<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Monday, November 28, 2016

DETECTIVE WORK 

I reprint here an email I recently sent to a radio show.  It is highly unlikely they will use it.  It simply repeats points I have made all along here, but perhaps I do it more succinctly in this email, so it's worth presenting:

You will probably think this is going beyond the question you asked, but the problem you identified—products that are suboptimal but are ubiquitous—is really part of a larger problem of tradition or ideology preventing us from seeing an obvious solution to something.  It happens all the time in historical studies, and in a way, history is a product that is used every day, often to ill effect.

My example concerns Judas.  His name is a synonym for traitor. We use it that way all the time. It is frequently so used to great harm. It is an understatement to say this is a suboptimal solution to the evidence we have. Almost all the evidence we have concerning Judas is ambiguous. (Only one piece is unequivocally negative which is the allegation that he stole from the poor; the Gospels do not even use the Greek word for betray to describe his action.) By ambiguous, I mean that the evidence is equally consistent with a hypothesis and the opposite, or nearly opposite, hypothesis. In Judas’s case, all the evidence is consistent both with the hypothesis that he betrayed Jesus and the hypothesis that he was an innocent man falsely accused of betraying Jesus. Actually, some of it tips ever so slightly towards the second hypothesis, none of it tips towards the first.

I won’t go through the evidence here. I will just say this: Too many scholars think that 3 pieces of ambiguous evidence may not make a good case, but 20 pieces is much better. That is false.  The more ambiguous evidence you have, the worse your case is because it is a good sign that there is no unambiguous evidence for your theory. The rational question to ask is: Why is the story of Judas told with so much ambiguity? There is a rational, optimal answer to that.

I know I have gone beyond what you asked, but history as a practical product is a huge issue.

That was the end of the email. I will just add that it is a strange sort of life, when the only people who understand what you are doing are fictional. I am referring to the detectives we see on TV cop shows. They are brilliant at understanding not only how to solve a homicide, but also at understanding how preconceptions get in the way of solving the case.  I could sit down with any of these detectives and they would immediately get what I was doing.

But doesn't that mean that the writers who created these detectives get it?  Not necessarily.  The writers are only human. I imagine that in their personal lives they don't have the single-minded devotion to truth that their creations have. Real human beings are good at using reason selectively. They might solve a crime, but be very bad at solving controversial historical problems. Emotions get in the way. Preconceptions get in the way.  People are reluctant to give up an attachment to ideas that have been around for a long time and make them feel good. Hardly anyone feels good about the pure search for truth. I am always struck at how so many people find an intellectual adventure unexciting. Life is strange. Fiction is pleasant.

© 2016 Leon Zitzer



Saturday, October 29, 2016

TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE 

You either have a deep feeling for the past and the importance of telling the truth about it, or you don’t. I can’t prove that telling the truth is a good thing to do. Plenty of people believe it is bad. Upholding tradition, even if it promotes a false picture of the past, is considered by many to be the right thing to do, the thing that society needs more than anything else.

I believe that traditions which falsify the past do more harm than good. Others believe that tradition is always good and exposing the wrong ones does more harm than good. I don’t know that either side can prove their case.

This is not about fighting for historical justice, which is a virtual impossibility. The past that happened cannot be undone (which is one reason why so many believe it should be left alone). There is no way to correct past injustices or punish the perpetrators, if it is something that happened a long time ago. The victims in history cannot be healed or made whole. It’s too late for any of that. The only correction that can be made is to put an end now to the untruthful telling of the past. That won’t change the past itself, but it will change our attitude towards it. If the only thing it accomplishes is to expose the arrogance of those who believe they have a right to tell lies, the truth about history is a good thing to pursue.

I can talk it up until I’m blue in the face, but if you do not already believe the past needs to be told the right way, none of my words will mean a thing. It’s a religious thing. Devotion to historical truth is like a religious belief. It is fundamental. It cannot be proven. You either believe in it or you don’t, but no amount of empirical evidence will convince anyone to change their beliefs about this.

