Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 08-30-2010, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

In dealing with complicated issues to which experts have devoted entire career I don't think it is wrong to appeal to their expertise as evidence.

There are "experts" who have devoted their entire careers to astrology.

A circle-jerk of "experts" is still a circle-jerk.

Of course I'm being cheeky here, but it's just to get the point across. It's not that most of them (so far as I've seen) are being bad, or particularly dim, it's just that most of them (understandably) seem to have a blind spot which leads them to take for granted what they have yet to demonstrate, and they've been living in a sort of hermetically sealed academic community (mainly because until the advent of the internet and the revival of interest in the Christ Myth hypothesis since GA Wells, Freke & Gandy, Robert Price, Acharya S, Earl Doherty, etc., not many people have been particularly interested in what they do, most people have, like you, simply trusted in the "system").

Consider Earl Doherty's investigation here of the kinds of "authorities" that are cited as having dealt with Mythicism in a slam-dunk manner, when the question of mythicism comes up. Unless Earl is misquoting and lying, the hollowness of these "experts"' cases is shocking. Also check the blog Vridar (he's been on a jag about this matter for the past few months, absolutely brilliant, and sometimes quite revealing stuff).

aa5874 · 08-30-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Show No Mercy:

In dealing with complicated issues to which experts have devoted entire career I don't think it is wrong to appeal to their expertise as evidence. It save me the trouble of learning the languages and devoting years of my life full time to evaluating the evidence. I really don’t have the time while maintaining my own expertise in another field. I will therefore continue to rely upon scholarly opinion and won’t expect you to be impressed.

Like you, evolution deniers are wrong to reject expert opinion as well.

Steve

Any one one has been a juror or have followed any trial may find that EXPERTS do NOT ALWAYS agree on the interpretation of the evidence and that both defense and prosecution have EXPERTS who may have opposing opinions.

Jurors or anyone can REJECT the opinion of an expert and a juror does NOT have to be an EXPERT.

You have FAILED to present the external corroborative evidence for YOUR Jesus.

The NT and Church writers made claims about Jesus the Messiah that have NOT been corroborated. Until you can present sources of antiquity for YOUR Jesus then the historicity of Jesus is an EXTREMELY weak theory.

All the fundamental parameters for the mythological/fictional Jesus are in place.

1. Jesus was described in a mythological/fictional way by Jesus believers.

2. According to Jesus believers, for the salvation of mankind Jesus must resurrect.

3. There is no external corroborative source for a Messiah called Jesus before the Fall of the Temple.

4. Once Jesus was known to be just a mere man it is not likely that Jews would have worshiped him as a God.

5. There were people of antiquity called Christians who did NOT believe in Jesus.

6. The word "christ" did NOT originate from Jesus.

The mythical/fictional Jesus is a FAR superior theory it does NOT rely on the opinion of so-called EXPERTS who are also Jesus believers and expect to be rewarded by Jesus in heaven with eternal life.

Please state the external corroborative evidence from antiquity that YOUR experts used to come to the opinion that there was a single HUMAN character called Jesus the Messiah before the Fall of the Temple.

GakuseiDon · 08-30-2010, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

The CoE attempts to explain what we see, to try to peer into the text for some original saying or action by Jesus. Of course, we are assuming that there was a historical Jesus, and we are assuming that the Gospels accurately reflect somewhat what he said and did, and we are assuming that we have an accurate picture of the text at the time.

Assuming isn't "peering into the text for some original saying or action", it's just assuming there's some original saying or action.

If you had some good reason to suspect there might be some historical data in the texts in the first place (e.g., say as an ideal case, some independent confirmation from other sources at the time that there was a rabbi or whatever called "Jesus" at the time) then, yes, the CoE might be one tool in the arsenal for a peering exercise.

But as it stands, what is the reason to think there's anything historical in the text at all?

True enough, though that's a separate question to the point I raised about how the CoE works, i.e. it's more than just "it's embarrassing therefore probably true." I'll leave the HJ/MJ stuff for the others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Now at this point someone comes up with "but a real man is the most likely explanation for the existence of these texts". NO IT IS NOT. Not unless it has been decided that euhemerism is and ought to be the default explanation for myths. So far as I am aware, that is not the position in the broader academy: there are several types of origin for myth, for religion, etc., not just "real human eponymous founders".

