Dissimilarity principle

[pelagius]

This is really a question for CHC, Solon, and Jeff Lebowski. The other day I read a blog entry by April DeConick about form criticism and the historical Jesus. She seems to be very negative about the principle of Dissimilarity. Is there a movement to not use this principle or is this pretty idiosyncratic? Here is what she said:

Form critics seem to have realized this and so ventured to put into use the dissimilarity principle (and the principle of coherence) in order to determine which of the sayings were authentic and which represented the voice of the church. Jesus material is eliminated if there are parallels in early Judaism or early Christianity.

Of course this leads to a serious distortion of any historical Jesus recovered. And it is a way that the difficult apocalyptic materials have been removed from Jesus' mouth, even generating the argument that they are later additions made by the early Christians to the non-apocalyptic message of Jesus. Circular reasoning at its height.

What we end up with is a Jesus that doesn't look anything like anyone around him!

In my opinion, the application of this principle has been theologically-motivated from the start, and in some cases bordering on anti-Semitic. It allows the interpreter to control Jesus to the point that Jesus becomes a man against Judaism and other Jews around him, a man who has no self-consciousness as a Prophet or Messiah, and a man who is unlike all other first-century Jews. Jesus is unique.

This principle can tell us nothing about the historical Jesus, in fact it outright distorts him beyond recognition. It is a principle that we should never have applied in the way we have done. And it is time for it to go.

You can find the full post here: http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com...criticism.html

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

This is really a question for CHC and Solon. The other day I read a blog entry by April DeConick about form criticism and the historical Jesus. She seems to be very negative about the principle of Dissimilarity. Is there a movement to not use this principle or is this pretty idiosyncratic? Here is what she said:



You can find the full post here: http://forbiddengospels.blogspot.com...criticism.html

Two important points:

1- Her criticism of the application of dissimilarity that she mentions specifically is a good and fair one. Most historians proper of early Christianity do not use dissimilarity to get rid of the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. If anything, they use dissimilarity to AFFIRM them. Not all do, though. The folks she is criticising have it backwards IMO.

2- Now for where she goes overboard: Dissimilarity IS an important tool for historians, especially reconstructing the life of Jesus, who wrote nothing about himself. Since we are at the mercy of much later theologically motivated tracts about the life of Jesus, dissimilarity is crucial but limited. Here's how:

The criterion of dissimilarity as a historians' tool seeks to identify true sayings of Jesus and facts about Jesus based on their dissimilarity with the views of the biographer. For example, the datum about Jesus being from Nazareth is certainly true since it cuts against the grain of prophecies about Jerusalem that were applied to Jesus in the time of the writings about him. If an author were to have made anything up, it would have been Jesus being born and raised in Jerusalem. An example of a true saying would have been when Jesus talks about the imminent coming of the Son of Man in the third person, as if it refers to someone other than himself (later Christians of course believed that Jesus WAS the Son of Man-had they made up the saying it would have been Jesus clearly talking about himself).

The limitations of this criterion involve the fact that it can only deal with what is *dissimilar* about the traditions. It can't, for example tell you whether a saying that would have fit the context of 75AD goes all the way back to Jesus. Such a tradition/saying might in fact go back, but obviously dissimilarity is of no help to determine that. In these cases you hope that the traditions are attested in other independent witnesses, or have contextual historical credibility that ties the tradition to reality. Bart Ehrman's NT textbook has a couple of nice sections that deal with the criteria historians use for dealing with such difficult ancient material.

Hope that helps.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Two important points:

1- Her criticism of the application of dissimilarity that she mentions specifically is a good and fair one. Most historians proper of early Christianity do not use dissimilarity to get rid of the apocalyptic sayings of Jesus. If anything, they use dissimilarity to AFFIRM them. Not all do, though. The folks she is criticising have it backwards IMO.

Thanks CHC, that is very helpful. I remembered reading Ehrman's, "Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium," a few years ago where he argued very strongly that the historical Jesus was apocalyptic (clearly so since it is in the title). He also relied on dissimilarity in the way you described. So her post left me a little confused. Who has been arguing for a non-apocalyptic Jesus? Is it guys like, Crossan?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by pelagius

This is really a question for CHC and Solon.

