yalla

I liked this bit:
"..the resurrection is a matter of faith that should not be replaced by surety because then it would not be faith."
Can someone explain that to me?
The ''should not" bit in particular.

RPS

For Christians, faith is not belief without evidence but rather belief without certainty (proof). And, if faith is a virtue, it is to be preferred that we don't have certainty (proof) since certainty would take faith out of the equation.

Ben C Smith

Some may use this criterion in a manner that assumes that there is history down there, as you put it, but in my judgment all that embarrassment (used properly; see below) can really do is show that the embarrassing situation preceded the person reporting it in the tradition; that is, he or she probably did not make it up. Therefore, in order to make embarrassment prove historicity one would have to prove that there could have been (little or) no traditional development between the reported event and the reporting of that event.

It also seems clear to me that the criterion of embarrassment, used properly, hinges completely on the reported incident being embarrassing to the reporter involved at the time of the report. I am now persuaded that the analogies with the Lord of the Rings all fail precisely because it can be demonstrated that Tolkien himself was not at all embarrassed at the failure of his characters. Indeed, their failure was part of his central point. Loren Rosson has been exemplary in demonstrating this.

Too often, in other words, we find incidents in the ancient texts and assume their historicity because they look embarrassing to us. But, unless we can show that the ancients wrote their texts with us in mind, what we would regard as embarrassing is quite irrelevant.

Let me use a modern analogy for this criterion. Imagine a public official fighting for his career immediately after a scandal involving diversion of funds that has led many to accuse him of embezzlement or fraud. We have no reason to necessarily assume that any such diversion of funds took place just because the ace reporter who broke the story, and now stands in line for a nice promotion, tells us it happened. The reporter is certainly not embarrassed by the reported event.

But what if this embattled official holds a press conference and admits that funds were diverted, but insists that the diversion was authorized? Now we can be fairly certain that the actual diversion of funds did indeed take place, because (A) there is no room for what I am calling traditional development, the official himself being directly involved, and (B) it is the diversion of funds that is causing him all the problems (that is, it is an embarrassment to him, something that he is at pains to explain).

The case would be very different if this scandal took place half a century ago and it is the grandchild of the public official who is suffering from the soiled reputation of the grandfather. Too much time for development has intervened for us to take the embarrassment of the grandchild as evidence for the diversion of funds some 50 years before. What if the reporter had invented the whole story and it stuck illegitimately?

The baptism of Jesus is an interesting ancient case because embarrassment at that event is felt in virtually every account of it... but not in what appears to be the earliest account, that of Mark.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Yes, it is just you.

Top scholars can and do reach incorrect or unreliable conclusions but, more often than not, they do a fine job of explaining the evidence.

Poor scholars consistently argue for unreliable or incorrect conclusions.

RPS

Indeed. Thus, while top scholars may take competing stands on a variety of subjects and may well be wrong any number of times, no top scholar would consistently hold views in his/her field for which there is no evidence, no strong arguments and due to underlying assumptions and agendas. Accordingly, Vork's description of the scholars as top is utterly inconsistent with his allegations about their arguments. <Cue irony meter> Indeed, since academia seems to have rejected the Jesus-myth idea utterly, it would seem that for Vork to be consistent there can be no professional top scholar until one comes around to Vork's view or one an awful lot like it. It's all so obvious when it's broken down and viewed in the appropriate layers....

RPS

I do fear that I look at things differently. A big part of the red state/blue state dichotomy here in the USA is that each side tends to demonize the other. The other side doesn't just see things differently, value things differently or weigh the evidence differently; the other side is positively evil and set on destroying the country. It's similar in this discussion and between atheists and theists (particularly Christians) more generally. Pick your side and pick your poison -- it's all about winning anyhow donchaknow. Atheists are arrogant, evil, immoral ignorers of God who want prideful justification for their licentious lifestyles. Theists are ignorant, stupid, delusional rubes projecting a sky-daddy without basis merely to mollify their fears.

Oh that it weren't so.

Merry Christmas.


