Ahab

Yes, seems so to me also.
I haven't seen any 'vitriol' in any of the posts in this thread. :huh:
Been a very interesting thread so far.

Toto

To those who see no vitriol:

How do you classify an allegation that someone has "cooked" the evidence?

How do you classify a comparison to a nutcase with a wacky theory that has no basis?

Ahab

Jeffrey did explain what he meant by use of 'cooking'. Guess you can believe him or not.:huh:

Anyways, I'd put them in the same category as say Doherty's repeated use of 'apologist': that they exhibit some strongly felt emotions. Also, you have to look at the context in which the statements were made and the preceeding comments.

Obviously, its not a black or white issue. But I do get the impression you are unfairly picking on Jeffrey here. If he has been vitriolic in this thread, then so have a few others.

jgibson000

If it is true -- or at least if there are good grounds for it -- one may classify it as a statement of fact, yes?.

Depends what the comparison was about. If it is a comparison of the tenor and tone of a complaint from someone about why certain of his views are not accepted (bias on the part of the scholarly word and a refusal to entertain new ideas) to the tenor and tone of a another complaint from another person about the same thing, and if the point of the comparison was only that it cannot be automattically assumed that the only reason the old guard ever rejects theories that don't fit with what they know is that they are old guard, then it can be classified as perfectly apt.

And, notably, since the person making the second complaint is deemed to have had a theory that was whacky (that he was a nutcase does not mean that his theory had to have been whacky, as I think you yourself said, and his nutcase status derives from his rejection of the scientific method) only if one first accepts, as you apparently do, the perspective of those who advocated and worked with theories and methods for determining the truth of claims that, so far as I can tell, the person making the first complaint seems to be saying are biased, outmoted, and inapplicable in his case, then your classifying the comparison as vitrolic is also ironic, isn't it?

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

All of those are negated with the condition I added.

If you acknowledge that you are only appealing to part of the scholar's position and making it clear that the scholar does not agree with your conclusion, it seems entirely legitimate to me.

"Scholars X and Y prefer the same wording I am using in my argument though they do not share my interpretation."

Would you have a problem with that sort of "selective quoting"?

krosero

Earl, let me compare with this reply you gave me, from the Ascension of Isaiah thread:
Now, I am the first to see that your use of the word “fool� was different from the current case. You said “almost�, and you partially applied the critique to yourself. But “fool’s errand� is not that different from language you’ve used here: you said that Jeffrey considered your post about Copernicus and close-mindedness to be nothing more than “a fool’s product.� The case is different, but I wanted to point out that you like to introduce the word “fool� into discussions. You even provided the word in your exchange with Jeffrey. “Fool� may be his opinion, but he did not offer it to the board until you furnished the word (and then complained to high heaven about it). You said that he thought you were a fool and a charlatan. Jeffrey had said that anyone who made certain arguments (which he laid out specifically) would be what you called them: but that’s somewhat similar to your general argument that anyone proceeding onward with certain kinds of arguments about the Ascension would be a fool.

If you introduce a disparaging word as a way to describe your opponent’s arguments (or your own arguments, even partially), don’t be surprised if it comes to be applied to your arguments.

Incidentally, I did not find your Ascension remark worth thinking about back then, simply because it seemed of a piece with the tone of many of your writings in debate. It seemed like nothing new. And that’s really my central point, so feel free to tell me that I’ve over-analyzed a word or incident and made too much of it (just remember that I did make precisely nothing of it, until you complained that an insult involving the word “fool� had been unopposed). The fact is, to my ears, your complaints sound hollow. You have been at the forefront of arguments in which those who disagree with mythicism do not do so honestly but always out of some failing in their motives or in their belief systems. Those who disagree with mythicism have failed to give it an “honest review� (implying not necessarily conscious dishonesty, but dishonesty nonetheless), or are close-minded, or attached to the fantasy that is their religion (when the dissidents from mythicism are Christians), or incapable of innovative scholarship, or in some way bowed by authority. Etcetera. And all this, and much worse, is impugned to Christians of the last 2,000 years (rightly or wrongly).