What? You think the rest of us are too stupid to understand the question?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

What? You think the rest of us are too stupid to understand the question?

I edited my post to more accurately stratify according to my true feelings.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Thanks CHC, that is very helpful. I remembered reading Ehrman's, "Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium," a few years ago where he argued very strongly that the historical Jesus was apocalyptic (clearly so since it is in the title). He also relied on dissimilarity in the way you described. So her post left me a little confused. Who has been arguing for a non-apocalyptic Jesus? Is it guys like, Crossan?

Exactly. Crossan and others see him as more of a cynic philosopher. Problem is, IMO this view doesn't account for Jesus death, and doesn't do Justice to the literary trend that shows Jesus in less and less an apocalyptic light as time goes on. IOW, Christians slowly deapocalypticized Jesus, for good reason of course. Extrapolation of the trend (after all Mark still retains a surprising glimpse at an apocalyptic Jesus, even though it probably dated to ca 70) back to Jesus suggest a fully apocalyptic teacher, somewhat in the mold of John the Baptist.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

Exactly. Crossan and others see him as more of a cynic philosopher. Problem is, IMO this view doesn't account for Jesus death, and doesn't do Justice to the literary trend that shows Jesus in less and less an apocalyptic light as time goes on. IOW, Christians slowly deapocalypticized Jesus, for good reason of course. Extrapolation of the trend (after all Mark still retains a surprising glimpse at an apocalyptic Jesus, even though it probably dated to ca 70) back to Jesus suggest a fully apocalyptic teacher, somewhat in the mold of John the Baptist.

So, I am guessing you are not a fan of, "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant?" More generally, do you have some suggestions for me (the interested but clear biblical studies amateur) for the historical Jesus literature?

I read, in my own amateur way, a fair amount of biblical studies stuff including most of Ehrman's popular stuff and his textbook, a lot of reading from commentaries like the Word Biblical Commentary, Oxford Bible Commentary, New Jerome Bible Commentary, Anchor Bible Dictionary, Harper-Collins Bible Commentary, etc. I even read Metzger's, The Canon of the New Testament. However, the only books of I have read that specifically address the historical Jesus at length are Ehrman's textbook and Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

So, I am guessing you are not a fan of, "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant?" More generally, do you have some suggestions for me (the interested but clear biblical studies amateur) for the historical Jesus literature?

I read, in my own amateur way, a fair amount of biblical studies stuff including most of Ehrman's popular stuff and his textbook, a lot of reading from commentaries like the Word Biblical Commentary, Oxford Bible Commentary, New Jerome Bible Commentary, Anchor Bible Dictionary, Harper-Collins Bible Commentary, etc. I even read Metzger's, The Canon of the New Testament. However, the only books of I have read that specifically address the historical Jesus at length are Ehrman's textbook and Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium.

I'm glad you asked. If you want to go into it deeply, I'd recommend John P. Meier's _A Marginal Jew_, a three volume set subtitled "rethinking the historical Jesus". It is great because it is recent and does an excellent job of reviewing Jesus scholarship (a survery like this is great for someone just getting into it) and coming to its own tentative conclusions at the same time. It is the best scholarly stuff I've ever read about the historical Jesus. And for the record, like Ehrman, I belong to the Jesus as Apocalyptic prophet school. Not just because of being his student, but because I think this view is closest to being right.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

I'm glad you asked. If you want to go into it deeply, I'd recommend John P. Meier's _A Marginal Jew_, a three volume set subtitled "rethinking the historical Jesus". It is great because it is recent and does an excellent job of reviewing Jesus scholarship (a survery like this is great for someone just getting into it) and coming to its own tentative conclusions at the same time. It is the best scholarly stuff I've ever read about the historical Jesus. And for the record, like Ehrman, I belong to the Jesus as Apocalyptic prophet school. Not just because of being his student, but because I think this view is closest to being right.

Thanks CHC, and as luck would have it, the library has all three volumes.