Does anyone have On the Historicity of Jesus yet?

[neilgodfrey]

Behind "Princeton University" etc is a domain name that includes "RefDesk". That comes from a bunch of people in the library and museum and research administration offices as a general ready reference service to students. They do not over-ride or dictate usages in different faculties. If a theology department said that term X was used in such and such a sense in their courses then that's that.

[The Crow]

Good blog article Neil. I like the way you presented the primary and secondary source examples. One question though. Can you supply links to the books you recommend at the end of that?

Those books don't discuss "primary" and "secondary" sources as such but they do help with an overview of the sorts of things historians think they are doing:

Amazon and others probably have any of these:

On 'What Is History?': From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White by Keith Jenkins -- covers the following two in addition to postmodernism in history

What is History? by E.H. Carr

The Practice of History by G.R. Elton (who hates Carr's views)

But for a discussion of the function of primary and secondary sources in relation to biblical studies see the first chapter(s) of Niels Peter Lemche The Israelites in History and Tradition.

He discusses Leopold von Ranke's point that was a major plank in laying down the foundations of the modern practice of history. (I don't have von Ranke's book with me at the moment so unable to give you references to his works right now.)

Thanks. I will check those out.

[Rick Sumner]

Good blog article Neil. I like the way you presented the primary and secondary source examples. One question though. Can you supply links to the books you recommend at the end of that?

Those books don't discuss "primary" and "secondary" sources as such but they do help with an overview of the sorts of things historians think they are doing:

Amazon and others probably have any of these:

On 'What Is History?': From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White by Keith Jenkins -- covers the following two in addition to postmodernism in history

What is History? by E.H. Carr

The Practice of History by G.R. Elton (who hates Carr's views)

But for a discussion of the function of primary and secondary sources in relation to biblical studies see the first chapter(s) of Niels Peter Lemche The Israelites in History and Tradition.

He discusses Leopold von Ranke's point that was a major plank in laying down the foundations of the modern practice of history. (I don't have von Ranke's book with me at the moment so unable to give you references to his works right now.)

Cannot second these recommendations enough. Particularly Carr and Jenkins, though Jenkins own leanings are a little too PoMo even for me, and I skew pretty hard in that direction. Germane to the thread topic, one of my biggest caveats with Carrier's first book is that he doesn't really grapple with the fundamental question of how historians can know things, just sort of declares it fundamentally scientific and cites "especially" Gaddis on the matter, and uses that to premise what follows.

Gaddis is truly terrible on the topic (doesn't even address it except by silly analogies--if adaptationist arguments are science then so is history! Err...what?). Had he cited Carr and responded to Jenkins I might not have parted company with him before he was done the introduction.

In fairness to Carrier, most of his critics and audience would already agree with him (even if they don't realize it) on the fundamentally scientific nature of historical inquiry, since "doing history," in the vast majority of instances, presupposes it, so it's not strictly necessary to address the few who think history is created far more than it is discovered.

[Bernard Muller]

First a reminder:
1 Corinthians 2:8 "None of the rulers ['archons'] of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

In his book, "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ) p. 190, Carrier made this startling remark, which would kill his case against the historicity of Jesus:

"Otherwise when he [Paul] speaks of human leaders he uses archon, 'principal', as in 'first in rank', not arche, 'principalities', and he never speaks of them as 'powers'. In Rom. 13:1-7, for example, Paul is certainly speaking of human authorities, which he says Christians should always obey."

At the next page, Carrier wrote that archon can have a different meaning (heavenly power) but he cited Eph. 2.2 as evidence ("which was forged in Paul's name but clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church").

But 'Ephesians', likely written more than a generation after Paul's times, should not be considered as following Paul's thinking. Furthermore, scholars noted that 'Ephesians" contains many elements/concepts/beliefs not found in Paul's authentic epistles. (Reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ephesians.html)

I think Carrier would wish to rewrite the offending sentence and explain why, in the case of 1 Cor 2:8, 'archon' does not mean human rulers.
Or is it a later historicist interpolation?

Cordially, Bernard

[The Crow]

That book is so huge he may have forgotten what he wrote from one paragraph to the next. Anyway good catch Bernard. Don't have the book and won't buy it.

[neilgodfrey]

First a reminder:
1 Corinthians 2:8 "None of the rulers ['archons'] of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

In his book, "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ) p. 190, Carrier made this startling remark, which would kill his case against the historicity of Jesus:

"Otherwise when he [Paul] speaks of human leaders he uses archon, 'principal', as in 'first in rank', not arche, 'principalities', and he never speaks of them as 'powers'. In Rom. 13:1-7, for example, Paul is certainly speaking of humans authorities, which he says Christians should always obey."

