Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:07 am Its the exact same with Jesus or any other figure. The Gospels are essentially an ancient version of the Patterson-Gimlin film. When we can demonstrate that the Gospels aren't an account of the life of a person, rather they are literary constructs, then we have essentially proved that Jesus didn't exist, period.

That is so. But with one qualification, it is also the point made by the methods followed by the historians themselves. (Except too many NT and HJ historians/bible scholars.)

What it proves is that the gospels are not based on a historical Jesus. It doesn't actually prove that Jesus doesn't exist, only that there is no evidence found for a historical Jesus in the gospels.

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:07 am What some people now try to do as the Gospels are increasingly picked apart, is say stuff like, "But, how do we know that this entirely fictional story in which we it can be shown everything was made up, wasn't inspired by the life of a real person."

But this is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as acknowledging that the Patterson-Gimlin film (or any number of other such films) is a hoax, but then saying, "But what if those guys were inspired to make that film because they saw a real big foot and were just reenacting it?!"

At that point its just absurd.

Very true. It amounts to a determination to say "but there probably is some truth to all these stories" --- a probability that is proposed despite their being no evidence in the stories for such a probability.

Bayes would not be amused if such a probability was assigned a value that can only be assigned to actual evidence.

Such a claim opens up a research topic for anthropologists or sociologists: how to explain the prevalence of such a determination to embrace an entirely evidence-free "probability" (half belief, belief held while claiming in theory not to believe).

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 11:07 am I can understand people who think the Patterson-Gimlin film is real believing in big foot. What I can't understand are people who acknowledge that its a fake, and then still claim that there probably really was a big foot creature living in the area that they took the film. That's the really absurd view, and it seems that there are significant number of people today who take that type of position regarding Jesus.

It is the power of the myth. The myth is woven into our culture so deeply that it seems to many an act of courage to suggest it is only a myth -- or an outright absurdity if claimed by someone else.

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 1:16 pm If you prove that the video of the monster is a fake, then there is no reason to believe that the monster was real, because the only evidence for it was the video.

Now that is spot on.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:35 am My two cents worth:

While a literary approach to the gospel story is necessary and interesting, it can never have the final say on whether or not there is a historical core, a historical reflection, within the gospel story.

That is essentially the point made by James McGrath in his The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith. He demonstrates with this diagram:




(I addressed that point in his book several times, especially at Gospels As Historical Sources: How Literary Criticism Changes Everything)

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:35 am
A literary approach does not cancel out the need for a historical approach to the gospel story. An historical approach is not done by, as it were, reading history from the gospel story. It's the other way around -

I think we can say that when historians analyse sources from a literary perspective, they are generally doing so from the perspective of the historical setting of those sources. E.g. "How does a source compare with other types of information we have from the relevant historical period?"

You are certainly right to point out that one cannot validly assume that a source contains historical information and that it is up to the historian to pull it out. That naive kind of historical research is long gone -- 200 years gone -- from the academies.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:35 am It's the other way around - history is primary. From a historical base one can then look at the gospel story for reflections of that history. After all, is that not the Jewish way - the OT stories reflect, not relate, historical events.

Yes, in many instances we find that that is the case. A good example is the apocalyptic genre: stories of wild animals and raging seas and strange beings all come together to tell what is, in fact, a symbolic account of the historical times of the author.

Some historians have also suggested that the patriarchal narratives of Genesis, while fanciful on the surface level of stories, are told as a way of creating a "historical memory" for readers whose ancestors migrated from Mesopotamia. The real historical migration might have been in the Persian era, but the story creating the "historical memory" was set in a much earlier time.

In similar ways, there are historians and literature scholars who have argued a good case for the gospel emphasis on the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus is in some ways an allegorical tale of the sufferings and crucifixions of the Jews in the war of 66-73 CE.

So not all scholars ignore the likelihood that the gospels were shaped by the Jewish War.

