23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdbut for Orthodoxy, what is central is incarnation; which, of course, is a question that history can hardly answer
Why would crucifixion need to be a priori so central to the faith that they would have to make it up?
It wouldn’t. The problem is that we tend to read back through layers of subsequent soteriological theory (particularly protestant—I can’t speak for the RCC, but for Orthodoxy, what is central is incarnation; which, of course, is a question th ...[text shortened]... historians, are wont to distinguish between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith” ).[/b]
Not sure what you mean by "a question that history can hardly answer". The doctrine of the Incarnation is meaningless without historicity.
which is why even Christian historians, qua historians, are wont to distinguish between “the Jesus of history” and “the Christ of faith”
Some Christian historians (like the Jesus Seminar crowd) do. Most Christian historians hold that the historical evidence is not conclusive one way or another. A few that I know (e.g. Cn. John Redford) see the evidence (i.e. the epistles and the Gospels) as being conclusive.
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]Not sure what you mean by "a question that history can hardly answer". The doctrine of the Incarnation is meaningless without historicity.
[b]but for Orthodoxy, what is central is incarnation; which, of course, is a question that history can hardly answer
Not sure what you mean by "a question that history can hardly answer". The doctrine of the Incarnation is meaningless without historicity.
which is why even Christian historians, qua historians, are wont to distingu ...[text shortened]... g. Cn. John Redford) see the evidence (i.e. the epistles and the Gospels) as being conclusive.
Agreed. What I meant is that the Incarnation itself, as a supernatural event, cannot be established strictly by historical research. As one sorts out the strands of histo-myth, one has to decide—for example, whether other historical elements are sufficient to justify making the leap on that one.
[Side-note: I am answering in terms of the “doctrine of the Incarnation” per se, without the extended question of whether one could treat the whole universe as “incarnational”... 😉 ]
Most Christian historians hold that the historical evidence is not conclusive one way or another.
I don’t think that historical evidence can be conclusive on that question. I think the importance of the separation—at least initially—is that one cannot legitimately seek evidence for Jesus’ Christhood by presuming it at the get go.
John Dominic Crossan is, from my reading, the best and most thorough of the lot (though definitely in the “Hellenistic” stream). That does not mean that I think his conclusions are unchallengeable, by any means—but, in his book on the early church, he noted that none of his antagonists had challenged his methodology as a historian.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdWhat I meant is that the Incarnation itself, as a supernatural event, cannot be established strictly by historical research.
Not sure what you mean by "a question that history can hardly answer". The doctrine of the Incarnation is meaningless without historicity.
Agreed. What I meant is that the Incarnation itself, as a supernatural event, cannot be established strictly by historical research. As one sorts out the strands of histo-myth, one has to decide—for exampl ...[text shortened]... oted that none of his antagonists had challenged his methodology as a historian.[/b]
Of course. One needs a bit of philosophy as well. 🙂
I don’t think that historical evidence can be conclusive on that question. I think the importance of the separation—at least initially—is that one cannot legitimately seek evidence for Jesus’ Christhood by presuming it at the get go.
Alternatively, should one rule it out from the get go? That is what effectively happens in the work of the Jesus Seminar crowd (due to the assumptions of naturalism).
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI disagree that 1., as it is stated, is a conspiracy theory. To say that would be to render the development of most pre-writing stories and myths as conspiracy theories—I suspect that a lot of them started around a campfire.
[b]However, I wouldn’t push that “must” in the other direction either: t.w.’s three alternative scenarios (none of which require a “conspiracy theory” ) seem plausible.
1. The first one is the straight out conspiracy theory we've been talking about (albeit with a little early fuzziness).
2. The second one still leaves the question of why al ...[text shortened]... n" and concluded that the rate at which Jesus's story "mythologised" is far too rapid.[/b]
With regard to the second one, I would say for the same reasons that Buddhist legends coalesced around a single personage.
With regard to the third one—I too think it is the most plausible one, just not that it is the only plausible one.