Years ago when Homicide, the police detective series, was on TV, I remember an episode in which a detective who was Catholic explained that he investigates homicides because his religion teaches him to do that. The dead cannot speak for themselves, so he has a sacred duty to seek justice for them. Of course, in this case, concerning the recent dead, there is a good possibility that the culprit can be caught and punished. With long ago history, this isn’t possible. But the sacred feeling this detective had for the dead and the need he felt to find the truth about what happened still hold. You can carry these feelings for what happened long ago and far away just as much as for what happened yesterday or last year.

Take Judas, for example. I wonder what it’s like to be falsely accused of being a traitor for 2,000 years. Do the dead have feelings? No one has produced one piece of unambiguous, relevant evidence (relevant to the charge of being a traitor) to establish even a remote possibility that he was a traitor. All the evidence (except one piece) is ambiguous. What does it feel like to be condemned on practically nothing?

By the way, the Gospel authors knew exactly what they were doing in presenting all this ambiguous evidence. They weren’t trying to tell the story of a traitor. They left a trail of clues to what really happened. In the meantime, tradition changed what they recorded to make it over into a story of betrayal. I wonder not only how Judas feels about this, but how the Gospel authors feel to see their story so misused.

Forget the dead. What about the living? Does any living person feel a sense of shame that Judas stands convicted on the basis of nothing? I think that Catholic detective would be moved to take up his cause. But that detective is fiction. No one in real life cares a dollop. What happened long ago, how careful the Gospel writers were not to invent false evidence against Judas, but to record it all as ambiguous, how lies came to be told about what is in the Gospels, how scholars still distort what the Gospels say—it’s all a bad dream. We may never wake up—except in fiction.

Consider Charles Darwin. The fictional Darwin created by so many scholars is another bad dream we may never wake up from. In his published work and in letters, the real Darwin had no trouble proclaiming that the Anglo-Saxon race would triumph throughout the world and that all the lower races would be exterminated. In one letter, he added that when the lower races are all gone, humanity as a whole will rise. Yet Darwin is most often remembered as a great humanitarian. Something is wrong with our memory of the past, no?

In another letter, concerned about a friend’s trip to North Africa, he says he has no idea what the natives there are like, but he is sure they must be bloodthirsty. As a friend worried about his friend’s safety in a strange land, that is understandable. But that a scientist should say such a thing makes me shudder.

That’s one good reason to study the past: To shudder over what humanity has done to humanity. Akira Kurosawa, the Japanese film director, said that he did not want to give audiences merely something to digest, but something to make them shudder. The idea that scholars can put someone in prison for thousands of years, with no unambiguous evidence to justify it, or that they can make a racist seem like a humanitarian—it all makes me tremble. And if I’m alone in feeling that way, then so it goes.


© 2016 Leon Zitzer

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

TWO OPPOSITE WAYS THAT COME TO THE SAME THING 

Orthodox religious people (sometimes known as fundamentalists or conservatives) and atheists deserve each other. They are cut from the same cloth. Both have an inhuman approach to religious texts. Atheism is just another form of conservative religion. It is the mirror image of fundamentalism. Left is right and right is left. Atheists believe and do everything the fundamentalist believes and does, but twisted around. I will explain.

Since I am making a comparison to conservative religion, I should say that I have in mind a hard-line atheism. But just as there is a more liberal religious mentality, so too there is a more flexible kind of atheism. Most of what follows applies only to the more dogmatic type.

Conservative religious people proclaim that the Bible is the pure word of God. Of course, God himself did not put pen to parchment. Some human beings had to do it. So the orthodox religious person presents these ancient authors as pure vehicles for the word of God. When they wrote the Bible, they weren’t really human at all, but perfect instruments of God. It is a highly inhuman approach to history and the Bible. No human being ever stops being human. Even if you believe these authors were inspired by God, they could not have been perfect. Some errors would have to appear. The fundamentalist approach means that these human errors will be worshipped as divine. It is a kind of blasphemy and many religious people eagerly embrace it.

