Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-28-2009, 09:31 AM

User judge is marked as suspended at his own request (probably wanted to get some work done instead of being tempted to post here.)

Chaucer · 07-28-2009, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

BTW, I'm interested, please, in what we generally hold to as being more important to us here on this board: our atheism or our Jesus mythicism? Thank you.

What is important here is an intelligent discussion of topics in Biblical Criticism and History, based on actual evidence rather than religious wishful thinking. The forum is open to atheists and believers of all varieties.

I can only think of a few marginal participants here who hold to mythicism as a core value. There are many more who find it the most probable hypothesis, or a hypothesis that needs more investigation. Most of us have arrived at that position by reading the conventional wisdom, or so-called consensus positions, and finding them woefully inadequate.

If so, you are in the minority among atheists, most of whom view the human Jesus of Nazareth as historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Unlike your overly long winded anecdote of calling your Congressman's office, the widely reported consensus often has no basis in fact.

That's just incorrect. Plenty of atheist scholars whom I know would be really surprised to know that a combination of secular texts, texts pro-actively rejected from Scripture and Scriptural texts are not facts. Each component here may not stand strong by itself, but plenty of atheist scholars, in fact the majority, take the combination as pointing to a set of clearly probable facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You could try to find any evidence of "oral tradition" - Biblical scholars have spent a lot of time investigating oral traditions in other cultures, but have not been able to show that oral traditions are reliable indications of history,

Give me a citation on this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

much less that any oral traditions lie behind Mark's narrative. Every part of Mark's story can be tied into the Hebrew Scriptures, and there are many indications that the gospel writers used those scriptures as their primary source.

I've heard that before. Now, are you dealing with facts here or with surmises?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If you look into the criteria of embarrassment, you will find that the consensus is not very robust. Even quite conventional scholars find problems with it.

Are they in the majority? And who ever said that a consensus means unanimity?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I make these points because certain Christian apologists have a habit of claiming that the consensus of historians is X, therefore X is a fact that must be accepted, where X might be the empty tomb or the existence of Jesus. This is just wrong as a matter of logic or historical principle.

If you are suggesting that my precis on a scholarly consensus learned virtually at my atheist father's knee is a form of Christian apology, then I've a bridge to sell you.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Chaucer · 07-28-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Maybe so, but it is still a prevailing consensus.

Isn't there a difference between a conclusion most scholars accept because of the weight of the evidence and an assumption many scholars make which lacks any such support?

To my knowledge, there is no evidence for an oral tradition. It follows from the assumption that Jesus was an historical figure. IOW, you are not quite reasonably following a scholarly consensus for this issue but engaging in circular reasoning by assuming your conclusion.

If there was an historical Jesus, there almost certainly was an oral tradition prior Mark being written. That conclusion is clearly not secure without the initial assumption.

Here's a suggestion: Why don't you prove to us that Rabbi Hillel was historical?

Chaucer

Toto · 07-28-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What is important here is an intelligent discussion of topics in Biblical Criticism and History, based on actual evidence rather than religious wishful thinking. The forum is open to atheists and believers of all varieties.

I can only think of a few marginal participants here who hold to mythicism as a core value. There are many more who find it the most probable hypothesis, or a hypothesis that needs more investigation. Most of us have arrived at that position by reading the conventional wisdom, or so-called consensus positions, and finding them woefully inadequate.

If so, you are in the minority among atheists, most of whom view the human Jesus of Nazareth as historical.

Why should I care?

Quote:

Unlike your overly long winded anecdote of calling your Congressman's office, the widely reported consensus often has no basis in fact.

That's just incorrect. Plenty of atheist scholars whom I know would be really surprised to know that a combination of secular texts, texts pro-actively rejected from Scripture and Scriptural texts are not facts. Each component here may not stand strong by itself, but plenty of atheist scholars, in fact the majority, take the combination as pointing to a set of clearly probable facts.

Only probable? How probable?

Quote:

Biblical scholars have spent a lot of time investigating oral traditions in other cultures, but have not been able to show that oral traditions are reliable indications of history,

Give me a citation on this.

Search the archives here for oral tradition. I had this same discussion about a year ago.

Quote:

Every part of Mark's story can be tied into the Hebrew Scriptures, and there are many indications that the gospel writers used those scriptures as their primary source.

I've heard that before. Now, are you dealing with facts here or with surmises?

Michael Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

Quote:

If you look into the criteria of embarrassment, you will find that the consensus is not very robust. Even quite conventional scholars find problems with it.

Are they in the majority? And who ever said that a consensus means unanimity?

Do you understand what I mean by robust? Do you decide the truth by counting votes, especially in a field dominated by Christians?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I make these points because certain Christian apologists have a habit of claiming that the consensus of historians is X, therefore X is a fact that must be accepted, where X might be the empty tomb or the existence of Jesus. This is just wrong as a matter of logic or historical principle.

If you are suggesting that my precis on a scholarly consensus learned virtually at my atheist father's knee is a form of Christian apology, then I've a bridge to sell you.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

I will not buy your bridge. I will not buy your outdated reconstruction of a historical Jesus.