Here, the work of Sherwin-White may be interesting; essentially he compared various versions of Greek myths over time to study the rate of "mythologisation" and concluded that the rate at which Jesus's story "mythologised" is far too rapid.
I’ve heard this argument, but haven’t yet read Sherwin-White. Thus, my counter has to be tentative, but here it is anyway: I think that the literature of historico-mythology was clearly a long and well-developed genre in Judaism at the time (perhaps like historical and biographical novels today). Therefore, the mythologisation was woven into the gospels in their composition, and didn’t need the long historical development that it might in other cultures/cases.
23 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer[/b]Alternatively, should one rule it out from the get go? That is what effectively happens in the work of the Jesus Seminar crowd (due to the assumptions of naturalism).
[b]What I meant is that the Incarnation itself, as a supernatural event, cannot be established strictly by historical research.
Of course. One needs a bit of philosophy as well. 🙂
I don’t think that historical evidence can be conclusive on that question. I think the importance of the separation—at least initially—is that one cannot le ...[text shortened]... fectively happens in the work of the Jesus Seminar crowd (due to the assumptions of naturalism).
I think that depends on whether treating it at all violates the historian’s discipline. Similarly, how can a scientist investigate alleged supernatural events without treating them as natural, in order to apply the tools of science?
I see the divide between “nature” and “supernature” as a categorical one.
The Jesus Seminar crowd (many of whom I’ve read) may assume something like “historical naturalism” for purposes of historical work—but that does not mean they are not also people of religious faith. (Marcus Borg—not writing as a historian—kept me in the church a lot longer than I would’ve been otherwise.)
You might want to read Russell Shorto’s Gospel Truth, which is a study of the whole “historical Jesus” paradigm, including but not at all limited to the Jesus Seminar folks—the critics get their licks in as well.
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI disagree that 1., as it is stated, is a conspiracy theory. To say that would be to render the development of most pre-writing stories and myths as conspiracy theories—I suspect that a lot of them started around a campfire.
I disagree that 1., as it is stated, is a conspiracy theory. To say that would be to render the development of most pre-writing stories and myths as conspiracy theories—I suspect that a lot of them started around a campfire.
With regard to the second one, I would say for the same reasons that Buddhist legends coalesced around a single personage.
With ion, and didn’t need the long historical development that it might in other cultures/cases.
If you've been following this thread, the "campfire scenario" is precisely that of a bunch of Jews sitting round a campfire and deciding to create this character called Jesus who's from Nazareth etc.
With regard to the second one, I would say for the same reasons that Buddhist legends coalesced around a single personage.
The question I raised wasn't about the mechanism of legends coalescing, but (to borrow an image from chemistry) the question of where the "seed crystal" came from and whether it can be completely fictional.
I think that the literature of historico-mythology was clearly a long and well-developed genre in Judaism at the time
What other evidence do we have of this happening in Judaism? And was it prevalent at the time of Jesus (i.e. in a highly Hellenized environment)?
The reason I say this is that nearly all of the early Christian writers take great pains to emphasise the historicity and corporeality of the Jesus story -- not merely a metaphorical vehicle.
EDIT: Besides, I don't think you can have a culture so immersed in historico-mythology that common sense doesn't prevail. If I say "There's this chap from Nazareth called Jesus who was the son of the carpenter Joseph etc." and there wasn't, then what stops a chap who's actually from Nazareth saying "No, there wasn't"?
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdI think that depends on whether treating it at all violates the historian’s discipline.
Alternatively, should one rule it out from the get go? That is what effectively happens in the work of the Jesus Seminar crowd (due to the assumptions of naturalism).
I think that depends on whether treating it at all violates the historian’s discipline. Similarly, how can a scientist investigate alleged supernatural events without treating th ...[text shortened]... luding but not at all limited to the Jesus Seminar folks—the critics get their licks in as well.[/b]
The question of whether Jesus was the Christ may violate the historian's discipline; but the question of whether Jesus really did do what the Gospels claim he did and say what the Gospels claim he said, isn't.