At the next page, Carrier wrote that archon can have a different meaning (heavenly power) but he cited Eph. 2.2 as evidence ("which was forged in Paul's name but clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church").

But 'Ephesians', likely written more than a generation after Paul's times, should not be considered as following Paul's thinking. Furthermore, scholars noted that 'Ephesians" contains many elements/concepts/beliefs not found in Paul's authentic epistles. (Reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ephesians.html)

I think Carrier would wish to rewrite the offending sentence and explain why, in the case of 1 Cor 2:8, 'archon' does not mean human rulers.
Or is it a later historicist interpolation?

Cordially, Bernard

I suggest you read your own post here again -- slowly perhaps -- and spot the logical error you have fallen into, Bernard.

Carrier says all humans have two legs.

Carrier is speaking here of a two legged thing.

Therefore Carrier is speaking of a human.

It's elementary, Bernard, elementary.

[The Crow]

First a reminder:
1 Corinthians 2:8 "None of the rulers ['archons'] of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

In his book, "On The Historicity Of Jesus" (OHJ) p. 190, Carrier made this startling remark, which would kill his case against the historicity of Jesus:

"Otherwise when he [Paul] speaks of human leaders he uses archon, 'principal', as in 'first in rank', not arche, 'principalities', and he never speaks of them as 'powers'. In Rom. 13:1-7, for example, Paul is certainly speaking of humans authorities, which he says Christians should always obey."

At the next page, Carrier wrote that archon can have a different meaning (heavenly power) but he cited Eph. 2.2 as evidence ("which was forged in Paul's name but clearly by someone of his sect, and relatively early in the development of the church").

But 'Ephesians', likely written more than a generation after Paul's times, should not be considered as following Paul's thinking. Furthermore, scholars noted that 'Ephesians" contains many elements/concepts/beliefs not found in Paul's authentic epistles. (Reference: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ephesians.html)

I think Carrier would wish to rewrite the offending sentence and explain why, in the case of 1 Cor 2:8, 'archon' does not mean human rulers.
Or is it a later historicist interpolation?

Cordially, Bernard

I suggest you read your own post here again -- slowly perhaps -- and spot the logical error you have fallen into, Bernard.

Carrier says all humans have two legs.

Carrier is speaking here of a two legged thing.

Therefore Carrier is speaking of a human.

It's elementary, Bernard, elementary.

Damn your good! I read that three times and did not spot it.

[Bernard Muller]

Well, Neil, you indicated a way out for Carrier on this mess, but that's not what someone would understand when reading it (less than 4 times!) .
In 1 Cor 2:8, Paul did not use 'arche' or "power" (meaning heavenly beings, mainly the bad ones). Out of the three 'archons' in the Pauline epistles, Carrier gave one example of 'archon' meaning with certainty human authorities. How could it be an example if the other two 'archons' are not humans?
On pages 564-565, towards the end of the book, Carrier finally identified these "rulers of this age": demonic powers. And he wrote: "Paul almost never uses this word ['archons'] of earthly authorities, ...".
That's quite a contrast with:
"Otherwise when he [Paul] speaks of human leaders he uses archon, 'principal', as in 'first in rank', not arche, 'principalities', and he never speaks of them as 'powers'. In Rom. 13:1-7, for example, Paul is certainly speaking of humans authorities, which he says Christians should always obey."

I think Carrier lost his bearings on page 190 and, incidentally, provided an argument against his whole theory, when arguing in favor of 'arche' meaning heavenly powers.

Cordially, Bernard

[neilgodfrey]

Well, Neil, you indicated a way out for Carrier on this mess, but that's not what someone would understand when reading it (less than 4 times!) .

So reading with comprehension and according to the fundamentals of basic logic means I'm "finding a way out"?

If I read with hostile intent I do find it difficult to apply either and I confess I end up in pointless arguments like you do as a consequence. I know I have read some works in the past like that and suffered accordingly. I try to be aware of that pitfall and do it less often now.

[Hawthorne]

Primary sources in historical studies & methodology are, by convention/definition, sources from the time in question. ie. 'contemporary' to that time-period.

Earliest sources, or 'first' sources currently available to us today, are not necessarily primary sources.

Neil is right, though, that context does matter. A source may be primary in reference to one question, but secondary in terms of another.

The Gospels are not primary sources for events that may have occurred regarding Jesus of Nazareth in the early first century. They could be considered primary sources for Christian thoughts in the late first, early second century.