Now this IS where I'm interested: how they thought back in those times. I think that euhemerism and analogy were the prevailing viewpoints. Thus Tacitus writes about Jupiter being a king on Crete, deposing Saturn who then fled to Itay; Moses and Isis being near-contemporaries; and early Christian apologists complaining that the Romans "resolved their myths and gods into allegory", as Tatian did in his "Address":

For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory... Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athene, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

If biblical scholars want to be taken seriously by that broader academy (and by interested laypersons like myself) then they've got to take a step back and go through a bunch of justificatory steps for WHY they are plumping for an euhemeristic basis for the evident Christ myth.

What would those justificatory steps be, IYO?

GakuseiDon · 08-30-2010, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

How would it be used for its predictive power? What would it predict?

CoE claims to be able to indicate the truth value of a statement based on the level of embarrassment incurred by the party making the statement.

That *sounds* testable.

OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

Always?

Meier does no such thing. His works do not stress that point at all, dude. In fact, Meier spends the majority of his time *applying* these invented criteria to the discussion of the historicity of Jesus Christ, advocating the validity of these invented criteria. He hardly dedicates much time at all to discrediting these criteria. He never explains why 'it isn't a fail-proof guide to authenticity.'

At the least, he explains its limitations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

The only place I'm aware of the widespread use of embarrassment criteria by professionals being addressed specifically in published research is rape cases, so if you did not know how commonly embarrassment criteria is used in rape cases (as well as in every day gossipy affairs by laymen), now you know.

Thanks for that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

Embarrassment criteria is an extremely popular way of judging the truth value of claims in general. It is intuitive. *Very* intuitive, in fact. It is highly intuitive to believe that some party would not tell lies about things that are embarrassing. And while admittedly intuitive, it is *not*, however, scientific. As far as I'm aware, this methodology has no place been validated. It has no place been tested. It has no place been shown by any published research to enable anybody to make more accurate predictions about the truth value of a particular statement. This, no matter how embarrassing.

The fact that there has been no independent published research addressing this usage is really a tremendous issue for me because Meier uses the word "scientific" to describe his criteria, including the CoE. He should never have done that because there is nothing remotely scientific about the CoE. Who the hell taught Meier the scientific method? Is anything having to do with the scientific method even in the curriculum for a Biblical scholar?

And in case you could not tell from my very sarcastic remarks about rape cases, where the criteria of embarrassment is in fact very popular, the available statistics regarding false rape cases prove embarrassment criteria is practically worthless. Some of that worthlessness, for example, stems from the fact that we don't know what is or is not embarrassing to the accuser; it is fallacious to arbitrarily assign a significant level of embarrassment to the accuser. Furthering the example, to the false accuser, it is common for there to be things even more potentially shameful and embarrassing than having been raped. The false accuser therefore alleges to have been raped because only a rape case could possibly throw up a big enough smokescreen to cover up what the accuser is truly most embarrassed about. For instance; a child out of wedlock while in high school, as one example, may be even more shameful than having been raped; therefore rape may offer a convenient explanation for pregnancy and or justification for an abortion, relieving responsibility from the accuser.

Good points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

The CoE was being used in this manner in order to judge the historicity of Jesus Christ long before Meier ever came along and tried to formalize it. You aren't supposed to openly admit that you're merely assuming there was a historical Jesus and that the gospels reflect something of what he said and did. Your starting assumptions are supposed to go completely unstated.

You're doing it wrong, man.

My apologies for that. I didn't want this to become yet another HJ/MJ crap fest, so I wanted to make it clear upfront what assumptions were involved. Assuming a HJ in the first place would, I'd hoped, stop this being about proving a HJ.

gurugeorge · 08-30-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Now this IS where I'm interested: how they thought back in those times.

