Amaleq13

Yes and "Would this then not mean..." suggests a necessary conclusion that follows from "this". Also, you offered no explanation for your stated "most likely".

Your position is flawed by conflating "transmission" and "reliability" when they are two separate considerations. The alternate transmission avenues exist, therefore we cannot assume that what we have is all that was known. The uncertain reliability is what leads to an agnostic view.

Only if there is sufficient evidence and I don't think you have it.

This is just the same short-cut thinking described with different words (ie over-generalization). You can't simply assume that, because there appears to be so much that is invented, everything must be invented. That is flawed logic.

The evidence we "most likely" describes complete fiction even though it isn't all obviously fiction and we know the evidence is a generally ambiguous mess? No. And don't call me Shirley.

gstafleu

Correct. But that is not the issue. The issue is: we have two hypotheses. One, MJ, uses an agreed-upon mechanism (faith-based inventiveness (FBI)), and with that explains the data. The other, HJ, while not denying that FBI exists and played a role, adds another element: a historical Jesus. The problem with that is that there is scant evidence to support this, and you need pretty solid evidence given that there is already a hypothesis explaining the data that uses mechanisms for which there is evidence and does not introduce elements for which there is hardly any evidence.

Again: evidence counts. The evidence we have, that is, not the evidence we don't have but that may be around somewhere. The absent evidence only becomes relevant once it surfaces. Until that point only the evidence we have determines what is likely.

If we did not have the agreed-upon mechanism of FBI, then HJ and MJ would indeed be on an equal footing: similar lack of known mechanisms for both. The point is we do have FBI, and that is sufficient to explain the data. Hence we do not need HJ, hence it exits the stage. It may of course remain behind the scenes in case new evidence calls for its reappearance.

Gerard Stafleu

Amaleq13

I don't see any significant difference between my summary and your "alternate" explanation. :huh:

An entirely fictional entity is just as much "another element" added to the equation as an historical figure and waving one's hands while declaring "fiction" does not constitute an actual explanation of the evidence.

There is scant conclusive or differentiating evidence to support either position.

It is not sound thinking to ignore the evidence for oral traditions and lost texts.

How very unscientific. The contingent nature of all scientific conclusions is based upon the fact that the potential for currently unknown evidence cannot be ignored.

The mechanism does not allow for this differentiation as it is used in the HJ scenario just the same.

Please explain the difference between the above statement and simply waving one's hands to declare "fiction". I see no difference.

gstafleu

I suspect this may be the hub of our disagreement. I am not waving my hands when it comes to explaining how the fiction came to be. Rather, I am pointing to a mechanism, faith-based inventiveness, that we both agree exists. You, however, insist on including an element for which scant evidence exists: an HJ. Where MJ is ahead of HJ is in that MJ only uses items (FBI) that are known to exist, while HJ uses an item (HJ) that is not known to exist and for which there is scant evidence.

Gerard Stafleu

spamandham

I don't really see how these passages from Romans strengthen the argument based on 1Cr. The first (Rom 9) is in regard to salvation by works vs faith, and the second (Rom 11) one regards the future (from "Paul"s perspective) justification of Jews.

gstafleu

I think we keep running into a methodological snag in certain aspects of this discussion, so it might be helpful to illuminate them. I will do so by using some familiar examples from the world of physics. After that I'll return to HJ/MJ.

We'll start with distinguishing two types of hypothesis. A "straightforward" hypothesis explains the data in terms of mechanisms that are already known. In physics circa 1900 an example would be explaining the trajectory of a cannon ball, or the orbit of a planet, in terms of Newtonian physics: every body agreed that Newtonian physics was real and effective.

Then along came Einstein with his relativity. Einstein could also explain the trajectory of a cannon ball. However, since Newton already explained the cannon ball quite well, that did not give Einstein any leg up. Einstein's hypothesis was at that point "not-straightforward": it introduced something extra (relativity) that was not yet a known quantity. Hence the priority went to the Newtonian explanation for the cannon ball, because that was at the time the straightforward hypothesis.

It was only once people found data that Newton could not explain but Einstein could, that Einstein's theory started to win. An example is the orbit of Mercury: it "wobbles" in a way that Newton could not explain but Einstein could. Note that it was not that Einstein could also explain the orbit of Mercury: there was no "also" about it, Newton could simply not explain it.

