The evidence has always seemed extremely indeterminate to me, one way or the other. I'm certainly not an expert, but I'd probably put my own empty tomb odds at 50/50. I wouldn't be surprised by either its historicity or its invention.
One point, though: the absence of the women from the creed in 1 Corinthians seems like it might cut the other way? If the argument is that the women in Mark are likely historical because neither Mark nor his sources would have invented them, and yet their memory was so well-established that they could not be deleted from the tale, how to account for the fact that (granting their historicity) they were deleted from the Creed? i.e, if the early Christians were fine with "cutting them out" of the creed, then why wouldn't Mark (or his sources) be fine with cutting them out of his narrative? Which suggests maybe there was some reason for their inclusion besides it being true to history.
Thank you, Arthur. Yes, it might cut both ways. Although I suppose that they were not mentioned, perhaps, because the creed had a legitimating function, and so the named figures (James and Peter... and, of course, Paul adds himself) are named because they are recognised authorities in the early Church. The emptiness of the tomb was also not in itself a terribly sound proof of Jesus' resurrection (perhaps especially if it was discovered by women), since an empty tomb can be read in multiple different ways. So I still think there is something to the argument of Carolyn Osiek.
I enjoyed this, and looking forward to the next installment.
I wasn't surprised that in your recent Unbelievable? conversation with Dale Allison and Mike Licona, they both dismissed the relevance for analyzing the stories of Jesus's resurrection, of recurring translation fables in Greek literature. However, I think there may be more insight in the work of scholars like Robyn Faith Walsh and Richard C. Miller than either of them allowed for in their quick dismissals.
Thanks, Karl. Yes, I think that Licona was quite quick to dismiss the parallels. We have them in novels (like the one I gave), but we also have them in ancient life-writing (which I think was a more fluid genre than perhaps Licona does). I appreciate, though, that the view that they were wholesale fabrications is more consistent with Walsh or Miller's view of the gospels than it is Licona or Allison's. In their view, we can derive a fairly considerable amount of historical information about Jesus – which I think is still (on the whole) closer to my position.
I was interested to hear Paula Fredriksen tell an interviewer in a recent conversation that she believes Walsh's ideas have merit. It seems many people including some scholars (including Walsh and Miller but also many from the older school of looking at the question) treat the theses of Miller and Walsh as a binary, opposing the older model of looking for historical memory. Whereas it seems to me, couldn't the reality be a blend of some degree of memory (different historians arguing for just how much ranging from very little and iffy at that, on up to quite a bit), plus some degree of legendary growth via years and decades of oral transmission, plus some degree of literary invention by the actual gospel authors . . . any and all of which may be influenced by commonplace for the time tropes such as translation fables where missing bodies, empty tombs, post-death roadside encounters and other apparitions all signify that a significant person has been "taken up," divinized, or similar? I mean, it doesn't need to be all-or-nothing, either-or when it comes to those models does it, even if when stating or arguing for one of the models (especially one so paradigm-challenging as Miller and Walsh and before them Dennis MacDonald) one may sound like they are making a more black-and-white case for one explanation for these stories over and against other explanations?
I think you’re spot on, Karl. And this is why the gospels are so easily susceptible to the both modes of analysis- the literary and historical - that I explore on BTG. I definitely think that ancient life-writing has the ability to accommodate the fluidity of both.
I’m glad to hear that and appreciate the encouragement. I think there’s room for debate - hopefully without rancor - as to just how much can historically be recovered and with how much confidence, under that combined, fluid model. I still appreciate and largely look to as starting points the work of scholars like Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman (who are alike in believing a significant amount can be reconstructed about the historical Jesus though via somewhat different methodologies) and other scholars of their generation who draw similar conclusions via similar methodologies, but as I grow more acquainted with the work of scholars like Walsh and Miller and see some of their observations appear to have merit wrt tropes and common “signals” used in these stories, I find myself moving toward the less optimistic end of the scale regarding how much of the gospels actually contain historical material beyond a very broad and fuzzy outline. And even less so with the resurrection and post-resurrection narratives where the tropes proliferate, and where even the gospels themselves are at their most divergent in terms of specific narrative details.
