Toto

This is sophistry. This is why science uses a consensus of informed experts, to weed out people who won't recognize reality.

Sigh. From what I have seen, the principles of historiography involve systematizing common sense and logic. Professionals who spend their time at it, and who interact with other professionals, can do a better job.

I know how I reached my conclusions - I read a lot, and I was appalled at the illogical and special pleading and (downright dishonesty at times) of the case for the historical Jesus. The positive case for mythicism is more difficult to make, but makes more sense, although some of the proponents can sound wacky.

But at a certain point, I realized that I had other priorities in my life. This is not actually a live issue for me, and has not been for several years now.

See above. Carrier is the only PhD historian outside of Biblical studies that I know of who is even addressing the issue of the historiography of Jesus.

So?

I have no idea what you are talking about, whether you (again) took some offhanded comment out of context, or what this means.

When the subject of William Walker came up, you misrepresented Walker and misrepresented me. I do not trust your impressions or your memory.

Right now, I am just trying to moderate the forum. What would you like me to back up?

Steven Carr

What do you want other than that no Christian in the first century AD ever put his name on a document that even hinted that Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Salome, Simon of Cyrene had ever existed?

Like all historians, I discount anonymous, unsourced, unprovenanced , undateable works, full of plagiarism, the supernatural and the undocumented.

In other words, like all historians, I discount the Novels until somebody produces some provenance for them that stands up.

This isn't rocket science.

It's History 101.

Steven Carr

What? Only a creationist would dare to question the historicity of somebody.

These Romulus-mythicists are simply scoundrels with no knowledge of how to apply the criterion of embarrassment , in the way all real historians do.

Rick Sumner

No, it isn't. Doherty's kata sarka, for example, seems arbitrary and ad hoc to me. It doesn't to you. This isn't science.

So let's see you systematize it. Even if you don't do a good job, surely you can explain your conclusions with more than "I don't expect to be able to prove it," it "makes more sense," and "I was appalled."

If it sounds more plausible to you personally, then hey. Great. That's the best history can hope to accomplish. But when you start denouncing the opposition as not engaging in history, or having a case that is observably weaker than you, you should be able to define the terms you're judging them on.

So what is history? How is it preformed?

"Makes more sense" doesn't amount to much.

If you're not going to back up your charges because it "isn't a live issue," you probably shouldn't make them.

I didn't ask about the "historiography of Jesus," I asked how history should be done generally.



Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by the term "bankruptcy." Because bankruptcy is exactly what my citation of you is describing. We could add to it the "tiresome" list of assumptions of motive and analogies to creationism, which, to you, epitomize the historicist position (and the way you ignored my response to that. . .whoops).

When the subject of creationism came up you said not a word of warning to Doherty. When the subject of assumptions of motive came up, it was only okay one way, the other was met with sober reminders. I don't trust your objectivity or your insight, and doubt you actually have a reason for your conclusions other than that it makes you feel good to think they're true.

I misrepresented neither. But I'll tell you what, here's a direct quote for "I don't expect to be able to prove" it:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=105

If you want to keep trading shots, we can do that. But I'd prefer it if you'd actually back up your statements.

Couldn't be much clearer. I would like you to back up that your notion is more historiographically solid than the historicist position. To lay out a methodology that says that one is sensible and the other "weak." To lay out a general approach to history that explains 1) How history should be preformed, 2) What the historicist is failing to do in that light and 3) How the mythicist interpretation is more in keeping with sound historiography.

Rick Sumner

Is that what all historians do? Would you agree with my definition of "evidence?"

From what I've seen, you're failing horribly. But we'll see. What we're looking for is not a historiography that says historicists are wrong, we're looking for one that says mythicists are right.

Rick Sumner

What?

Not at all. I'd tend to view Romulus as a myth. But you offer nothing more than rhetoric. Which is par for your course, really.

If you offer something substantial, maybe have someone let me know.

Toto

I have not endorsed Doherty's interpretation of kata sarka. I don't know; possibly he's right. I don't think that if he is wrong on this isue, that means that a historical Jesus existed.

