Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 10-29-2007, 02:30 PM

Hi Doug,

I think we have quotations from enough diverse sources from all the important pre-Socratic philosophers that we can safely put them in the historical category. It is difficult to imagine an historical situation where somebody would have falsified a large number of sayings and attributed them to a fictitious philosopher. Plato and Aristotle most often quote them in an attempt to refute or argue with them.

The situation seems the reverse of Jesus where ordinary jokes and political sayings could be given more value by collecting them and attributing them to a God-man. Attribution of sayings to the Pre-Socratics would generally neither add value to the sayings or the philosopher since both their sayings and themselves were looked upon suspiciously by the general Greek communities that circulated their works.

Diogenes Laertes is the primary source for our knowledge of them in his "Lives of the Philosophers," and he is quite scrupulous about citing his quite diverse sources. Without his work, the question of whether they actually lived would be a more active one.

Reading him against Eusebius helps us distinguish a standards scale for ancient scholarship.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Do you mean primary evidence?

I have not studied historiography yet as much as I wish I could, but I've gotten the clear impression that when historians have no primary sources, they make what they can out of sources that are less than primary, and not infrequently state their conclusions with just as much confidence as if they were working from primary sources. They probably should not be so confident when working from secondary or lesser sources, but they're not asking my opinion, either.

As I see it, any historical narrative is, or ought to be, in effect a theory, proposed to explain some set of facts, those facts being the existence of certain documents and whatever relevant archeological artifacts happen to have been discovered. For example, "A philosopher named Thales lived in Miletus sometime around 600 BCE" is an explanation of the fact that this is asserted in various documents that we're pretty sure were produced by Aristotle and some other people of that era. If the man actually existed, then those references to him are traces (evidence) of his existence. If there was no such man, then they are traces or evidence of something else. The trick is figuring out which is more likely to be the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The importance of the pre-Socratic stuff is the ideas and what they contribute to the history of philosophy. Somebody had the ideas. The figures themselves are really just names to tag the ideas with.

That is what I have come to believe. I think the certainty with which apparently most historians affirm their existence is a mistake. In their defense, circumlocutions like "the idea traditionally attributed to ____" or "the philosopher ____, who according to several ancient writers . . . ." might soon get wearisome to read. But that only excuse so much. My intro-to-philosophy textbook clearly notes that we cannot be certain about what Thales or any of the other pre-Socratics really taught, but it concedes no doubt about their historicity. Of course, professors of philosophy are not themselves historians, but I assume they're getting some of their cues from historians.

Getting back to your original point about real people who leave no traces of themselves, it seems I agree with that and am just quibbling more over terminology than anything else. I do think that "no trace" or "no evidence" overstates the case with regard to Jesus. I think there is evidence for his existence, but I doubt his existence because I think there is also evidence against it, and I find it more persuasive than the evidence for it.

As for the pre-Socratic philosphers, my jury is still out on some of them.

EarlDoherty · 10-29-2007, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Probably the closest that there is to definitive cases for Jesus' historicity is work concerning the theologies/christologies of earliest Christian communities. I think it's safe to say that if one could demonstrate they all believed in a recently-lived historical Jesus (or all believed in a mythical Jesus), the case would be pretty well closed. The fact is, scholars see the historicity of Jesus assumed at nearly every corner…

They certainly do. And that’s the problem. It isn't the "assumptions" of the documents that are at issue here, it's scholars' own assumptions that they read into the documents, and that is precisely what a good portion of my attention has been devoted to. That’s the ‘mainstream’ scholarly case for an HJ: “We see him wherever we choose to see him.” No wonder there’s consensus on his existence, because that’s the universal preconception that is being imposed on their studies.

