Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 11-24-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Well, I've written 20 posts in 24 hours, and I think that's just about enough. And I have achieved what I set out to do - to find out how much you guys take notice of the best scholars.

And I find that you do not take much notice. You give various reasons for this:

All the scholars are christians and hence can't be trusted.
Of course not all of them are, but that doesn't seem to matter. And then you don't seem to see any inconsistency in your trust of Richard Carrier, who is an atheist! I am willing to judge people by their qualifications and how their peers view them, but you apparently are not.
The scholars are somehow totally inept, have never looked at the evidence, are out of date, etc.
Like I've already said - poisoning the well fallacy.
I have misrepresented the scholars.
No-one actually documented this.
In the end we prefer scholars who start from our point of view.
Understandable, but hardly objective.
We prefer our own opinions to those pesky scholars.
Ditto.

In all these claims and accusations, there was a distinct lack of evidence. Scholars at prestigious universities, and with many books and peer-reviewed publications to their name were maligned rather than having to face up to what they say. It all sounds a little like a Young Earth Creationist avoiding facing expert evidence.

So, I am much discouraged by this, but in another way it has been a useful exercise. As Napoleon is reputed to have said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." So I will leave you with it. (I will read any final comments you have, but will only respond briefly, if at all.)

Best wishes. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to get involved, and thanks for the courtesy with which this discussion has been carried forward.

Assumptions. Reading through your responses, it seems as though you might have missed this bit.

You may want to go back to your sources and read them more carefully. The elephant is not hard to miss.

TimBowe · 11-24-2009, 01:17 AM

Quote:

they argue for early belief in the resurrection on historical grounds

Wow, is that really what they do?

You can't argue anything about the resurrection on historical grounds, to say they do is nonsensical.

maryhelena · 11-24-2009, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

So many different scholars have attempted to answer the question of what, if anything, can be known about the life Jesus. Can we (by historical reconstruction) find out with any certainty who Jesus really was?

A Cynic Philosopher, Apocalyptic Preacher - or what have you? All things to all people, an everyman Jesus? Since the mythicist position holds that Jesus of Nazareth is a mythological construction and not a historical figure - such questions as these don’t actually further the historical debate over the early beginnings of Christianity. All they really do is highlight the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth is made up of bits and pieces of historical and mythological elements.

The question is not whether Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the gospel storyline was such and such - the question is rather what historical persons and events have contributed to the creation of the gospel storyline. A storyline that is an interpretation, a re-evaluating of history through a prophetic or theological lens - and not an actual historical chronicle of the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.

A summary of the Jesus of Nazareth storyline:

Quote:

'Israelite and Judean History', (Hayes and Miller, 1977 pages 641, 642) emphasizes Christianity's lack of historical evidence for its claims for Jesus:

"Jesus was probably born in or near Nazareth...Nothing firm can be said of him until he was about thirty....To present the shape of the career of Jesus is a matter of forming the most probable hypothesis to cover those facts which can be reasonably entertained after radical synoptic criticism. It seems that Jesus believed himself entrusted by God with the reformation of his people for the task of converting the world, that he believed it necessary to win back those who lived among Gentiles in the north in his own Galilee, in southern Syria, in the Decapolis, and in the territory of Philip. He ranged widely over these areas from a headquarters at Capernaum on the north side of the Lake of Galilee,.....and to his own surprise found himself accepted by Gentiles as well as by penitent Jews. His morality was traditional but his intellectual grasp of its basis was original unconventional. More articulate than other Galilean religious figures, he had the extra-ordinary gift both for the poetic expression of his interpretation of his nation's wisdom and for facing men and women with their own crises. Supremely in history his impact challenged both humble individuals and well established authority, the latter disturbed....by his apparent willingness to associate with Rome and its agents."

There is a historical individual who could well have been used as a model for some parts of the Jesus of Nazareth storyline - possibly the Cynic Sage element. Possibly also as a model for a spiritual or symbolic non-Jewish Messiah - one who, like Cyrus, the Anointed One who freed the Jews from physical bondage in Babylon - could free, or could be viewed as contributing to the spiritual freedom, of the early Jewish Christians from bondage to the Mosaic Law.

From Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews. Book XV111,ch.1V,par.6). This quote recounts the history of Philip the Tetrarch - a man living during the gospel timeline and in whose territory the gospel Jesus of Nazareth spent some considerable time. Thus giving rise to the question of whether he was a Johnny come lately - or did the two ever come across each other?

