Give me a couple of examples of you actually doing this please.

Brian (Nomad)

Toto

Just off the top of my head, the recent dispute in your interpolation thread, and a prior thread on Biblical Archeology, where you completely misrepresented Richard Carrier's review. You didn't agree with my positions there, and you glossed over your misreading of Carrier's review.

That's only two examples, so I can't accuse you of always fudging your sources. But I haven't read most of the sources you cite, and I haven't followed all of your posts.

If the economic downturn continues, I might get laid off and have the time to do that. But in the meantime, I have to get back to work.

References are crucial to this discussion. Of course it is not as simple as claiming that x number of scholars agree with either side's ultimate conclusion. But Doherty seems to rely on academic consensus from time to time while at other times dismissing it. That's fine, I agree with academic consensus from time to time while disagreeing with it.

But what worries me is when Doherty makes broad claims about the state of academic consensus that seem contrary to the state of scholarly thought as represented by New Testament scholars.

A few of his claims that I have found particular interesting and would like some references regarding:

"Widely acknowledged" is a term I have used myself, but I'm curious if Doherty equates this term with consensus or majority. I'm aware that many scholars accept the entire passage as an interpolation, but I'm also aware of scholars who reject this idea. Moreover, as Nomad has pointed out, there is a middle-ground: the reference to God's wrath might be an interpolation, but the reference to the Jewish involvement in Jesus' death is original.

Again, I'm aware that a majority of scholars reject Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, but I'm not sure that the same majority believes they were written in the "2nd century." Is that the majority opinion? When in the 2nd century? 101 CE? Or 150 CE? Quite a difference.

Perhaps he equates "critical" scholars with "liberal" scholars. If so, that is his prerogative, but I would certainly like to understand that so I can keep it in mind during the debate.

This one I find an especially troublesome assertion. I am curious as to what other scholars claim that "most scholars" accept John's dependence on Mark. In fact, according to John P. Meier, the majority of scholars actually have moved from believing in John's dependence to believing in John's independence, although he states that the subject is still hotly debated.

So, whether other readers think appeals to authority are worthwhile or worthless, Doherty has chosen to make the appeal for a number of important assertions. Moreover, he has characterized the scholarly consensus as agreeing with him on these assertions. I do not think it is inappropriate for Nomad to ask for the basis of that opinion.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 11, 2001).]

Gee Toto, could you be more general?

You have made a specific attack on Nomad and then defend your inability to back it up by claiming you don't have enough time to do it.

Toto

Excuse me? There is enough information there to locate the two exchanges that I an talking about, if Nomad doesn't remember. I have no intention of rehashing them here. Life is too short. I have watched Earl on this board (not Doherty, the other Earl) write 16 pages of closely reasoned argument refuting Nomad, and have it make no impression.

I merely commented that in two recent cases where I followed Nomad/Brian's sources, they did not confirm his thesis. I invite others to do the same, as has Nomad.

In case you can't use a search engine, here are the two threads:

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000511.html

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f...ML/000428.html

You are confusing your opinion with reality. I have seen many of Earl's exchanges with Nomad and came away with a very different impression. Of course, I'm a theist so I must be wrong. Theists are always wrong. All that they have to do to lose an argument with a skeptic about anything is to start it.

Right?

Not true. All they have to do to win is be convincing and provide adequate evidence for their point of view.

I don't think there is more than a 1% chance a skeptic would continue to doubt if precented with enough evidence--- by his/her terms, not yours.

And if you truly feel this way, why are you here?

(ANSIMC)

Toto

Well, I think that theists are always wrong about some things, but I don't expect to convince you. Let's agree to disagree about 1) the existence of God 2) the state of the evidence on the Historical Jesus (until we read more of the formal debate) and 3) Nomad's scholarship. Neither one of us is about to convert the other, and this is just turning into a waste of time and bandwidth.

You begin by saying "all they have to do" as if that is a simple, mathmatical process that is easily and objectively judged. Of course, you actually concede that what is "convincing" and what is "adequate" are in the eye of the beholder, not objective standards that can be checked on your calculator.

If I believe that why do I come here?

Well, I was addressing Toto. He is not the only person posting on this board.

BRIAN/NOMAD: If I may, do you consider a definition or argument offered by one side or the other, that cannot be supported by any experts to be an appeal to authority? I do. To me this is a straight line appeal to the authority of the debater himself, and where I come from, this is not considered to be acceptable.