One of the most extreme versions of this kind of thinking occurred in the 19th century. Over the more than two hundred years that the King James Bible had been reprinted and reprinted, the occasional typo would occur. Some liberals wanted to correct all the typos that had crept into the text and publish the King James as first produced. But conservatives were incensed by this and put a stop to it. In their perverted view, it was a sin to admit that there were any errors in the Bible that was used in their churches. Eventually, many decades later, they lost, but they were temporary winners in their day.

The atheist just flips this and achieves a very similar, inhuman conception of the original authors of the Bible. He has this demonic idea that the ancient biblical authors were not only imperfect, but perfectly imperfect. He makes them out to be perfect liars, pure fantasists living in a totally mythical world. But no human being is that perfect a fantasizer. It is an inhuman version of humanity. Atheists have a lot of trouble seeing biblical authors as human beings who tried telling the truth, perhaps even getting much of it right. The greatest fiction of all is the atheist idea that the biblical authors fabricated everything at will.

Both atheists and religious people refuse to read religious texts carefully to see what they actually say. All the orthodox of each group want to do is impose their own theology or ideology on the text. There is in a sense no such thing as a religious fundamentalist. They are certainly not fundamentalist about what is in the text. They don’t read the Bible literally. They actually avoid that with all their might. What they are fundamentalist about is their theology. They won’t allow anything or anyone to interfere with their theological beliefs. Even the Bible cannot be allowed to interfere. Exactly the same is true for the atheist who is in this to uphold his ideology, come hell or high water. Just like the fundamentalist religious person, the atheist will not allow any reading of the evidence in the Bible to get in the way of his ideological beliefs.

The atheist completely accepts the way conservatives read the Bible, only adding “but it’s all fiction,” as if that changes anything. They never challenge what conservatives see in the text. They affirm every bit of it. Conservative theology is fine with atheists. They want to engage in battle with it and propose their anti-theology. Abandoning theology altogether is as unthinkable to the atheist as to the fundamentalist. The atheist will never accuse anyone of using theology to misread the contents of the Bible. Atheists think the charge of fiction undermines the fundamentalist reading, but it doesn’t; it only reinforces conservative dogma. Conservatives are happy with the atheist claim of fiction because they know (and they are very right about this) that it can never be proven and this leaves everyone free to believe whatever they want to believe.

If I did not know any better, I would swear that atheists and religious people had joined forces to make sure the traditional, theological reading of the Bible never changes. The myths we have, for example, of Jewish leaders persecuting Jesus and Judas betraying him continue not because of the Gospels, but because neither atheists nor religious people will allow anyone to upset things with a fresh reading of the evidence. The human approach is still considered out of bounds.

© 2016 Leon Zitzer



Sunday, August 28, 2016

SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE 

The tide I am referring to is the tide of unconscious forces. Any swimmer who has been caught in a riptide can tell you how exhausting it is to fight it. The tide always wins. That is even more true of the unconscious forces that run under every argument, under every attempt to take a fresh look at the evidence. I am not sure how much longer I can last. My strength is giving out.

I once heard a writer being interviewed, who addressed this in the most pessimistic way, though I am sure he saw it as being realistic. He apparently had not been very successful at anything until he started writing a book to teach others how to be successful. That’s America. I will never forget the first rule he laid down. If you want to reach a huge number of people, do not challenge the worldview of your audience. In fact, in general, just don’t challenge worldviews. Leave them alone. It will get you anything but success.

But if your search for truth leads down that path, what are you supposed to do? The most dedicated truth seekers are the fictional detectives you see on television. They are always getting into trouble with their supervisors, and since this is fantasy, they always survive and live to solve another case. In real life, their ass would be fired so fast. They would not last a week on the job.

There is an early episode of The Closer where Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson (Kyra Sedgwick) apologizes to her crew of detectives. She thinks she is about to be fired and worries about the effect this will have on her division. She explains that in this job, you have to make a choice between two paths. You can be political or you can conduct a pure investigation to find the truth. You cannot do both. She made her choice long ago and she is sorry if her choice ends up damaging their department. Since this is fiction, she does not lose her job and her investigations will go on.

