Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:28 am Neil sees any work about the beginning of Christianity as the task of "office" historians,

What the hell is an "office" historian?

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:28 am which would have the benefit to look at load of fairly trustworthy evidence, either narratives or other. Their goal would be to format all of that in a condensed and reader friendly form for a targeted audience.

What? You mean like Readers Digest authors?

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 9:28 am Unfortunately, that will not work because in this case the data is very limited & patchy, and also, for most of it, heavily polluted by religious bias.
I do not deny that historians and scholars have a role into that quest, but I think the main thrust, or the leading role, should come from investigators, used to work with scanty evidence, hostile or biased witnesses, conflicting testimonies, small clues and if need be, (literally) sifting through the garbage.
And, if after testing many theories, they reach a point where they can make a reconstruction on how the crime occurred, and what are the suspects, and better the criminals, fitting all that scanty evidence, explaining the testimonies, the clues, etc. well they did their job.
Of course, they are not always right: that's the price to pay with that kind of investigation.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, how many serious scholarly works by historians of ancient history and classicists have you ever read? They deal with "religiously biased" and "limited and patchy" data, "conflicting testimonies, small clues", all the time.

It is THEIR methods, the way certain major ancient historians and significant names in the scholarship of the Old Testament work, that I am suggesting should be applied to biblical studies.

to Neil,

They deal with "religiously biased" and "limited and patchy" data, "conflicting testimonies, small clues"

So I am also a historian . Or these historians would be more appropriately called investigators?
Question: If some historians have to work with that kind of evidence, do you think that their reconstruction of history is always right?

Anyway, can you give me some examples of historians who worked with that kind of evidence?

Cordially, Bernard

DCHindley wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:14 amthe ground breaking studies of M. Parry on characteristics of Homer and A. Lord on Serbo-Croatian guslars (singers of traditional songs, much like bards did with Homer in Antiquity).

All this was discussed in-length, in Crosstalk2, in the 1990's, due to J D Crossan's use of it in his Birth of Christianity.

I need to resume my blog posting on the Parry-Lord thesis and its use in Kelbar et al. Anyone interested in detailed examination of the thesis would appreciate

• Henaut, B. W. (1993). Oral tradition and the gospels: the problem of Mark 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Since Henaut we now also have

• Seters, J. V. (2006). The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Critism. Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns.

On the comparisons with classicist studies of Homer, Van Seters writes:

What became particularly striking to me was to discover that, after about 150 years in which redactional analysis, especially of Homer, dominated classical studies, in the course of the last 50 years this form of literary analysis has virtually died out, even in Germany! Why did this happen in classical studies when it did not happen in biblical studies?

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 1:27 pm
Anyway, can you give me some examples of historians who worked with that kind of evidence?

Cordially, Bernard

Just pick up any reputable scholarly work of ancient history, Bernard. (What you describe is actually the historical stories for children of primary school age or popular novels and coffee-table books for adults.)

M. I. Finley wrote in Use and Abuse of History:

That ancient historians have a smaller body of source material than
most historians and that they must rely much more on belles-lettres
and archaeological finds and proportionately less on documents
cannot be denied. It follows that they are more concerned with
textual criticism and with material objects, that they often have less
control over the reliability of a source, that they must often depend
on a single statement by a single author, that there are greater gaps
in the chain of data-in short, that they must more often guess and
hesitate and qualify and end with a non liquet. . . . .

He also addressed the implications of these handicaps>

The implications . . . .

First, there is an unmistakable tendency for classicists, steeped as
they are in the literature of Greece and Rome, to follow the lead of
ancient writers, and particularly of ancient historical writers. . . .

Second, classicists by definition do not have the habit of thinking
about history and historical problems other than those on which
they happen to be working, do not, by and large, even read history
in a serious way outside the ancient field. . . . .

Both of those implications are still found today alive and very well indeed in the field of biblical studies. Finley wrote about his own discipline back in the early 70s!

I'd like to ask you to cite ancient historians who fit your description of how they work and what they work with.

to Neil,

Just pick up any reputable scholarly work of ancient history, Bernard. (What you describe is actually the historical stories for children of primary school age or popular novels and coffee-table books for adults.)