Where I think you and I part company, however, is when it comes to identifying external/independent evidence to support the view that a particular war or historical event has shaped the gospels. I think we need to be wary of circular reasoning. There is always the danger of "proving" or "seeing" what we believe is there before we start our investigation.

I like to use extreme examples to clarify situations.

Let's say that we found a text that could be confidently dated to exactly 25 BCE, i.e. 25 years before the first century. And this story was almost the same as the Gospel of Mark, except instead of being about Jesus, it was about someone called Theodosius, and he was said to have been executed by some prior Roman official. Let's say, for example, that we found this story in the Qumran cache.

At that point can we not say that the literary parallels between the two stories would lead to the conclusion that the Jesus of the Gospel stories never existed, and that, in fact, the Jesus story was a re-writing of an older story about a different person?

I think the literary approach can go quite far. Much farther than many would like to acknowledge.

There are only two possibilities.

1. X existed.
2. X never existed. X is merely a fabrication, pure make-believe & utter fiction.

1a. X existed, largely consistent with 'the record' of details, with reasonable proof.
1b. X existed, but contra 'the record' of details, there is some misinformation muddling the truth and w/o reasonable proof. Deniers will seize upon any contradiction or inconsistency to deny (1b) for (2), erroneously/falsely.
1c. X existed, but so many fictional elements and conflicting stories render that existence doubtful, AND the absence of proof prevents any certainty. Deniers can legitimately but wrongly claim 'myth', if some threshold of knowledge is not reached ('Doubt Wins.')
1d. X existed, but there's no evidence at all (For or Against). X had a certain existence, but nothing remains accessible to prove that.

We know w/ certainty that millions of individual human beings in Antiquity (99.9999%) did actually exist (1), but we have zero evidence: their individual existences were real (1) but remain entirely hypothetical/presumed.

To my thinking, "Jesus" was either a composite fiction (2) or (1c). In Hollywood films, most ppl will accept a fictionalized version as 'truth' despite said embellished character (representation) being (2) or only tenuously (1c). This is 'belief.'

billd89 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 4:28 pm
2. X never existed. X is merely a fabrication, pure make-believe & utter fiction.
. . .
1c. X existed, but so many fictional elements and conflicting stories render that existence doubtful, AND the absence of proof prevents any certainty. Deniers can legitimately but wrongly claim 'myth', if some threshold of knowledge is not reached ('Doubt Wins.').
. . .

To my thinking, "Jesus" was either a composite fiction (2) or (1c). In Hollywood films, most ppl will accept a fictionalized version as 'truth' when said embellished character (representation) was in fact (2) or only tenuously (1c).

What you are doing here is presenting alternative hypotheses about the figure of Jesus, and that's fine because it is all that the evidence allows us to do -- to construct and assess hypotheses about his historicity.

Historians build hypotheses on the data or sources, and what they can determine to be "facts" that those sources point towards. For a person or an event to have been a "historical fact" it must necessarily be established as such by a contemporary source that is independently corroborated in some valid way.

Hence we can have high confidence that Socrates is a "fact of history" because we have writings by those who claim to have been his followers (contemporary sources about him) as well as criticisms and mockery of him by another contemporary (independent corroboration).

We can have some confidence that Pythagoras is a "fact of history" because we have a known relatively reputable author claiming to cite a contemporary poet writing about Pythagoras.

Contemporary sources plus corroborating external support. That's how it works.

There is nothing comparable for Jesus, hence the best he can ever be is a hypothesis in our heads.

If the evidence we have can be explained without a historical Jesus then Occam's razor would have us conclude that Jesus should be kept on the shelf and only taken down when we have a use or need for him.

A supreme act of socratic humility would impose us the conclusion that we don't know about Jesus more than Pliny the Younger knew about him: that the Christians adore "Christo quasi deo".
His not-existence derives from our realization that the deities don't exist. It was possible that Pliny didn't have the same realization, He could believe that the "Christus quasi deus" existed really, only another god in addition to the Roman pantheon...

rgprice wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 3:56 pm I like to use extreme examples to clarify situations.