No doubt you believe that everything you’ve said about Christians is right. But you can’t see how your language, finding ever newer ways of implying that faith is negative and foolish, invites discussions at that same level: and in such discussions, you will be called foolish. I am not saying, by the way, that Jeffrey’s words and actions are your responsibility. They are his. It’s just that the intensity of your taking offense is astonishing, given your eagerness to play at that level. Yes, you are more subtle than most of the chief mythicists, and maybe you’re incapable of calling anyone openly a fool or a charlatan. But to me, that is not much to your credit. Subtlety taking offense at the less-than-subtle does not sound moral, it just sounds elitist and self-regarding.

Perhaps I’m putting my head on the block with such remarks, but the fact is that any sympathy, or respect, that I might have had for your arguments and your protests has been used up in our debates, because your desire to dialogue has never seemed sincere. And I am putting it as mildly as I can. You have given me the impression of someone who drops in every once in a while to say how he’s been busy (as if you were any busier than anyone else), how one thing or another prevents him from offering a detailed response (as you did even in the Ascension thread, which you opened, but which you left as soon as you got a detailed disagreement), but how one or two outrageous arguments from the opposition do merit a brief response from him personally. He then whacks some of the weaker or more exposed arguments in the thread, uses them to illustrate the nature of people who make such arguments (I’m not allowed to repeat the word you actually use), and ends with comments about how mythicism is strong and due its day. You followed that pattern in this thread, and it all overshadowed your few comments about Barrett and Burton (at least in my ears).

Why did you join this board? I don’t want you to leave, by the way (and I’m not suggesting that you de-register yourself, as was suggested to someone here by a non-moderator). But how is it that you can open a thread, and then when somebody does hard work that he considers honest, you just leave, because you don’t have the time? And you think this is the way to earn respect here?

Jeffrey was saying how Paul was using a word that, when applied to persons, always meant birth. I studied Ted Hoffman’s presented evidence, exerted myself to study something new, and carefully presented the parts of Ted’s evidence that in my opinion seemed actually to back Jeffrey’s argument. Now two people were backing the argument about Paul indicating birth. Ted’s next post said that we all had started talking past each other – even though my post to him had acknowledged (as people in genuine dialogue do) the evidence that he highlighted, while making my own highlights. He merely repeated the general definition that he was using, without replying to my point about the specific applications, and without making a new effort to make his own argument understood (as people fail to do when they are merely talking past each other). Your next post said that the thread had gone “mad,� and that you had little intention of engaging in it. I don’t know why you said it, since you didn’t specify. Maybe now you can see that it is frustrating to try to meet the mythicist arguments, as mythicists always ask, and then to get such weak replies in return, from those who have signed up here presumably to debate others. (Although Ted has never given me hollow excuses, or said that my ilk are not worth debating). And then you think you have the right to fulminate about how others are failing to engage your theory?

You’re right about the tendency of all established scholarship – among atheists as well as theists – to resist new ideas. Carl Sagan wrote about how Velikovsky’s outlandish theory concerning the orbit of Venus was almost certainly wrong. But he added that for him, the worst part of the whole Velikovsky affair was how other scientists tried to ridicule or shut down Velikovsky rather than simply opposing him with facts and good science. We could all stand to take a page from Carl Sagan’s tone, in my opinion. Make your arguments about the ancient texts. If you invoke Copernicus or Galileo, you’re no longer sticking to the facts, but inviting more such comparisons.

Jeffrey was asked to drop his comparison with Gardner. If that is the case, then the comparison with Copernicus and Galileo should be dropped too. Personally I don’t think any of these comparisons get us very far. One comparison proves that people who are wrong can invoke Copernicus, wrongly. Another proves that unconventional knowledge can overturn longstanding paradigms. But that’s all they prove. You can see that, because one side invokes Copernicus, then the other side Gardner; one side Wegener, and the other side Velikovsky. Comparisons with these past figures just don’t take us very far – they’re just tired invocations of emotionally charged figures and historical episodes that always take us away from the texts at hand.

youngalexander

I have been following this 'debate' as best I can, and have in fact referenced it in a link in one of my postings at Welcome to Jesus - history or myth? In describing the proceedings I did not use the term 'vitriol' = extreme bitterness or malice, but rarher 'vituperative' = bitter and abusive. Go figure!

