “A Historian of Rome on the New Testament,” The Oxford Magazine, New Series Vol. 4 No. 13 (20 February 1964), 209-210.

Brunt points out that “they were not seeking to record historic incidents so much as to proclaim salvation.”10 It is human nature to embellish, and it would also be human nature if the better story became the more popular one in the growing Christian community, even if it was not the most historically accurate one. Additionally, if the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life and death were the most popular in the growing Church, and not many outside the Church knew much about Jesus because he had not been a figure of significant public interest, it makes sense that less-legendized and less-biased records, if they were ever even written, would not survive.

http://bibleinterp.com/articles/2013/kom378030.shtml

10 Brunt, Historian of Rome, 210.