Quote:

“About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years. He had shewn himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him, he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgement, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal sat down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint; he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took (or he left no sons behind him) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave orders that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrarchy."

Josephus also provides the information that Philip built the city of Caesarea Philippi, and Julias, which was formally the village of Bethsaida. (Ant.XV111,ch.11.par.1,ch.V par.4).

Quote:

Israelite and Judean History', (Hayes and Miller, 1977 page 636

“Philip (son of Herod by Cleopatra of Jerusalem) was remarkable among Herodians for his popularity and benevolence as a ruler. His reign being peaceful, there is less to report of him; but he too was a builder, and a straightforward supporter of the Roman empire. (Ant. XV111 28, War 11 168). He rebuilt ancient Paneas (Banias), giving it the name of Caesarea. During his reign it was suitably distinguished from the Roman provincial capital on the coast by the addition of Philippi and under the double name it became famous as the place where Simon Peter, most prominent of the disciples, ventured the title of Messiah for Jesus who, according to the oldest tradition rejected it. (Mark 8:27-33)…..Philip died childless in 34 CE….”

The gospel record states that Jesus' early disciples came from Bethsaida. (John 1:44). Some New Testament scholars have suggested that this Bethsaida is not the village of Bethsaida which Philip made into the city of Julias. Philip renamed Bethsaida as Bethsaida Julias in 30 CE, after the death of Livia/Julia, wife of Augustus and mother of Tiberius. (the gospel storyline making no reference to Bethsaida Julias even though it existed as that name during the gospel story timeline).

If one is looking for a well known, historical, first century peacenik, a man who, seemingly, was known for his benevolence as a ruler, a man who, with a few chosen friends, made his way around his territory to offer help to those in need - well then, Philip the Tetrarch should be on a shortlist of possible candidates….

Apocalyptic prophets were probably a dime a dozen - and of course, the historian Josephus, if taken at his word, was no stranger to interpreting dreams and prophetic viewpoints. The mythological elements in the gospel storyline? The Jewish philosopher Philo (dies in 50 CE) was by all accounts familiar with Greek mystery religions - and living in Alexander would have been also familiar with Egyptian mythology.

Philo

Quote:

“Arguments have been put forth that Philo was actually the founder of Christianity by virtue of his combination of Jewish theological ideas and those present in the Greek mystery religions, a combination of which would appear much like Christianity. It is possible the followers of Jesus seized upon Philo's precepts and incorporated them into the letters that became the New Testament.[2]”.

A non-Jewish Messiah, a Herodian ruler - there would be much in such a scenario to necessitate that things be kept pretty quite and secret - and much there to necessitate a review of prophetic interpretations - hence much there that would set free, those with insight, from the Mosaic Law. In comparison, a Jewish carpenter from Nazareth could offer no such forward thinking - even if he could avoid the long walk to Calvary.

spin · 11-24-2009, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

We know Grant well, as he is one of the few historians christian apologists can muster on the subject of historians and christianity. He has been repeated often enough, for a historian who was born in 1914 and missed out on a lot of the philosophical debates on historiography over the last thirty years.

It's a logical fallacy, it's called, I think, poisoning the well, and if that is the best you can do .....

Labeling problems away is wishfulfillment.

Do you know where history is now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Now you make a claim about Toto not understanding historical method. Would you care to give meaningful examples of this evident lack of understanding?

He said: "In the quest for the historical Jesus, the experts often have a commitment to a version of history that supports some version of the Christian faith, or some other political stance. They generally assume that there was a historical Jesus because somebody must have started Christianity, and they assume that they can extract some history from the gospels."

Grant, for one, does not do this.

So, you have one example. And you mean to say that Grant doesn't assume he can extract some history from the gospels? How does he introduce the gospels so as to show that there is history in them? You need to demonstrate that Grant, for one, does not do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

I thought this factual error meant Toto didn't understand, so I thought reading Grant may assist him. (I chose Grant because he was a non-believer and a secular historian, which removes a few obstacles.)

Yes, yes, he's the token that apologists throw up for want of anything recent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

When said he had read Grant, I apologised.

That was nice of you.

spin

spin · 11-24-2009, 04:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So your criterion is a popularity contest.

I'll take that in the spirit it was said, and laugh.