I agree! I think there was a broad spectrum - and probably different types of belief in different social circles. My own view is that the nearest analogy to what Christian groups were like in the very earliest days is to the sorts of Hermetic "study circles" Garth Fowden posits (or via: amazon.co.uk), most probably some kind of philosophico-mystical/occult practices (such as described by Paul) - remember how strongly the atmosphere of a philosophical school is given off by some of the earliest apologists? Think also of pseudo-Dionysus, Gnosticism, etc. (especially in the context of Walter Bauer's ideas).

It's sort of a common way that more intellectualised middle-class religions have started, in practice (i.e. in terms of how they fill their day) - a comparison I always think of in this context is Celestial Masters Daoism (upper middle class lady has seances and communicates with spirits who give a teaching). Of course, this is HJ/MJ neutral, but fits a bit more comfortably with MJ. But whatever, I think one needs to look into it with a bit of anthropology, sociology, psychology, cognitive science, etc. - IOW, a real study of all this stuff would have to be multi-disciplinary, including the types of "religious experience" (a la William James) that are typical, and the types of tropes they lead to in ideas and writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

If biblical scholars want to be taken seriously by that broader academy (and by interested laypersons like myself) then they've got to take a step back and go through a bunch of justificatory steps for WHY they are plumping for an euhemeristic basis for the evident Christ myth.

What would those justificatory steps be, IYO?

Well, for example, take a serious look at any historically-attested people who were called "Jesus" in those days - like the ones in Josephus. Hunt through ancient writings, see if there's somebody who possibly might serve. Maybe (due to preconceptions) people haven't looked in the right places? Someone above semi-jokingly looked at the possibility that the HJ might have been a sort of "Arthurian" take on Bar Kochba. Well, it's not all that far beyond the bounds of possiblity, is it? At least he was real! Of course if the historical guy was more like the "historical Popeye", and really some very obscure person, then it might be impossible to find him. But the attempt would at least demonstrate intellectual seriousness, instead of giving off the appearance of a circle-jerk.

David Deas · 08-30-2010, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

At the least, he explains its limitations.

He does not address these issues with sufficient depth. He cites no scientific literature while simultaneously claiming to be doing science.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

My apologies for that. I didn't want this to become yet another HJ/MJ crap fest, so I wanted to make it clear upfront what assumptions were involved. Assuming a HJ in the first place would, I'd hoped, stop this being about proving a HJ.

I was being funny.

I think its honorable of you to state your assumptions up front. Most scholars in real fields of study have no problem doing this. It's customary to do so.

I would say, however, that Meier's application of embarrassment criteria is not merely to identify forces and trends in the text without any further implication. He is saying, essentially, that 'here is a conservative force that is acting over an extended period of time across the Gospels in order to eventually omit this particular story element; therefore, said element is probably historical'. So when people or sources like Wikipedia simplify the Criteria of embarrassment, I disagree that anybody is giving it an unfair or oversimplistic representation. That is what you seem to be arguing.

(*) I appealed to rape cases because, for the life of me, I can't think of any other field where professionals use embarrassment criteria in order to judge truth value in critical situations. Do you know of any other professionals who routinely apply these standards in order to make judgments?

aa5874 · 08-30-2010, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Deas

The CoE was being used in this manner in order to judge the historicity of Jesus Christ long before Meier ever came along and tried to formalize it. You aren't supposed to openly admit that you're merely assuming there was a historical Jesus and that the gospels reflect something of what he said and did. Your starting assumptions are supposed to go completely unstated.

You're doing it wrong, man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakusieDon

My apologies for that. I didn't want this to become yet another HJ/MJ crap fest, so I wanted to make it clear upfront what assumptions were involved. Assuming a HJ in the first place would, I'd hoped, stop this being about proving a HJ.

But you are the one who tried to explain how to apply the crap called the CoE in post #50 when you knew in advance that your application of the CoE cannot determine VERACITY.

This is from post #50

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

..The criterion is also called "the criterion of contradiction", and that is how it is used: early sources contradict each other, suggesting a revision of an earlier "embarrassing" fact, which MAY point to the earlier source being a more accurate account....

