Freethought & Rationalism Archive

01-21-2004, 06:41 AM

Greetings Richard,

Thanks for your informative posts :-)

Quote:

We have developed computer programs that can detect the same patterns our brains subconsciously detect in modern texts

Hmmm...
that sounds very useful indeed, where can I learn more about such programs?

i.e.
Have they been applied to the NT?
What are the results?
Can I get hold of such programs?

thanks,

Iasion

Toto · 01-21-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Carrier
If you want to bone up on this subject, then required reading is Charles Talbert, What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

What Is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels

Quote:

. . . . there certainly are some available indicators in this case, but they are insufficient to be decisive. The name "Jesus" (as just one example) is exactly the name one would expect from a myth of an eponymous hero, though it is also still consistent with a real man. And genre would be a big help here (in favor of ahistoricity) if it were not for the contested meaning of the Epistles. The Epistles are not at all in the same genre as the Gospels, and yet they treat Jesus (by traditional interpretations) as a historical person. And if one relied solely on genre, one would have to conclude that he was. It is only from an analysis of the way Jesus is discussed in them that one can argue that, though the epistolary genre is not inclined to fabricate historical persons, these epistles are not pretending to fabricate a historical person, but are discussing a (believed-to-be) genuine celestial person--if one follows Doherty's interpretation.

. . . For example, if you wanted to argue that the epistles are fabricating a historical person (let's say, Paul wrote them knowing there was no Jesus, but didn't think that was important to the movement he was fostering in Greece and Asia Minor), you would be going against the expectations of the semi-private epistolary genre, and therefore would need to advance some evidence (even if only internal) sufficient to justify that deviation. In contrast, one does not need additional evidence to assert at least a weak but still sufficient confidence in what fits the expectations of a genre (such as the historicity of Jesus). Thus the burden is really on the ahistoricist here. This does not mean he can't meet that burden, only that he must present evidence that outweighs the strength of our genre-based expectations. Doherty makes a pretty good case to that end, for example--even if he is wrong, his approach is a paradigm example of how such an argument must procede.

Doherty has made his job much harder by accepting the standard view on the dating and authenticity of Paul's epistles. If his few references to a seemingly historical Jesus are second century interpolations, the historicist case suddenly becomes very weak.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.