Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Quote:

I'll keep coming back to the Argument to the Best Explanation. Is that something you would agree with, by the way? I don't want to use it if you don't share agreement with it.

The "best explanation" means squat as far as I'm concerned if there are other equally plausible explanations to be had.

However, and let me be clear on this, the story is a myth. We know that. People don't get born of a virgin impregnated by a god. People don't turn water into wine, heal blindness, leprosy, paralysis or raise people from the dead. People don't walk on water, resurrect from the dead, magically appear and vanish in locked rooms or float off into the sky. These are the elements of a myth.

The way I approach a myth is to assume that everything about it is fictional unless there is good reason to believe otherwise. Yes there were Jews. Yes there was Rome, crucifixions, Pontius Pilate, Samaritans, John the Baptist and other effects from the story. Even if there was Nazareth and other obscure details later confirmed to be actual it still doesn't mean the story is of any real historical value. To me the better explanation of those sorts of details is that one of the originators of the oral traditions that led up to the homologated myth came from the village of Nazareth and gave his homies some love in the storyline. Simple, elegant and it perfectly satisfies where these details came from.

In other words I'm consistent. I treat the stories of "Jesus the Magic Jew" the same way I treat the stories of "Moroni the Magic Messenger to Joseph Smith". It didn't really happen.

Thanks, Atheos. I am often concerned that my opponents in the Jesus debates want to have it many ways at the same time. They use New Testament evidence to support a particular theory, but they may turn around in a different argument and claim that New Testament evidence counts for jack. They may make historical conclusions, and they talk as though historical conclusions can never be had. And I can almost never discern their preferred historical methodologies. It can be a very frustrating experience, but I must maintain humility, civility and patience throughout.

You say, "The 'best explanation' means squat as far as I'm concerned if there are other equally plausible explanations to be had."

OK, so what if I can somehow show that one explanation about Nazareth is much more plausible than competing explanations? Is that something that you may accept? Would you accept ABE as a means to that end? I ask, because there are some people who are so skeptical that they can never be convinced of almost any historical conclusion, and they may even acknowledge that and take it as a good thing. I need to know where you stand on historical methodology.

For example, what if I were to tell you that your speculated explanation for Nazareth in the New Testament, which you may have just pulled out of the air but no matter, makes no plausible sense, and I can explain why. Many opponents would start off by believing that I reject it only because I have a historicist presupposition--that seems to be their first instinct, that I always assume my historicist conclusions. But, actually, I can point to many passages within the Christian gospels where Nazareth is slandered; therefore, it is extremely unlikely that "the homologated myth came from the village of Nazareth and gave his homies some love in the storyline." Is that the sort of argumentation that you would accept?

aa5874 · 06-18-2010, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Does he mention a census that required everyone to go back to the home of their ancestors?

Details. . .

Quote:

A papyrus from Egypt dated 104 CE requiring people to return to their homes for a census has sometimes been cited as evidence of a requirement to travel;[83] however, this refers only to migrant workers returning to their family home, not their ancestral home.[84] However, Raymond E. Brown suggested that “One cannot rule out the possibility that, since Romans often adapted their administration to local circumstances, a census conducted in Judea would respect the strong attachment of Jewish tribal and ancestral relationships.”[85]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

So, once Nazareth was HOME for Mary and Joseph then they should have stayed HOME for the census.

And to show they had no ANCESTRAL HOME in Jerusalem, Jesus was born in a CAVE.

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... I am encouraged that you at least imply that some historical knowledge can be inferred from this, though you seem to rest on much more ambiguity and much less inferred knowledge than I would.

No, I don't. I don't know when it was written or who wrote it. I only know that it does not support your historical theory.

Does that not count as some knowledge? Do you not also infer that "someone predicted the coming of the Lord"? Does that not count? I am scrapping for straws, for conclusions that you would infer from the text. I know that there must be some to be found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Would you draw any connection in doctrine or tradition between 2 Peter 3:3-8 and Mark 9:1 (or Mark 13:30)? Are they referring to the same prophecy? Or is that also too uncertain? I draw a connection based on a principle called, "consilience," which is a principle typically applied in science, but it has equal applicability in the study of history. What do you think?

