Reading Robert M. Price "Deconstructing Jesus"

[_Kishkumen]

In fact, I think for the most part his methodology consistently applied would necessarily lead to large swaths of ancient history being nullified, which I don't think is warranted.

As someone who teaches ancient history for a living, I accept the possibility that numerous events have been either misrepresented or fabricated out of whole cloth. I don't have any problem with that, because I know that ancient authors and readers did not have the same standards and expectations regarding the reportage of past events that we do.

[_lulu]

In fact, I think for the most part his methodology consistently applied would necessarily lead to large swaths of ancient history being nullified, which I don't think is warranted.

As someone who teaches ancient history for a living, I accept the possibility that numerous events have been either misrepresented or fabricated out of whole cloth. I don't have any problem with that, because I know that ancient authors and readers did not have the same standards and expectations regarding the reportage of past events that we do.

Well, right. But I want to make sure I understand what AS is saying. Because if he is saying what we both seem to think he's saying, that's really backward reasoning.

You can't dismiss a methodology because you think you won't like the result.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Well, right. But I want to make sure I understand what AS is saying. Because if he is saying what we both seem to think he's saying, that's really backward reasoning.

You can't dismiss a methodology because you think you won't like the result.

No, you can't dismiss it solely because you get results you don't like. However, I think everyone acknowledges that a methodology doesn't march itself down from Sinai written on stone tablets, nor does it fall from the sky custom wrapped in ziploc bags ready for use. Methodologies tend to be mixtures of common sense, logical reasoning, and gut feelings. And yes, the results they produce can be "gut checked" to see if the methodology was reasonable.

The read I get from Price is that his criteria for admitting something as a piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus is simply way too high. At times, his methodology is almost like a conspiracy theory in its ability to dismiss what I consider to be hard evidence for a historical Jesus. At other times it's a long digression into parallelomania attempting to discount a historical Jesus based on cultural and religious parallels of 1st century CE.

And here is where my concerns about ancient history comes into play. I ask myself, "What if Price's methodology were consistently applied to ancient history as a whole?" I think you would be left with little to no ancient history at all. On a gut level this seems wrong to me. So, knowing that, I revisit Price's methodology and conclude that parallelomania shouldn't be as conclusive as he wants to make it and that one can't expect absolutely pristine sources for ancient history. Doing this allows one to say something about ancient history (gut check passes now), but it also makes Price's conclusions fall apart like a house of cards.

There is no a priori infallible historical methodology. Price is skeptical about historical data, and we moderns really like to be skeptical. As pattern recognizing machines, our brains are very easily convinced by parallelomania claims. So, if we just focus on the methodology (ignoring results), I think Price's methodology has a tendency to be more convincing than it should be. By focusing on what I think are wrong results, it refocuses the debate back on why the methodology doesn't work.

That's the long winded explanation of why I said, "In fact, I think for the most part his methodology consistently applied would necessarily lead to large swaths of ancient history being nullified, which I don't think is warranted."

[Guest]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. No methodology is not the "New Revelation." But I get nervous at the "gut checked" part.

If the academia came to a consensus that Socrates was not a historical figure, would that be such a tragedy?

I don't think either "side" on the historical Jesus issue argues its case that well.

Well, right. But I want to make sure I understand what AS is saying. Because if he is saying what we both seem to think he's saying, that's really backward reasoning.

You can't dismiss a methodology because you think you won't like the result.

No, you can't dismiss it solely because you get results you don't like. However, I think everyone acknowledges that a methodology doesn't march itself down from Sinai written on stone tablets, nor does it fall from the sky custom wrapped in ziploc bags ready for use. Methodologies tend to be mixtures of common sense, logical reasoning, and gut feelings. And yes, the results they produce can be "gut checked" to see if the methodology was reasonable.

The read I get from Price is that his criteria for admitting something as a piece of evidence for the existence of Jesus is simply way too high. At times, his methodology is almost like a conspiracy theory in its ability to dismiss what I consider to be hard evidence for a historical Jesus. At other times it's a long digression into parallelomania attempting to discount a historical Jesus based on cultural and religious parallels of 1st century CE.

And here is where my concerns about ancient history comes into play. I ask myself, "What if Price's methodology were consistently applied to ancient history as a whole?" I think you would be left with little to no ancient history at all. On a gut level this seems wrong to me. So, knowing that, I revisit Price's methodology and conclude that parallelomania shouldn't be as conclusive as he wants to make it and that one can't expect absolutely pristine sources for ancient history. Doing this allows one to say something about ancient history (gut check passes now), but it also makes Price's conclusions fall apart like a house of cards.

There is no a priori infallible historical methodology. Price is skeptical about historical data, and we moderns really like to be skeptical. As pattern recognizing machines, our brains are very easily convinced by parallelomania claims. So, if we just focus on the methodology (ignoring results), I think Price's methodology has a tendency to be more convincing than it should be. By focusing on what I think are wrong results, it refocuses the debate back on why the methodology doesn't work.

