Jeffrey Gibson

Do you count yourself amongst that small handful of specialists who are sufficiently equipped with the knowledge it takes about this subject to know whether Doherty's grasp of it is really any good or that the conclusions he makes on the basis of his purported grasp are indeed "plausible"? If not, why should we take your claim that D's thesis is plausible with any seriousness?

Can you name any academic specialist in Middle Platonism who thinks that Doherty's grasp of Middle Platonism is good enough to warrant taking what D. says about this topic as sufficiently well informed to be worth considering, let alone as valid?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Thinking more on the following from Doug

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver [*]Doherty's is the only plausible hypothesis I've seen, but for the average person its plausibility depends on a knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism, that almost nobody has except for a handful of academic specialists.

I'm compelled to say that it's just the opposite of what Doug asserts -- i.e., that the plausibility of D's hypothesis depends on not having good knowledge of ancient philosophy, specifically Middle Platonism. Indeed, it becomes less and less plausible the more one knows of ancient philosophy and, especially, Middle Platonism.

If you thinks that this is not the case, please name anyone among the actual and recognized experts in ancient philosophy and/or on Middle Platonism who thinks D's views on what the ancients thought about the way the world was constructed, and who did what where, has any merit.

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver

Not yet. I'm working on it, as time permits.

Like everyone else, when I say something is plausible, I mean it is plausible to me. In my postings to the several threads there have been on this topic, I have explained why I find it so, and I have explained why I disagree with the majority of scholars who don't find it plausible. It's up to those who read my comments to figure out for themselves whether my reasoning is adequate to defend my conclusion.

The only such specialist that I even know about yet is John Dillon, whom Doherty cites as one of his main authorities. I can't afford to buy his book, but I've skimmed through a copy at my university library and made a few notes. As opportunities arise I will check it out again and take a closer look. And, also as opportunities permit, I will find and peruse the works of other scholars whose expertise is comparable to Dillon's.

I have no idea whether Dillon has ever heard of Doherty, much less what he thinks of Doherty's hypothesis. To date, though, I have found nothing written, by Dillon or anyone else even pretending to a familiarity with Middle Platonism, that is inconsistent with Doherty's thinking.

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue is not whether your reasoning is adequate. It's whether you have sufficient grounding in, and a grasp of, ancient philosophy not only to be able recognize what's plausible and what's not, but to avoid the creationists mistake of making what to you seems plausible the criterion for determining both what is plausible and why scholars who do not share your view of things are wrong.

So the question remains: why should anyone take as a good guide what appears to you to be plausible or accept that what appears to you to be plausible actually is?

Jeffrey

Toto

Creationists do not reason from plausibility, but from the presumed inerrancy of the Bible, however inerrancy is defined.

Is ancient philosophy so arcane, on a level with quantum physics, that people with a general liberal arts education must defer to experts without examining the basis for that expert opinion?

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you show me where I said they did? I said they used the appeal to personal incredulity to determine what is plausible and what is not.

Are you actually saying that creationists never engage when proclaiming something to be untrue in the fallacy of the appeal to personal incredulity?.

Leaving aside your engagement in bifurcation and equivocation in the above, let's note that the claim that one needed to be a specialist in ancient philosophy to be able to determine whether D's thesis was not only plausible but was well grounded in, and did indeed cohere with, what Middle Platonists thought the universe was and who did what within it (and where they did it), was not my claim. It was Doug's.

But let's test your implied claim. Can you say with even reasonable confidence that what D says with respect to the beliefs of Middle Platonism is indeed what Middle Platonists believed? Do you think that in the light of the liberal arts education that you (presumably) have that you are qualified to know?

Jeffrey

Toto

Picky, picky, picky.

Creationists have undoubtedly engaged in every logical fallacy in the book, and made up some new fallacies where they could. What I have said before is that comparing one's opponent to a creationist in this forum is close to a personal insult and/or inflammatory. Why bring up creationists? They reject the scientific consensus only because they believe in Biblical inerrancy. Most people who reject the consensus are not like creationists in that regard, or any other.

I do not recall Doug making that claim, but you have certainly implied that Doherty is WRONG because experts do not support him. Is that not your position?

I assume that if I decided that this issue was important and devoted enough time to it, that I could come to my own conlcusion. But some time ago I decided that straining myself to understand an outdated and discredited pre-scientific mindset was not the best use of my time. Doherty himself said that it was difficult for him to wrap his mind around the concepts.

Doherty developed his theory because he accepts most of the standard academic "consensus" on the dating and authenticity of the epistles. He tried to fit all of the pieces of the Jesus puzzle together and got most of them to fit, except for parts in the epistles that appeared to refer to a human Jesus. He went beyond the plain language to give them a Platonic type meaning, and then everything fit nicely. This is not to say that he is wrong. He might very well be right, or closer to right than anyone else.

But I reject the standard dating of Paul's letters. I think it is much more likely that "born of a woman" was inserted by an anti-Marcionite editor. So I don't need Middle Platonism.

Jeffrey Gibson

So the answer is no. Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

Toto

Well, you seem to have avoided answering my question. Doherty has a classical education, and has been willing to spend the time and effort to try to understand Middle Platonism. Is it your contention that he has to be incapable of understanding it because he is not a qualified expert in classical philosophy?

A yes or no would be sufficient.

GakuseiDon

Do you mean "inconsistent with" or do you mean "contradicts"? For example, I can show that there are myths that have Mithras formed from rock. That is inconsistent with the idea that Mithras was crucified. But I can't show any comment from ancient times that "Mithras wasn't crucified" (leaving Justin Martyr aside for argument's sake).

Similarly, there is plenty of evidence that is inconsistent with Doherty's views. For example: Flesh only being present on earth, as opposed to being present in a "fleshly sublunar realm". Or Gods like Attis being people acting on earth, as opposed to acting out their myths outside of earth.

Surely you have to agree there are plenty of examples of inconsistencies?