Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 3:12 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 2:20 am But I do not conclude on the basis of probability (as per Carrier) that every passage can be so explained. Probability only tells us what we are likely to expect once the full evidence finally comes to light. It does not give us answers about that the reality is here and now.

now it is more clear the difference between you and Carrier, thanks.

glad it's clear to you -- on re-reading it i see wrote "that" instead of "what". I meant to write:

It does not give us answers about what the reality is here and now.

I plan to address some of Carrier's recent dismissals of ideas he evidently does not look at carefully in a blogpost.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 4:11 am

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:21 am I love this quotation from Ulrich Luz, cited at the head of Bermejo-Rubio's stimulating article

Der bibelkundlichen Phantasie ist keine Grenze gesetzt! [There are no limits to the fantasy of biblical scholarship!]
Das Evangelium nach Matthäus

<snip>
Meanwhile, in another camp, the total lack of evidence for widespread anti-Roman fervour or interest in messianism or past kings slain in the "time of Jesus" is once again pointed out:

On [the] inclination to link up post-63 and post-70 anger and lament – under Pompey and after Titus’ destruction of the temple – no one today would readily link feelings in any European country today with those of the 1890s.There is something artificial about imagining a nation, over several generations, in thrall to the same (theological) hopes, and it leads us to downplay the concrete life-situations that occupied the intervening 130 years. -- Steve Mason in Rethinking the Jewish War, 306

''...interest in messianism or past kings slain...''

Really, Neil, this past Jewish King that was slain by Rome really seems to be getting to you.............

As for historical memories, well now, methinks Steve Mason would do well to consider Irish history.

Here is a song sung about an Irish priest killed by the English in 1798. Song was written 100 years later in 1898.....and the song is still sung to this day. Now, if the Irish can sing a song about a slain Irish priest - how demeaning to think that the Jewish people would not have their slain king in mind during the Roman occupation of their land. Particularly so when the gospel of Luke places its Jesus crucifixion story around 33 c.e. - 70 years since the Roman execution of their last King and High Priest in 37 b.c.
Messianic hopes - freedom from occupation was as alive under Roman occupation as it was, and still is, for many an Irish nationalist.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolavogue_(song)

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 4:21 pm The way philosophers of history frame the discussion is to point out that the past is dead and gone. It does not "exist" somewhere still and waiting for us to somehow uncover and see what it looked like. History is created in our imaginations with the raw materials of the sources. The way the past was can never be fully seen or grasped.
...
What interests me is not the question, "Did Jesus exist?" but the question of the origin of the gospel narratives and Christian narratives and beliefs. That's the historical question that the sources do enable us to explore to some extent.
...
The point of my question, ultimately I think, is that the question "Did Jesus exist" is not worth asking because we cannot even get to first base if we apply the standards used in other historical inquiries.
...
We have controls by means of which we can guide our discussions of Julius Caesar and Socrates along the lines of historical reconstruction. But we have no such controls for Jesus: all discussions about him can never be anything more than discussions about mythical developments. Whether there was also a historical Jesus behind any of the myth is impossible to determine and quite irrelevant to our discussions. I think you are saying something similar? or not?

My views are similar, but I am perhaps less confident about the degree of freedom with which we "construct" the past. "The past is not past," it lives on in us, etc.

I define history as a present re-telling the past, which attempts to base itself on a disciplined inquiry into and sifting of the raw materials and sources. Inevitably, the ideas and biases in the culture of the present--which are inherited from the past and modified by experience--play a large determining factor in how the story is told, what questions are deemed relevant, and so forth. There is something of the past that lives on into present, and shapes our perspective on the past.

I suspect that we inherit more of the grand narrative themes of the past than we like to admit, and this determines how both professionals and lay people perform the task of history. This is especially true when religion and sacred history is at issue. The Book of Exodus is a foundational myth in Western societies in a way that the Egyptian Book of the Dead could never be, for example. This has nothing to do with sifting evidence, debating the existence of Moses, etc., but simply of the legacy of the reception of the Pentateuch as "our" true sacred history. Along with ideas about the crucified messiah, and all the other Christian motifs, these are the grand myths with which the past holds the present in its dead clutches, constricting our vision. I would like to believe that we are all liberated and disinterested inquirers, motivated by mere curiosity about the past, but that is not so.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:26 am I have put history on the table. Historical evidence avaible re coins of Antigpnus. You have chosen to ignore it as having any relevance to the gospel Jesus story. So be it.
...
History is for those prepared to step outside the gospel story, those prepared to take up the challenge it presents to the gospel story.

