Roo Bookaroo

Bernard:

Another subtle point made by Richard Carrier in his 2002 review of "The Jesus Puzzle" that you did not mention in your Critique of the book is the following one (again, your writing is very dense, correct me if I've missed it).
It's in the first paragraph of "The Argument from Silence", as a kind of preamble to his reflections.

A reason always exists to doubt any historical claim. Historians begin with suspicion no matter what text they are consulting, and adjust that initial degree of doubt according to several factors, including:
- genre,
- the established laurels of the author,
- evidence of honest and reliable methodology,
- bias,
- the nature of the claim (whether it is a usual or unusual event or detail, etc.), and so on.

Then, in his Appendix 1, where Carrier goes on listing the 12 problems he's spotted:


(3) There are occasions when it is not exactly clear (without careful attention to context and wording) what is a fact and what is merely a conclusion Doherty is making by interpreting a fact in the light of his theory (e.g. pp. 98, etc.). The entire book would benefit from an explicit clarity at every turn between fact and theory (maybe by splitting sections into two parts, e.g. "facts" and "conclusions"), as between descriptive and explanatory hypotheses. That is, historians formulate descriptive hypotheses about what was the case, what did happen, and then formulate explanatory hypotheses about why, and every work benefits from keeping the two as distinct as possible. Both points are especially important for a work that aims at overturning a dominant orthodoxy in scholarship.

(4) Related to the above, there is always a danger of hyperbole in any position outside the mainstream, and it is all the more important to avoid it there, where it is least justified. Yet Doherty occasionally falls into hyperbole.
For example, he argues that "if none of the sayings and deeds of Jesus found in the Gospels are attributed to him in the epistles," etc., then "the Gospels cannot be accepted as providing any historical data..." (p. 26). This is far overstating the case...

Exaggerated claims like these occur several other places in the book and should be corrected. It is not wrong to concede that an opposing theory can also account for some piece of evidence. One can still argue that it does so at a greater cost, or with greater difficulty, without exaggerating one's own case. And on some points two theories might explain a datum equally well, and it is fair enough to say so. Such an admission would not affect the argument that other data accumulates for one theory and against the other...

A special remark is needed for the most unfortunate example of hyperbole: Doherty's ad hominem, "no serious scholar dates either [Matthew or Luke] before the year 80" (p. 194). Such a sentence has no business in anything a serious scholar writes. Several scholars whom I would indeed regard as serious, and competent, do in fact date these texts earlier (even if not greatly so), and Doherty seems to be maligning them here without the dignity of a trial.

aa5874

Don't you realize that Eliingworth does not help you?? Based on Ellingworth you have mis-understood the meaning.

EarlDoherty

In other words, it IS possible to perceive the difference if one pays attention to the context and wording, so Carrier is at least acknowledging that I don't throw out conclusion and fact as though they are simply one and the same. Perhaps he was concerned about readers like yourself whose attention span is limited and who suffer from deficient comprehension. Thanks for pointing that out, Roo...

Well, you've really put your foot in it this time, Roo, and you've illustrated why I urged you to keep posting. If you had read my website response to Carrier's review, you would have seen that he has made a gaffe here (I assumed it was not deliberate) by leaving out a key word in that quote from my page 26. The phrase as printed on that page is:

"the Gospels cannot be accepted as providing any reliable historical data..."

which of course changes the entire tenor of the statement and eliminates the alleged hyperbole. For it would indeed be the case that "if none of the sayings and deeds of Jesus in the Gospels are attributed to him in the epistles..." (in other words, in the entire pre-Gospel record) then it is a legimate opinion to state that this makes the 'data' in the Gospels somewhat less than reliable.

So you have gone out on Carrier's rickety limb in your eagerness to find any piece of shit you can throw in my face, and instead it has ended up on your own. And what does it say about Carrier's dependability in his critique and your wisdom in blindly relying on anything he says? Even when I told you that I had disputed a few things in his review you just charged ahead and didn't bother to check my response. If you've got egg on your ass don't blame anyone but yourself.

Even though this is a bit of hyperbole on Carrier's part (it's his style), I offered a "mea culpa" in response, though partly because I didn't want to take the trouble to argue the point. But there have been a considerable number of mainstream scholars who have criticized in similar terms colleagues who date the Gospels before the Jewish War. I can't remember who it was who referred to John A. T. Robinson early dating as "donnish antics", and Carston Thiede's redating of the Magdelen papyrus to the late first century, which would have pushed the date of Matthew at least a few decades earlier, was dumped on by mainstream scholarship as a whole, sometimes with language more provocative than my own. So I guess I'm in good company. (Of course, I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with any of this.)

Keep it up, Roo.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

I've been over all this, Bernard, both in my book and in previous discussions here. A passage is quite capable of referring to events or situations in more than one time frame. I've explained that the present tense in the opening verse of ch.8 does not preclude him moving to a subsequent focus on a past tense. I am not going to go through it all again.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

And I have dealt with that posting of aa's. I keep having to stress that the ambiguity resides only in the grammar per se. It is when one brings deductive logic to the context in which that grammar sits that one is led to eliminate the ambiguity. Why do you find it so hard to grasp that principle, Jake?

Earl Doherty

aa5874

It is the grammar that is the fundamental issue--the past and present tense.
Hebrews 8.4 cannot be a smoking gun if the passage itself is admittedly grammatically ambiguous.

You have presented an independent source that claim the passage is grammatically ambiguous and that it may be mis-understood.

You cannot get past the ambiguity so your challenge is really a waste of time.