I was specifically asking for historians who worked from ""religiously biased" and "limited and patchy" data, "conflicting testimonies, small clues" according to your words.
I am still waiting for an answer. You said there are historians who just did that: who are they?
As for office historians, I was thinking about those who described, for example, the Napoleonic wars, not yours about "historical stories for children of primary school age or popular novels and coffee-table books for adults."

The remarks of Finlay are generally valid.

often depend on a single statement by a single author

I try to avoid that, and drew my conclusions (for interpolations or key points in my reconstruction) from multiple pieces of evidence, combined with a lot of textual criticism.

that there are greater gaps in the chain of data-in short, that they must more often guess and hesitate and qualify and end with a non liquet. . . . .

That's sound to me these historians are very cautious, didn't want to get their hands dirty and just skimmed the surface, with no attempt to make a credible reconstruction.
In other words, they just report what they see, with their own opinions and doubts. Very safe!
They are not investigators looking for a solution of a historical problem.

I'd like to ask you to cite ancient historians who fit your description of how they work and what they work with

I think I was the one who asked you that: see my first comment on this posting.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:53 pm to MrMacSon,

Bernard's argumentation is merely based on narratives that are not supported by evidence external to or separate from them.

What do you mean by: "not supported by evidence external to or separate from them"?

About the existence of an earthly & human Jesus, there are Tacitus' Annals & Josephus' Ant. 20.200.

Tacitus' Annals is a dubious text that, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, does not mention Jesus in it's present form, and is unlikely to have ever mentioned Jesus.

Arthur Drews made a good argument it was likely developed in the 4th C in conjunction with the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus. Jay Raskins has made an interesting argument that the reference in Annals 15.44 to Tiberius could well have been originally Nero, and the reference to Pilate could well have been Festus.

Josephus' Ant. 20.200 is a joke.

You are balancing your whole empire on a ball-bearing.

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:53 pm And does history have to be supported by evidence external to or separate from them ..

Yes!!

Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 4:06 pm That's sound to me these historians are very cautious, didn't want to get their hands dirty and just skimmed the surface, with no attempt to make a credible reconstruction.
In other words, they just report what they see, with their own opinions and doubts. Very safe!
They are not investigators looking for a solution of a historical problem.

If you really think that, Bernard, then you have no idea about any scholarly work in the field of ancient history, yet you have a very patronizing attitude towards those scholars of whom you are ignorant.

I cannot be bothered reading any more of your comments in this thread.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2017 12:56 am
There are many, many fascinating details in all the literature at our disposal.

Many explanations, theories, are proposed, many old ones I still sometimes reflect upon, etc .....

But my main interest is not in any particular theory in this thread, but in what constitutes sound historical method.

Tiny fascinating details of all different types ascending from the pages?
Revelation as a whole, the synoptic Apocalypse, Luke’s travel narrative (scattered throughout chapter 9 to 19 of his gospel) and Didache XVI for example aren’t merely details. These bigger parts of the NT, together with numerous smaller fragments, all point in the same direction. Which means there is an underlying pattern, and that pattern is the war. Once this pattern is recognized, additional fragments can be uncovered.

The second part of the synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13:14-26 and parallels in Luke and Matthew) for example contains nine encrypted references to the war:
1. The siege of Jerusalem
2. The need to flee to save one’s life
3. The famine during the siege
4. The burning of the Temple
5. The massacre at the capture of Jerusalem
6. War victims killed by the sword
7. Captivity for the survivors
8. The destruction of Jerusalem
9. The immense cloud of smoke over the region caused by the burning of the Temple.

Of course it's important to scrutinize historical method, but if the gospels have been written shortly after the facts, in the particular case of oral tradition IMO it is a waste of energy. We can drop the whole oral tradition literature without further delay.

FransJVermeiren wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:46 am Of course it's important to scrutinize historical method, but if the gospels have been written shortly after the facts, in the particular case of oral tradition IMO it is a waste of energy. . . .

Just so. However, I think we need to first decide when the gospels were written through valid inquiry. An independent anchor of some sort is always necessary.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:00 pm ... However, I think we need to first decide when the gospels were written through valid inquiry. An independent anchor of some sort is always necessary.

Have you engaged with the propositions and arguments of those who frame the gospels' genesis around Marcion: ie. Vinzent, Klinghardt; Tyson, BeDuhn?