My latest enterprise is my much-awaited (by me!) study of Hebrews. It has now reached 50,000 words simply because there is so much nonsense that has been foisted on this document by every scholar who has undertaken a study of it, determined to see an HJ around every corner of the text, and I not only have to demonstrate this, but present an alternative exegesis. If the tradition about this document is representative (and it is) of the “definitive cases” for Jesus’ historicity in the theologies/christologies of early Christianity that you’re talking about, it’s small wonder academia is so convinced of its own infallibility. They’ve reconstructed the entire early record of Christianity in their own desired image. Taking a ‘second’ and much more thorough look at Hebrews and the scholarship on it has been an eye-opener even for me. I will take on all comers who want to defend an HJ in this document. (New target for getting it onto my website is two weeks.)

You have vastly exaggerated any dependence by me on Mack as a target. I have taken on books and website cases by a wide range of scholars, from Funk and Crossan down to hacks like Muller and Holding. Now that you’re being published in JHC (and for that I congratulate you), I guess you’re somewhere in the middle. Would you like to tackle my Hebrews study next? By the way, when will that issue actually be available? It will probably be useful in revisiting the chapters on Q for the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, which I’m leaving till last. (My new target date on that is February-March.)

Earl Doherty

Doug Shaver · 10-29-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I think we have quotations from enough diverse sources from all the important pre-Socratic philosophers that we can safely put them in the historical category.

I haven't studied the sources enough to have an informed opinion yet on that particular issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

It is difficult to imagine an historical situation where somebody would have falsified a large number of sayings and attributed them to a fictitious philosopher.

When I hear "falsify," I tend to think "lie." I do not believe and never have believed that if something isn't true then it must be a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Plato and Aristotle most often quote them in an attempt to refute or argue with them.

I presume, in those cases, that Plato and Aristotle believed that those people said those things. Next question: Why did they believe that? What sources were they relying on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Diogenes Laertes is the primary source for our knowledge of them in his "Lives of the Philosophers," and he is quite scrupulous about citing his quite diverse sources.

I have read much of his Lives, but it's been a while and my memory could be unreliable. I remember his citing sources, but I do not remember many of them being primary sources.

spamandham · 10-30-2007, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Like who, Richard Carrier? Is any other mythicist seeking a graduate degree in New Testament studies, Early Christianity, or Biblical Studies generally?

Who said anything about mythicism?

Regardless, I was thinking more along the lines of Robert Price, who although does not claim Jesus was mythical (neither do I by the way), is probably still one of the most qualified men on the planet to critique the basis of the HJ position, and does so regularly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Do you just ignore what I say because it's convenient or because you don't understand it.

I'm neither ignoring it nor failing to comprehend it. But since you choose to do nothing more than appeal to tradition and authority, I will happily ignore any more of your pointless and juvenile posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

And you have missed the great irony with your example of the geocentric earth. The very fact that Copernicus took up the burden of proof instead of sitting his basement complaining about how he shouldn't have to prove what he believes is why we're going with a heliocentric solar system now.

If you believe those who pushed a geocentric perspective had no burden of proof, then I can certainly understand why you think the same argument applies regarding HJ.

I don't however agree that in the modern age of critical thought, a geocentric perspective would have no burden of proof.

Zeichman · 10-30-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

They certainly do. And that’s the problem. It isn't the "assumptions" of the documents that are at issue here, it's scholars' own assumptions that they read into the documents, and that is precisely what a good portion of my attention has been devoted to. That’s the ‘mainstream’ scholarly case for an HJ: “We see him wherever we choose to see him.” No wonder there’s consensus on his existence, because that’s the universal preconception that is being imposed on their studies.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly, there are times where orthodox assumptions are imposed on ambiguous sayings (cross saying in Q), but at other times, it is well justified. I'm curious as to your interpretation of the dialogue between Jesus and John in Q, many sayings seem to presume historicity (son of man as a drunkard), as does the idea of a dialogue itself.

Quote:

You have vastly exaggerated any dependence by me on Mack as a target. I have taken on books and website cases by a wide range of scholars, from Funk and Crossan down to hacks like Muller and Holding. Now that you’re being published in JHC (and for that I congratulate you), I guess you’re somewhere in the middle. Would you like to tackle my Hebrews study next? By the way, when will that issue actually be available? It will probably be useful in revisiting the chapters on Q for the second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, which I’m leaving till last. (My new target date on that is February-March.)