Similarly, how can a scientist investigate alleged supernatural events without treating them as natural, in order to apply the tools of science?
The first thing to ask would be whether the event is or can be natural. He doesn't have to presume it is (though he could use it as a working assumption).
I see the divide between “nature” and “supernature” as a categorical one.
I don't. Exceptio probum regulam -- even when they are Nature's Laws.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf you've been following this thread, the "campfire scenario" is precisely that of a bunch of Jews sitting round a campfire and deciding to create this character called Jesus who's from Nazareth etc.
[b]I disagree that 1., as it is stated, is a conspiracy theory. To say that would be to render the development of most pre-writing stories and myths as conspiracy theories—I suspect that a lot of them started around a campfire.
If you've been following this thread, the "campfire scenario" is precisely that of a bunch of Jews sitting round a c ...[text shortened]... then what stops a chap who's actually from Nazareth saying "No, there wasn't"?[/b]
So, if you and I sit down with some other folks and decide to collaborate on a novel—well, let’s say something like LOTR, but with multiple authorship—that constitutes a conspiracy? I would say it just constitutes a collaboration on a story-myth. (I do acknowledge that there are conspiracy theories re the historical Jesus; how plausible they are I can’t say, since I haven’t read any of them.)
The question I raised wasn't about the mechanism of legends coalescing, but (to borrow an image from chemistry) the question of where the "seed crystal" came from and whether it can be completely fictional.
Could Siddhartha Gautama be a fictional character?
What other evidence do we have of this happening in Judaism?
Genesis, Exodus...Judges...Samuel, Kings...Jonah, Esther... What David Ariel calls “the sacred myths of Judaism” (What Do Jews Believe?. As I say, the genre is long-standing and well-developed (unless you take that all as either history or as myth). Add in a bit of midrash...
Besides, I don't think you can have a culture so immersed in historico-mythology that common sense doesn't prevail. If I say "There's this chap from Nazareth called Jesus who was the son of the carpenter Joseph etc." and there wasn't, then what stops a chap who's actually from Nazareth saying "No, there wasn't"?
That would depend on how they understood the stories. I would say that the virgin birth defies common sense—how has the Christian culture survived with it intact? You have three choices there: (a) it is a one-time supernatural event that defies (by definition) common sense (or practical investigation), or (b) it is legitimate myth, or (c) it is a rank deceit. Personally, I go with (b); I have great respect for myth.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe first thing to ask would be whether the event is or can be natural. He doesn't have to presume it is (though he could use it as a working assumption).
[b]I think that depends on whether treating it at all violates the historian’s discipline.
The question of whether Jesus was the Christ may violate the historian's discipline; but the question of whether Jesus really did do what the Gospels claim he did and say what the Gospels claim he said, isn't.
Similarly, how can a scientist investig ...[text shortened]... al one.
I don't. Exceptio probum regulam -- even when they are Nature's Laws.[/b]
Well, he can ask if the event is potentially susceptible to scientific investigation under present levels of ability and knowledge. If it is not, he can decide that it “must” be supernatural, or that it might become accessible to scientific investigation pending further development. I would say that the first would be decidedly “unscientific.” If uncertain, he can provisionally presume it is natural in order to work on it at all.
I would say that similar reasoning would apply to historian’s investigations of alleged miracles...
You can’t admit the supernatural in order to confirm the supernatural. You can’t say, “This could only happen if it were supernatural, therefore there must be a supernatural order, therefore this event could actually happened....” There is a whole history in religions of “god of the gaps” stuff because people leapt to the supernatural explanation, simply because they didn’t have the foundations for a natural explanation at the time.
I don't. Exceptio probum regulam -- even when they are Nature's Laws.
I don’t know what that means. I’ve been lax again here: by supernatural, I mean extra-natural—not simply transcending human cognitive abilities. I have tried to be more careful lately, and use the term extra-natural.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdSo, if you and I sit down with some other folks and decide to collaborate on a novel—well, let’s say something like LOTR, but with multiple authorship—that constitutes a conspiracy?