Perhaps if I decide to become professional historian or philosopher, I will write the compete theory of historiography.

This is stuck in your brain. I am not able to micromanage the discussion here. If you think something is a rules violation, you can report it. If it doesn't rise to a rules violation, you can address it, as you did.

You were wrong. I quoted extensively from Walker to support my case. You had to back down on the "heavy burden of proof" issue, since Walker clearly stated that interpolations should not require a "heavy" burden of proof.

Clearly taken out of context. That was in conversation with GDon in regard to one specific point, after he pressed me on the issue of defining an alternative detailed mythicist explanation of the origins of Christianity, which I was not prepared to do and felt no need to do.

What notion specifically?

Right. You want me to solve all of the problems of defining history so you can apply them to the historical Jesus, all in a forum post.

Look, you have some sort of a chip on your shoulder. I don't quite understand what it's about. Based on your misunderstanding of Walker, I don't know if you even know what it's about.

Rick Sumner

Nonetheless, it seems ad hoc and arbitrary to me. It doesn't to you.

I'm not looking for a "complete theory of historiography." I'm looking for the one you're employing.

It's not "stuck in my brain" at all. It's trading shots for shots. If you stick to the current discussion, I'll return the favor I assure you.

I "backed down" on whether or not Walker requires a heavy burden of proof, not on whether or not one should exist (and pointed you to Murphy O'Connor's response to Walker). And, if you'll recall, I quoted from him extensively as well.

But in either event, that's on that thread. Feel free to resurrect it if it gnaws at you so much. I don't believe I've ever, in all my years on this board, seen a months' old thread drawn up in this petulant fashion. If you feel I somehow wronged you personally months ago, well, I suppose I apologize, it wasn't my intention. I was shooting from the hip for the most part anyway, since I found Walker's book nonsensical (there are interpolations in Shakespeare's works, that does not mean we approach all passages with the assumption they might be interpolated).

But, seriously, let it go.

That's not out of context at all. In fact, that's exactly the context I'm suggesting it's in. You can't back it up, you don't even expect to be able to back it up, but somehow that's not weak, but the historicist case is. That's hypocrisy.

That the historicist case is less evidentially based than the mythicist case.

I have no interest in applying them to the historical Jesus. I'm fully aware of the approach I take to the historical Jesus I want to know how you apply them to the historical Jesus. Which I have to assume you've done. And it certainly won't be done in a "forum post." Did you not read the disclaimer in my first post?

I've told you what it's about. People who have no historical method nonetheless feel equipped to suggest that the conclusions of their opponents are not in keeping with historical inquiry.

And here we go trading shots again. Based on your constant intimations that everyone has a theological motive, I doubt you know what anything is about.

Now we're even again, giving and getting. Should we draw the line? Or do you want to work a thinly veiled insult into your next post too?

spin

Let's try to get Rick out of the rut of the perennial metadiscussion. He has been slaving away at this "but you guys aren't doing history" rave for as long as I can remember, never coming up with anything tangible or better.

One wonders why he does so frequently beat this gong: "I'm not going to talk about anything but how you should be talking the way I think you should be talking."

Non sequitur: "our opinions are falsifiable"? This somehow follows from a request for a certain type of information? Strawman logic here we come.

And you do do a lot of fast talking, Rick.

Actually, he's simply refuses to acknowledge the falsification.

Once you move beyond them, but first you have to establish that there are or are not any bedrock facts, don't we? Your discussions all seem to want to hinge around your fact free version of historiography.

Here you are once again pursuing your point-missing exercise of this or that event/detail doesn't have any hard evidence so the generic need for having a support for the field is bogus. A lot of early Roman "history" is suspect because there are no direct sources from the period they deal with, but you have no doubt about the very bedrock solid "facts" of the existence of Rome and the political status of the city at various times throughout its existence.

You find these "froth of history" examples to support your wayward attempts to spurn the need for hard evidence for the basic outlines of history. (And please don't try to quibble about phrases: if you basically understand then you've got the basic idea.)

Is that all? "[W]onderfully helpful"? You mean it doesn't change the ballgame somewhat?

