Byron wrote:Spin's post illustrates nicely the need for a split. If a finding of the historical method is equated with "dogma,"...

The dogma is believing that one has dibs on "the historical method". This is pure jingoistic fanaticism.

Byron wrote:...there's going to be a good deal of friction between that POV and people who think it's a means of skeptical inquiry. It's absolutely spin's right to think that historiography is dogma:...

This is just more of the same fanaticism. Byron knows fuck all about historiography and has consistently shown it in the neverending thread. What he confuses with historiography is christian hermeneutics. He knows how to browse some christian academic's book, but has he read Carr or Collingwood? He knows how to use the criterion of embarrassment to fabricate conclusions such as Jesus was baptized by John, but baptism is for the remission of sins. How embarrassing. The only way to explain this is that it must have happened. You can't expect someone with this sort of logic (yes, it's basically that simple) to appreciate historiography.

The historical Jesus charade is based on eisegesis, the art of reading into a text what you want it to say. It is a literary pursuit that is unable to jump from text into the real world. As such it is a belief.

Skepticism does not appreciate belief in any form.

Incidentally, Byron has tried to own "the historical method" for a long time. It is just the sort of thing that shows the crap behind the mask.

The HJer is just as off the wall as the MJer. Giving either of them any sort of advantage is reprehensible.

Byron wrote:...but arguing that line is at cross-purposes with a debate guided by said method. As rJD says, it's like trying to debate a question of evolutionary biology alongside the efficacy of the scientific method.

This is just another attempt at owning respectability unearned: comparing the belief in a historical Jesus with "the scientific method".

Byron wrote:Zeke's suggest of a month's trial sounds a very fair testbed.

To be fair, ghettoize them both.

spin wrote:The dogma is believing that one has dibs on "the historical method". This is pure jingoistic fanaticism.

It's a common term for the discipline of historiography, within which are a variety of methodological approaches. (Richard Evans' In Defense of History is a good introduction.)

This is just more of the same fanaticism. Byron knows fuck all about historiography and has consistently shown it in the neverending thread. What he confuses with historiography is christian hermeneutics. He knows how to browse some christian academic's book, but has he read Carr or Collingwood?

Yes to both. I think there's serious flaws to Carr's approach (his selective elimination of material he disagreed with), and am closer to Geoffrey Elton, with a po-mo caveat that subjectivity can never be eliminated.

This is really off-topic for a feedback thread about splitting the HJ discussion!

The historical Jesus charade is based on eisegesis, the art of reading into a text what you want it to say. It is a literary pursuit that is unable to jump from text into the real world. As such it is a belief.

Skepticism does not appreciate belief in any form.

I'd argue that there's all kinds of beliefs held by skeptics (indeed, holding that the Moon waxes and wanes is technically a belief). This is the sort of discussion that could be had in a thread about the historical method/ Jesus' existence.

Incidentally, Byron has tried to own "the historical method" for a long time. It is just the sort of thing that shows the crap behind the mask.

I've said that Jesus-agnosticism isn't in line with academic history, which isn't really the same thing!

The HJer is just as off the wall as the MJer. Giving either of them any sort of advantage is reprehensible.

I don't see how a split would be giving either side an "advantage," rather, two threads would have different focus. I'm not looking at it in such adversarial terms.

Do you have an alternative suggestion to calm down the HJ thread?

Just to add: as it happens, I've referenced Carr in the thread without end.

spin wrote:It's not a singular countable beast. [historiography, presumably]

It's a diverse and flexible discipline, but there are certainly trends and norms.

Shame it doesn't influence Byron's crap.

Funny you should mention Collingwood: his "history of the mind" approach is at odds with history-as-fact!

What one says has no necessary connection with reality. Byron still confuses hermeneutics with historical methodology.

Which school of historiography supports Jesus-agnosticism? I guess the post modernists, but that hardly helps any of our cases!

Two shrines. Take one's beliefs to the appropriate one. It's hard to miss the baby in the shallowness of Byron's water.

You haven't got a serious suggestion? If so, why are you posting in this thread?

Byron wrote:

spin wrote:It's not a singular countable beast. [historiography, presumably]

It's a diverse and flexible discipline, but there are certainly trends and norms.

So we can drop "the historical method".

Byron wrote:

Shame it doesn't influence Byron's crap.

Funny you should mention Collingwood: his "history of the mind" approach is at odds with history-as-fact!

The odd internet trawl wouldn't even convince Byron.

Byron wrote:

What one says has no necessary connection with reality. Byron still confuses hermeneutics with historical methodology.

Which school of historiography supports Jesus-agnosticism? I guess the post modernists, but that hardly helps any of our cases!

Still pretending to have some idea about historiography. Text is text until one can show that the contents is something more. Belief in a reality behind the text is of no interest. One needs to demonstrate some.

Byron wrote:

Two shrines. Take one's beliefs to the appropriate one. It's hard to miss the baby in the shallowness of Byron's water.

You haven't got a serious suggestion? If so, why are you posting in this thread?