[b]If you've been following this thread, the "campfire scenario" is precisely that of a bunch of Jews sitting round a campfire and deciding to create this character called Jesus who's from Nazareth etc.
So, if you and I sit down with some other folks and decide to collaborate on a novel—well, let’s say something like LOTR, but with multiple authorship ...[text shortened]... t is a rank deceit. Personally, I go with (b); I have great respect for myth.[/b]
If we then go out and start preaching it as real history, then yes.
Once again, I cannot emphasise enough the pains to which Paul, the writers of the other epistles and Gospels go to to emphasise the corporeality and historicity of Jesus.
Could Siddhartha Gautama be a fictional character?
Completely? Not AFAIK.
That would depend on how they understood the stories.
How would "there was this chap from Nazareth who called me to be his disciple" be interpreted such that it would be alright if there were no such chap?
Even in the present day, people accept myths and anecdotes when there is a "punch-line" or point to it that is not specific to the characters used to inhabit them. However, things are quite different with this chap Jesus -- the man was the message (in a manner of speaking).
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by vistesdIf it is not, he can decide that it “must” be supernatural, or that it might become accessible to scientific investigation pending further development. I would say that the first would be decidedly “unscientific.”
[b]The first thing to ask would be whether the event is or can be natural. He doesn't have to presume it is (though he could use it as a working assumption).
Well, he can ask if the event is potentially susceptible to scientific investigation under present levels of ability and knowledge. If it is not, he can decide that it “must” be supernatural, or ...[text shortened]... cognitive abilities. I have tried to be more careful lately, and use the term extra-natural.[/b]
Or he could decide that it could be supernatural unless it cannot (i.e. logically) be natural. It is his materialist philosophy, not the process of scientific investigation, that compels him to rule out the supernatural.
You can’t admit the supernatural in order to confirm the supernatural. You can’t say, “This could only happen if it were supernatural, therefore there must be a supernatural order, therefore this event could actually happened....”
That's not what I'm saying at all. OTOH, I am saying the opposite is equally fallacious, "This could only happen if it were supernatural. Since there is no supernatural order, therefore this event couldn't have happened..."
There is a whole history in religions of “god of the gaps” stuff because people leapt to the supernatural explanation, simply because they didn’t have the foundations for a natural explanation at the time.
I'm not advocating "leaping" to anything. If anything, I am advocating against a leap (into naturalism).
I don’t know what that means
The exception proves the rule.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIf we then go out and start preaching it as real history, then yes.
[b]So, if you and I sit down with some other folks and decide to collaborate on a novel—well, let’s say something like LOTR, but with multiple authorship—that constitutes a conspiracy?
If we then go out and start preaching it as real history, then yes.
Once again, I cannot emphasise enough the pains to which Paul, the writers of the other ep ...[text shortened]... different with this chap Jesus -- the man was the message (in a manner of speaking).[/b]
But what if others simply take it as history? The biblical literalists/historicists preach the whole thing as history (with minor exceptions).
Once again, I cannot emphasize enough the pains to which Paul, the writers of the other epistles and Gospels go to emphasise the corporeality and historicity of Jesus.
I have to acknowledge that, I think. But what Paul, at least, was not doing was some kind of modern-day protestant “Jesusology.” His Christology is generally recognized to be “higher” than that—most “high Christology” folks seem to lean heavily on Paul.
Completely? Not AFAIK.
See, I think it is possible. It depends on what developed first, a set of reformist teachings within Hinduism that might have been attributed to several folks, followed by the developmental coalescing around a single character for both mythological and pedagogical purposes... I know there are some serious scholars who think that all mythology has to go back to some historical, if long-forgotten event—but I’m not convinced.
How would "there was this chap from Nazareth who called me to be his disciple" be interpreted such that it would be alright if there were no such chap?
Again, it depends on how they read the story. Actually, as I think about it, I think your Paul references are probably the strongest—since his are probably the earliest texts, and there is cross-reference to relations between he and the Jerusalem group, although only in Acts (a later work) and Paul himself, if I recall rightly.