The evidence has always seemed extremely indeterminate to me, one way or the other. I'm certainly not an expert, but I'd probably put my own empty tomb odds at 50/50. I wouldn't be surprised by either its historicity or its invention.
One point, though: the absence of the women from the creed in 1 Corinthians seems like it might cut the other way? If the argument is that the women in Mark are likely historical because neither Mark nor his sources would have invented them, and yet their memory was so well-established that they could not be deleted from the tale, how to account for the fact that (granting their historicity) they were deleted from the Creed? i.e, if the early Christians were fine with "cutting them out" of the creed, then why wouldn't Mark (or his sources) be fine with cutting them out of his narrative? Which suggests maybe there was some reason for their inclusion besides it being true to history.
Thank you, Arthur. Yes, it might cut both ways. Although I suppose that they were not mentioned, perhaps, because the creed had a legitimating function, and so the named figures (James and Peter... and, of course, Paul adds himself) are named because they are recognised authorities in the early Church. The emptiness of the tomb was also not in itself a terribly sound proof of Jesus' resurrection (perhaps especially if it was discovered by women), since an empty tomb can be read in multiple different ways. So I still think there is something to the argument of Carolyn Osiek.
I enjoyed this, and looking forward to the next installment.
I wasn't surprised that in your recent Unbelievable? conversation with Dale Allison and Mike Licona, they both dismissed the relevance for analyzing the stories of Jesus's resurrection, of recurring translation fables in Greek literature. However, I think there may be more insight in the work of scholars like Robyn Faith Walsh and Richard C. Miller than either of them allowed for in their quick dismissals.
Thanks, Karl. Yes, I think that Licona was quite quick to dismiss the parallels. We have them in novels (like the one I gave), but we also have them in ancient life-writing (which I think was a more fluid genre than perhaps Licona does). I appreciate, though, that the view that they were wholesale fabrications is more consistent with Walsh or Miller's view of the gospels than it is Licona or Allison's. In their view, we can derive a fairly considerable amount of historical information about Jesus – which I think is still (on the whole) closer to my position.
I was interested to hear Paula Fredriksen tell an interviewer in a recent conversation that she believes Walsh's ideas have merit. It seems many people including some scholars (including Walsh and Miller but also many from the older school of looking at the question) treat the theses of Miller and Walsh as a binary, opposing the older model of looking for historical memory. Whereas it seems to me, couldn't the reality be a blend of some degree of memory (different historians arguing for just how much ranging from very little and iffy at that, on up to quite a bit), plus some degree of legendary growth via years and decades of oral transmission, plus some degree of literary invention by the actual gospel authors . . . any and all of which may be influenced by commonplace for the time tropes such as translation fables where missing bodies, empty tombs, post-death roadside encounters and other apparitions all signify that a significant person has been "taken up," divinized, or similar? I mean, it doesn't need to be all-or-nothing, either-or when it comes to those models does it, even if when stating or arguing for one of the models (especially one so paradigm-challenging as Miller and Walsh and before them Dennis MacDonald) one may sound like they are making a more black-and-white case for one explanation for these stories over and against other explanations?
I think you’re spot on, Karl. And this is why the gospels are so easily susceptible to the both modes of analysis- the literary and historical - that I explore on BTG. I definitely think that ancient life-writing has the ability to accommodate the fluidity of both.
I’m glad to hear that and appreciate the encouragement. I think there’s room for debate - hopefully without rancor - as to just how much can historically be recovered and with how much confidence, under that combined, fluid model. I still appreciate and largely look to as starting points the work of scholars like Dale Allison and Bart Ehrman (who are alike in believing a significant amount can be reconstructed about the historical Jesus though via somewhat different methodologies) and other scholars of their generation who draw similar conclusions via similar methodologies, but as I grow more acquainted with the work of scholars like Walsh and Miller and see some of their observations appear to have merit wrt tropes and common “signals” used in these stories, I find myself moving toward the less optimistic end of the scale regarding how much of the gospels actually contain historical material beyond a very broad and fuzzy outline. And even less so with the resurrection and post-resurrection narratives where the tropes proliferate, and where even the gospels themselves are at their most divergent in terms of specific narrative details.