It seems that a book Dr. Keith and I edited/wrote has been cited in service to a clickbait agenda.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/evidence-for-jesus-is-weaker-than-you-might-think/
Tarico and Fitzgerald have clearly not read the book in question.
-anthony
Clickbait agenda???? It is nothing more than a normal and courteous online link to the reference they make -- You can get more sales with it. I think "clickbait agenda" is "misrepresentation"? Don't you? And do explain how they "misrepresented" it with their actual comment and context? Why not try to be civil and honest in your exchanges with your lay critics. You might get more respect.
ReplyDeleteNeil, the misrepresentation comes in the portrayal of our volume as contributing to the point that historians know very little about Jesus. Not a single person in that entire book argues that we cannot quest after the historical Jesus or that we cannot know anything about the historical Jesus. The book addresses the more limited concept of "authenticity" and the criteria that are used to find it. Almost every contributor to that book has written a book arguing some aspect of something we do know about the historical Jesus.
DeleteChris, if you don't already know Neil is a Jesus myther and is mostly looking for a fight with you.
DeleteChris, the article at no point implies that the authors deny the historicity of Jesus. What the article says is exactly what you here say your book addresses -- the problem of establishing authenticity through traditional criteria.
DeleteYour reply expresses fears that the article never itself suggests and I can't imagine anyone seriously inferring: e.g. that gullible readers might think NT scholars themselves don't believe we can do research on the HJ.
It is standard practice to engage with works of scholars to draw conclusions at variance from the viewpoints and intentions of the original works: otherwise nothing new could ever be written on the basis of previous work. Can there seriously be any controversy over the view that criteria have failed to produce very much at all that can be known about Jesus?
It appears that the real offence is that Tarico and Fitzgerald have indeed engaged with HJ scholarship and drawn the "ideologically wrong" conclusions.
What I find disappointing most of all, though, is that an opportunity for serious engagement with the actual words/claims of the article and resulting enhanced public understanding was passed up in preference for another form of "misrepresentation". Clickbait? Never read the book?
Anthony, I can't speak for Valerie, but I certainly have read and enjoyed (and frequently recommend) your & Chris' book. As you rightly point out, it addresses the more limited concept of "authenticity" and the criteria that are used to find it. Which is exactly what the article you claimed misrepresented your book said:
Delete"This scholastic mess has been an open secret in biblical history circles for decades. Over forty years ago, professors like Robin S. Barbour and Cambridge’s Morna Hooker were complaining about the naïve assumptions underlying the criteria biblical scholars used to gauge the “authentic” elements of the Jesus stories. Today, even Christian historians complain the problem is no better; most recently Anthony Le Donne and Chris Keith in the 2012 book Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity."
-D
Neil, I am afraid of many things, particularly big snakes and big fish, but my response was not one of fear. I'd also be very willing to guess that you have no idea what my ideological commitments are, so let's not make assumptions there. As I wrote above and below here, the problem is that the book addresses the more narrow topic of "authenticity." I suppose we are agreed that this is a problematic category. But this observation in and of itself does not support (or reject) whether scholars can know anything about Jesus. It only addresses whether that one way of knowing works.
DeleteOh God. Fitzgerald? I guess we're seeing the mythicist campaign continue on with misrepresenting for the sake of ideology.
ReplyDeleteThe point was not that historians as a whole know very little about Jesus, but that different historians have different views about what we "know". The key quote is "Instead of a convergent view of early Christianity and its founder, we are faced instead with a cacophony of conflicting opinions." Does your book lend support to that statement or refute it?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't address it one way or another. It's focused specifically on the more narrow issue of the concept of "authenticity."
DeleteFrom Dr. G:
ReplyDeleteI guess it's a matter of emphasises or perspective. If scholars doubt the historicity of about 90% of Jesus, and accept 10%, I guess you could say the glass is 90% empty. Or 10% full. But with the score at 95 to 5, many are saying the game is over. And are walking away from the game.
The fastest growing group, regarding religious beliefs, is the "none" group.
From Dr. G:
ReplyDeleteOut of say, every 100 sayings, words, actions attributed to Jesus in the New Testament, scholars accept the historicity of maybe 5%.
Some assert say, the bare existence of a Jesus. As perhaps a sage, or apocalyptic teacher. Some insist the crucifixion was real. But nearly all the sayings are very highly contested as to their historicity.
Some would suggest with nearly all the details contested, perhaps even the core is not reliable either.
Where are you getting these percentages? As someone who is professionally engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus, they are not accurate for "scholars" in general.
DeleteFrom Dr. G:
DeleteIt would be interesting to see a formal survey.
I suppose we could say though, just from a casual look, that nearly every single individual element of Jesus' life, has been seriously challenged at least a few times, somewhere in the serious literature. Many are widely challenged.
But in specific? It's been noted that those looking into the historicity question especially, have been favoring a "minimal" Jesus.
How minimal precisely? That's an interestung question.
"It's been noted that those looking into the historicity question especially, have been favoring a 'minimal' Jesus."
DeleteNoted by whom?
That's from a remembered blog conversation a few years ago, with a "Webb" that I was under the impression was the editor of the JSHJ.
DeleteSimilarly, Dunn in his book on membering Jesus, notes only two elements of Jesus's life about which there is "near universal" consensus.
Those are two somewhat relevant references that come to mind quickly, offhand.
Keeping in mind your objections, over the next few days I'll spend some time looking to some firmer bibliographical references. Especially from the JSHJ particularly.
Quickly? I'd ask Le Donne if if he remembers an editorial or two by James Webb to this effect.
In the meantime I'll defer to your own impression.
Correction: Robert Webb, and assorted typos
DeleteThanks for the response. But to be clear, saying that there's only consensus on a few things is different from saying that "scholars" in general doubt 90% of the Gospels. If that's what Dunn said, and I have no doubt that it is, he's noting that much is debated, not that nearly everyone is certain that 90% of it didn't happen.
DeleteFrom Dr. G: Well, fortunately I didn't say that almost "everyone" is certain. To say that "scholars doubt" 90%-95% of Jesus is open to the reading that some but not all or even most do.
DeleteThe Dunn statement seems to be from page 339, remembering Jesus. Dunn to be sure seems bullish on HJ. But I'm calling on him as a hostile witness. Even he seems to note only two qualities with, as he says, near universal assent: Jesus's baptism and crucifixion.
And it seems the Jesus Seminar eventually noted few to none.
The lack of "universal" consensus seems to me to be significant, especially in an historical inquiry.
For that matter of course? Any questioning of the Criteria might suggest problems in even very accepting scholarly work.
Anthony, I can't speak for Valerie, but I have certainly read and enjoyed ( and frequently recommend) your & Chris' book. As you rightfully said, it addresses the more limited concept of "authenticity" and the criteria that are used to find it. Which is exactly what we said in the article:
ReplyDelete"This scholastic mess has been an open secret in biblical history circles for decades. Over forty years ago, professors like Robin S. Barbour and Cambridge’s Morna Hooker were complaining about the naïve assumptions underlying the criteria biblical scholars used to gauge the “authentic” elements of the Jesus stories. Today, even Christian historians complain the problem is no better; most recently Anthony Le Donne and Chris Keith in the 2012 book Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity."
David, thanks for this response and your kind words about the book. As for myself, the part that troubles me is the transition from the earlier discussion to "This scholastic mess..." I would liked to have seen it made more clearly that our book is not really about whether we can know anything about Jesus. It's about whether one particular way of knowing it works. You're right that we think (well, at least I and several others think) that the criteria of authenticity don't work at all. But that conclusion wouldn't support what's earlier in the article and later on its own. Such are my two cents.
Delete