Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Brendan Rizzo · 08-11-2013, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The article uses the 'criterion of multiple silences' to see if something is historical.

This criterion (which has wide ranging applications) state that something is likely to be historical if we can find not just one, but two or more sources which never state that it happened.

The silence has to be multiply attested before we know that what our sources are silent about must be historical fact.

'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all......
Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.'

A slam dunk application of the 'criterion of multiple silence.'

Really? I can't understand these people. The criterion of multiple silences would seem to suggest that an event is ahistorical, not historical. Of course, that's ignoring the fact that I'm pretty sure she made it up out of whole cloth.

Tenorikuma · 08-11-2013, 07:13 AM

Carr's tactical missiles of logic are entertaining as always. I suppose we must conclude the virgin birth is also true because two of the Gospels fail to mention it.

Toto · 08-11-2013, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Carr's tactical missiles of logic are entertaining as always. I suppose we must conclude the virgin birth is also true because two of the Gospels fail to mention it.

There was something embarrassing about it, surely. It shows that Jesus was actually illegitimate. Two gospels were too embarrassed to mention his birth, and two transformed it into a virgin birth.

See how fruitful this criterion is?

Grog · 08-11-2013, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenorikuma

Carr's tactical missiles of logic are entertaining as always. I suppose we must conclude the virgin birth is also true because two of the Gospels fail to mention it.

There was something embarrassing about it, surely. It shows that Jesus was actually illegitimate. Two gospels were too embarrassed to mention his birth, and two transformed it into a virgin birth.

See how fruitful this criterion is?

And, of course, we must conclude that Jesus was married, because that is nowhere attested in the Gospels.

outhouse · 08-11-2013, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Two gospels were too embarrassed to mention his birth,

Completely false.

What evidence do you have the authors were embarrassed? None?

These authors were interested in creating accurate history while creating theology through mythology.

Toto · 08-11-2013, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Two gospels were too embarrassed to mention his birth,

Completely false.

What evidence do you have the authors were embarrassed? None?

These authors were interested in creating accurate history while creating theology through mythology.

:facepalm:

I guess I forgot the <sarcasm> tag.

But since you took it seriously, what possible reason could you have for thinking that any of the gospel writers had the least bit of interest in "creating accurate history"? How is that remotely compatible with "creating theology through mythology"?

What does that even mean?

ficino · 08-11-2013, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

The article uses the 'criterion of multiple silences' to see if something is historical.

This criterion (which has wide ranging applications) state that something is likely to be historical if we can find not just one, but two or more sources which never state that it happened.

The silence has to be multiply attested before we know that what our sources are silent about must be historical fact.

'The gospels of Luke and John, written around 85 and 90-100 respectively, avoid any description of the baptism at all......
Luke acknowledges that Jesus was baptized, but avoids placing John at the scene by having him already in prison (3:18-22), and the writer of John’s gospel incorporates the imagery of the dove from the baptism tradition, but avoids directly mentioning that John baptized Jesus.'

A slam dunk application of the 'criterion of multiple silence.'

Mr. Carr, I presume you're joking. I saw your comment to Witmer's article, in which you say largely the same as the above. As you read in her article, Witmer invokes "the criterion of embarrassment," not a criterion of multiple silence. Her position is, if publicity about event X would be embarrassing to the early church, but X is recounted in the Gospels anyway (perhaps she should say, "at least one Gospel"), then it is likely to be historical. How does her criterion collapse into a criterion of multiple silence?

Toto · 08-11-2013, 01:36 PM

Mr. Carr is joking, possibly because he thinks that the criterion of embarrassment is such a joke, and has been analyzed and refuted so often, that mockery is the only response left.

outhouse · 08-11-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mr. Carr is joking, possibly because he thinks that the criterion of embarrassment is such a joke, and has been analyzed and refuted so often, that mockery is the only response left.

So we should just throw this criterion out the window then for all use ?

Toto · 08-11-2013, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mr. Carr is joking, possibly because he thinks that the criterion of embarrassment is such a joke, and has been analyzed and refuted so often, that mockery is the only response left.

So we should just throw this criterion out the window then for all use ?

Why not?

Even the scholars who claim to use it have hedged it with so many qualification and so many hesitations that it's not clear that they actually use it other than to confirm their own preexisting guesswork.

Dale Allison has proclaimed "The Demise of the Criteria." Richard Carrier has detailed the reasons for dropping them.

It has been pointed out that if a fact were truly embarrassing, it would just have been omitted.

There is no historicist who has given a coherent account of this criterion or why it is useful. They say it makes a claim more likely to be historical, but they have no way of quantifying exactly how much more likely - is it like buying two lottery tickets, which increases your chances from indistinguishable from 0, to indistinguishable from 0?

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

08-11-2013, 07:13 AM	#12
Tenorikuma Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Japan Posts: 156	Carr's tactical missiles of logic are entertaining as always. I suppose we must conclude the virgin birth is also true because two of the Gospels fail to mention it.

08-11-2013, 01:36 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Mr. Carr is joking, possibly because he thinks that the criterion of embarrassment is such a joke, and has been analyzed and refuted so often, that mockery is the only response left.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.