Please stop referring to anonymous atheists as if that were some sort of qualification. Almost all scholars in the last generation were atheists, but many of them had not given up their religious or cultural attitudes. You can find atheists at American Atheists, such as Frank Zindler, who reject a historical Jesus. You can find other atheists who believe in a historical Jesus. So what?

Christian apologists like to cite the Humanist Will Durant as support for a historical Jesus. Will Durant was not a professional historian and made some serious mistakes in his passage on the historical Jesus.

When I ask for citations, I would like the name of the scholar, the date of the publication, and the name of the publication at a minimum.

Now I am seriously out of time.

Toto · 07-28-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you prove to us that Rabbi Hillel was historical?

Chaucer

Here's a suggestion: read some of the archives. Try to prove that Socrates was historical. Try to prove that William Tell was historical. Consider why no one gets upset at the idea that either of these persons were or were not historical, and are willing to live with the uncertainty.

Chaucer · 07-28-2009, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop referring to anonymous atheists as if that were some sort of qualification. Almost all scholars in the last generation were atheists, but many of them had not given up their religious or cultural attitudes.

Sorry, too nebulous. If one is an atheist, one is not going to take anything -- anything -- on faith. And I should know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can find atheists at American Atheists, such as Frank Zindler, who reject a historical Jesus. You can find other atheists who believe in a historical Jesus. So what?

Seriously, does anyone here know if anyone has ever attempted an explanation as to how come there seem to be a higher proportion of Jesus mythicists among atheists on line than among atheists in the off-line world?

Sincerely,

Chaucer

Loomis · 07-28-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Going back to chronology for a moment, Mark's being regarded as the earliest is also contingent on certain details in it that get steadily played down in the later Gospels, details potentially embarrassing to a steadily growing process of hagiography in the later Gospels. The reason why such details involve sources is because this factor may also suggest oral sources less rigidly screened than in the later Gospels. But not all professional scholars hold to such reasoning. Essentially, whatever the nature of the sources for the embarrassing details that disappear in succeeding Gospels, the fact that more and more such details disappear while more and more hagiography gets substituted suggests both the chronological priority of Mark and also the distinct possibility that some of the (probably but not definitely oral) sources behind those details are not sources out to "transfigure" anything. They suggest unvarnished gossip collected before the man was virtually deified.

The Criteria of Embarrassment dictates that Mickey Mouse was a historical rat. Look at this unflattering drawing of him from his second movie.

If Mickey was a mythical figure they would certainly have made him look cuter than that.

Chaucer · 07-28-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Going back to chronology for a moment, Mark's being regarded as the earliest is also contingent on certain details in it that get steadily played down in the later Gospels, details potentially embarrassing to a steadily growing process of hagiography in the later Gospels. The reason why such details involve sources is because this factor may also suggest oral sources less rigidly screened than in the later Gospels. But not all professional scholars hold to such reasoning. Essentially, whatever the nature of the sources for the embarrassing details that disappear in succeeding Gospels, the fact that more and more such details disappear while more and more hagiography gets substituted suggests both the chronological priority of Mark and also the distinct possibility that some of the (probably but not definitely oral) sources behind those details are not sources out to "transfigure" anything. They suggest unvarnished gossip collected before the man was virtually deified.

The Criteria of Embarrassment dictates that Mickey Mouse was a historical rat. Look at this unflattering drawing of him from his second movie.

If Mickey was a mythical figure they would certainly have made him look cuter than that.

No one tried to deify Mickey Mouse. Plenty of starstruck believers tried to deify Jesus of Nazareth.

Chaucer

Amaleq13 · 07-28-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Here's a suggestion: Why don't you prove to us that Rabbi Hillel was historical?

Non sequitur.

The logical fallacy inherent in your position remains.

And I am not a mythicist.

spin · 07-29-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please stop referring to anonymous atheists as if that were some sort of qualification. Almost all scholars in the last generation were atheists, but many of them had not given up their religious or cultural attitudes.

Sorry, too nebulous. If one is an atheist, one is not going to take anything -- anything -- on faith. And I should know.

Oh, cut the crap. You've been spewing the dubious consensus here ever since I've seen your posts and now your trying to say atheists don't take anything on faith. If you're an example, of course they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can find atheists at American Atheists, such as Frank Zindler, who reject a historical Jesus. You can find other atheists who believe in a historical Jesus. So what?

Seriously, does anyone here know if anyone has ever attempted an explanation as to how come there seem to be a higher proportion of Jesus mythicists among atheists on line than among atheists in the off-line world?

What is your obsession with mythicism?? Can you tell me what you mean by "mythicism"? Is it the same as "fictional" or as "unreal"? Is "myth" to do with certain religious information or are you using it more widely? It might help to know why you are so hung up about it.

spin

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

07-28-2009, 09:31 AM	#141
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	User judge is marked as suspended at his own request (probably wanted to get some work done instead of being tempted to post here.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.