Like Neil, I don't really understand what concept of history is at work here, Mary. Everyone considers Josephus and the events of his narratives to be relevant material. You seem to be proposing that the Evangelists intended to allude specifically to Antigonus II Mattathias in the Jesus story, and that the larger background of Judean nationalism going back to the Hasmoneans is what the story is "really about." However, unlike Bermejo-Rubio, you do not postulate a Historical Jesus in the time of Pilate. Is that a fair way to characterize your view, or am I missing something?

I do agree with Mary against Steve Mason that many cultures preserve resentments and agendas over long periods of time, centuries even. The example of Serbia post-Cold war comes to mind, or the motivations of Al-Qaeda that reached back to WW1 and much earlier. Mason (though I’m reading him out of context) seems to be wrong about Europeans, who have had long memories about many things.

Whether we have sufficient information about how the Roman repression of Judea was felt and remembered into the Christian era is another matter. I suspect we don’t.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 7:18 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 4:21 pm The way philosophers of history frame the discussion is to point out that the past is dead and gone. It does not "exist" somewhere still and waiting for us to somehow uncover and see what it looked like. History is created in our imaginations with the raw materials of the sources. The way the past was can never be fully seen or grasped.
...
What interests me is not the question, "Did Jesus exist?" but the question of the origin of the gospel narratives and Christian narratives and beliefs. That's the historical question that the sources do enable us to explore to some extent.
...
The point of my question, ultimately I think, is that the question "Did Jesus exist" is not worth asking because we cannot even get to first base if we apply the standards used in other historical inquiries.
...
We have controls by means of which we can guide our discussions of Julius Caesar and Socrates along the lines of historical reconstruction. But we have no such controls for Jesus: all discussions about him can never be anything more than discussions about mythical developments. Whether there was also a historical Jesus behind any of the myth is impossible to determine and quite irrelevant to our discussions. I think you are saying something similar? or not?

My views are similar, but I am perhaps less confident about the degree of freedom with which we "construct" the past. "The past is not past," it lives on in us, etc.

I define history as a present re-telling the past, which attempts to base itself on a disciplined inquiry into and sifting of the raw materials and sources. Inevitably, the ideas and biases in the culture of the present--which are inherited from the past and modified by experience--play a large determining factor in how the story is told, what questions are deemed relevant, and so forth. There is something of the past that lives on into present, and shapes our perspective on the past.

I suspect that we inherit more of the grand narrative themes of the past than we like to admit, and this determines how both professionals and lay people perform the task of history. This is especially true when religion and sacred history is at issue. The Book of Exodus is a foundational myth in Western societies in a way that the Egyptian Book of the Dead could never be, for example. This has nothing to do with sifting evidence, debating the existence of Moses, etc., but simply of the legacy of the reception of the Pentateuch as "our" true sacred history. Along with ideas about the crucified messiah, and all the other Christian motifs, these are the grand myths with which the past holds the present in its dead clutches, constricting our vision. I would like to believe that we are all liberated and disinterested inquirers, motivated by mere curiosity about the past, but that is not so.

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:26 am I have put history on the table. Historical evidence avaible re coins of Antigpnus. You have chosen to ignore it as having any relevance to the gospel Jesus story. So be it.
...
History is for those prepared to step outside the gospel story, those prepared to take up the challenge it presents to the gospel story.

Like Neil, I don't really understand what concept of history is at work here, Mary.

Everything you said above I would support.

Everyone considers Josephus and the events of his narratives to be relevant material.

I like the approach of Josephan scholar James McLaren:

You seem to be proposing that the Evangelists intended to allude specifically to Antigonus II Mattathias in the Jesus story, and that the larger background of Judean nationalism going back to the Hasmoneans is what the story is "really about."

The NT story is not only about a crucifixion - it is also about how that crucifixion, via resurrection, became a salvation story. The gospel crucifixion story is, I maintain, an allusion, a reflection, of the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews in 37 b.c. Yes, the gospel writers could have just taken any man off the street, albeit one that got himself crucified - but instead they went for an historical Roman execution. By so doing they based their story within a historical context. History had relevance to the story they wanted to tell - as has Jewish history always played a role in the stories in the OT. Dress up the stories, create a narrative - but without the historical core that's all one gets - stories, narratives. As for OT midrash being part of the gospel narrative - it's simply the padding, the 'flesh' being put on the historical bones. So, first get ones 'bones' on the table, then add the top dressing.

However, unlike Bermejo-Rubio, you do not postulate a Historical Jesus in the time of Pilate. Is that a fair way to characterize your view,

The point of referencing the article by Bermejo-Rubio was his position re a zealot type Jesus figure. An element of the gospel Jesus story that seems uncomfortable for many Christians - indicating that there is more to the gospel Jesus figure than a proponent of 'turn the other cheek'. A Zealot, an insurrectionist - labels that fit the history of Antigonus.

or am I missing something?

