For those who defend Fox News

[DaShi]

But the crux of the problem is that there isn't any "Jesus beyond the gospel."

And some scholars believe that to be exactly the case. That Jesus only exists in the Bible and no where else. To them, any serious study of Jesus as a historical person would indeed seem silly.

[Elok]

Yes, I know.

[Berzerker]

Far from being a pacifist, Jesus for Mr Aslan was the leader of a nationalist revolt against Rome who was punished for sedition, not blasphemy. In other words, Jesus meant it when he said “I have not come to bring peace, but the sword,”

I interpret that to mean his message would cause strife, he also said this strife would exist within families

is there any scholarship on that?

whereas sayings like “My kingdom is not of this world” may well have been made up. As for the commandment to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”, that is a statement of theocratic resistance to Roman rule. It is amazing, in Mr Aslan’s condescending view, that so many people have failed to see this.

Hmm...I figured it was Jesus avoiding a trap and sparing his followers the inevitable result of a tax revolt

[DaShi]

But the crux of the problem is that there isn't any "Jesus beyond the gospel." He goes essentially unmentioned otherwise. This puts scholars in the schizophrenic position of undermining the accounts they're ostensibly relying on: "Well, these parts are obvious hogwash, but these other parts we'll take deadly serious and subject to the most intense textual analysis we're capable of. We'll note textual discrepancies big and small, speculate endlessly on the exact dates of various events, and argue over differences between manuscripts of the same text. And, since even the non-supernatural parts have been pored over a hundred thousand times by religious people over the past two milennia (because some of our most complete records are portions of the most exhaustively studied book in Western history), we'll exaggerate or distort portions of them to create a person not apparent in the actual texts for the sake of saying something original."

I suppose I don't object to the process itself so much as the excessive seriousness with which it's taken. Jesus, whoever he was, lived two thousand years ago. The only significant records are religious documents from varying traditions at odds with each other, copied with dubious accuracy over many centuries, and none written within the lifetime of the man in question. You can make guesses--endless guesses--about how that man might have looked and acted. But in the end, that's all they are: guesses. And they need to be treated as such.

Today I read Tolkien's assessment of the Sigurd/Gudrun myth cycle. It's in many respects a similar sort of problem, only easier because there are reliable, fairly unbiased accounts of the historical events it seems to be based on (and they happened about five centuries after Christ). Tolkien had some very interesting ideas about them, and probably many of them were accurate. But it would be absurd to publish "Nibelung: a history of the Burgundians of Worms" based on his speculation, or anyone else's. Everyone recognizes that it's all shots in the dark at this point. Nor do we expect "the historical Trojan War" or "the historical Arthur." There's none of that humility when it comes to Jesus.

EDIT: Okay, I should be fair: there is some of that humility when it comes to Jesus, in the form of more serious scholars who make less sweeping claims than Aslan's. With a few exceptions--Ehrman, for example--they tend not to get interviews on the TV news.

You're still not making a strong claim against historical study of Jesus. As I tried to point out, it only works, if Jesus is a fictional character. However, you are trying to have it both ways. You want Jesus to be a real figure, but one who can't be studied outside of theology. So, in an attempt to preserve the sanctity of Jesus you are trying to cloak it in something more "reasonable." Thus, you use derision of those who try to study Jesus historically ("puts scholars in the schizophrenic position", "I...object to...the excessive seriousness"). Yet, you'll pardon those that study Jesus with humility ("there is some of that humility when it comes to Jesus, in the form of more serious scholars"). It's clearly a protective instinct for something that you believe strongly and hold dear. And I can accept the feeling that Jesus is sacred to Christians and historical studies can be threatening, but don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Jesus is hardly unique for historical analysis, and a quick wiki search shows that there is serious scholarship regarding the historical Jesus. And scholars will continue to debate and make judgments about what kind of person Jesus is. But they aren't wild guesses. Scholarship requires defense. It requires proposing a theory, such as Aslan has, and letting the community evaluate whether it is reasonable or not. There may be many things that we will never know for certain, but that doesn't mean that they aren't worth exploring or that there isn't serious thought regarding them.

[Sava]

Elok is BK-lite. It's best to ignore the things he says.

[Elok]

DaShi, do you have any actual arguments, or just circumstantial ad hominems towards someone you've never actually met? Scholars in the liberal arts take a lot of things seriously which should not be taken seriously. Most of lit crit, for example, is a ludicrous waste of time and money--an excuse for cranks to bang on about their pet ideologies in the guise of "examining Swift from a Marxist/feminist/postcolonial POV." As a form of professional courtesy, nobody in the field (even the ones who do real scholarship) ever calls them on it. But I've read the journals, you can't tell me that "some scholars say X and other scholars haven't shot them down yet, therefore X."

Also, because any shooting-down that does occur happens in professional journals read by almost nobody, a jackass with an axe to grind can come out with a silly book making unsupportable claims, make the rounds of talk shows, possibly stir up some controversy en route and (whether his peers support him or not) get a ton of sales. As Aslan did here.

Oh, and if I meant "humility" to indicate "does not mess with any sacred cows whatever," I wouldn't have mentioned Bart "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman.

[Elok]

Now, I don't think the bulk of historians are anywhere near as bad as the bulk of literary critics--lit crit is the smelly, unwashed cloaca of the academic world. But nor do I believe peer review works anywhere near as well for history as it does for the sciences. It can't. History (in general) is more grounded in fact than the arts, but most of their theories, however strong, remain ultimately unproveable in the absence of a time machine. And peer review is very nearly irrelevant when we're talking about books intended for the general public; if you're flogging your book on Fox News by touting credentials you don't have, it's safe to say you're not aiming for the critical/academic crowd.

