No Robots

So, Cowtown's gone all pomo, eh? Sorry, Rick, count me out.

maryhelena

Update re the debate...

ApostateAbe

Cool, thanks. Ehrman's point, that a historical argument is a closer to a legal case than a scientific one, seems to be a good one. I wish I thought of that. :P

spamandham

No, I'm referring to Hadrian razing the temple complex ('not one stone upon another') in response to the revolt, and his construction of the temple of Jupiter where the Jewish temple used to stand (the abomination of desolation referred to in the gospels).

The temple had been toppled in 70, but the complex was still in place and had not been razed, nor had it been defiled by 'gentile god' until Hadrian.

Steven Carr

So James McGrath compares his case to the scientific one for evolution, knowing that his argument are not comparable to scientific ones?

Historical Jesus studies remains a field where a scholar like JP Meier can actually claim (page 22 of Mentor, Message and Miracles) that the Gospel of Mark had to try to come to terms with the 'stumbling stone' baptism of Jesus by John as best as the author could.

And Meier feels no need whatever to quote any bit of Mark as support for this theory that Mark regarded the baptism as a 'stumbling stone'!

On the contrary, Meier can only cite passages where Mark claimed that John was the necessary precursor to Jesus.

(Meier does not give the words of what he cites from Mark , as his readers might then wonder about the spin Meier puts on those passages if they could read the words and see Meier's spin at the same time)

Amazing!

There is nothing in the text of Mark which makes John the Baptist any more of a 'stumbling stone' for Christianity than the disciples had been a stumbling stone.



Meier goes on to claim that Mark and John are independent witnesses for the story about John the Baptist, and also claims that John was embarrassed by the baptism - a story that originated in Mark's Gospel!

Meier claims that John is an independent witness for 'John the Baptist' and points out as proof of this that the Gospel of John never refers to anybody as 'John the Baptist'.....

No wonder people trained in science look at the standards of mainstream Biblical scholarship and are astonished at what low standards they are.

No wonder McGrath cannot shut mythicists up by producing the evidence that his peers have found.

He is handicapped by having to rely on mainstream Biblical scholars for his arguments.

Historicists like McGrath cannot point to where his tools are used consistently.

For example, JP Meier makes much of the way that the Gospel of John never refers to John the Baptist as 'the Baptist', and never says John baptised Jesus.

He concludes that the Baptist was a great stumbling stone for Christianity.



But no mainstream Biblical scholar would ever dream of looking at the way that Luke/Acts never says Jesus had a brother called James and applying the criterion of embarrassment to *that* silence.

Instead, we get all sorts of rationalisations about why Luke/Acts, the Epistles of James and Jude never state that Jesus had a brother called James.

The criterion used are designed to produce the results that the scholars want.

They cannot be applied consistently, which is why Quests for the Historical Jesus crash and burn in such a spectacular fashion.

maryhelena

James McGrath

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...gm-shifts.html

Steven Carr

Yes, the idea of a historical Jesus who did and said things before his death *best* explains the total abscence of any historical Jesus who did and said things before his death in the Epistles of Jude, James and Romans.

Entire books of the New Testament lack any mention of a historical Jesus who did and said things before his death that Christians wanted to talk about.

And this is why McGrath says a historical Jesus best explains the *most* texts in the Bible.

aa5874

But, this type of view is based on fallacies. The mythicist does NOT need to re-interpret any evidence at all.

Let us look at the evidence once and for all to stop these fallacies.

Mt 1:18-20 - Jesus was the child of the Holy Ghost.

There is nothing for the mythicist to re-interpret.

The historicist MUST, MUST re-interpret Matthew 1.18 & 20.

Rick Sumner

"count me out" doesn't do much to answer the criticism. The problem is that our assessments aren't quantifiable. The weight anything is accorded is inherently a personal appraisal.

No matter how you cut it, that's not scientific method. Except maybe in Edmonton. Everything's backwards in Edmonton

No Robots

Sorry, but I do think that it is thoroughly scientific to weigh probabilities, and to act on the basis of what seems likely. Otherwise you end up where everyone can practice polite disregard for the truth. I mean, if everything is a personal appraisal, how can you possibly argue that Doherty's position is untenable?