Now I'm up for robust debate, and one certainly expects it at BC&H, a very 'take no prisoners' affair. However, when the expression 'cooking' the evidence is used, it is obviously meant to label the supposed perpetrator as engaged in dishonest scholarship and thus to be lacking in integrity. You have used this and similar terms frequently. You have also said that some of Doherty's views are those of a 'fool and a charlatan'. I for one am less than impressed.

For my part my silence has been mostly because the 'debate' has been at a technical level which is beyond me, and to which I have felt that I could contribute nothing of significance. When the invective began to flow I felt even less inclined to join the party, especially as Earl and TH are perfectly capable of looking after themselves.

You do have an interesting point here, it is often difficult to distinguish legitimate complaint against the orthodoxy from special pleading. In fact we recently had a thread on the topic Getting new ideas accepted by scholars - how is it done?
The thread which spun this off was The Jesus Seminar Response ...
I was struck by the number of times IDC was broached as being in a similar position re 'orthodox' science to that of Mythicism. The orthodoxy apparently refusing to countenance the revolutionary new 'scientific' IDeas. In fact the cases could not be more disparate. The scientific community has thoroughly and extensively examined the claims of ID theorists and has found them not only to be non-scientific, but utterly vacuous.

Contrast that with the position re BC&H from a posting by the Mythicist panellist at the first link given aboveI regard your 'wacko' analogy as inappropriate in as much as it is too extreme, does not mirror the circumstances of evidence and scholarship re the MJ/HJ debate, and was clearly meant to be offensive.

Yes, it really is the case!

GakuseiDon

"Cooked" maybe harsh, but you are lowering the bar significantly by calling it "vitriolic". I myself said that I didn't think that Earl was being dishonest, just misleading. But it isn't as if Jeffrey just made that accusation and left. He spent a bit of time laying out the evidence on Barrett and Burton.

Perhaps that should be looked at before a decision is made?

At the moment, with all the talk of "a world of myth", right on the money. But that is an honest assessment that took a while to come to, after examining the evidence (or lack thereof) for "a sub-lunar realm separate from our own reality".

GakuseiDon

Youngalexander: that doesn't really reflect the sequence of events.

Earl said this (my emphasis):

But because seemingly none of them chose to step outside the box and consider that this is not referring to forces behind earthly rulers but directly to heavenly demons as the crucifiers of Paul’s Christ, anyone who suggests the latter is a fool and a charlatan.

To which Jeffrey replied (my emphasis):

Well, yes, they are - if they believe or expect that these scholars -- or for that matter any one -- should accept not only a wholly unevidenced -- but an evidence contradicted claim about how a Greek word was understood by Greeks, or that these scholars, unlike what I've seen of Mythicists, would not change their minds if good (or any) lexical evidence, rather than mere assertion (which is all your claim is), for another understanding were laid before them.

In Earl's followup, Earl says:

... Jeffrey simply ignores it all, indulging in sweeping accusations that we are all fools and charlatans...

GakuseiDon

From what I understand, the air was divided into two parts: wet (from earth to the clouds) and dry (from clouds to the firmament). This is because fire rises, so the air tends to become more mixed with fire the higher you go. (Ancient Greeks for example believed that above the firmament lay a world of fire - heaven was a sea of flame!)

Daemons of an inferior sort (common evil spirits and earth-bound spirits) lived in the lower parts of the air and were composed more of air, and the superior sort (like Satan) lived above the clouds and was composed more of fire.

Some daemons spent time around statues and particular locales, others were localised to regions and particular countries; but, otherwise they appeared to have unrestricted access to the air and the earth.

One place that I haven't been able to place them is in 'a fleshy reality separate to our own'. If anyone has evidence to that effect, I'd be interested in seeing it. I certainly hope that no-one believes it without evidence. (But perhaps I won't say what that makes them, esp in this thread!)