EDIT: Crikey, I just realized it's the Dormition Fast. See you in a couple of weeks.

[The Mad Monk]

I have never encountered the Dormition Fast in either the Presbyterian or Dutch Reformed traditions. Thank you for introducing me to something new.

[Ben Kenobi]

History (in general) is more grounded in fact than the arts, but most of their theories, however strong, remain ultimately unproveable in the absence of a time machine

Aristotle's principle unfortunately hinders advancement of history to a fully empirical model. As it is, we rely upon the evidence that we do possess which are primary sources where extant. The sources available determine what history teaches, and trump speculation.

[Tuberski]

A Catholic nun gets what Fawkes News couldn't:



ACK!

[DaShi]

DaShi, do you have any actual arguments, or just circumstantial ad hominems towards someone you've never actually met? Scholars in the liberal arts take a lot of things seriously which should not be taken seriously. Most of lit crit, for example, is a ludicrous waste of time and money--an excuse for cranks to bang on about their pet ideologies in the guise of "examining Swift from a Marxist/feminist/postcolonial POV." As a form of professional courtesy, nobody in the field (even the ones who do real scholarship) ever calls them on it. But I've read the journals, you can't tell me that "some scholars say X and other scholars haven't shot them down yet, therefore X."

Also, because any shooting-down that does occur happens in professional journals read by almost nobody, a jackass with an axe to grind can come out with a silly book making unsupportable claims, make the rounds of talk shows, possibly stir up some controversy en route and (whether his peers support him or not) get a ton of sales. As Aslan did here.

Oh, and if I meant "humility" to indicate "does not mess with any sacred cows whatever," I wouldn't have mentioned Bart "Misquoting Jesus" Ehrman.

Yes, my argument is that yours is BS, which I've successfully done if you can no longer defend it but instead attack me (despite your inappropriate use of the term ad hominem, I kept my discussion solely to the argument you presented. You made this personal, for some reason which is totally obvious). But I don't blame you from such as weak position as "Jesus is unknowable." That was disproven ages ago and is a high school level argument at best. I'm sorry if you are infatuated with them, but I can't deny what I see. That you think professional courtesy prevents people from calling others on their bull**** only demonstrates how out of touch you are. Professional courtesy is actually a rare thing in competitive academia. Critics certainly haven't been silent about Aslan out of professional courtesy.

As for the humility part. Your posts stands as it is. The only one you are trying to convince now is yourself. You clearly said that there are two types of historians of Jesus, the humble and the rest. Ehrman isn't a get out of jail free card. That you tried to use him that way only further supports my point that you want Jesus to be spared historical analysis because he's "special." Nice that you ignored all the evidence that he's not, but what more should I expect at this point?

What I find strange, is that you criticize literary criticism while not being very good at it yourself. A critic must be educated in the topic he/she is criticizing, in order to have legitimacy (yes, there is.. The rest are all posers and easily spotted (however much they wish that wasn't the laughable case). Yes, there is a lot of BS literary criticism (like those who criticize an author without even reading his book), but there is good criticism too. I'm sorry you can't distinguish them. To me they are plain as day. But you always get like this when someone criticizes one of your pet theories that come from... Where do these come from anyway?

[DaShi]

Now, I don't think the bulk of historians are anywhere near as bad as the bulk of literary critics--lit crit is the smelly, unwashed cloaca of the academic world. But nor do I believe peer review works anywhere near as well for history as it does for the sciences. It can't. History (in general) is more grounded in fact than the arts, but most of their theories, however strong, remain ultimately unproveable in the absence of a time machine. And peer review is very nearly irrelevant when we're talking about books intended for the general public; if you're flogging your book on Fox News by touting credentials you don't have, it's safe to say you're not aiming for the critical/academic crowd.

Of course, you don't. You're not educated (sorry, but true ). You will say things like: "History (in general) is more grounded in fact" then follow it with "most of their theories, however strong, remain ultimately unproveable in the absence of a time machine." If you think this is clever reasoning, I seriously ask you to reevaluate your intelligence. That is the very definition of undermining your own argument. I suggest you evaluate your ideas before you present them.

I'll add, that I haven't even brought up Aslan's credentials because they are irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but if you feel you need to score points somewhere, please go ahead. If his credentials make you feel better about yourself, then do what you need to get by. Who cares about the general public, when your entire argument is that the whole field of history is flawed? Seriously? Am I supposed to just forget what you previously wrote?

And I'm the one who's drunk!

Really drunk!

[DaShi]

Aristotle's principle unfortunately hinders advancement of history to a fully empirical model. As it is, we rely upon the evidence that we do possess which are primary sources where extant. The sources available determine what history teaches, and trump speculation.

Most history is speculation, but it is reasoned speculation. That doesn't stop people from disagreeing. An argument, no matter how logical, can still have its detractors. The U.S. has an entire political party that based on arguments that are unreasonable and unrealistic, yet they get ton of air time.

Hell, I don't agree with Aslan, but I'll defend his right to say it!

[DaShi]

Elok is BK-lite. It's best to ignore the things he says.

Until his absolutely inane response to my previous post, I would have disagreed. I wish he really knew what he was talking about than how he thinks it is. A little bit of knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

[DaShi]

Guess I'm back on the ol' ignore list. Whatever. I guess I deserve it for committing the cardinal sin of disagreeing with nonsense.