Besides shackles for Byron to hold him to the ground and not let his hot air carry him away, there should not be a favoritism for one whacky belief over another for any skeptic. Whether one believes in historical Jesusism or mythicism, they are just beliefs and have no place for skeptics. We've already seen that one cannot reasonably infer anything about the historical Jesus. All one can do is repackage the bible in an as appetizing form as possible, removing the offending bits and believing what's left reflects something real. There is no historical methodology in such a process.

The title is inappropriate. The discussion thus far has nothing to do whether historical methodology is valid or not. The discussion is about attempted ownership of the term the historical method™ as property of those who believe in a historical Jesus. The endeavor to convert text into reality as performed through the witchery of the HJer has little or nothing to do with historical methodology. If there were a simple notion that could be labeled the historical method™ and that reflected historical activities, it wouldn't be appropriate for what the HJer does. Asking "Is the Historical Method Valid?" isn't what this thread is about. The discussion started as an investigation of the misappropriation of a pretentious and ill-suited term as a kind of snide manipulation of reality.

So, by implication, spin is saying that there's a group of scholars who violate the historical method, many of whom claim to be historians or practicing history, and not a single historian has called them on it. It'd be like a group of young earth creationists setting up their own journals, claiming to be geologists, and going uncommented on by the scientific community.

Spin's case rests on a narrow definition of "historian" that excludes anyone whose qualifications don't feature the word "history" in the title. This falls down twice: HJ scholars hold relevant qualifications; and some HJ scholars, such as Paula Fredriksen, do have qualifications in straight history.

Actually, it falls down thrice, as impeccably-qualified historian Diarmaid MacCulloch has no problem referencing HJ works in his endnotes.

Against this, spin offers assertion. Amazingly, given the strength and confidence of his assertions, he's offered zero evidence for his claims about historiography, and historians' attitude to the historical Jesus quest.

spin wrote:The title is inappropriate. The discussion thus far has nothing to do whether historical methodology is valid or not. The discussion is about attempted ownership of the term the historical method™ as property of those who believe in a historical Jesus. The endeavor to convert text into reality as performed through the witchery of the HJer has little or nothing to do with historical methodology. If there were a simple notion that could be labeled the historical method™ and that reflected historical activities, it wouldn't be appropriate for what the HJer does. Asking "Is the Historical Method Valid?" isn't what this thread is about. The discussion started as an investigation of the misappropriation of a pretentious and ill-suited term as a kind of snide manipulation of reality.

You could show that the historical method disallows a finding in favor of the historical Jesus by producing evidence of a consensus amongst historians against it (which you haven't done), or evidence of a consensus amongst historians of a method for determining historicity that could reasonably be applied to discount HJ research (which you haven't done).

As I said before, if historiography does eliminate obscure desert preachers from the historical record, it's bad news for Peter Brown and his holy men!

Byron wrote:So, by implication, spin is saying that there's a group of scholars who violate the historical method,

There should be a "™".

Byron wrote:many of whom claim to be historians or practicing history, and not a single historian has called them on it.

It's simple enough for school students and religionists. In the real world you'll get the historical method of so-and-so, eg Herodotus or Josephus, which should give you the idea that "the (unqualified) historical method" is potted. Talking about "the historical method" is the sort of thing one discusses with high school students, as a kind of beginner's guide to historical methodology. You also get it a lot from religious scholars trying to sound serious, for example I.H. Marshall,

"In fact anybody who tries to understand the NT or to defend its historicity against sceptics by
any kind of reasonable argument is already practising the historical method." (pdf)

In grown up discussions about history you tend to get "historical method". Consider the course at CUNY called "Teaching Historical Method" convened by Professor Luther Carpenter, The Department of History. At Tennessee Technical University we get a course called "Introduction to Historical Method" convened by Dr. Patrick D. Reagan. Then again a course at Cornell called "Evidence: Ethnography and Historical Method". At the University of Auckland, "Major Problems in Historical Method" convened by Associate Professor Malcolm Campbell. "Historiography and Historical Method" at the University of Winnipeg, Department of History convened by Catherine Chatterley. And so on.

With regard to scholarly books, a 2003 Brill book by Irena Dorota Backus is called "Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1378-1615 (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions)" (*). A 2007 Brill book by Zuleika Rogers is called "Making History: Josephus and Historical Method" (*). And a 2008 (1971) CUP book by M.M. Postan is called "Fact and Relevance: Essays on Historical Method" (*). Also check out the bibliography of this Wiki page on Historical Method. (Still on the subject of books, Carlo Ginzburg has a book called "Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method", though it's not the original title: the book was written in Italian and called "Il filo e le tracce. Vero, falso, finto".)

In the real world historical method is not a single package, it's a complex of approaches. The historical method is what religious writers seem to prefer, not historians. It makes one think of a variety of the missionary method and is just as subtle.

Agrippina wrote:Is this "the historical method" as it applies to HJ only, or all historical research?

There is only one proper historical method for ancient history, and it's just as applicable equally to all figures in ancient history. If one wants to specify how/what the particular "historical method" targeted in this thread applies/applies to, it's applicable to the study of all figures in ancient history.

