The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul E.
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 4:52 am

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Paul E. »

Ben:

Thanks for the response. I generally agree with the sources you quoted and think they show a decent grasp of some of the differences. In some ways, I actually think legal reasoning might be helpful in history, understanding things like e.g. the standards of proof, concern for individual rights, etc., are going to be vastly different. I think how legal investigators and lawyers gather and analyze evidence and how burdens are allocated (regardless of the standard of proof applied to a burden) are a couple of examples where the history profession might learn from the legal profession (and likely vice versa). For example, if ancient historians applied a legal version of the hearsay rule there would be no ancient history, but the legal hearsay rule has many exceptions, and they tend to be based on applying criteria to the hearsay to determine its reliability. Some of those concepts (along with others) could translate at least conceptually, I think. It is pretty problematic, though, considering the jargon and specific definitions applied. Legal definitions tend to be quite precise, and are easily misunderstood by laypeople.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 4:39 pmThe standard model that I understand to be dominating the field is that Christianity had a beginning point with the apostles who went out preaching and converting the world, with subgroups breaking off in various factions along the way, either as a result of outside or inside challenges
Then you misunderstand the standard model.

The standard model does not state that. It states there was no center for Christianity. Christianity evolved from multiple points in the Diaspora by different communities that independently described what theology was valuable to them.

If you follow the apologetic opinion, not the scholarly opinion, then yes the 12 spread the message. That is not historical.

We know the Hellenist used the 12 names as authority building tools in their text to sell the theology. The only real followers that have historicity are the inner circle.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Neil,
Not even contemporary independent corroboration is foolproof. But it is a higher standard than relying upon religious texts written twenty, forty or more years after the narrative setting.
The authors of texts written twenty, forty after the narrative setting would have had the opportunity to hear from eyewitnesses.
Religious text are less foolproof than others, but that does not mean there are devoid of valid historical information.
That is where we differ, Bernard. My point about the textual Jesus is that we cannot go beyond that. That little diagram of McGrath's graphically declaring that the historian needs to go beyond the texts is flawed.
Texts can describe factual reality or complete fiction, or anything in between. They are not necessarily a barrier preventing a historical inquiry beyond the texts.
What is the textual Jesus? Well it depends where you look. He can be a humble human poor Jew who got crucified as Christ in the near past relative to Paul's times, or that Divine heavenly savior in Paul' times or a phenomenal human or half human (but also Son of God) with divine power whose last year(s) were under Pilate's rule but before Paul's times. Add the idea of incarnation from pre-existence as a heavenly being, and other items (many contradictory) as read in the NT and other Christian texts. A complete mess with many conflicts! which would beg to be sorted out, something you won't do. Probably you'll conclude that the textual Jesus is so much a complicated mess that no historical Jesus can be drawn from these texts.
It is what sets biblical studies "historians" apart from historians in other fields. If historians of Julius Caesar studied "the historical Julius Caesar" in the sources the same way biblical scholars studied the historical Jesus in the sources they'd be considered crazy.
I agree that many, if not all "historians" (that would include Bart Ehrman) are using assumptions and little methodology in studies mostly driven by opinion.

Cordially, Bernard.
Last edited by Bernard Muller on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

Paul E. wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:38 am, if ancient historians applied a legal version of the hearsay rule there would be no ancient history
Not true.

You should study hearsay rules then. You are incorrect here.

Hearsay rule #1 "there is always a exception that can be applied"

hearsay rule #2 see rule #1.

The typical rule granted is "excited utterance" as an often used exception.

So aspects surrounding crucifixion would and can be used as exceptions in a court of law using said exception. Many people have been convicted on hearsay. The main problem is not hearsay, its not having an actual witness to the event for hearsay to even be applied.
Last edited by outhouse on Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:01 amReligious text are less foolproof than others, but that does not mean there are devoid of valid historical information.



Cordially, Bernard.

The NT factually contains historicity, it is called a historical text because it was written in a recent time period to those who recorded what was valuable to them

Christianity is called a “historical” religion because they ground their story in the manifestation of their God in time.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by neilgodfrey »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:03 am But when the evidence gets thin, some norms counsel adjusting confidence in the conclusions, not limiting or restricting the range of admissible questions. Each individual or group decides for themself what questions they personally work on, but the menu from which they choose is defined solely by what is well-posed.
Note I wrote above:
(As for questions such as "Did Nero murder his mother" I don't see any problem with historians saying "probably" or "it was believed" or "evidence that has survived indicates that" etc.
The same qualifiers are used in modern histories when the evidence is less than conclusive.

Where there is doubt the historian points out that there is doubt. The historian does not misrepresent the strength of the evidence if they are professional.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:42 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 7:35 pm
Ben C. Smith wrote: Fri Sep 15, 2017 6:54 pmTo be perfectly frank, I find your writing to be confusing at times,
Me, too, sometimes when I return and read something I wrote. I do tend to rush my comments here way too much. It's better probably to return to taking breaks from the scene rather than be too slap-dash.
There may be something to this, since I find your articles on Vridar to be very clear and informative.
Of course conversations can be long trails and later comments may be dashed off with the awareness of the author that certain basic references had earlier been covered with the other party.