PHILIP/EARL [NOT Earl Doherty]: Why you continue to misuse your terminology is beyond me. Doherty has already called you on your misuse of "begging the question" when he says "Let's make two things clear here, so that we don't get bogged down in future on such points. If I back up a statement with arguments, that is not in itself 'begging the question,' regardless of whether one disagrees with either the statement or the arguments. That phrase is used entirely too much in these kinds of debates. It means assuming the point at the outset, without argument."

And guess what? An appeal to authority likewise is a matter of relying on someone's authority rather than an argument that can be evaluated on its own. So when you say that a "straight line appeal to authority" is a "definition or ARGUMENT" that is unsupported by any scholars you are badly confusing a new, minority position with a fallacious appeal to authority. You have shown beyond any doubt whatsoever that you do not understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." You actually think it's fallacious, not just possibly weak, to take up a position undefended by any scholar, as if the fallacy were in making merely a poorly supported ARGUMENT rather than an appeal to someone's authority WITHOUT ARGUMENT. Doherty's arguments themselves support his claims, even if these arguments are unsupported by scholars. That simply means Doherty's arguments are original and controversial. They can then be either true or false, strong or weak, but they're certainly not fallacious just for being controversial and therefore naturally unsupported by many other scholars. Your claim that it's an appeal to one's OWN authority to offer an ARGUMENT unsupported by any scholars, in other words to offer merely a brand new position, is absolutely ludicrous. Such a person appeals to his new, possibly dead wrong argument not his authority. Do you understand the difference between an appeal to authority and an appeal to argument? Only the former is sometimes fallacious.

The other aspect of the fallacious appeal to authority is to cite untrustworthy authorities, such as a physicist in defense of a zoological claim. Does Doherty do this in allowing some of his arguments to stand on their own without any support other than Doherty's own confidence in them? Of course not, since Doherty doesn't appeal to his own authority by way of supplying evidence for the truth of his arguments. His own confidence in his arguments is entirely irrelevant to the evidence he offers in support of his claims. On the contrary, Doherty offers his ARGUMENTS, regardless of whether they are new or contrary to the consensus, in support of his claims. Doherty does not say anything like "One extra reason to agree with my claim here, besides the arguments I just offered, is because I, Earl Doherty, am the one making this claim. You can trust that what I say is true because I'm such a great authority." Doherty never leans on whatever authority he may have as any kind of additional or substitutional support for his claims.

Your entire line of attack here is just a red herring. Do you have to have the meaning of that term explained to you as well? By all means, Nomad, do your very best to continue to misuse your terms. Either Doherty, I or someone else will be sure to call you on it. See http://www.infidels.org/electronic/f.../000443-2.html for plenty of evidence of Nomad's abuse of logic terms.

****

And by the way, when you say that "there is more than one way to show dependence, and claiming that shared elements came only from Mark is a very different thing than saying that they came from a shared tradition that predates Mark," you leave out one of the ways, which is to show not that an author copied directly from another text with this text right in front of the author, but that the author read the other text and then copied it later on from memory. This is how Brown believes the Gospel of Peter was based on the gospels, and it's also how Crossan believes the passion narrative in John was based on the synoptic gospels.

Yet you say "Crossan believes that John is dependent on a tradition that predates Mark, namely the Cross Gospel. And if you wish to accept Crossan as an authority on this question, and use him to support your position, then you will also be expected to show why he is in error on the Cross Gospel. After all, in his book The Historical Jesus, Crossan tells us that significant portions of John are independent of Mark, including significant portions of the passion narrative."

This is a misrepresentation. From Crossan's "The Historical Jesus," "The first edition of the Gospel of John was composed, very early in the second century C.E. and under the pressure of Synoptic ascendancy, as a combination of the Johannine 'Signs Gospel' and the Synoptic traditions about the passion and resurrection. It is dependent, but very creatively so, on the 'Cross Gospel' and the Synoptic Gospels for its passion and resurrection account" (431-2).

From Crossan's "The Birth of Christianity," "John's account of Jesus' passion depicts him in total control of the situation. From the garden, which has no agony, to the death, which has no cry, Jesus judges others; they do not judge him. He is, for John, the king exalted upon the cross. All that is consistent Johannine redaction of the synoptic passion accounts" (566).

And from Crossan's "Who Killed Jesus?" he contrasts his view with Brown's, remarks that direct copying is not the only dependence model, summarizes his account, and concludes: "That general understanding of John's composition means that, for me, he is independent of the Synoptics for the miracles and sayings of Jesus [which were taken from the 'Signs Gospel'] but not for the passion and resurrection stories" (21-22).