Let's say that we found a text that could be confidently dated to exactly 25 BCE, i.e. 25 years before the first century. And this story was almost the same as the Gospel of Mark, except instead of being about Jesus, it was about someone called Theodosius, and he was said to have been executed by some prior Roman official. Let's say, for example, that we found this story in the Qumran cache.

At that point can we not say that the literary parallels between the two stories would lead to the conclusion that the Jesus of the Gospel stories never existed, and that, in fact, the Jesus story was a re-writing of an older story about a different person?

I think the literary approach can go quite far. Much farther than many would like to acknowledge.

Opportunity, yes. But motive? We'd probably find one or invent one but the two together make for reasonable doubt

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 2:18 pm

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:35 am My two cents worth:

While a literary approach to the gospel story is necessary and interesting, it can never have the final say on whether or not there is a historical core, a historical reflection, within the gospel story.

That is essentially the point made by James McGrath in his The Burial of Jesus: History and Faith. He demonstrates with this diagram:

hislit.png

(I addressed that point in his book several times, especially at Gospels As Historical Sources: How Literary Criticism Changes Everything)

So - it's what is in the stained glass window, as in the gospel story, that has to be contemplated.

I've not in any way discarded or decried a literary approach to the gospel story. My point is that on it's own it is insufficient as a method of contemplating, seeking understanding of the gospel story. The other major tool in the research box is Jewish/Hasmonean history.
At the end of the day all the Jesus historicists are crying out for is an acknowledgement that the gospel story is not purely a literary construct. That there is a whiff of history there, a historical reflection or recollection - in other words - a dose of reality. Without that dose of reality to the gospel story the story is lost. It's just a figment of imagination. Yes, stories have power to entertain and to motivate. But that's the end product - it's the creation of the story, it's literary construct as well as it's social/political/historical context that can aid understanding of the story. (that there is no historical gospel Jesus does not mean that history was irrelevant to the gospel writers....)

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:35 am

A literary approach does not cancel out the need for a historical approach to the gospel story. An historical approach is not done by, as it were, reading history from the gospel story. It's the other way around -

I think we can say that when historians analyse sources from a literary perspective, they are generally doing so from the perspective of the historical setting of those sources. E.g. "How does a source compare with other types of information we have from the relevant historical period?"

Great - but sadly lacking in NT research from both sides - the historicists and the ahistoricists/mythicists.

You are certainly right to point out that one cannot validly assume that a source contains historical information and that it is up to the historian to pull it out. That naive kind of historical research is long gone -- 200 years gone -- from the academies.

I don't think 'pulling it out' from the story itself is possible - the story itself needs to be viewed via a historical lens.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Fri Mar 25, 2022 7:35 am It's the other way around - history is primary. From a historical base one can then look at the gospel story for reflections of that history. After all, is that not the Jewish way - the OT stories reflect, not relate, historical events.

Yes, in many instances we find that that is the case. A good example is the apocalyptic genre: stories of wild animals and raging seas and strange beings all come together to tell what is, in fact, a symbolic account of the historical times of the author.

Some historians have also suggested that the patriarchal narratives of Genesis, while fanciful on the surface level of stories, are told as a way of creating a "historical memory" for readers whose ancestors migrated from Mesopotamia. The real historical migration might have been in the Persian era, but the story creating the "historical memory" was set in a much earlier time.

Stories have power......

In similar ways, there are historians and literature scholars who have argued a good case for the gospel emphasis on the suffering and crucifixion of Jesus is in some ways an allegorical tale of the sufferings and crucifixions of the Jews in the war of 66-73 CE.

That's primarily a Christian theory - methinks the Jews might well go further back in history i.e. they had the historical material from which to create a Jesus crucifixion story way before 66-73 c.e.

So not all scholars ignore the likelihood that the gospels were shaped by the Jewish War.