The irony here is that in fact it's the mythers who apply a totally different hermeneutic to the HJ materials than would be professionally applied to any --any -- other #$$#^$%# figure throughout ancient history, even as the mythers spam with constant repetitions of their kool-aid mantra that modern secular historians are applying different methods to the HJ materials than to any other ancient materials. They're only saying that because that's what their half-assed gurus have told them. To make such a fevered claim constitutes ignorance on a par with creationists (and smacks of cultism as well in the way they all parrot it).

Let the mythers instead provide a detailed in-depth analysis of the way that modern professional historians assess the documents for some other comparable thinker of the ancient world, rather than a ruler or general, and then contrast that in-depth analysis with just as in-depth an analysis of the most recent scholarship from fully accredited secular academics on the HJ materials -- both non-scriptural and scriptural. Only after that can they talk honestly of any perceived lapse in rigorous hermeneutics from modern HJ scholars. Failing such an in-depth pair of analyses and explicitly detailed contrasts, any empty bloviating about a flawed hermeneutic in the most recent HJ scholarship is fully comparable to the creationists' incessant -- and useless -- whining about the missing link.

Stein

Spin, your argument seems to be hung up on the use of a definite article. "The" historical method is simply a reference to the field of historiography. It's not claiming exclusivity for any one historical approach.

You've yet to demonstrate that there's a consensus in the historical academy that would eliminate Jesus from the historical record. As I said above, if Jesus goes, it's bad news for other ancient historians, who'd surely be defending their corner vigorously. Not only have you failed to show a consensus, you've failed even to show that there's an issue!

The "the" is endemic of a Cliff's Notes approach to historiography. Byron's reliance on christian hermeneutics should convince people that we are not dealing with history as the real world knows it. The pretense of ownership of "the historical method" merely obfuscates discussion. Just look at the silly title imposed on this thread. Nobody is complaining about good historical practice, just the potted notions purveyed by both Byron and Stein here and in the epic thread. Just look at the logorrheia good old Stein made above: "There is only one proper historical method for ancient history, [and it's just as applicable equally to all figures in ancient history.]" This is shocking. Lego-history embedded in another anti-myther rant. Who would want that in a serious thread??

The discussion has not been about eliminating Jesus from the historical record, but finding a way to include him in that record. At the moment he is stuck in tendentious tradition text (and a few later classical sources maintained by christian scribes for 1000 years). How does one get Jesus out of anonymous, undated, unprovenanced texts? Christian hermeneutics is no help.

Will one persist in ignoring the immortal words of Arthur Conan Boyle? One cannot assume that removing the naughty bits will yield good bits. Anyone who does is merely engaging in idle worship. Removing the naughty bits from the TF merely reduces the size of the unknown material. Removing the naughty bits from the gospel renders it more palatable for a modern, science-indoctrinated, audience. It says nothing substantive about what remains. Applying ridiculous criteria on what remains, such as the criterion of embarrassment, just embarrasses the applier. Applying historical methods to ascertain the existence of Jesus has not yet been done transparently. I'm strongly committed to historiography, but I do reject Lego-history. You don't construct anything real that way.

spin wrote:Applying historical methods to ascertain the existence of Jesus has not yet been done transparently.

How the fuck would you know if that's already been done, since never once have you taken a modern authoritative peer-reviewed analysis of any other thinker/philosopher of the ancient world and contrasted that with an equally detailed analysis of the most modern secular research on the HJ materials?

I shudder at the thought that creationist-style proselytizers like you will merely substitute one form of faith-based wibble for another once/if religions are no longer in the cultural mainstream. This board is on the front lines fighting for responsible scholarship in the post-religion world. What will replace it? Rigorous inquiry in which the most rigorous standards of the modern secular scholarly community will finally have the freedom to conduct its research free of harassment? Or pre-judged conclusions prodded by shameless bias and spawning new Inquisitors like you who will cow educational "institutions" into "discovering" research that fits those pre-judged conclusions? Roman Catholic Church anyone?

Stein

Spin, you still haven't specified which historiographical norms you think are broken by accepting Jesus' historicity, let alone offered evidence for your claims. This absence forms a bizarre contrast with the extreme confidence of your opinions on the matter. Such confidence must surely have some evidence to back it up?

Mustn't it?

Byron wrote:Spin, you still haven't specified which historiographical norms you think are broken by accepting Jesus' historicity, let alone offered evidence for your claims.

They don't have to, Byron. They walk on water. Don't you get it? These are the Inquisitors of the future. They are not obliged to abide by the disciplines of historiography. Historiography is not something they invented. And therefore it is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. It is not part of the brave new world in which we are obliged to bow down and lick their shit as they impose their new cultural conformity on this world once the religions consensus fades away.

Every era needs its big lie to consolidate power in the hands of the few. And trampling rough-shod over all responsible rigorous scholarship will be the way of the new power-brokers one hundred years from now. It will be a desperate struggle that has only just begun right here on this board. You think 900+ pages is startling. That struggle will be a picnic compared to the shameless fables and lies some of our braver grandchildren will be fighting against and dying trying to debunk, when once the old lies of the religion fundies fade away and these new lies take their place.

Stein

Even if that's so, spin's claimed that his position represents mainstream historiography, so by his own chosen terms, he's got some explaining to do!