You got the gist of my position regarding the relevance of Hasmonean history for the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. What we have with the gospel Jesus story is Jewish writers doing what Jewish writers before them have done - remembering their past history.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:47 am I do agree with Mary against Steve Mason that many cultures preserve resentments and agendas over long periods of time, centuries even. The example of Serbia post-Cold war comes to mind, or the motivations of Al-Qaeda that reached back to WW1 and much earlier. Mason (though I’m reading him out of context) seems to be wrong about Europeans, who have had long memories about many things.

Whether we have sufficient information about how the Roman repression of Judea was felt and remembered into the Christian era is another matter. I suspect we don’t.

Sufficient information or not - common sense, knowledge of other peoples living under occupation, slavery or racism. Turning the other cheek is not a viable option when human dignity is denied.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 7:18 am I suspect that we inherit more of the grand narrative themes of the past than we like to admit, and this determines how both professionals and lay people perform the task of history. This is especially true when religion and sacred history is at issue. The Book of Exodus is a foundational myth in Western societies in a way that the Egyptian Book of the Dead could never be, for example. This has nothing to do with sifting evidence, debating the existence of Moses, etc., but simply of the legacy of the reception of the Pentateuch as "our" true sacred history. Along with ideas about the crucified messiah, and all the other Christian motifs, these are the grand myths with which the past holds the present in its dead clutches, constricting our vision. I would like to believe that we are all liberated and disinterested inquirers, motivated by mere curiosity about the past, but that is not so.

This has surely been a "problem" with the history of Judea and much of the Near East that we have inherited and was the sort of thing addressed by Edward Said in Orientalism. The hold of inherited narratives being particularly relevant in studies involving our religious heritage has been addressed in recent decades by Keith Whitelam and others who have earned themselves the description of "minimalists". Steve Mason has also attempted to break from the grand narratives of his culturally/religiously inherited past.

The Western narratives inherited from this area of history re events in ancient Palestine have all been filtered through the Bible. Even historians who do not believe the Bible have nonetheless worked with the assumptions that a fundamental core in those biblical narratives is the appropriate starting point for historical inquiry. The result has been a secular rationalization of the bible's narratives, and I think that's the kind of thing you are saying, too.

Fortunately there are historians who do challenge even the core of inherited narratives and the response all too often another "history war" of some kind.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:47 am I do agree with Mary against Steve Mason that many cultures preserve resentments and agendas over long periods of time, centuries even. The example of Serbia post-Cold war comes to mind, or the motivations of Al-Qaeda that reached back to WW1 and much earlier. Mason (though I’m reading him out of context) seems to be wrong about Europeans, who have had long memories about many things.

In defence of Steve Mason i need to say that his work clearly acknowledges historical, cross-generational ethnic tensions. Here the comparisons of Ireland and the Balkans are to some extent a justifiable comparison. What Mason does is to attempt to imagine how certain political changes that the Romans brought about changed power relations among ethnic groups and how these tensions resulted in the outbreak of violence that, combined with stupidity and incompetence of key leaders, kind of spiraled out of control.

The idea of a specific kind of "religious" anticipation across generations as a significant driver of political action has no parallel, however. When those sorts of hopes are not materialized within a lifetime rationalizations and alternative ideas set in and any significant movement morphs into something else and any political clout they might once have had is lost.

Neil, reading Dubourg's very caustic despise against the so-called "grecistes" (= anyone who thinks that the first gospel was written in Greek), I wonder if he is going to condemn to a historicist reading of the gospels all the people who assume that the first gospel was written in Greek . Hence, even a Richard Carrier or a RG Price would be crypto-historicists (!) according to Dubourg's metric.

Do you share this dichotomy ? Or is it a false dichotomy?

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:19 pm Neil, reading Dubourg's very caustic despise against the so-called "grecistes" (= anyone who thinks that the first gospel was written in Greek), I wonder if he is going to condemn to a historicist reading of the gospels all the people who assume that the first gospel was written in Greek . Hence, even a Richard Carrier or a RG Price would be crypto-historicists (!) according to Dubourg's metric.

Do you share this dichotomy ? Or is it a false dichotomy?

Ah, thanks for explaining what/who he means by that word "grecistes". I had not figured it out but you explain it here.

Yes, Dubourg lets his feelings towards "scholars" show just a little too much. I don't like that. It reminds me too much of my own past attitudes. I had a lot to learn.

I find myself resisting some of Dubourg's extreme statements and his attempt to cover everything in the NT with Hebrew originals. I certainly don't see any reason to think that a gospel composed originally in Greek should necessarily imply a "historicist" reading of Jesus. There may be stronger arguments to believe in Hebrew originals but that doesn't preclude the possibility of a Greek original being equally "midrashic" as opposed to "historical".