Historians, when writing of European history don't settle on World War II - they go back to the first World War. If, 66-73 c.e. is reflected in the gospel story - then also, since the gospel story is a Jewish story - the events of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. would have been viewed as relevant history to the story they are creating.

Where I think you and I part company, however, is when it comes to identifying external/independent evidence to support the view that a particular war or historical event has shaped the gospels. I think we need to be wary of circular reasoning. There is always the danger of "proving" or "seeing" what we believe is there before we start our investigation.

Circular reasoning - well, methinks nothing could be more circular than a literary only approach to the gospel story. After all - what is gained -
apart from a literary comparison between the gospels and OT stories. ? It seems to me that a literary only approach is a dead-end - it goes around in circles, one story reflecting another story. All very interesting - but no gain for attempting to break the dead-lock between the historicists and the ahistoricists.

History is primary. Get the history established (as far as one is able) and then contemplate the gospel story to see if the story is reflecting elements of that historical past.

After all - if we today find our past history to be relevant in understanding and learning from our past - why deny the gospel writers that same human interest. We have memorial days regarding World War I and II - we have many movies - latest one being '1917'. We have songs and poems about our past. We have youtube/streaming services at a click of our fingers to watch reenactments of our past historical tragedies. And we want to deny the gospel writers that same very human concern with their past history. What options were available to the gospel writers - writing a story dated to the time of Roman occupation ? Their story, their history could only be told via allegory, mythology, parable, theology etc.

Yes, one can argue that all they were interested in is spiritual stuff - theology or philosophical musings. But if context of their story matters - then we have to ask the question of why now - why under Roman occupation. What was it in Roman/Jewish history that inspired the gospel writers to think the time was now. Yes, the OT has all nations coming to the Lord's house - but why now. Again, a Christian perspective would quote the war of 70 c.e. But a Jewish perspective might well conclude that the loss of sovereignty in 63 b.c. and the beheading and hanging on a stake of the last Jewish King and High Priest in 37 b.c. might well provide the necessity for change. 70 c.e. might well be viewed as a cut off - but the seeds for that event go back over 100 years.

10 years ago I posted a link on Richard Carrier's webpage to a chart I had posted on the old FRDB. He, seemingly, at a look at the chart and posted this comment:


For anyone interested in this chart - here it is. What the chart suggests is that the gospel figure of Jesus is a literary, composite, figure created from the lives of historical figures. (Ian Flemming's James Bond is a similar composite figure). Thus, being a composite figure - no one historical figure is the historical counterpart of the gospel Jesus.
====================================================================

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

HISTORY and Coins	Philo (died about 50 c.e.) Flaccus	JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.)Antiquities:(about 94 c.e.)	The composite gospel Jesus figure based upon the historical figures of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus; Philip the Tetrarch and Agrippa I.
King Antigonus Mattathias II High Priest of the Jews: 40 b.c.e. – 37 b.c.e. Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek.		Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.)	John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant.
		Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared an enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16.	gJohn indicates a three year ministry for JC.
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22.		Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody.......	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31.Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilingual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
		...and then but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...)	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3.
		Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1.	Acts: 11:16.The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Philip the Tetrarch: Herodian Coins. 4 b.c.e. – 34 c.e.		When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Caesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaida, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, Antiquities: Book 18 ch.2.	John 1:43-45. Philip, Andrew and Peter come from Bethsaida. Around the villages of Caesarea Phillipi JC asked the disciples who do people say he is. Peter says: "You are the Messiah". Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16: 13-16.
		(about 34 c.e.) About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp.His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy. Antiquities: Book 18 ch.4.	disciples/apostles: John 6:70; Mark 3:14; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13. A rich man from Arimathea, Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. Matthew 27:57-59. Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. JC crucified during rule of Pilate - which ends in 36 c.e.
Agrippa I. (d.44 c.e.) Herodian Coins.	The mocking of Carabbas:... a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick ..., he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, ....Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians;..when Flaccus heard, or rather when he saw this, he would have done right if he had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disgustedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king.		The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. ..... The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him............Pilate released Barabbas.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account. Crucified itinerate carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.

