Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

andrewcriddle wrote:

ficino wrote:Hello junego, I just finished reading the article you linked. I think it is a devastating critique of the Quest for the Historical Jesus. I recommend it highly.

Crook does not deny that the gospels contain factual material. What he denies is that we can use them to distill that factual material, esp. about the content of Jesus' teaching and the thrust of his ministry. In his debate with Richard Carrier, Crook maintained that Jesus existed, but he appealed to Paul, not the gospels, for evidence.

I found it an unsatisfactory article.

Its (plausible) empirical claim is that people and groups will readily drastically distort their memories of events when it suits their agenda(s) to do so. Its conclusion is that therefore we cannot distinguish true from false material in such memories.

I don't think the conclusion really follows from the empirical claim. Some of the purported memories will be more plausibly the product of the relevant agendas than others. And this does seem to provide grounds for regarding some purported memories as more reliable than others.

Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew, you'll recall that Crook does not hold that we cannot, simpliciter, distinguish true from false material in narratives based on group memory. For example, he wrote this:

"The first is not merely that memory (both individual and group) is not entirely trustworthy, but how commonly it is untrustworthy. We know this because there are some means by which to assess the historical veracity of some sources (realism, common sense, the agenda of the author, competing versions, etc.). Seeing that some versions of a story are less reliable than others illustrates the dynamics of memory distortion."

Crook thinks that the genuine epistles of Paul provide external confirmation of a few things in the gospels.

Where does your unfavorable view of Crook's article leave you regarding the Quest for the Historical Jesus? Do you have a historical methodology in mind, by which we can arrive at fairly secure conclusions about Jesus' teachings and life? Obviously, to say something like, "The Resurrection was such a stupendous event that surely their memories of that would remain reliable," is not a methodology.

MrMacSon wrote:

blood wrote:Why bring that over-opininated egotist Tim O'Neill into the discussion?

neilgodfrey wrote: ... another amateur (but also a boorish, lying charlatan and apologist for Christian apologists) like Tim O'Neill ...

As an aside, O'Neill has been sprung today being a fraud as a sock-puppet - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/threa ... 974&page=0
After O'Neill made 4 first-time posts on Wed 31 Dec, another "first-time poster" 'The Mad Rabbi' came on the next day (1Jan) spruiking O'Neill & his website.

Oh, good. We have a new name for Tim O'Neill: "The Mad Rabbi."

He truly is a fanatic.

ficino wrote:Hi Andrew, you'll recall that Crook does not hold that we cannot, simpliciter, distinguish true from false material in narratives based on group memory. For example, he wrote this:

"The first is not merely that memory (both individual and group) is not entirely trustworthy, but how commonly it is untrustworthy. We know this because there are some means by which to assess the historical veracity of some sources (realism, common sense, the agenda of the author, competing versions, etc.). Seeing that some versions of a story are less reliable than others illustrates the dynamics of memory distortion."

Crook thinks that the genuine epistles of Paul provide external confirmation of a few things in the gospels.

Where does your unfavorable view of Crook's article leave you regarding the Quest for the Historical Jesus? Do you have a historical methodology in mind, by which we can arrive at fairly secure conclusions about Jesus' teachings and life? Obviously, to say something like, "The Resurrection was such a stupendous event that surely their memories of that would remain reliable," is not a methodology.

I think we have to proceed on a case by case basis.

I've been reading the Allison book over Christmas.

I found some of his arguments more convincing than others, but I don't think he is simply being (over)optimistic about the reliability of the general tendency of collective memory.

In the case of the eschatological/apocalyptic nature of Jesus' teaching for example, Allison presents detailed, (and IMO reasonably convincing), arguments about the problems involved in having Jesus understood in his lifetime by his followers in non-apocalyptic terms, but being rapidly reinterpreted in apocalyptic terms as a consequence of his death and believed resurrection. A later (c 70 CE) reinterpretation of Jesus and his teaching would be more plausible but faces the difficulty that Paul (c 50 CE) already interprets Jesus in an eschatological/apocalyptic way.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:

ficino wrote:
Where does your unfavorable view of Crook's article leave you regarding the Quest for the Historical Jesus? Do you have a historical methodology in mind, by which we can arrive at fairly secure conclusions about Jesus' teachings and life?

I think we have to proceed on a case by case basis.

I've been reading the Allison book over Christmas.

I found some of his arguments more convincing than others, but I don't think he is simply being (over)optimistic about the reliability of the general tendency of collective memory.

In the case of the eschatological/apocalyptic nature of Jesus' teaching for example, Allison presents detailed, (and IMO reasonably convincing), arguments about the problems involved in having Jesus understood in his lifetime by his followers in non-apocalyptic terms, but being rapidly reinterpreted in apocalyptic terms as a consequence of his death and believed resurrection. A later (c 70 CE) reinterpretation of Jesus and his teaching would be more plausible but faces the difficulty that Paul (c 50 CE) already interprets Jesus in an eschatological/apocalyptic way.

Andrew Criddle

I like a lot of what Allison wrote. I think his attempt to start with the big themes is sensible, though if the whole thing is fiction, Allison's approach will work with the big themes in a fiction, too.

I am nervous about your suggestion that we proceed on a case by case basis, for it seems easy to slide into special pleading, ad hoc assumptions, etc. Do you have an overall method in mind yet for an HJ Quest? Are you an exponent of the Criteria of Authenticity? Crook, Allison and others seem to have abandoned them, either in toto or at least, substantially. I think you need a stated methodology, by which to tackle individual cases. If you'll apply the Criteria, by what justification? If not, then what else?

andrewcriddle wrote:I don't think the conclusion really follows from the empirical claim. Some of the purported memories will be more plausibly the product of the relevant agendas than others. And this does seem to provide grounds for regarding some purported memories as more reliable than others.

How do you determine which "purported memories" are reliable and which are not? How do you guard against the bias of the scholar who is examining these purported memories on a "case by case" basis? This becomes increasingly tenuous when you have few, if any, outside controls. Especially when the outside control (for example the few references from the writings of Paul) are themselves ambiguous. If that durned Paul had just said clearly: "as Jesus taught in the Sermon upon the Mount, which was passed on to me by his first disciple, Peter..." we'd be in much better shape. Unfortunately, he doesn't do that, though.

cienfuegos wrote:If that durned Paul had just said clearly: "as Jesus taught in the Sermon upon the Mount, which was passed on to me by his first disciple, Peter..." we'd be in much better shape. Unfortunately, he doesn't do that, though.

Yes, why can't any of the gospel writers emulate Xenophon in the Memorabilia, who says things like "I was present with Socrates when he..."

Of course, few today believe that Xenophon was present at those conversations.

ficino wrote:

cienfuegos wrote:If that durned Paul had just said clearly: "as Jesus taught in the Sermon upon the Mount, which was passed on to me by his first disciple, Peter..." we'd be in much better shape. Unfortunately, he doesn't do that, though.

Yes, why can't any of the gospel writers emulate Xenophon in the Memorabilia, who says things like "I was present with Socrates when he..."

Of course, few today believe that Xenophon was present at those conversations.

Sure, they could lie, but even in lying they would be referencing a contemporary event which I think would be difficult If it never occurred. Xenophon references the trial of Socrates. Although we question his presence, his claim that there was a trial of Socrates tends to attest to that event actually occurring. If Paul claimed to have witnessed an event described in the Gospels, we might have to question his truthfulness, but his referencing an event would lend more credibility to the event's historicity.