Jeffrey Gibson

Nor is Earl D. So what's your point?

Jeffrey

Toto

My first point was that Lowder should not be quoted as an authority on historical methodology. My second was that his quote was misinterpreted.

Sheshonq

No, it is not.

We have ancient texts affirming the existence of hydras and minotaurs. By your simplistic test, they are prima facie evidence for the existence of hydras and minotaurs.

If "yes", then your methodology is flawed.
If "no", then explain why your methodology can't be applied in this case.

Jeffrey Gibson

Nor by the implications of your logic should Earl when it comes to the history of early Christianity or the interpretation of NT texts.

Jeffrey

Toto

Please find any instance where anyone (even Earl) has quoted Earl as an authority. He is an interested amateur with some ideas that he has published, which others here have reacted to favorably or unfavorably, in whole or in part.

Jeffrey Gibson

Hasn't Ted/Jacob? AS? Price? Carrier? What about P. Eddy and G. Boyd and Dan Wallace?

Then there are all the notes here:

And certainly Earl has quoted himself often enough -- and not just in his reviews of negative reviews of his work -- specifically to show that he has a grasp of matters NT things that is far better than anyone in the guild has. And didn't he just refer us to what he has written and "published" re Wagner to show us that he has demonstrated "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that "Wagner is ... essentially a fraud, not as a scholar but in terms of the blatant bias he brings to the subject, which skews and discredits almost every conclusion he puts forward in his book" and that his work is "no dispassionate professional study of the subject".

Didn't he claim authority over Smith by "quoting" what he has written on Smith's views?

But what ever may be the case here, please note that the issue is not whether anyone, including Earl himself, has quoted or regarded Earl as an authority.

The issue is whether, given the reasons you gave for not taking what J.J. Loader says about matters NT authoritative and for not regarding him one who speaks with authority, anyone should do so. So unless you want to admit you work with a double standard, then you are committed by your own criteria of who should and should not be regarded as an authority and as capable of, and competent to, speak with authority (i.e., if they are not a professional historian, a qualified scholar, and/or a specialist in the field that they make pronouncements on, then they should not be so regarded) to declare that Earl should not be viewed as, quoted as if he were, and/or taken to be, someone who should be listened to.

Isn't that essentially what you noted was the very reason that J.J. Loader's claims should not be taken seriously or as having any real weight?

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you have stated publicly your view of Earl's scholarly status.

I wonder if he will agree with your assessment.

Jeffrey

Toto

What about them? Carrier evaluated Doherty's book. Eddy, Boyd and Wallace are Christians. Why would they cite Earl Doherty as an expert?

He thinks that confessional interests have clouded the minds of some in the guild. That is a good reason to not trust authority.

Have you read what he wrote yet? No, he does not pull rank on Smith. He provides arguments. He actually says lots of complimentary things about Smith.

Are you dipping into the holiday cheer a little early, Jeffrey? Why this combativeness over a non-issue?

It's Lowder, not Loader.

And I did not say that a person has to be a qualified authority before their arguments are worth listening to.

Doherty gives his credentials, but he does not expect anyone to take his word at face value. He provides arguments, reasons, citations to texts, etc. Any educated person can evaluate what he writes and decide if it makes sense.

John Loftus merely quoted Jeff Lowder's words as if they were holy writ, without even delving into what they meant.

Did I mention that I am not a big fan of reasoning by authority?

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't why they did, but whether they did. After all your claim was that no one, including Earl, quoted Earl as an authority. Are you saying that they didn't do this?

And what about Ted/Jacob. Or Logic and Reason. Are you saying that they have not quoted Earl as an authority?

.

Not the issue. The issue is whether your claim that Earl never quotes himself as an authority on issues he makes claims over is true. Is it or isn't it.

Again, the issue is whether he pointed us to what he has written against Smith as a place where one an find a demonstration that Smith's arguments are rooted in bias.

Are you saying that I've been drinking?

Is whether you'll stick by your own claims and/or whether you'll own up to the implications of them, a non issue? You, as I recall, have certainly made it one when you felt that HJ scholars have been inconsistent in their claims.

OK. So what, then, was the basis of your saying that Lowder shouldn't be listened to as an authority on the matter that was was being raised by John?

Jeffrey

Toto

Here is what I posted:Where did I say that he should not be listened to? Nowhere that I can see.

I was arguing against Loftus' claim that professional historians accept ancient documents as prima facie evidence. In considering this claim, it is useful to know that Jeff Lowder is not a professional historian.

Would you agree or not?

Sheshonq

Indeed. You're the one who claimed that this list of people cited Doherty as an expert. Let's see the proof of that.

You are confused about burden of proof, Jeffrey. Toto's response was merely "Why would they do such a thing". Your burden of proof is not removed by handwaving and saying "Are you claiming they did not?" Nice try at shifting the burden of proof.

It was your assertion that this list of people you presented all cited Doherty as an expert at some time or another. If you believe that is the case, then burden of proof rests on your shoulders to show that:

(1) each of these people on your list cited Doherty and - in doing so -
(2) referred to him as an expert in this field.

That was your claim. And after all, that's the thrust of your accusation against Toto. But so far, it it remains an unsupported allegation.