Historicity of Jesus. Now serving Atwil.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Firstly, you haven't addressed the ontological implications of what I wrote at all. I entirely understand why of course, since it renders the oblique point you're trying to make at best irrelevant and at worst invalid. Secondly, you appear to have misunderstood (deliberately?) at least part of what I wrote, since my point about the relative validity of secondary sources was made solely in the context of ontologically disputing the extent to which we here and now can 'know' anything about the past we did not personally inhabit.
I will attempt to do better by actually replying to the substance of what you wrote in the hope you will eventually respond to the points I raised.
Firstly, definitions of history abound and change from era to era with whatever way the academic wind blows. If your definition of history is solely predicated on the existence of evidence, then we're into the area of debating what the meaning of evidence is. This arose earlier in the discussion and was somewhat ignored, and I touched on it myself too. The quality of historical 'evidence' from antiquity varies from reasonable to non-existent. Archaeological evidence is predicated on the interpretation of whatever contemporary knowledge and technology is available, and hence is no more or less fallible than that, and is open to clarification, correction and improvement over time. Textual evidence is always open to interpretation, self-evidently. Your whole argument is predicated upon a particularly narrow and self-serving definition of what evidence is.



If they claimed Thatcher could walk on water and raise the dead, I might find that highly unlikely. But I would not be inclined towards doubting that there had been someone called Margaret Thatcher, given so many people were moved to write about her.
What I find most curious here is the why rather than the what. What in your mind would be different if something adhering to your definition of evidence was suddenly uncovered in the Negev desert tomorrow? If the historicity of Jesus became indisputable by your own narrow requirements, what exactly would that change? To my mind, it might slightly embolden adherents of Christianity, but for those who are not believers it would amount to a curiosity, nothing more, since it would not materially affect any interpretation of the history which took place between the time of Jesus and today. (Obviously, this precludes evidence which indicated Jesus was a woman, or some similar shock element.)
In short, what do you believe is important about your assertion that there is no (by your constrictive definition) evidence for Jesus?

I haven't addresses ontological implications as that strays into the area of philosophy and is more concerned with theoretical than empirical. For the same reason I am not discussing Theology. I am neither a philosopher or a theologian, I am a historian so I am discussing the historicity of Jesus and examining statements made as to his existence and the availability of sources which prove his existence beyond doubt from that perspective. I'm afraid if you want to discuss the ontological implications you will have to seek elsewhere as philosophy gives me a headache.

We could get into a discussion about whether anyone can 'really' understand the past - or indeed can anyone 'really' understand the present as everyone's present is different. These are philosophical questions and, as I am more than willing to admit, I am no philosopher so you will have to seek elsewhere for that.
I do have many philosopher friends. One of whom was doing a cross discipline PhD who nearly came a cropper when she applied the 'rules' of philosophy to her thesis and presented it to her supervisor in a history dept. A total rewrite and a frantic crash course in empirical history was required or she would fail. No one in the history dept was interested in having a debate about ontological implications or theoretical discussions- they were interested in her producing empirical evidence for her statements, complete with lashings of footnotes and a large dollop of primary sources.

Empirical history has dominated academic history since Von Ranke set the standards in the 19th century. It has not varied from era to era- the same standards are applied across all respected academic institutions and all of those who wish to profess themselves Historians are expected to abide by the rules of empirical investigation - they may, however, differ in the methodologies they employ to gather and interrogate sources.

I have never claimed to be anything other than an empiricist historian or to be arguing from any other perspective so I fail to see why I should be called to task for not dealing with philosophical concerns.

Empiricism remains one of the most influential methods of doing history because it focuses on method. It is about accuracy with primary sources, close work that extracts the evidence and produces an account of the past as close to the evidence as possible. Many footnotes or references should be expected. The sources should be generated at the time the history work is focussing upon.

http://www.pluralist.freeuk.com/learning/history/empiricism.html

It is not 'my' definition of history as you repeatedly state - it is the most widely used and influential definition of history and, much as you seem to dislike it, it is the one I will continue to employ. As hopefully will the many thousands of history students I have taught over the years in a number of universities.