I guess I do tend not to keep in mind that others might be reading, too. I suspect the conversation is of little interest to anyone but the person I am engaging with and that certain details have already been covered.
Ben C. Smith wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:42 amThe rest of what you wrote I am still considering. I definitely sympathize with your critique of what you call criteriology, though I think a lot of what have been called criteria can serve a purpose (not necessarily the purpose to which many biblical scholars put them). I may or may not get back to you on that. Thanks again for clarifying.
The "beneath the text" problem I alluded to here builds on posts such as http://vridar.org/2014/01/05/gospels-as ... verything/
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by neilgodfrey »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:01 am to Neil,
Not even contemporary independent corroboration is foolproof. But it is a higher standard than relying upon religious texts written twenty, forty or more years after the narrative setting.
The authors of texts written twenty, forty after the narrative setting would have had the opportunity to hear from eyewitnesses.
No historian I have ever read outside biblical studies, as far as I can recall, has ever mounted such an "argument" to justify the value of sources they use. This is a truly astonishing fallacy and failure of sound method that is only taken seriously by a good number of biblical scholars and no other historians of whom I am aware.

One but only one of the authors also had the opportunity to talk to Alexander and Rufus; they all had the opportunity to have a chat with Josephus; they all heard Peter or Paul preaching first hand; they all knew someone who had witnessed a miracle by Jesus; they all spoke to someone who had been a first hand witness at the miracle of Pentecost; they all heard people still talking about the thousands of pigs that charged into the lake.

I still shake my head in disbelief that anyone could take a word of Bauckham's eyewitness book with the slightest degree of seriousness. Can anyone really imagine anything comparable being written in any other history department? Seriously?
Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:01 amReligious text are less foolproof than others, but that does not mean there are devoid of valid historical information.
Quite right, Bernard. I even find "valid historical information" in the comedies of Aristophanes and the satires of Juvenal and the poetry of Ovid.
Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:01 am
That is where we differ, Bernard. My point about the textual Jesus is that we cannot go beyond that. That little diagram of McGrath's graphically declaring that the historian needs to go beyond the texts is flawed.
......
What is the textual Jesus? ..... Probably you'll conclude that the textual Jesus is so much a complicated mess that no historical Jesus can be drawn from these texts.
On the contrary, Bernard. The textual Jesus is very plain and there for all to see and read.
Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 9:01 am
It is what sets biblical studies "historians" apart from historians in other fields. If historians of Julius Caesar studied "the historical Julius Caesar" in the sources the same way biblical scholars studied the historical Jesus in the sources they'd be considered crazy.
I agree that many, if not all "historians" (that would include Bart Ehrman) are using assumptions and little methodology in studies mostly driven by opinion.
It is not hard to imagine that any historian who tried the "they would have had access to eyewitnesses" line in other fields of study would be laughed out of the academy as crazy.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by neilgodfrey »

outhouse wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:58 am Christianity evolved from multiple points in the Diaspora by different communities that independently described what theology was valuable to them.
As usual, WC, you fail to read what I write and jump off half-cocked thinking I must have said something else. Please tell me how those multiple points in the diaspora came to independently become "Christian"? Did they all just get their own revelations from angels from heaven? Or did someone tell them about Jesus in the very first place, either by word of mouth or letter? Where did that someone come from -- Or where did someone else come from, ultimately, to tell them about Jesus?

Or were they really all just sitting in their own isolated independent communities and all decided to come up completely independently with the idea that there must have been a Jesus who was crucified under Pilate .... ? (Or... or did they hear from someone who came from Jerusalem or who knew someone from Jerusalem at that time.... ???)

(Do kindly note: I never mentioned the scenario of "12 apostles" going out and preaching from Jerusalem. That's what you said I said. But do re-read what I actually wrote!)
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: The best case for Jesus's historicity: Mark Craig

Post by outhouse »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Sep 16, 2017 12:48 pmOr did someone tell them about Jesus in the very first place
While the temple still stood, hundreds of thousands of Hellenist in the Diaspora, made the trip to the temple and Passover celebrations, where they shared this form of Judaism. Each year they would add theology and mythology to the. The temple is where much was shared and learned, but the communities in the Diaspora is where they practiced their form of Judaism.

The Galilean was martyred after the crucifixion by Hellenist who found this theology appealing. What was Hellenistic Judaism was absorbed by Christianity within a few hundred years. The temple while standing was a magnet for Hellenist converting to the one god concept.

One could worship the "son of god" the corrupt politician the Emperor, OR one could worship the man who paid the ultimate sacrifice as "son of god"
Post Reply