Let's condemn both.

The MJer is right about the biblical exegete and therefore half right across the board.

You've made no tangible statements about history to show that you are in any position to make such sweeping generalizations, Rick. You're big on hype, but minimalistic on content. You bleat and whinge about how these other poor slobs are fucking up, but you've got nothing on the table. It's like you're a blank slate for anyone reading your views. You don't actually say anything.

Given the fact that you don't seem to actually have any content on the table, isn't it hypocritical for you to ask others to provide you with what you haven't been prepared to supply?

I bow to your expertise on the matter.

This is the "I have no stated views" pointing fingers at those who have put forward a view. You have put forward nothing of substance, Rick. You never have, have you? You've just got this new clothing of metadiscussion to hide your nudity and crudity.




spin

Rick Sumner

Here's your challenge. Bolded even. Find me one post, anywhere, ever where I've suggested anyone "isn't doing history." Ever. That is, in fact, the exact inverse of what I say. I say both parties are doing history. My problem is when one side says the other isn't.

So right now, before you go on, get me some specific quotes. Back up your mouth. Just this once, rather than giving paraphrases of imaginary conversations as you so often do, show me a real conversation where I've said anything of the sort.

This is nothing more than dishonesty.

We have to establish what types of bedrock facts are acceptable. It is a bedrock fact that there are texts. The historiographic question, at the moment, is what conclusions we can reach from those texts. Gurugeorge says we can only draw mythicist conclusions. I say if you can draw one, you can draw both. But it has to be both or neither.

The person missing the point, I'm afraid, is you. I'm suggesting that once the mythicist has allowed interpretations to be drawn from the texts for their conclusion it necessarily follows that the historicist can do the same. It has to be both or neither. And if we allow both, then nobody has a greater claim to truth.

That depends on how early you go. If I proposed that Rome formed as a secession from the Etruscans, you'd have a hell of a time falsifying it. The evidence simply isn't there. But either we allow interpretations from the evidence we do have, or we don't. You can't have it both ways. And it is, at present, the suggestion that we can only interpret it for one side that I'm taking issue with. If you want to propose that we can't do it at all, then that's dandy. At least it can be employed consistently.

What the fuck?

Fair enough, it changes the ballgame. When we have hard evidence, we're dealing with something closer to scientific method.

Here's the crux of the matter. For the purposes of my present discussion, in this present thread, you have absolutely no dispute with me. If you're going to condemn them both, then that's great. The position I'm taking issue with is the one that only condemns one.

FWIW, and largely (and ironically, given the fact that your example was given with complete ignorance toward the subject) owing to investigation of Augustan statuary I'm increasingly inclined toward demanding agnosticism when dealing only with texts, and increasingly inclined toward viewing HJ/MJ debates as ultimately a competition about who can tell a better story.

Coincidentally enough, while the example of Augustan statuary did not work in the way you intended it it does work as an example of the difference between what is gleaned from hard evidence and from texts. One can glean more about the role of tradition from the Via Labicana Augustus than one can from any text save, perhaps, the RG, for example.

I am probably closer to your position than anyone else who has posted in this thread, to this point. How's that for some irony in the midst of your vituperative (and baseless) rant?

The MJer is dealing with the same material the historicist is. The MJer is a biblical exegete, and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

Really? And here a few short weeks ago I was always saying that there was definitely an historical Jesus. Now I don't say anything at all, I put nothing on the table. Do you actually have any idea what is being said? One wouldn't know it here, because the position you ultimately take isn't disputing anything I've said.

And yet the only person who's supplied anything for historiography--a definition of evidence, a historiographic premise--is me. Of course, you give a nice long polemical rant where you misunderstand the dispute and then ultimately agree with one of the two tacks I suggest is acceptable, so I shouldn't assume you've bothered to understand anything, should I?

As opposed to this wonderfully substantiative post you've concocted? The one that contributes nothing but a lot of polemic, misunderstands the issue, and then--after agreeing with my fundamental point--raises its arm triumphantly?

I know it's hard to do. But try and read for comprehension.