I wish it worked that way for the historical Jesus. But this is real life, and a pure search for the truth about him inevitably leads to being fired, or remaining unpublished, or getting shot down in some way or other. Bang, bang. That’s how it goes. People have pre-formed ideas not only about the historical Jesus but about the nature of religion and whether it is even possible to find history in so-called religious texts.

Of course it’s possible. But that frightens people. It’s a challenge to the worldview of those who shove anything “religious” into the realm of myth. If you tell anyone that even “religious” documents are human documents and can be studied for historical context and content, they get upset. No, no, it can’t be, they say. Tell them that in any scientific investigation, the rational thing to do is to pay very careful attention to the evidence, don’t read your own assumptions into the evidence, and then ask what is the most rational explanation for this pattern of evidence.

Tell people anything like that and you are swimming against the tide. They will wear you out and knock you down. They will win. Just tell people that 99% of the evidence concerning Judas is ambiguous—it is not a string of negative characterizations of him—and they are flabbergasted when you say that the next question is what best explains all these ambiguities. Their worldview is that Judas is a traitor, or that the whole thing is myth-making. When I point out that this is an irrational solution of the evidence, their worldview comes back to drown me out.

A Judas betraying Jesus is a lousy theory to explain all the ambiguous evidence concerning him and Jesus. There is a much better, more rational theory. But that’s swimming against the tide, I know, and I am about to go under for the last time.

© 2016 Leon Zitzer



Friday, July 29, 2016

THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE THINKER 

Some of these distances are quite long. Consider humanitarianism. You can go all the way back to the Hebrew Bible for the idea of equality before the law. The Bible demands that there be one law for the immigrant and for the native-born. Everyone gets the protection of the same laws. We still struggle to achieve this. Not to mention the Bible’s commands not to oppress or wrong the immigrant and even to love the immigrant. Lo these many thousands of years later, hatred and fear of the immigrant is still the easiest thing to whip up.

In the first century, the Jewish-Roman historian Josephus told his readers of a due process rule that Jews follow. No one may be put to death for a crime unless he has first had a trial by the Sanhedrin. We have more or less achieved that, but we don’t always follow it and sometimes when we do, it’s not exactly a fair trial that is being followed. If we did honor due process as much as we say we do, there would not be any need for an innocence project which seeks to exonerate wrongfully convicted persons.

But we don’t have to go as far back as ancient Judaism to see how hard it is to advance humanitarian ideals. Let’s just go back to the 17th century and John Locke. Locke challenged the idea that state sovereignty is a sacrosanct idea. For Locke, the foundation of society was human rights, liberty, and equality. No claim to government power could be legitimate unless it honored and protected human rights. We claim to believe that, but state sovereignty has a powerful hold on us. We are reluctant to interfere with it, no matter how badly human rights are being violated by a state. John Locke pushed for the idea that force can never validate what is not right. It has been over three hundred years since Locke promoted his ideas and we are still catching up.

The need for human rights as well as understanding what they are was obvious hundreds, even thousands, of years ago. But fighting for human rights is a long distance race. It is not and never will be a one hundred yard dash to the finish line.

The same is true of seeking for reason in the study of any subject. Whatever academics in all fields may boast, achieving rationality is no easy matter. We are still huffing and puffing our way there, despite the noble efforts of so many who carried the torch long before we got here. Socrates was sprinting ahead more than two millennia ago. Have we taken it any further beyond his hopes and dreams? Socrates’s Bible was the Greek language, not the entire language, just key points in it, like words about the good and the bad, truth, usefulness, justice, state power, and more. He insisted we reason carefully, building up slowly from the evidence and taking small, careful steps towards a conclusion. It’s a dream that we have reached that ideal. Abandoning reason and leaping towards ideology is still the sacrosanct way to find truth for too many academics.

