gurugeorge

Welcome to BC&H, you'll find that's a common trope amongst some of the HJ-ers/anti-MJ-ers here.

gurugeorge

Even an opinion "rooted in the evidence" can be wrong. People take evidence in different ways.

Rick Sumner

Actually, that was me.

Indeed one could. And while there are certainly benefits to that, it's hardly necessary for the dilettante to do so. Instead we rely on the experts. I don't read a whit of Coptic either, and have absolutely no reservations about assuming that people who do have done their job. If something contentious is there (as was the case with the Gospel of Judas recently), I'll cheerily read both sides, and pick the one that sounds better to me.

And the one I pick will be entirely subjective, and owe as much--if not more--to my own biases about what sounds plausible than any actual reading of the evidence. I don't read Coptic, ultimately I have no idea if someone is stringing me along or not. If I side with the consensus, or the majority, or whatever word one wants to choose, then wonderful. I'm on good ground to simply point to that consensus as the source for my conclusion, if I'm disinclined to investigate any further.

But if I decide against the consensus I'm doing it as much, or more, because of my own biases toward plausibility as anything else. It's my predisposition that determines it. It has to be--I don't read Coptic. I don't know the issues, and for all I know any party could be spewing absolute nonsense and I'd never know the difference.

Consensus makes it less likely that you're being strung along, but even that really doesn't matter here, as I'll explain below. Everybody got so hung up on "consensus" that by the time we get to actual clarification of misunderstandings and the like, the issue is something else entirely.

And that was my point to begin with (and indeed still is). The difference between me picking a translation and an academic picking a translation is they have more knowledge, more familiarity with the field, and a better understanding of the issues. They have weigh more evidence, but ultimately their idea of plausibility is as subjective as mine. It's just more informed.

You (and Toto, actually, though he gets what I'm saying, just thinks they're directed at the wrong person) seem to be getting mixed up somewhere. I never said it was bad to rely on experts. I said, in fact, that we are required to. The person taking issue with that was gurugeorge.

Indeed. Which is why I'm saying you are getting offended unjustifiably. You (or "person X" as I think I decided to call him) are doing exactly the same thing a more informed dilettante, such as most of the posters here do, and indeed the same thing an academic does, at least a majority of the time.

We are dealing in plausibilities, not facts. And plausibility is inherently subjective. The point of the illustration was (as I stated then) that predilection becomes less overt as we move from the outright layman, to the more studious dilettante, up to the academic, but it does not disappear, and is fundamentally the same thing.

I am certainly not suggesting we should rely on the consensus for everything. I have, in fact, stated the opposite numerous times. On the contrary, we should challenge the consensus if we're equipped to do so, and perhaps even be skeptical if we are not.

But nobody cares enough about every subject to learn enough about it to bother. And even if we did, we simply lack the capacity. The only reason the consensus was mentioned was to preclude the "logically" defensible position for taking a stance in a field you are not familiar with. When you're not familiar with a field, you rely on those who are. When you buck those who are and are not familiar, then it is overwhelmingly motivated by predilection most, if not all, of the time. It really has to be.

Predilection and "whim" are not the same thing, though if you were to suggest that whim of the exegete is the single biggest criteria in historical criticism you probably wouldn't be far off.

It doesn't determine each one. But if, for example, you read a book tomorrow on Schizophrenia that convinced you that it was in fact caused by owning a copper button on denim pants (I realize you won't do that, it's a reductio ad absurdum), it would be your predilection that convinced you of that.

Historical reconstruction, in particular, is--again--a question of plausibilities. Plausibility is inherently subjective. "Person X" isn't doing anything that the academy isn't. They just have less information to work with. And that was my point to begin with--an answer to your question about Carrier and explanatory power, that seems to have been lost when everybody jumped on the term "consensus."

No. You're getting too caught up on the "consensus." It was there to preclude falling back on the normative reason we form conclusions on subjects we aren't familiar with. Again, if you're taking it too personally, we can switch you with "person X."

Rick Sumner

As opposed to mythicists, who always present calm, reasoned arguments. Though your shot might have more force if it actually resembled what I'd said, rather than Bree's rephrasing of it.