In my field I often come across things for which there are no extant sources, or only secondary sources such as The Annals of the Four Masters - in these situations I have no option but to acknowledge the gaps in the evidence and clearly state where I am conjecturing based on probabilities but without evidence to support my conjecture I cannot state anything with absolute certainty. When the sources to hand are secondary only - that is also stated and they are examined in a way which keeps this 'hearsay' in mind.

All of the sources available on Jesus himself (as opposed to Christianity) stem from the period after his death and were produced by those who either claimed he was The Messiah or were reacting to those who claimed he was the Messiah - any historian worthy of the name would find this, in itself, interesting and would immediately search for other sources which did not issue from people with a vested interest in Jesus' divinity or lack thereof. We would look at official Roman records, private correspondence, artifacts, works of art etc etc - the reality is to date nothing has been found. Therefore it is incumbent upon the historian to declare that the available sources have an investment in a particular perspective and as no independent corroboration has been found the sources must be treated with extreme caution and no definitive conclusions may be drawn until such time (if ever) as outside corroboration is found.

Were I to produce a work on 16th century Ireland using only sources from the English side I would not be creating a balanced portrayal of 16th century Ireland and would be unable to claim it was anything other than a work dealing with the English perspective as I would be producing a work that deals only with one side. This is exactly what the available sources on Jesus do - deal with one side only.
In order for me to be able to say I have produced an 'historically accurate' work on 16th century Ireland I would also need to look at the Gaelic Irish, Old English and Gallowglass perspectives and compare all of these accounts side by side.

Creating an historically accurate account is akin to making a jigsaw puzzle - would you have me ignore the fact that pieces are missing and declare the incomplete jigsaw fit for purpose? I simply will not do that. I will say this jigsaw is half the picture and until such time as we find the other pieces we can only conjecture as to what it will look like when finished.

I am sorry if you do not like the way academic history is governed, but quite frankly that is the was it is and I don't see it changing anytime soon.
More importantly, from a personal perspective - I resent your statements which imply that I am off on some personal crusade and your accusations that I am using a 'narrow and self-serving definition' for employing the rules of Historical research as defined in the 19th century are bang out of order. There really is no need for that kind of needless personalisation of the discussion.

Jernal wrote: »

I am so quoting this gif and I am so bookmarking it and saving it to harddrive.

arn't we all.

endacl wrote: »

Don't suppose there's any reference to jebus' biscuit preferences at all...?

I remember reading (no I do not have a linky - It's in a book I bought in Geneva and it's in French and I have no intention of typing/translating it cos I are on my biscuit eating holliers) that in Calvin's Geneva there was much debate about whether laughing was permitted as there are no reference in the Bible to Jesus having a chuckle.

The book makes no reference to biscuits sadly (I checked) ... shoddy work there University of Geneva - shame on you!

Must have been a dull 'official' diet there in Geneva what with no mention of garlic and the like in the Bible - 'what is for dinner Papa?', 'Bread and fish Ezekiel, my petit puritan, avec vin.' 'Oh Papa we are so lucky to 'ave this bread et fish what with us living so very far from the sea.' 'Oui, mon sanctified son, the Lord 'as provided for us his children by giving us the magnifique Lac Léman and all of these fresh water fish.' '....Papa...could I someday 'ave a mackerel with my baguette...?'

The book does go into some detail about the regular punch-ups at Christening time - as is common in many societies people had 'family' names - eldest son called after paternal grandfather/father, that kind of thing. But Calvin and the rest of the No-Chuckle brothers weren't having that. If the name wasn't in the Bible it wasn't being used in the water dribbling ceremony.
So up rocks the proud Daddy (no women as this was men only holy stuff) and declares his son is Louis like his Daddy and his Daddy's Daddy before him - only to be told he most certainly is not Louis he is... ummmm .... *opens Bible at random page, closes eyes and jabs at page* ... Adonijah ... yes. Adonijah.'

Cue Punch-Up.