skepticdude

I don't see what discoveries since 1946 would do to change this generalization.

Both are true. People naturally seek truth and people naturally love a good story, whether telling or listening.

So far, you have not refuted Garraghan's comment that nobody goes counter to the truth unless they detect some benefit thereby. That's just basic common sense. Why lie when there is no percievable benefit?

skepticdude

If you think scenario B is more likely than scenario A, then you don't truly believe scenario A is likely. I think you have a muddled concept of what constitutes "likely". It's far more than "possibility". Also, "likely" is not the same as "likelihood". "Likely" has already made a judgment call that a possibility has become a probability. "Likelihood" is asking about DEGREE of "likely".

For example, the question "how likely is this?" invites the responses:

1 - not very likely
2 - somewhat likely
3 - very likely

etc.

I think that common parlance is mistaken, you don't assign a degree to "likely". You either think something is likely, or you don't think it is likely.
If you think one hypothesis is more likely true than the other, then you don't truly think that other hypothesis retains liklihood. If you think two hypotheses are equally likely, you also think they are equally unlikely, divesting "likely" of it's dictionary definition.

I can hardly relate to you, since I too have investigated historiography, and I see criteria of historicity all over the place, and none of it comes from the Jesus Seminar. Garraghan was just the first example.

Which is why us atheists do what David Hume did, and safely assume a general historical uniformitarianism, (the present is the key to the past), and remain confident that what people are most likely and least likely to do today, holds true for ancient biblical authors.

I don't know if the Jesus Seminar seeks to force a decision, as their colored bead method indicates they realize not all questions have empirically provable answers.

skepticdude

suppose you read two ladies' profiles on a singles' site

Profile 1 --
"Hi, I'm Jill, I have a perfect body, I just won the lottery for $20 million, everybody loves me, and I have a ph.d in rocket science. I've had no complaints from any of my dates, and they all say I should have been a supermodel!"

Profile 2 -
"Hi, my name is Betsie, I'm just your average gal, recently got out of a short term relationship, employed part-time and looking for an activity partner who enjoys outdoor stuff like walking, or road trips. Hoping it will grow into a relationship where we can live together to help cut expenses. I've put on a few pounds since last Christmas (probably from comfort food after my ex took my son out of state for three months without my permission and didn't tell me where he went!), but haven't lost my figure."

Assuming you never decide to gain further information on these two women, how would you go about determining which profile has greater probability of being true? The criteria of embarrassment says Profile # 2 is probably more honest, but you don't have that tool because you think it is bogus. Have fun.

aa5874

The passage from Garraghan is seriously flawed. If two persons write contrary accounts, or opposite accounts of the same event, where their opposing accounts have no advantage to the informants, it would be seen very clearly that both opposing accounts could not be accepted as true.

Garraghan hypothesis is not true, it is useless. Two person can make statements that are contrary about the same event, even though they have no advantage in lying.

skepticdude

Can you give an example? Ancient authors typically wrote thier stories for a particular gain, not just to provide people with the daily news. So I don't see how your suggestion of two conflicting accounts of one event could be found, wherein neither author nor their respective audiences could have benefited.

Strawman, Garraghan was obviously talking about knowingly falsifying the record (i.e., no reason to LIE when there is no benefit). As such, he is correct, people do not LIE (i.e., knowingly tell falsities) when they expect no gain from such. You have seriously misconstrued G's quote.

[/QUOTE]

Toto

Since no one seems to be able to agree on what is truly embarrassing, as you demonstrated above, it's not clear what use this is.

You can always find some perceivable benefit if you decide, just as you decided that some elements were not embarrassing.

I still don't see any particular use of the criterion of embarrassment in ancient history, or history in general. You can't tell what is really embarrassing, and you don't know what the benefit was. But you've made up your mind. :wave:

aa5874

Jesus and the the donkeys as found in gMatthew, and Jesus and the single donkey as found in gMark.

Matthew 21.2 Mark 11.2 Whether the authors of Mathew or Mark would lie for no benefit is irrelevant, one or both accounts are false, and even if there was only one donkey story, the single donkey story could be false even if the author would not lie for no benefit, if the donkey story was already fiction before it was written.

But, I have showed you it is irrelevant if the information is believed to be true when it was indeed false.

[

dog-on

Harsh...

btw, what is embarrassing about Profile #2, exactly?

and Profile #1 falls more under the old,"If it sounds too good to be true...", type of situation.

the_cave

Just weighing in here one last time--

Toto makes the interesting point that the CoE is perhaps unique to Christian studies. It looks like this may well be the case, which does raise the question of whether historians in general have found it at all useful--or whether they even take it seriously at all.


But the gospels were not written today--we are talking about the motivations of the authors at the time.

I don't know if Vespasian spat on his eyes or not. It's possible he did. If he did, it's extremely unlikely that this healed anyone!

Is it? Seems like it's more embarrassing for the guy being spat upon!

Right--that's all we're talking about: rough percentages.

You asked me to give them to you! There isn't a calculus to it.

Useless for certainty, yes. We both agree on that. You don't seem to think that anything besides certainty is useful, and I accept that.

None that I know of--it's just a matter of talking about which stories seem more likely to be true than others, barring any other evidence. That's it--it's pretty humble stuff.

Now, having said all that, I think the CoE is less a tool for determing historical knowledge (which I agree it is not very good at even under the best circumstances) than it is a tool for determining what historical questions are problems. If Jesus was a historical person, then it is a problem for the history of Christianity that he was said to be crucified. IOW, historians of Christianity need to explain how that crucifixion could have led to the movement that became Christianity. This is because a) crucifixions were embarrassing events, and b) the Christians nevertheless wrote and spoke about the crucifixion of their messiah freely.

You can solve the problem by saying 1) the crucifixion therefore really happened, or 2) the Jesus story is mythical. Both are solutions, but they are solutions to a real problem.

aa5874

You have demonstrated the uselessness of the CoE in your final paragraph after all.

Premise 1: A story is either true or invented.
Premise 2:The crucifixion was true or invented.

And you apply the CoE.

Conclusion 1: A story could indeed be true or was invented.

Conclusion 2: The crucifixion could have been true or was invented.

The criterion of embarrassment is useless.

The final nail in the criterion of embarrassment.