If it had turned out that all data could be explained by Newton (and also by Einstein), then Einstein's theory would have been shelved: it introduced something extra that was not necessary (relativity). In this (fictional) scenario it would not matter that Einstein could also explain the data. As long as Newton, who did not use the extra bit of relativity, could explain the data, Einstein remained in the background.

Now to HJ and MJ. MJ is a straightforward hypothesis when it comes to explaining the available Jesus data. It only uses a mechanism, faith-based inventiveness (FBI), of which everyone agrees that it exists and that it is operational. What is more, MJ explains all the available data quite well (or so it claims). HJ, interestingly enough, uses exactly the same mechanism as MJ, but it adds something extra: a historical Jesus. However, as long as the data can be explained by the more simple MJ hypothesis (more simple because it does not add the extra bit of an HJ), MJ wins the day.

HJ can only gain on MJ by demonstrating that there are data that it can explain while MJ cannot explain it. Note that this is different from finding data that HJ can also explain. Given the more straightforward MJ we don't care about also. We only care about data that MJ cannot explain while HJ can.

So the homework of HJers is simple: find such a wobbly orbit, find data that MJ cannot explain while HJ can. I'll give some examples.

1. A story like the Jesus story may contain a lot of FBI, but it always starts out with a historical figure.
The data that MJ cannot explain in this case is the data that mythologists have found to show that Euhemerism is generally valid. The problem is (afaik) that there is no such data: Euhemerism is not held to be a general model for mythogenesis.

2. There is data outside the mythology that MJ cannot explain but HJ can.
We all know the problem with this one: the little evidence there is is not nearly convincing enough to negate the simple MJ model.

3. There is data inside the mythology that MJ cannot explain but HJ can.
I haven't seen anybody adduce anything like that. Lots of instances have been adduced that can also be explained by HJ, but that doesn't count.

4. There is data that we don't have that MJ cannot explain but HJ can.
Fine, show it. Until you can show it, be Wittgensteinian about it.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

I think you are wrong about the MJ position. There is no need to invent anything. The Jesus story was pre-invented and presented and is classified as MYTH by MJ.

It is the HJ that must INVENT their human only Jesus from SILENCE.

• The NT claimed Jesus had no earthly father. HJ must INVENT an earthly father, using their imagination.

• The NT claimed Jesus raised dead people. HJ must INVENT stories, external of the NT and Church writers, to counter these claims.

• The NT claimed Jesus was transfigured. HJ must INVENT some other plausible explanation to make Jesus appear human, which is not found inside of the NT and early Church writers.

• The NT claimed Jesus was RAISED from the dead and ascended to heaven. HJ must reject these anecdotes and INVENT some other plausible scenario for Jesus, not found anywhere, internally or externally.

The HJ is just another RE-INVENTION of the God/Man Jesus. Marcion claimed he was really all God, now HJ claim he was really all Man.

But, the three is one. One MYTH.

andrewcriddle

Paul is alluding to OT passages in which Zion is a synonym for Jerusalem. See (as one of numerous examples) 2 Chronicles 5:2 Paul might conceivably mean a symbolic/metaphorical Zion just as if he had said Jerusalem he might have conceivably meant a symbolic/metaphorical Jerusalem.

However the use of "Zion" rather than "Jerusalem" does not IMO provide evidence that Paul is speaking symbolically.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

It is flawed logic to assume because there appears to be so much invented, everything else cannot be invented. Or because an event appears plausible that it must be true.

And further, if the Jesus story is fundamentally an invention, then all events surrounding the invention can be discarded for lack of credibility, even if they appear plausible.

It is therefore NOT a logical flaw to claim that since there appears to be so much invention about the Jesus story, that everything about Jesus MUST be invented, since it is logical that the statement MAY BE TRUE.

GakuseiDon

Sure, it's possible. I've always maintained that questioning Jesus's historicity is valid because of the few details we have about him. But I just haven't seen any mythicist reconstruction of the texts that makes more sense than a minimal HJ. The silences in Paul and early writings don't impress me very much as an argument, because we see the same things in writings extending beyond the first few centuries. But anything is possible, I suppose.