====================================================================

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:26 pm

I wrote about Finley's criticism of Sherwin-White's claims about NT sources at An Ancient Historian on Historical Jesus Studies, — and on Ancient Sources Generally

Better still if one wishes to invest more time into the question, Finley's book is online at https://archive.org/details/aspectsofan ... 2/mode/2up -- the link will take you to the relevant page (182).

And to see exactly what Finley was addressing Sherwin-White's book is also available at the same site: https://archive.org/details/romansociet ... 2/mode/2up --- The link should take you to the first of the last two chapters that zero in on questions of the historicity of NT writings.

For others who do not have the time to invest, here is exactly what Finley wrote:

Even if one could accept the view recently re-stated with much vigour by A. N. Sherwin-White in Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, that the Acts and Gospels are qualitatively no different as historical sources from Herodotus or Tacitus, one does not get very far. Mr Sherwin-White has been able to demonstrate that the New Testament is very accurate in its details about life at the time, whether about geography and travel or the rules of citizenship and court procedures. Why should it not be? It is made up of contemporary documents, regardless of the accuracy of the narrative, and so reflects society as it was. That still does not tell us anything about the narrative details, and they are what matters. For that Mr Sherwin-White must, in the end, select and reject, explain and explain away, just as every other scholar has done for as long as anyone has felt the urge (and the possibility) of a historical reconstruction of the Passion. (Aspects, pp. 182f)

Finley is clearly not saying the NT writings were surely contemporary with Jesus but is speaking generally about writings that portray life in the first century. The grounds Finley appears to give for his expressed view are not, "I have studied these documents as much as Sherwin-White has", but the casual "Why should it not be?" He is taking the side of Sherwin-White in order to demonstrate that not even Sherwin-White's argument proves what he claims it does.

Finley was convinced (rightly or wrongly) that Mr Sherwin-White has been able to demonstrate that the New Testament is very accurate in its details about life at the time, whether about geography and travel or the rules of citizenship and court procedures.. Finley wasn't just accepting this for the sake of argument. If you agree with this, (and the other point argued by Sherwin-White that things were markedly different in the mid 2nd century CE), then it probably follows that the NT documents (mostly) date from before the mid 2nd century CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 4:54 am If you agree with this, (and the other point argued by Sherwin-White that things were markedly different in the mid 2nd century CE), then it probably follows that the NT documents (mostly) date from before the mid 2nd century CE.

Andrew Criddle

Can you clarify how this impacts on the question of historical methods for determining how historians come to "know their facts"?

We disagree on the rhetorical status of Finley's specific point in the way he phrased his response to Sherwin-White but that is not the same as engaging in a discussion on what Finley "believed" more generally -- and any approach directed towards that end is surely getting away from the point of the thread. I assume Finley "believed" the general consensus of much of NT scholarship when the case for that consensus was based on sound historical reasoning. -- as do I. But focusing on F's "beliefs" is surely a form of ad hominem fallacy and I'd rather focus on everything F had to say about methods.

Not that I think that we should be alarmed at any conclusion that valid historical methods might open up as possibilities, but let me offer reassurance have no reason to think anything other than "that the NT documents (mostly) date from before the mid 2nd century CE".

And for the record, I really have no idea whether the Gospel of Mark was a product of the first or (early) second century. Certainly one can count more points in favour of it being first century than the second. But in my own mind, whatever way it falls, it was most decidedly before the mid second century.

What I am trying to say is that the historical methods as expressed by historians and philosophers of history do not guarantee a common set of conclusions about hypotheses (including hypotheses on dates of sources) built upon a common understanding of "the facts".

I suggest that a discussion on methods by which historians date documents belongs to another thread. Until then, a good starting point is a"minimalists" take on how its "normally" done.