Reblogged from The New Oxonian:
The Jesus Process
1. Plausibility and Possibility
In a few previous posts I've talked about the weight of "plausibility" in assessing arguments for the historicity of Jesus. A few commenters have correctly said that plausibility is not evidence. That's true. No one said it was.
Plausibility is a precondition for managing the kinds of information that would be suitable for discussing a character like Jesus of Nazareth.
Chris Tilling’s “biblioblog” used to be called ‘Brainpoo’. I think it was around the time he got his PhD or wife, he changed the name…
Thanks for spreading the post Mike. Perhaps I could say ‘spreading the word’.
Hoffman is right in his first admission: all we really have from this era is not real historical information, but only educated guesses, and Plausibility. Which can only give us odds on the likelihood of this or that kind of Jesus, but no absolutely solid information.
Hoffmann is also right to show some interest in a possible oral or verbal tradition of Jesus, that might have been the source of the later gospels. However, it’s worth noting here that until he was just last week silenced by the Church, Thomas Brodie was noting some of the problems and complexities in trying to determine/deduce what any “original oral” tales about Jesus were like – if any. I’d add here that there’s lots of indications in the Bible itself that any original oral experiences with say Apostles, were unreliable.
Hoffman is right in his first admission: all we really have from this era is not real historical information, but only educated guesses, and Plausibility. Which can only give us odds on the likelihood of this or that kind of Jesus, but no absolutely solid information.
Hoffmann is also right to show some interest in a possible oral or verbal tradition of Jesus, that might have been the source of the later gospels. However, it’s worth noting here that until he was just last week silenced by the Church, Thomas Brodie was noting some of the problems and complexities in trying to determine/deduce what any “original oral” tales about Jesus were like – if any. I’d add here that there’s lots of indications in the Bible itself that any original oral experiences with say Apostles, were unreliable.
1) As I understand Thomas Brodie, he’s been asserting not only that the earliest material seems edited for the written form; but also that none of the various alleged signs of an oral origin, really hold up.
2) Corroborating this doubting of live oral origin, were some odd but repeated qualifications and hesitations about alleged live/oral “witnesses” throughout the New Testament.
If the apostles say, were the witnesses that heard Jesus live and in person? Then note that Paul warned over and over about a) “false apostles,” b) teaching “another Jesus” than the one he felt was right. The c) “reputed” pillarsor apostles in Jerusalem he adds, d) “added nothing” to his own account, which e) he said he “got from no man.” While f) his criticism of alleged witnesses like say Cephas/Paul were severe: Paul calling Peter an “insincere” hypocrite. While g) finally even Jesus himself called Peter “Satan,” in Mat. 16.23. Casting some doubt on the apostles; the alleged primary live witnesses. With any of their alleged recounting of Jesus’ live oral speeches.
Here the Bible itself suggests doubts in effect, about the accuracy of any oral reports: suggesting that the apostles specifically for example, were not reliable, good witness; of oral speeches from Jesus.
So far therefore, the major potential oral reporters are not highly spoken of, even in the Bible itself. Suggesting that oral accounts – if any – were simply, inaccurate.