Hebrews is an unprovenanced, anonymous undated source and cannot be shown to have any influence on the authors of the Canon and was unknown to Apologetics up to the mid 2nd century.

Essentially, you are just going around in a vicious circle without a shred of corroboration.

EarlDoherty

Your chess rules must be different than the chess rules I know.

I didn’t make the rules of logic. And the last time I looked, scholarly interpretations of elements of a text are constantly being interpreted by considering the context and bringing deductive arguments to the picture. It’s standard exegetical practice, which apparently you know nothing about. Until someone discredits my application of logical deduction to that context and the meaning which it gives to 8:4, my interpretation stands.

It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that my “certain way” of interpreting 8:4 and its context is faulty. That’s what it’s all about. Not just an empty declaration that I’m playing by my own rules. You haven’t even made an attempt. And you haven’t pointed to anyone else who has demonstrated what you have failed to do. Hell, you don’t show any sign that you’ve even read my argument. Or are you just stuck at the “ambiguous grammar” stage like so many others are?

Never mind the rhetoric, mh. It’s not a substitute for argument. Check the title of this thread and put up your money.

Earl Doherty

And since when is it logical to declare that because A has characteristic X, that B must have characteristic X and in no way can possibly have its own characteristic Y? Is that a simple enough question of logic for you to grasp, Jake?

It wasn’t meant to be. It was my reaction your inability to grasp a point I was making about what is ambiguous and what is not, despite repeated attempts on my part.

Please demonstrate that from the Pauline texts, especially 1 Cor. 15:35-49. That is you imposing Gospel assumptions on texts which show nothing to do with the Gospel story. Perhaps we should call it your argument from personal incredulity, in that you personally cannot believe that Paul did not have knowledge of a human and events on earth, even though he never gives us such a man. (Yes, yes, aa, born of woman, born of woman. Talk about placing all your bets on three words, one of which is not even the normal word for “born” and were missing in Marcion’s version of Galatians. Dear me. Am I supposed to cry ‘uncle’?)

Ooops. Looks like aa has neglected to actually read yet another document.

Yes, and he is the only one of the major 2nd century apologists before 180 to do so. (And that very likely includes the apology of Aristides.)

And this is your counter-argument that proves I am wrong? That no one ever comes up with a new idea, a new interpretation of data, a disagreement with received wisdom collected even over centuries? Do you know how bankrupt that makes you look, Roo?

And just how have you demonstrated that, Jake? And simply calling my argument “nine convoluted pages of angel dancing logic” does absolutely zero, without a demonstration of it. But of course, we all know by now that you are incapable of such a demonstration, so you just heap scorn on it. I also think that we all know by now that that’s not kosher.

It is utterly amazing the number of people here who have absolutely nothing to back up their claims and their denunciations. Why does FRDB attract so many of these bankrupt posters?

Why should I express doubt? There is certainly nothing that any of you have said here which would in the least discredit my arguments. And once again, you refuse or are incapable of understanding the distinction between grammatical ambiguity per se, and the question of whether extra-grammar considerations are another matter entirely. Why are you stuck in that mental loop? You can’t even recognize it!

Jake, every post you write illustrates your lack of comprehension. On JM I used to have some respect for you, even if I didn’t agree with you. Now you’ve shown your true intellectual colors, and it isn’t pretty. No one ever makes a discovery within an old field that changes the way that field is perceived? That’s your counter position?

This is why it is so difficult to debate or discuss anything with you, Bernard. You simply don’t comprehend what you read. Did I say that “from scripture” was to be found in the Greek? I quoted the text: “it is evident”. I said that the meaning to be taken from it, when one looks at the context, is that “it is evident from scripture.” I am not saying that the latter phrase in its entirety is in the text. Is this such a challenge to your reading skills?

As for the rest of your post, I’ve answered it all before. Sigh.

Good night all. Back to the sane part of my life.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

One last parting shot. I must be a glutton for punishment. You still don't get it aa. It is NOT the PASSAGE which is ambiguous, it is the tense structure of the contrafactual per se which is grammatically ambiguous. When the PASSAGE is considered as a whole, it is NOT ambiguous. I have demonstrated that, and no one has disproven my demonstration. The grammar is NOT the fundamental issue. The ambiguous grammar simply opens the door to bring in other considerations as to which option is necessary and which option fails on logical grounds.

As for your appeal to Ellingworth:

Ellingworth is not saying that those who would want to interpret the statement in 8:4 as possibly having a past reference are misunderstanding it and are wrong about that possibility. After all, Ellingworth himself has just admitted that it is possible, that the imperfect tense can technically be understood in either a past or present sense. What he is saying is that reading the verse with such a possibility in mind could lead to the misunderstanding that Jesus had never been on earth. So in fact, Ellingworth has legitimized my contention that it can be so understood, despite all the bleating from those here who are hung up on this concept of the grammar itself being ambiguous, as though that is all we need to consider.

But by this time, I don't expect any of you to grasp this.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

You are just going in a vicious circle. You keep repeating the same thing. We already know that the passage is grammatically ambiguous.

You cannot get past the ambiguity. You are stuck.

We already know that Hebrews is an unprovenanced, anonymous undated source that had ZERO influence on the authors of the Canon and was unknown by Apologetics up to the mid 2nd century.

Your Hebrews 8.4 challenge was worthless.

You have no corroborative evidence--no supporting sources.

Kapyong

It's no good Earl -

that passage being 'ambiguous' has become one of aa's favourite truisms.

He will beat you with it every post from now on.

But look on the bright side - at least he's not using red text


Kapyong