You must first ASSUME Veracity of the Text and then use the crap called the CoE to prove your own assumption.

Now, that's NOT right.

Now, please see the OP. It deals with the "Christ Myth and Euhemerism" NOT with the crap called the CoE.

aa5874 · 08-30-2010, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa

How can an ASSUMPTION of "Q" makes it CLEAR that "Q" associated John with Jesus? Speculations and Assumptions SIMPLY do NOT clarify or resolve any matter.

I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, but I do wish that people who reject Q (for whatever reason) would at least acknowledge that Q is not an "assumption". It is a theory based on evidence, and is held because that evidence is regarded by the holder of the theory as strong and pertinent. That doesn't make it true, but this kind of naive dismissal of Q does not speak well for the basis on which such a person advocates a no-Q position...

Well, I can modify my statement.

"Q" is an assumption based theory.

It must FIRST be assumed that the common material in gMatthew and gLuke is from some other common source.

Surely the fact that gLuke has material common to gMatthew may mean that the author of gLuke SIMPLY copied those material from gMatthew just as it is theorised by some that gMatthew used almost all of gMark.

yin_sage · 08-30-2010, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, I can modify my statement.

"Q" is an assumption based theory.

It must FIRST be assumed that the common material in gMatthew and gLuke is from some other common source.

Hi AA,

I think his gripe is that he sees Q as a legitimate hypothesis, with a fair amount of supporting evidence, and yet Q-skeptics act as though he must have ignored the conclusive, damning and definitive evidence that proves him wrong.

He's read the same things the Q-skeptics have, and he respectfully disagrees with them.

It's not a terribly unreasonable position.

GakuseiDon · 08-31-2010, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Now this IS where I'm interested: how they thought back in those times.

I agree! I think there was a broad spectrum - and probably different types of belief in different social circles. My own view is that the nearest analogy to what Christian groups were like in the very earliest days is to the sorts of Hermetic "study circles" Garth Fowden posits (or via: amazon.co.uk), most probably some kind of philosophico-mystical/occult practices (such as described by Paul) - remember how strongly the atmosphere of a philosophical school is given off by some of the earliest apologists? Think also of pseudo-Dionysus, Gnosticism, etc. (especially in the context of Walter Bauer's ideas).

The 'philosophical school' approach is a feature of Second Century Christianity. First Century Christianity was more like a 'mystery cult', where the Christians were plugged into a cosmic force that helped to overcome the evil in the world, which was coming to an end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

It's sort of a common way that more intellectualised middle-class religions have started, in practice (i.e. in terms of how they fill their day) - a comparison I always think of in this context is Celestial Masters Daoism (upper middle class lady has seances and communicates with spirits who give a teaching). Of course, this is HJ/MJ neutral, but fits a bit more comfortably with MJ. But whatever, I think one needs to look into it with a bit of anthropology, sociology, psychology, cognitive science, etc. - IOW, a real study of all this stuff would have to be multi-disciplinary, including the types of "religious experience" (a la William James) that are typical, and the types of tropes they lead to in ideas and writing.

That would be fantastic!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

What would those justificatory steps be, IYO?

Well, for example, take a serious look at any historically-attested people who were called "Jesus" in those days - like the ones in Josephus. Hunt through ancient writings, see if there's somebody who possibly might serve. Maybe (due to preconceptions) people haven't looked in the right places? Someone above semi-jokingly looked at the possibility that the HJ might have been a sort of "Arthurian" take on Bar Kochba. Well, it's not all that far beyond the bounds of possiblity, is it? At least he was real! Of course if the historical guy was more like the "historical Popeye", and really some very obscure person, then it might be impossible to find him. But the attempt would at least demonstrate intellectual seriousness, instead of giving off the appearance of a circle-jerk.

I agree that would make sense, though such an approach wouldn't interest me. I've never been that interested in 'proving' there was a HJ. I'm not even interested in disproving mythicism. There are lots of mythicist theories out there that I haven't looked at, and probably never will. My main interest is "how people thought back then" and what we can learn from primary sources of those times, which is where I intersect with mythicists like Doherty and Acharya S.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.