That's the long winded explanation of why I said, "In fact, I think for the most part his methodology consistently applied would necessarily lead to large swaths of ancient history being nullified, which I don't think is warranted."

[_Aristotle Smith]

But I get nervous at the "gut checked" part.

Maybe this will help. I reserve "gut check" to apply to the large picture. If I apply a methodology and I don't like some of the details, the gut check doesn't apply. That's why with Price I have to look at the larger picture of the ancient world in its entirety. If my only complaint with Price was that I didn't like his conclusions about Jesus, but I still thought the picture of the ancient world it gave was reasonable, that would NOT be a reason to dismiss the methodology. Gut check doesn't mean I get to dismiss theories because I quibble over the details.

As an example of this, my view of the historical Jesus gives me details I don't like. But, there are no larger picture issues that it affects, so tough cookies for me, I have to live with the details I have a hard time dealing with. My view is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who predicted the imminent end of the world concurrent with the inbreaking of the kingdom of God. The trouble of course is that the world didn't end and the kingdom of God isn't here. This is not something I can escape from because my gut tells me I don't like it.

[_Kishkumen]

At times, his methodology is almost like a conspiracy theory in its ability to dismiss what I consider to be hard evidence for a historical Jesus.

What do you consider "hard evidence" for the existence of Jesus?

At other times it's a long digression into parallelomania attempting to discount a historical Jesus based on cultural and religious parallels of 1st century CE.

I don't think that this is a strong basis upon which to reject a historical Jesus. If it were, lots of historical figures who are otherwise well attested might be rejected. That said, those figures do have much more in the way of real "hard evidence" to back up their existence. And by hard evidence, I mean texts written by these men, coins minted with their images and names, inscriptions bearing their names, and those on monuments they built, etc.

So which of those things do we possess for Jesus?

Does the historical existence of Nebuchadnezzar lend great weight to the historicity of the figure of Daniel in the way that Pontius Pilate or Tiberius does for Jesus?

Just how does one know which sayings of Jesus are authentic?

Do we have any real firsthand accounts of Jesus, as we possess for figures like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Augustus?

I would say that the closest thing we have to reliable evidence of the existence of Jesus is to be found in the epistles of Paul, and that ain't sayin' a whole lot.

It is, however, enough for me to accept the existence of a historical Jesus. I remain, however, very uncertain about the historical reliability of all accounts of his life, including the smidgens provided by Paul.

"In fact, I think for the most part his methodology consistently applied would necessarily lead to large swaths of ancient history being nullified, which I don't think is warranted."

I'll have to give this some thought, but I tend not to agree. My sense of ancient history, defined as an accurate account of real events in the past, would not be much poorer without the Gospels. The Gospels are not really very illuminating of any events of immediate historical consequence. The events of the Jewish world in the first century that have some real reverberation in the empire are the rebellions under Caligula, Nero/Vespasian, and Trajan/Hadrian. Jesus has nothing to do with any of that, and his life has little or no detectable impact of those events.

Christianity, in its early decades, is only really significant for two minor things--human torches for Nero's garden party and the possible, but dubious, Christianity of Flavius Clemens (Oh, and I think Suetonius mentions a disturbance by followers of Chrestus under Claudius). And that's about it until the late second century, when the cult really begins to pick up steam. For this reason, many historians of Christianity are more subtly taking a view closer to Price's. Whereas Price simply dates Christian texts to the second century, these scholars think of the significance of the texts as a collection as really emerging in the second century as part of the genesis of proto-Orthodoxy.

That last bit is the real historical impact of the entire New Testament. Without the development of proto-Orthodoxy and the eventual emergence of the canon, which is important for understanding a single important strand of the Christian story, there is little to give the texts of the New Testament as they are conceived now any special significance in the first century. The texts in the canon float around with numerous other texts that don't make the cut for one particular powerful sect of Christianity.

Knowing that, I am simply not at all impressed with the historical evidence for the life of Jesus. At best, I would say that he lived. Thanks to Paul, his life had enduring mythological significance of the kind we are familiar with. But a lot of "hard evidence for the existence of Jesus" there simply is not. In fact, there is hardly any at all.

[_lulu]

Ehrman relies, in part, on an Aramaic pre-gospel oral tradition. But then he doesn't say exactly what it is or how its existance is established.

Does anyone here know any more about this angle?

[_Kishkumen]

Ehrman relies, in part, on an Aramaic pre-gospel oral tradition. But then he doesn't say exactly what it is or how its existance is established.

Does anyone here know any more about this angle?

Well, I think it would be the existence of Aramaicisms in the language of the Gospels, something along the lines of, but certainly more reliable than, the discussion of Hebraicisms in the Book of Mormon. And, of course, Aramaic actually appears in the Gospels.

But, what is the real significance of that? Aramaic was very widely used in the East at the time. It is possible that the first Gospel was written in Antioch. So, would anyone contend that an Antiochian person could not have known Aramaic?

(Something like a French text written in St. Petersburg, but placed by some in Paris?)

