Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote:
In the case of Socrates we have, for example, in addition to the philosophical treatises a contemporary play mocking Socrates from a perspective quite different from what we find in Plato.

We also have the hostile pamphlet of Polycrates, written I think in the 380s but usually dated c. 393, the Accusation of Socrates (Socrates' trial was in 399). It has been reconstructed from Xenophon and Libanius. Then we have Isocrates, prob. in the 380s, attacking Polycrates and defending Socrates. Both of these men were closer to rhetoric than to the Socratic writers. Plus we have Aeschines, in a speech in 345, discussing why Socrates was condemned.

The social memory approach can give us no more assurance about Jesus than it ever could about Robin Hood.

I wonder whether some evangelicals will try to use this social memory approach to blunt the attacks of skeptics who point out biblical contradictions. A defense of the gospels would rest on the claim that it is anachronistic to demand accuracy on details, esp. since, as Allison holds, each new telling of the Jesus story was understood (he thinks) as a new performance (cf. p. 29). So, why not at least four performances inspired by the Holy Ghost? Away at one swoop go all those 'Contradictions in the Bible' websites.

Blood wrote:

ficino wrote:
William Lane Craig says this about Allison's skepticism about our ability to establish the historicity of the Resurrection.

"Allison forced me, as no one else has, to re-think the evidence for Jesus' resurrection afresh. Indeed, I've never seen a more persuasive case for scepticism about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection than Allison's presentation of the arguments. He's far more persuasive than Crossan, Lüdemann, Goulder, and the rest who actually deny the historicity of Jesus' resurrection. That Allison should, despite his sceptical arguments, finally affirm the facts of Jesus' burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection and hold that the resurrection hypothesis is as viable an explanation as any other rival hypothesis, depending upon the worldview one brings to the investigation, is testimony to the strength of the historical case for Jesus' resurrection."

That's just typical apologetics bollocks, the kind that Craig has spent a career repeating ...

It's classic illogical apologetics: classic bait n switch by denying-the-antecedent and confirming the consequent -

Craig's antecedent =

• "I've never seen a more persuasive case for scepticism about the historicity of Jesus' resurrection than Allison's presentation of the arguments."

Craig's consequent =

• "That Allison should, despite his sceptical arguments, finally affirm the facts of Jesus' burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection and hold that the resurrection hypothesis is as viable an explanation as any other rival hypothesis, depending upon the worldview one brings to the investigation, is testimony to the strength of the historical case for Jesus' resurrection."

To give the conclusion that Allison's argument " is testimony to the strength of the historical case for Jesus' resurrection" is ludicrous.

ficino wrote:
Allison says he's not making pronouncements about what units in the gospels are reliable. Instead, he's making a point about method:

Allison wrote:"... the historian should heed before all else the general impressions that our primary sources produce. We should trust first, if we are to trust at all, what is most likely to be trustworthy."

We must begin by looking at the general impressions conveyed by the gospels rather than focus on the tradition histories of individual pericopes. We should put our hope, he says, in the big story.

Allison wrote: "For if those sources do not in large measure rightly typify Jesus' actions ... then what hope is there?"

So far I am thinking that Allison's investigation all proceeds from the ASSUMPTION that the gospels constitute the record of collective memory, however much reshaped by faulty recollection, rhetorical strategies, later theological concerns, etc.

It would depend on what Allison means by primary sources, and whether he understands historical methodology prefers the term 'primary sources' be used for contemporaneous sources rather than "individual and collective memory", especially if the overall significance of an alleged event is more striking because it was theologically significant during the development of the gospels.

Criticising the reductionism of the Jesus Seminar fails to address "the thrust of the entire tradition and ... the overall tenor of the gospel story" as a cumulative development over a reasonable period of time, and the depiction of Jesus, as Allison says, "as promoting an eschatological vision as well".

The development of the NT canon over a century of two is one of embellishment. Does Allison address that aspect?