Earl Doherty

I guess I see the influence of Mack on you in terms of a marriage with the work of Crossan on the historical Jesus and the early Christians. I certainly wouldn't claim that your work is identical to his, but there are elements where he is the only scholar I know of to have asserted something and you followed him on it. To provide a couple of examples, the stratigraphical location of some Q sayings (I don't have you work in front of me, so I'm working from memory here, forgive me if I'm wrong) like 13:34-35. Likewise, Vaage and Mack are the only two to assert that Q 6:22-23 as a whole belong to Q2, iirc. Kloppenborg, Arnal, and Robinson explicitly reject this, and Crossan is in Kloppenborg's camp, even if he finds it conceivable that more than 6:23c is in Q2. Mack is the only person who advocates Kloppenborg's hypothesis and finds a relationship between Q and Thomas or Q and Mark. Likewise the pre-Q1 source has been put forth by a few scholars (e.g., Arnal), but only Mack and Price have done so in a way that uses Cynicism either as an analogy or identity. Certainly, one could have encountered these ideas from people like Downing, Seeley, Price, Patterson, Arnal, Davies etc. and simply amalgamized them. I realize he isn't your only influence. I just see him as being a particularly problematic one, despite the importance of some of his ideas.

I have no idea when the new issue of JHC is coming out; Dr. Price told me it was "close to going to press" sometime this past July. I don't have the article on my computer for some reason, only on my parent's computer a few thousand miles away. I'm not going back home again until Christmas time, but if the fall 2007 JHC is not out by then, I can e-mail it to you. I don't have enough faith in my parents' ability to use the interwebs that they would be able to e-mail it to me in order that I could forward it to you sooner than that.

Regarding Hebrews: I couldn't, even if I wanted to for a number of reasons. I can't pretend that I know the epistles as well as I know the gospel traditions. Also, time is a big constraint at this point and probably will be for the next couple of years. Anything extended that's coming from me is probably going to be related to a class I'm taking at the moment.

Magdlyn · 11-01-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

NT scholarship has just stuck its fingers in its ears and gone "NYAHH NYAAAH, CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU!" ever since.

I'll grant you that there is a problem here: because the whole issue of Christianity touches a raw nerve for many people (one way or another) lots of cranks have weighed in. But they've weighed in on both sides of the argument. It's all too easy to denigrate an idea because of the company it keeps, but that cuts both ways, and if I'm not mistaken, 'nuff cranks have believed in a historical Jesus.

The giant "footprint" in history is of the God-man Jesus. The NT canon is supposed to be proof of the existence of this God-man. Nobody who is intellectualy serious takes that idea seriously any more. But you don't get to just pretend that, while the purported evidence of the God-man Jesus is obviously not evidence of a God-man, it nevertheless must be evidence of some man.

Correct and clearly put.

Quote:

That there is evidence of some man at the root of the myth, siftable from the God-man "evidence", has to be argued for, and it hasn't been.

Well, to be fair, the Jesus Seminar tried to do just that. But their criteria were rather suspiciously loose.

Toto · 11-02-2007, 10:59 AM

The discussion on baptism has been split off here

Toto · 01-04-2008, 12:30 PM

UPDATE

The start of the Project has been postponed to May of this year. (I don't know how much this has to do with the Center for Inquiry's expansion.)

There is a call for papers here.

Didymus · 01-05-2008, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Not to derail, but more and more of my research tends to show that Mohammed just may have been dependent on Jesus existing...

Go ahead, derail! How so?

Didymus

wordy · 01-05-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Not to derail, but more and more of my research tends to show that Mohammed just may have been dependent on Jesus existing...

How? Could you expand on that one. If the OP see it as too much of derail maybe you could start a new thread?

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

11-02-2007, 10:59 AM	#167
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The discussion on baptism has been split off here

01-04-2008, 12:30 PM	#168
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	UPDATE The start of the Project has been postponed to May of this year. (I don't know how much this has to do with the Center for Inquiry's expansion.) There is a call for papers here.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.