Admittedly, I don't know the argument, but this seems fairly weak on its face.

In the end, however, I still agree with Ehrman in concluding that there was a historical Jesus.

[_Aristotle Smith]

I'll have to give this some thought, but I tend not to agree. My sense of ancient history, defined as an accurate account of real events in the past, would not be much poorer without the Gospels. The Gospels are not really very illuminating of any events of immediate historical consequence. The events of the Jewish world in the first century that have some real reverberation in the empire are the rebellions under Caligula, Nero/Vespasian, and Trajan/Hadrian. Jesus has nothing to do with any of that, and his life has little or no detectable impact of those events.

Christianity, in its early decades, is only really significant for two minor things--human torches for Nero's garden party and the possible, but dubious, Christianity of Flavius Clemens (Oh, and I think Suetonius mentions a disturbance by followers of Chrestus under Claudius). And that's about it until the late second century, when the cult really begins to pick up steam. For this reason, many historians of Christianity are more subtly taking a view closer to Price's. Whereas Price simply dates Christian texts to the second century, these scholars think of the significance of the texts as a collection as really emerging in the second century as part of the genesis of proto-Orthodoxy.

That last bit is the real historical impact of the entire New Testament. Without the development of proto-Orthodoxy and the eventual emergence of the canon, which is important for understanding a single important strand of the Christian story, there is little to give the texts of the New Testament as they are conceived now any special significance in the first century. The texts in the canon float around with numerous other texts that don't make the cut for one particular powerful sect of Christianity.

I am not focusing on the results of Price but on his methodology when I speak of applying it to the larger ancient world. Of course you could delete the entire Jesus movement and the history of the 1st century CE is not affected in the slightest. Of course the effects of Christianity upon the larger world are only felt later on. But that's not my point.

Again, my point is methodological. If you apply Price's methods to the sources of the ancient world you end up with not much left in the way of sources, and in that sense you lose ancient history. It's lost because Price's methods leave you with no sources, not because removing Christianity leaves 1st century CE inexplicable.

As for sources, I would put Josephus and Paul as solid sources for the existence of Jesus. The lengths Price goes to discount them are simply too drastic in my opinion. Those drastic measures applied to other ancient sources would leave most of the sources for ancient history in tatters and unusable. Plus, I think Mark and Q are close enough to Jesus (20-35 years) to provide good sources for his sayings and deeds. Yes, they had an agenda, so they have to be read carefully. But it's not like most other sources for ancient history don't also have an agenda that has to be accounted for. We all wish ancient writers were objective historians, but they were not.

What do you consider "hard evidence" for the existence of Jesus?

Paul and Josephus. As a poor Galilean, there simply aren't going to be coins or monumental architecture.

So which of those things do we possess for Jesus?

None, for the reasons stated above.

Does the historical existence of Nebuchadnezzar lend great weight to the historicity of the figure of Daniel in the way that Pontius Pilate or Tiberius does for Jesus?

Nebuchadnezzar does not lend weight to the historicity of Daniel, nor does Pilate and Tiberias for Jesus. Pilate and Tiberius do provide us with a context for understanding Jesus.

Just how does one know which sayings of Jesus are authentic?

A careful reading of Mark and Q, supplemented with M, L, and John. Corroboration by Thomas also carries some weight.

Do we have any real firsthand accounts of Jesus, as we possess for figures like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Augustus?

No. We do have information provided by Paul, Mark, and Q. All of these sources as as contemporaneous to Jesus as was Herodotus to the Persian Wars. Not that Herodotus is some kind of gold standard, but I do think it's reasonable to conclude that he is a reasonable source for information about the Persian Wars.

[_lulu]

Ehrman relies, in part, on an Aramaic pre-gospel oral tradition. But then he doesn't say exactly what it is or how its existance is established.

Does anyone here know any more about this angle?

Well, I think it would be the existence of Aramaicisms in the language of the Gospels, something along the lines of, but certainly more reliable than, the discussion of Hebraicisms in the Book of Mormon. And, of course, Aramaic actually appears in the Gospels.

But, what is the real significance of that? Aramaic was very widely used in the East at the time. It is possible that the first Gospel was written in Antioch. So, would anyone contend that an Antiochian person could not have known Aramaic?

(Something like a French text written in St. Petersburg, but placed by some in Paris?)

Admittedly, I don't know the argument, but this seems fairly weak on its face.

In the end, however, I still agree with Ehrman in concluding that there was a historical Jesus.

I think what he is trying to do is to push back the date of the "story." If gospel y was written in the year x, and it has a basis in an pre-existing oral tradition, then the "story" existed before x.

But as to what you say about Aramaicisms, he doesn't flesh out his oral tradition argument well. I don't know if there is underlying scholarly literature that I, well, don't know about. Doesn't really say much about how long before X, a year, a decade?

And I have to think more about how convincing an argument that is in dating Jesus to c 33.

He uses Aramaicism for another argument, that against those who say that Christianity was created totally in the city of Rome.