But let’s move up in time from Socrates. Let’s go to 9th century China. Zen Master Huang Po advised us to reject what we think, not what we see. That’s what a wise person would do, he said. The fool, on the other hand, rejects what he sees in favor of what he already thinks. This is a very simple and effective way of saying that we must not let preconceived ideology control the reasoning process. Let’s pay attention to the evidence. Who am I going to believe, Judge Marilyn Milian is always asking litigants when she studies a piece of evidence in her courtroom, you or my lying eyes? There is one consistent thread when you follow this line of thought over the centuries. How hard is it to follow Huang Po’s wise advice? Judging by the way most academics behave, it is very difficult.

When reason or the essence of human rights first dawned on some caveman eons ago, it must have come in full bloom. Once you get it, there it is in all its flowering. He must have thought this is so obvious, everybody is going to be thrilled when I tell them about respecting human rights or about reasoning from the evidence. He was in for a very rude awakening. Did he despair when people laughed at him or stared at him like he was crazy? Did he withdraw for a while before he returned to campaign for what he believed? Or was he executed? He almost certainly was ostracized.

Most important, would he be stunned to learn that thousands of years later, we are still fighting for the same simple propositions?


© 2016 Leon Zitzer

Monday, June 27, 2016

MORE TO SEE 

If I were putting up a new description of my book True Jew on the back cover, it would be this:

There is only one thing that stands between us and an accurate view of what happened in history—and that is ideology. Nowhere else is this more true than in historical Jesus studies. A Jesus surrounded by Jewish enemies is the only lens that scholars will allow to study the evidence. It has given us only confusion and contradictions and yet scholars stick with it. Their chant goes up—“The less we see, the more we know”—and one distorted lens blocks every fresh look at the evidence in the Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul. Why does Paul say that Jewish leaders found “nothing deserving death” in Jesus (Acts 13:28)? Why would the high priest use the Jewish act of persuasion (tearing his robes) and not an act of condemnation when talking with him (Mk 14:63)? Why is 99% of the evidence about Judas so ambiguous and why is he called a traitor only once in all of the Gospels (Lk 6:16)? A Jesus surrounded by Jewish enemies is not the rational answer we’ve all been holding our breaths for. A better, truly rational answer is just begging to be told.

There is not just one clue that would lead to a new vision of Jesus’s relationship with his own people, leaders, and culture. There is a whole pattern of clues. And that means that any one of them could shake you up and make you see this in a whole new light. There are so many pieces of evidence (some of which I mentioned in the last post just below this one) that could stimulate a more objective look into history, if only we were not stuck with the rigid ideology of Jesus surrounded by Jewish enemies. Scholars are reluctant to acknowledge that they have rejected every single clue that has the potential to wake them up from their doldrums. They did not turn their backs one time. They did it over and over again. One example will suffice.

Most scholars do not realize that a high priest tearing his robes was not an act of condemnation. They simply refuse to see ancient Jewish culture for what it was. They don’t want to see it because they will not allow any new information to interfere with their idea that there could only have been hostility between Jesus and Jewish leaders. But E.P. Sanders had a more clever way to get around what he saw and maintain a corrupt system of thinking.

Sanders was a rare scholar for understanding that the tearing of robes was an act of mourning used in an attempt to persuade someone that they should change their course of action. What he did not emphasize was that the dangerous action was usually something which was threatening to the Romans and thus might lead to the deaths of more Jews for whom we would all have to mourn. Despite his insight that this was about persuasion, Sanders could not let go of the idea that has bedazzled everyone: The idea that the high priest could only have been condemning Jesus.

So what did Sanders do? He convinced himself that the high priest tore his robes to persuade his fellow priests to join him in condemning Jesus. But this is completely wrong. The high priest never did this to persuade fellow counselors. Sanders just made up a false fact so he could stick to the idea of condemnation. In historical, Jewish reality, the high priest aimed his act of mourning at the person or persons he was pleading with to stop antagonizing the Romans. In this case, it was Jesus. Sanders is a perfect example of the danger that Huang Po pointed to (discussed in the post below): Fools reject what they see, so they can maintain what everyone has long thought, but a truly wise person will reject the standard thinking and let what they see guide them to a new understanding. Reject what you think, not what you see. Never let preconceived thinking lead you to reject evidence.