Rick Sumner

Indeed it can, and indeed they do. Which was rather my point to begin with.

spamandham

I get annoyed by this as well, and not just in regard to source material, but in regard to translations as well. If I can not trust the translations to be reasonably accurate on whole (I understand that there are nuances that translations necessarily miss), this is the same as not being able to trust the translators - who happen to be the very same experts I am told to listen to unquestioningly. If I can't trust their translations, then I don't trust their conclusions either.

avi

Marcus Menucius Felix lived sometime in the mid to latter 2nd century CE. Luke 23:34 as I understand it, perhaps incorrectly, is not found in Codex Vaticanus, nor in Papyrus P75 (Bodemer), appearing instead, only after the fourth Century,CE, i.e. this homily could not have served as inspiration for either Luke or Paul. I do not accept, therefore, the idea that "Luke read that...". He couldn't have read it. It hadn't yet been written.

many thanks Andrew. Much appreciated. Yeah, I accept Roger's criticism of my having inquired that from you, it was not proper.
I was seeking to find historical figures of that era who were regarded, in those days, as being of importance sufficient to have been mentioned by Philo, without, however, his having recorded their existence, to justify your notion that there was no reason to expect Philo to have mentioned Jesus of Nazareth.
Personally, I accept the hypothesis of a mythical jesus, but do not accept the proposition that one MUST assume that such a fictional character did not exist, any more than one must assume that Paul Bunyan, Harry Potter, or Achilles did not exist. We know that the latter three did not exist, but, should someone who has never been exposed to western culture be obliged to make that assumption? Should someone who does not read PuTongHua fluently, be obliged to assume that KongZi did (or did not) exist? The safest approach, the most honest approach, is to ask, expect, and demand evidence, for either position. In the case of mythical versus historical Jesus, we seek evidence, and thus: Doherty's book arrives, and in the nick of time, too.
After we have read Doherty's book, if we remain dubious of either tenet, we ought to criticize Doherty's writing. I categorically reject Rick Sumner's notion that I can not read Doherty's book with any degree of confidence, because I understand neither Platonic ideology, nor Coptic. I don't know Mao Ze Dong thought, either, but I feel comfortable making the claim that Mao's essay on improving corn yields by planting in accord with Marxist thought, (as interpreted by comrade Stalin,) is utter nonsense.
Probably not.....
You may stop wondering. I have read as much of Philo, as you have of Merritt's Neurology. (or via: amazon.co.uk)
How childish-- proof that Santa exists is confirmed for all to see, by those several, beautifully wrapped presents under the Christmas tree. How can the four gospels and Paul serve to demonstrate historicity of any figure in that literature? They are self contradictory, muddled on specific traits, features and qualities, and deficient as regards detail. Could you defend the theory of cold fusion, with the newspaper accounts of its validity?
So, in summary, no, I haven't yet read Doherty, but, yes, I have ordered it, and when it comes, I will read it. And, yes, I may also stick my nose back into the literature regarding the cold fusion controversy despite my having not been trained as a nuclear physicist, nor an expert in chemical thermodynamics, and despite my not yet speaking Schroedinger's language of partial differential equations.
Fell off my chair, I laughed so hard. (Colles' fracture, for the Rick Sumner's of this world who imagine themselves conversant with medicine.)
absolutely. Emphatically yes.
Amen
Thank you Roger, yes, I was wrong to have written that to Andrew....
I do not however, share your lofty assessment of the historical sources. I am quite unconvinced that the sources we rely upon represent "original" works. Too much tampering. Too much politics. Too little honesty. "ignore history"??? Whose history, Roger? Even in my lifetime, I have observed a disgraceful misrepresentation of the need for warfare against the people of VietNam and Iraq. Am I to understand that a source is to be believed, simply because it is in accord with "history"?
avi

Roger Pearse

Erm, in Minucius Felix, the stigma of the cross is pretty present!

Actually not; he lived after Tertullian, in the early 3rd century. It was long thought possible that he lived first, but modern philological analysis of the quotations indicates otherwise.

I appreciate your graciousness; thank you.

We can all see that this is possible. But if we take this view, we can really know very little about antiquity. For what statement about antiquity is not open to this objection? It would mean, if we were consistent, that we had to say "history is mostly bunk". And that, surely, is wrong, is obscurantist. We have to reject that view, because it renders it impossible for us to do history. Just a pragmatic necessity.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Rick Sumner

Errr. . .what?

Solo

You are right; I should have been more careful. The prayer is not in Vaticanus or Bezae. There is a view of this as a deliberate excision of a 2nd century copyist which I more or less tolerated (because of its proximity to Paul's teaching). But I have just now checked and see that Bruce Metzger does not support this and considers the petition likely of later coinage, despite its echo of Lukan dominical teachings. So, yes, I concede your point. It is obiter at any rate.

As for Paul, I am not saying that he refered to a dominical saying. Paul articulates forgiveness, along the same lines as Lk 23:34, i.e. for lack of understanding, in 1Cr 2:8.

Best,
Jiri