Even in the present day, people accept myths and anecdotes when there is a "punch-line" or point to it that is not specific to the characters used to inhabit them. However, things are quite different with this chap Jesus -- the man was the message (in a manner of speaking).
I don’t think people in the present day necessarily read myth, or treat myth, the same way their ancestors did—in fact, I think we have largely forgotten how to read myth. Is the message of Jonah less profound if Jonah never existed? Is the message of the exodus—liberation from mitzraim, the “narrow places” (translated as “Egypt” )—less compelling if it didn’t happen? Or if the historical reality was just a bunch of ragtaggle Israelites escaping bondage, a history later enlarged and mythologized?
Whether or not the man was the message, may be something theologically read into him by the first writers themselves. They were doing theological work, not just flat-out history; they were doing midrash as well. To say that their literary form deceitfully fobbed off such things as fact, is not dissimilar from claims that pseudonymous signings of early writings was flat-out fraud; they didn’t see it that way.
Are you saying that there are/can be no mythic strands in the gospels and epistles? No theological interpretation? No midrash? Any of those would seem to be an unusual claim coming from you.
My point is that the strands of myth, midrash, theological argument and history are all woven together deliberately and artfully. Even the trained scholars have difficulty in agreeing on how to sort out those strands.
BTW, can you recommend a good translation (perhaps with helpful commentary) of Theresa of Avila’s The Interior Castle?—neither of the local libraries has it.
23 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerThe exception proves the rule.
[b]If it is not, he can decide that it “must” be supernatural, or that it might become accessible to scientific investigation pending further development. I would say that the first would be decidedly “unscientific.”
Or he could decide that it could be supernatural unless it cannot (i.e. logically) be natural. It is his materiali to naturalism).
I don’t know what that means
The exception proves the rule.[/b]
🙂 No, I understood the Latin (surprisingly). I don’t understand what you mean by it with regard to a categorical difference between nature and “extra-nature.”
For the rest, “naturalism” is hardly a leap—it is where I live out my existential experience on a day-to-day basis. My naturalism allows for things in the natural order that may transcend human cognitive abilities (that is where I am working at right now in my thinking, anyway). But I think it is a categorical leap to assert the “extra-natural” in the face of mystery that may well be natural.
Mythologically, I have no problem whatsoever with that—I think it is part of our aesthetic urge in dealing with Camusian absurdity and mystery, and composing meaning (you can see the connections with my posts in the evolution thread); one might say that the architecture of our consciousness moves us in that direction. Philosophically, I do have a problem with it. In the end, it may be a matter of “best explanation,” but I do not see any natural evidence (or logical argument) that necessitates the “extra-natural.”
All this probably has something to do with why I’m a monist and not a monotheist—my task of maintaining intellectual integrity is to make sure that it’s not the other way around: that I start to “enforce” my thinking to be able to maintain a monistic viewpoint.
EDIT: Great "ping-pong" session, this; just like the "old days." 🙂
23 Oct 06
1 edit
LH is rather disingenously ignoring that there were many early Gospels that denied Jesus' divinity and/or that he even existed in a flesh and blood form. These were, of course, deemed heretical. So all LH is establishing is that the Gospels that were accepted as part of the official doctrine mirror the official doctrine, a most unimpressive bit of evidence of the historicity of Jesus.
23 Oct 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you have handy a reference to gospels that denied Jesus' divinity or flesh and blood existence? Thanks, if you do. I just don't know, but I'll go do my own research if I need to... I've read Thomas, which I don't recall denying either (but I might just have forgotten) and I may have excerpts from others, but I don't know which ones to look for...
LH is rather disingenously ignoring that there were many early Gospels that denied Jesus' divinity and/or that he even existed in a flesh and blood form. These were, of course, deemed heretical. So all LH is establishing is that the Gospels that were accepted as part of the official doctrine mirror the official doctrine, a most unimpressive bit of evidence of the historicity of Jesus.