That's not consilience. Consilience involves separate and independent lines of evidence that lead to the same conclusion. All we know is that some documents of an uncertain date speak of predictions of the parousia, or the coming of Christ. We don't know who predicted this - a figure comparable to Jesus, or some of his followers.

OK, here are the commonalities between the prophecy reflected in 2 Peter 3:3-8 and the prophecies of Mark 13:30 and Matthew 25.

Day of judgment
Deadline: death of a generation.
Last days
God is the agent
Sinners will be destroyed
Fire is the weapon of destruction

The deadline is a commonality that I take to be all the evidence for a connection that is needed: "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."

Let's put the principle of consilience to the side for now. Do you see evidence for a connection of any sort?

andrewcriddle · 06-19-2010, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Old Testament scholarship actually got on the ball and started following the historiography of other fields of history instead of biblical historiography. Using archaeology as primary evidence and Jewish writings (i.e. what certain communities of Jews wanted to believe) as secondary evidence. This has gotten the description of "Biblical Minimalism", which if I recall correctly you've used in a derogatory manner.

Biblical minimalism is trying to follow the basic methodology of how history is done in other fields of study. NT scholarship has yet to catch up. And instead of acknowledging the flaws in their methodology, NT historians compare the amorphus "mythicists" to creationists and holocaust deniers.

Yes, I have used "minimalism" in a derogatory manner. But, they are not always wrong. In fact, they actually won the Old Testament debates. They won because their explanations actually have probability in their favor. They explained the Pentateuch stories in terms of tribal interests and moral religious lessons with evidence. They found older non-Jewish myths that closely resemble the Jewish scriptural tales. They found patterns within the texts that make their explanations elegant. Their explanations have explanatory scope, explanatory power, and so on.

FWIW and IIUC Old Testament "minimalism" does not usually mean the plausible claim that the OT writings are primarily religious texts rather than historical documents. "Minimalism" in this context usually means the highly controversial claim that the OT writings largely come from the Persian period, ie that it is impossible to use the OT to reconstruct an "Ancient Israel" from the period before the Exile and Return.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver · 06-19-2010, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

However, Raymond E. Brown suggested that “One cannot rule out the possibility that . . . .”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

Typical apologetics. If it possibly could have happened, then it must have happened.

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, I have used "minimalism" in a derogatory manner. But, they are not always wrong. In fact, they actually won the Old Testament debates. They won because their explanations actually have probability in their favor. They explained the Pentateuch stories in terms of tribal interests and moral religious lessons with evidence. They found older non-Jewish myths that closely resemble the Jewish scriptural tales. They found patterns within the texts that make their explanations elegant. Their explanations have explanatory scope, explanatory power, and so on.

FWIW and IIUC Old Testament "minimalism" does not usually mean the plausible claim that the OT writings are primarily religious texts rather than historical documents. "Minimalism" in this context usually means the highly controversial claim that the OT writings largely come from the Persian period, ie that it is impossible to use the OT to reconstruct an "Ancient Israel" from the period before the Exile and Return.

Andrew Criddle

You could be right. There is quite a bit of ambiguity about the term "minimalism" as it applies to Biblical studies. I think show_no_mercy would identify with the school of thought that I described as minimalism, but maybe that isn't the broadly accepted definition. Thanks for letting me know.

ApostateAbe · 06-19-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Typical apologetics. If it possibly could have happened, then it must have happened.

Right! It is good to be cognizant of that fallacy, because, unfortunately, the fallacy is not excluded to the apologetic camp. I have too often seen mere possibilities used when instead the greatest probability should be the issue in these debates, so a lot of effort can be spent showing possibility, when really one needs to compare two competing explanations to find which one is more probable. That is why I bring up ABE so much.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.