Agnes Arber, British botanist, once put it this way: The intellectual atmosphere of any given age is compulsive to a humiliating degree and causes scientists to abandon fresh ways of thinking (which always means fresh seeing). In no field has this been more true than in historical Jesus studies.

© 2016 Leon Zitzer



Wednesday, May 25, 2016

THE VALUE OF SEEING 

There are so many sayings that stress the importance of paying attention to the evidence and discarding any ideas that get in the way of that. Goethe once said that thinking is more interesting than knowing, but just looking is even more interesting. Paul Cézanne proclaimed that a single carrot freshly observed would set off a revolution. Negative ways of making the same point are just as powerful. Michel-Rolph Trouillot has said that too often worldview wins over the facts. You could make that ideology winning over the facts and it would be just as true. In recent years, I have become fond of my own formulation of this: The less we see, the more we know. It is the song sung by almost every academic.

But I had completely forgotten, until someone recently reminded me of this, that in my book The Ghost in the Gospels, I had quoted another ancient piece of wisdom on this. This comes from 9th century Zen Master Huang Po:  Fools reject what they see, instead of what they think, whereas the wise man rejects what he thinks, not what he sees. And that suddenly reminds me that Robert Chambers, the evolutionist who established the probability of evolutionary theory fifteen years before Darwin did, pointed out that knowledge interferes with new ideas as much as, if not more than, ignorance.

One could say that knowledge, or presumed knowledge, is the great enemy of seeing the evidence for what it is. There are so many examples of this in historical Jesus studies.

The ancient Jewish-Roman historian Josephus gave several examples of high priests ripping their robes in an attempt to plead with Jews to change their actions which might bring brutal reprisals from Rome. Tearing his mantle was an act of mourning which was used to persuade, not condemn. But instead of seeing this clearly and applying it to the Gospels where the high priest rends his garments before Jesus, scholars presumptuously think that the high priest could only have been condemning Jesus, an outrageous misinterpretation of a Jewish custom. They banish what they see in Josephus in favor of asserting preconceived thinking.

Another example of rejecting what they see concerns the appearance of Roman soldiers at Jesus’s arrest in John’s Gospel. Most scholars see this. They know the Greek term speira (at John 18:3) stands for a Roman cohort. But instead of letting their seeing guide them, they simply reassert prior thinking which tells us that this was primarily a Jewish action against Jesus. Ironically, a very few scholars (Geza Vermes was one) see the implication of this piece of evidence—the soldiers mean this was mainly or even exclusively a Roman event—and therefore reject it accordingly! They stand firmly for that proposition that no evidence can be allowed if it contradicts what everyone “knows”, that is, that it was Jewish leaders who were out to get Jesus.

For the same reason, scholars ignore what they see in Acts 13:28 where Paul acknowledges that Jewish authorities found nothing worthy of death in Jesus, that is, no death penalty. And by the way, there is no announced Jewish death penalty in the Gospels of Luke or John. But seeing all this does not trouble anyone because no amount of evidence can be allowed to interfere with what everyone thinks is the case. Jesus surrounded by Jewish enemies is the thought that rules supreme. Like Huang Po’s fools, scholars embrace it and reject what they see.

I have not even discussed here the well-known fact that the Gospel account of the meeting between Jewish leaders and Jesus does not conform to the rules of Jewish trials. There are many discrepancies between that meeting and the way a Jewish trial would have been conducted. But rather than follow what they see to the obvious conclusion (Jewish leaders did not subject Jesus to a trial or any judicial procedure), scholars keep twisting things to make it look like there could only have been a hostile procedure against Jesus. Scholarly thinking starts and stops with this preformed conclusion. The evidence is deemed irrelevant. It gets in the way of what everyone thinks.

One could carefully go through almost every other part of the Gospels and demonstrate that the scholarly drive is to get rid of any seeing that would overturn what tradition tells us to think. This applies to all the information we have about Judas, Barabbas, and Jesus’s very Jewish teachings. There is so much to see with fresh eyes. Scholars reject it all. The only thinking allowed is the preconceived kind, which if you think about it, isn’t genuine thinking at all.


© 2016 Leon Zitzer

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?