mountainman

Dear Toto and the_cave,

These final nails in the criterion of embarrassment could only be hammered into place by Carrier because of one major development in the history of academic scholarship concerning the existence of Jesus. One hundred years ago Jesus was presumed by the majority of "academic scholars" to have existed. According to the statements of Hector Avalos the academic scholars of that time asserted "we have plenty of evidence for Jesus". One hundred years later this is not the case. All the evidence assumed to have existed for the historical jesus appears to have evaporated. For the first time -- now -- the historicity of Jesus is now actually being questioned, and not just taken and acceptred as a postulate. This is a major change in thinking. IMO it is precisely because of this change (ie: that we are now far more objective in the consideration of the historicity of Jesus, that people are willing to countenance many and varied different possibilities that he did not actually exist) that the "Criterion of Embarrassment" has no value any more. In summary, IMO the criterion of embarrassment is not a valid criterion once the criterion of historicity has been objectively invoked. It is a relic of by-gone days when the historicity of Jesus was flatly assumed. Thank christ those days are over.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

If Pete was as familiar with scholarship on the HJ as he here presents us as being, he would have known that 100 years ago was the beginning of the heyday for "academic scholars" (dept. of redundancy department) asserting the non/ahistoricity of Jesus. (On this, see, e.g., not only A. Schweitzer The Quest for the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), but also W.P. Weaver'sThe Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century (or via: amazon.co.uk).

So much for Pete being the master of his material.

"Appears" is the operative word here.

One should read the fine print at the bottom of this Movie Trailer toned message. It says, "the questioning referred to as "now" being done occurs only and exclusively in a backwater in Australia, and only by one solitary and isolated individual."

Again, the fine print notes" "the 'thinking' referred to in this decalartion
is being done by someone who regards messages from an ancient figure that a theosophist medium claimed to have channeled in the 1800s as credible and reliable historical data".

The fine print also declares that "claims of 'objectivity' made in this announcement should be taken with a large grain of salt in the light of the fact that the one making them has demonstrated time and again that he has misread, misunderstood, and misrepresented the sources he uses to buttress his claims, as is witnessed in his use wholesale selective quotation of a writing of the historian Robin Lane-Fox to demonstrate that those attending the Council of Nicea were and constantly felt themselves to be under physical and emortional duress".

It aslo notes that the author of the declartaion is once again riding his hobby horse in a thread in which it is inappropriate to do so.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Here are the links and my notes concerning the claims of Hector Avalos.

How Archaeology killed biblical history

Some notes on the first part of the vid:

Do We Need Biblical Scholars?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PHILIP DAVIES Can Biblical Scholars persuade others that they conduct a legitimate academic discipline? Until they do, can they convince anyone that they have something to offer to the intellectual life of the modern world? Indeed, I think many of us have to convince ourselves first!

Biblical Archaeology

Maintains the relevance of the bible.

The position in 1900 ....

1) Most (not all) BC&H scholars considered Genesis scientific and historic
2) Archaeological historical proof existed for Exodus, Jacob, David, Solomon
3) Plenty of evidence for Jesus.

(eg: William Allbright)



The position in 2007 ...


1) Most (not all) BC&H scholars considered Genesis unscientific and non historic
2) Archaeological historical proof does not exist for Exodus, Jacob, David, Solomon
3) No trace of evidence for Jesus.

Do you see the embarrassing writing on the wall Jeffrey? Who is worried about the criterion of embarrassment when the historicity of Jesus (as perceived in the evidence available) has substantially "evaporated" in the last 100 years?


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

The name is Albright (one "L"). And I'd be very surprised if he held to any of these ideas in 1900 since he would have been at best only 9 years old. And I'd be very glad to see where Albright ever spoke about any amount of archeological evidence for Jesus.

So all I can say if you are trying here to show that you are master of your material is: Good show, Pete!

In any case, we have all seem what the value of your notes on any subject are

Jeffrey.

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Albright's indoctrination process (ie: his 1900 education) was augmented by the role of the testimonia of specialist papal archaeologists such as de Rossi, who was finding and documenting the relics of dead saints hand over foot, just like Oded Galan in our times. The only new testament archaeology in existence - to my knowledge - are forgeries, or simple cases of mistaken identities such as the P.Oxy fragments, the Dura-Eurpos "house-church" at Yale, and the Basilides inscription in Rome, presumed "christian" on the basis of the epitaph "He sleeps".


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Since the above does not in any way show me, as I asked you do to, where in his writings Albright ever spoke about any amount of archeological evidence for Jesus, I'll take it that your claim that he did do so is just one more from you that are along the lines of the one you made sometime ago about John Wilson Ross having "had the reputation of being a very good classical scholar" -- that is to say, one which you cannot back up because it is one that is wholly uninformed by any acquaintance on your part with the writings of Albright.

One more, Pete, good show!

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

There is none. That is, zero. More specifically, an empty set. We have had an open question about archaeological evidence for "early christian origins" as distinct from "late christian origins". The responses are aptly summarised by the discussions concerning the value of the testimonial evidence from Dura-Europa in the mid-third century CE. You may be interested reading another claim in an article about Dura from the mid-third century which does not mention a presumed christian "house-church", but rather that Ancient Persians 'gassed Romans' .

The official centralised state Sassanid Persian monotheism was very strong and vigorous, and the Romans lost much face against the Persians in this century. The "early christians" may have had good reason to be underground and undetected amidst the milieu, but they could not help being influenced by the Logos. I am still grateful for this influence.

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

The house church at Dura was a minor feature. There was a much more elaborate synagogue, which was also not mentioned in that article.