But if you are serious, peer review does not equal popularity contest.:huh:

If you want people to digest it for you, don't expect to get any nutrition from it. It is not how many people think something, but reasoning behind why they think it.

spin

Solo · 11-24-2009, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is a generic answer to this vow of perpetual intellectual poverty.....one of the greatest lines that I have ever heard in a motion picture. It is a cool answer of one attending physician to another when the latter rejoices over the contents od George III's chamberpot during the king's florid phase of mental illness (The Madness of King George):

...the persistent excellence of his majesty's stool has been one of this disease's most tedious features. Man, when will you get it into your head that one can produce regular, copious, and exquisitely formed evacuation every day of the week and still be a stranger to reason.

Jiri

Lol!

Can I infer from this comment that you are not interested in expert opinion on these matters?

The recipient of this lecture was a medical doctor and and the comment was an answer to his expert opinion.

Jiri

spin · 11-24-2009, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

All the scholars are christians and hence can't be trusted.
Of course not all of them are, but that doesn't seem to matter. And then you don't seem to see any inconsistency in your trust of Richard Carrier, who is an atheist! I am willing to judge people by their qualifications and how their peers view them, but you apparently are not.

You are hasty to generalize, aren't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

The scholars are somehow totally inept, have never looked at the evidence, are out of date, etc.
Like I've already said - poisoning the well fallacy.

Rush to judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

In the end we prefer scholars who start from our point of view.
Understandable, but hardly objective.

Very poor strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

In the end we prefer scholars who start from our point of view.
Understandable, but hardly objective.

Again, very poor strawman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

We prefer our own opinions to those pesky scholars.
Ditto.

Those pesky scholars are welcome to their opinions. It's their evidence which is important. You seem to be too busy wasting time gathering opinions and numbers and not dealing with the necessities of history, ie evidence. Yet, you come out with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

In all these claims and accusations, there was a distinct lack of evidence.

Just so that you know, yes, the issue is a distinct lack of evidence. It's time you noticed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Scholars at prestigious universities, and with many books and peer-reviewed publications to their name were maligned rather than having to face up to what they say.

If you would like to cite historians currently from prestigious universities, I'll be happy to look at their evidence... well, in fact, if you'd like to cite relevant evidence from non-historians then fine, but I really have not seen any evidence from you, just a litany of names and a reliance on opinions -- such as your first post in this thread, where the opinions seem more specifically like creedal statements. Scratch them and what do you find?

You seem to equate new testament text scholars with people who have a right to have their historical opinions held higher than those of other people. Everyone's free to have opinions and they're usually worth about the same as any other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

It all sounds a little like a Young Earth Creationist avoiding facing expert evidence.

Ah, evidence. You know what you should be talking about. When will you start?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So, I am much discouraged by this, but in another way it has been a useful exercise. As Napoleon is reputed to have said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." (I do not regard you guys as enemies, I would rather hope we could be friends, but you get the drift I'm sure.) So I will leave you with it. (I will read any final comments you have, but will only respond briefly, if at all.)

Perhaps, you should have been left to continue with your collections of names and opinons. I'm sure you prefer the conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Best wishes. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to get involved, and thanks for the courtesy with which this discussion has been carried forward.

You should get involved more. You'll get a better understanding of the dynamics of thought here.

:wave:

spin

Doug Shaver · 11-24-2009, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Can we (by historical reconstruction) find out with any certainty who Jesus really was?

Without some evidence that has yet to be discovered, I don't think so.

In my judgment, either he never existed, or he existed but we know nothing about him except that he was an itinerant preacher, he had some disciples, and he was executed by Pontius Pilate. I happen to lean hard toward the former position.

spamandham · 11-24-2009, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

So is anyone going to tell us all what their qualifications are for making these accusations and comments, and why we should believe them rather than the recognised experts?

Battling authority is not usually the way it works here. Accusations such as those you highlighted should be backed up directly with evidence and argument rather than sheepskins.

Toto · 11-24-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavy_wonder1

I wouldn't place Ehrman & Price in the same category. There's no similarity that I can see between the two...

Perhaps only one similarity, and that is the important one - they haven't persuaded many of their peers of their case.

Are you clear about who Ehrman is? He believes in a historical Jesus, he is well respected among his peers.

The only similarity is that both Price and Ehrman started out as believers, and lost their faith through actually reading the Bible.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.