Edit: word change

Amaleq13

You haven't provided an example of that. You've only provided an example of a top scholar making the error of considering the criterion of embarrassment reliable. He certainly isn't the only scholar to do so.

You seem to me to be confusing scholars who assume a historical Jesus because they rely on faulty criteria or unreliable evidence and scholars who assume a historical Jesus because it is central to their religious faith.

RPS

I fear you've missed my intended point entirely.

An academic, of whatever reputation, couldn't really be top if her/his conclusions have no evidence and no strong arguments supporting them and when s/he came to them solely due to underlying assumptions and agendas. Simply put, that can't be good (much less top) scholarship. So, basically, Vork's position (based upon his assertions) has to be that there are no decent scholars in this field.

It's natural for us to become attached to our ideas and viewpoints -- often attached to such a degree that we can't imagine any honest investigation leading to another conclusion. That allows us to puff ourselves up ("I get it after all...") and, if few agree (and especially if the alleged experts disagree -- conspiracy!), it allows us to avoid examining the possibility that the problem is with our arguments and not with those responding to our arguments.

I don't find the Jesus-myth remotely convincing. I also recognize that I'm not unbiased and am not an expert. Internet discussions and debate are fun and sometimes enlightening, but if the Jesus-myth idea has any credence whatsoever, I'm confident that it will gain support within academia -- truth will out, as we've seen with evolutionary theory, even if and when it takes a while. Indeed, in my experience the real experts tend to be the most humble before the evidence and take the most care to recognize the constant possibility for error. Things we take as given now are sure to be rejected in the future (though I suspect we'll differ over what those things are likely to be). Until then, I would suggest that it's best for Jesus-mythers to make their case calmly and dispassionately, to focus on academia and to acknowledge that those on the other side are not necessarily dolts with an axe to grind.

Amaleq13

If I missed your point, it is because your "point" is apparently a false generalization.

As I've already said, you've only presented one conclusion by a "top scholar" that is arguably based on an unreliable criterion. This does not require, suggest, or imply that all his conclusions (note the plural) "have no evidence and no strong arguments supporting them and when s/he came to them solely due to underlying assumptions and agendas". It suggests that all his conclusions based on a criterion of embarrasment should be questioned.

This is a single conclusion of his that appears to have an unreliable basis but your assertion requires that we consider all of his conclusions to be similarly flawed. That is simply faulty reasoning on your part.

You are ignoring the fact that most, if not all, of the "top scholars" also ignore the problem with the criterion of embarrassment. That they tend to share this particular error in reasoning does not alter the fact that they are considered leaders in their field.

No. Michael's position is that these men should be recognized as "top scholars" in their field despite the fact that many of them sometimes rely upon entirely subjective and unreliable criteria.

None of this appears to be relevant to either the OP or your baseless criticism of Michael's recognition of the reputations of the scholars involved..

This is also irrelevant to the OP but the subsequent paragraph reveals what I suspected. You are simply trying to continue the previous argument of the other thread despite the fact that it is utterly irrelevant to this OP.

There simply is no contradiction between Michael's position here and his stated argument there.

Vorkosigan

What an odd position. I guess I would have to assume that there are no top geologists until the mid-1960s when plate tectonics came out, since the "moving continents" crowd was right. Vork's position is far more complex than "there are no decent scholars in this field." It is that the field is shaped by the religious positions of its scholars.

RPS, you're welcome to visit my methodology page on my Commentary, and comment on where I've gone wrong.

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMark/GMark_method.html

At the moment, it is the most comprehensive methodology yet laid out for cracking the gospels. If you have something substantive to say, by all means say it. I post here almost every day and people respond to my arguments all the time. I'd be happy to have you join the conversation, but it appears that you do not have anything meaningful to say other than the usual appeals to authority and complaints.

I'm not that confident, for "academia" in this case is 95% composed of Christians.

I never said that they were dolts, RPS. I have maintained that they have an ax to grind -- how could they not, since most of them are Christians? Is it your claim that the faith-status of the scholars is unrelated to their methodologies?

Vorkosigan