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: that is, the reason they have found so many different kinds of Jesuses -- is because there is no independent evidence for his historical existence

.

-- is because people who were never a witnesses to his life, nor lived near him, yet found importance in the traditions and mythology past down to them, had varied and wide diverse descriptions of what they thought he was.

You fail to see your logic is circular.

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: The reason HJ studies have failed

Red Herring.

Jesus historicity is as strong as it ever has been.

You fail to grasp the nuance in the word "failed". (I use it in the same sense many HJ scholars themselves have used it. I doubt it would occur to you to respond to them the same way.)

Jesus historicity is as strong as it ever has been.

Zero.

neilgodfrey wrote:The reason HJ studies have failed -- that is, the reason they have found so many different kinds of Jesuses -- is because there is no independent evidence for his historical existence.

outhouse wrote: ... people who were never a witnesses to his life, nor lived near him, yet found importance in the traditions and mythology past passed down to them, had varied and wide diverse descriptions of what they thought he was.

By saying "people who were never a witnesses to his life, nor lived near him, yet found importance in the traditions and mythology past down to them, had varied and wide diverse descriptions of what they thought he was", outhouse confirms Neils true-statement that "there is no independent evidence for his historical existence"

Yes, the followers of Jesus had "diverse descriptions of what they thought he was" -- ie. mere narratives.

ficino wrote:I've begun Dale C. Allison's Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History.

Allison proposes a "big picture" method of investigation, rooted in the conviction that individual and collective memory of the overall significance of a striking event is more reliable than memories of details about it. Allison has come to his new investigational paradigm after abandoning the Criteria of Authenticity on various grounds.

////

We should put our hope, he says, in the big story. "For if those sources do not in large measure rightly typify Jesus' actions ... then what hope is there?"

What has hope got to do with historical truth?

Blood wrote:As for Allison, "memory theory" seems to be the latest trend inside academia to keep the corpse of Jesus on life support.

So far I am thinking that Allison's investigation all proceeds from the ASSUMPTION that the gospels constitute the record of collective memory, however much reshaped by faulty recollection, rhetorical strategies, later theological concerns, etc.

The author appears to be inventing another assumption (to replace the defunct earlier ones) in which the confidence of hope may be placed. The assumption presupposes that there was in fact some sort of collective memory, and that the gospels are a record of this. Moreover the claim to be examining the "Bigger Picture" is vacuous. The claim is really to examine the "Bigger Picture" of the canonical gospels in isolation from other literature from antiquity, such as the Gnostic Gospels. This myopia over the canonical material is a product of centuries of conditioning.

The real question is about genre and the "Insiders" want to assume that the genre of the gospels (whatever it may be) encompasses the record of collective (and presumed historical) memory. This is still special pleading. The genre could be fiction, but this possibility is probably not part of any "Big Picture" that the modern church industry wants to paint.




LC

I don't see how theories of memory are 'methods' that are useful for historical reconstruction. They can be higher order analytical categories, but they don't seem to tell us what is and is not historical.

Social memory theory has become rather trendy, and posits that memory consists in social frameworks. The intersection between individual memories as preserved in various media (oral communication, rituals, documents, monuments, etc.) constitute social memory.

That may be true, but it would be true everywhere for everyone. The historian still wants to know whether memories preserve accurate information about the past. 'This is how memory works' can't tell us that.

It's why Anthony Le Donne, while noting that memory requires interpretation and therefore that there can be no uninterpreted conception of the past or our experiences, still turns to the traditional 'criteria of authenticity' to determine which 'memories' in the gospels are plausible (see his 2011, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can Know It?)

Tim Widowfield is writing a series on the scholarly claims of social memory theory as applied to historical Jesus studies and is demonstrating how the whole shebang is based on a distorted understanding of the original theory as developed in sociology. His most recent post is devastating, demonstrating the tendentious shoddiness that is part and parcel of "biblical studies": The Memory Mavens, Part 3: Bethlehem Remembered