ApostateAbe

The circular reasoning may not be as blatant as you think. Any given conclusion in this subject is reinforced by a large plurality of premises, not just one premise.

So, for the argument for the dating of the gospels, you may have:

• Premise A (earliest extant manuscripts)
• Premise B (set of gospel claims)
• Premise C (fall of Jerusalem)
• Premise D (Matthew and Luke source Mark)
• Premise E (Marcion sourced Luke)
• Premise F (Marcion is dated to the early 2nd century)
• Premise G (Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet of 30 CE)
• Therefore, Conclusion H (dates of the gospel to first century CE)

Premise G contributes to conclusion H, but premise G isn't essential to the argument--Christianity could have been a doomsday cult who believed in a merely-mythical apocalyptic prophet at the time of Tiberius who thought that the world was going to end very soon (the barest inference of the evidence), and that still contributes to the conclusion, giving a maximum limit, though maybe not as well as if Jesus really was a human apocalyptic prophet.

And, for the argument for the historicity of Jesus, you may have:

• Premise H (dates of the gospel to first century CE)
• Premise J (set of gospel claims of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of 30 CE)
• Premise K (patterns of doomsday cults in history)
• Therefore, Conclusion G (Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet of 30 CE)

Circular reasoning? Again, the Premise H contributes to the conclusion, but is not essential to the conclusion--the composition of the gospels could be dated to the 2nd or 3rd centuries, but the argument still holds, because it isn't the only premise and we don't need exactly the same premise in order for the argument to work.

I can see how you would be seeing circular reasoning everywhere, if you have like a hard logic mentality of history. The field of history, where there are always many premises and many arguments to reinforce a single conclusion, is more of a field of fuzzy logic instead of hard logic. My use of the phrase, "fuzzy logic," may come off as self-deprecating, but, actually, "fuzzy logic" is the name of a rigorous mathematical tool set, known for better approximating our actual reasoning, using the transitional nature of actual data. That is why the guides to spotting logical fallacies that circulate on the Internet are a great introduction to rhetoric but not always so appropriate for evaluating arguments in more complex fields.

There is a popular argument against the established dates of fossils and geologic strata that goes like this:

• Fossils are used to date strata
• Strata are used to date fossils
• This is circular reasoning, and therefore the dates are untrustworthy

I was surprised to learn that both premises are true. However, there is not as much circularity as one may think, because the reasoning is a little more complex. The strata of fossils belonging to a certain species are dated radiometrically one or a few times, so the dates of some fossil species are known, allowing a shortcut to dating other strata containing those same fossil species ("index fossils") in other geological projects.

Doug Shaver

I've been studying logic since before the Internet existed. In the past few years I've taken three courses in it beyond the introductory level.

They are not true, unless you preface each with the word "only."

No, the reasoning is impeccable. It's the facts that are more complex than the premises say they are.

ApostateAbe

Doug Shaver, it seems like we are sufficiently on the same page.

Doug Shaver

But it has been shown that the gospels themselves are little else but such a mapping. The only difference between historicists and mythicists is that historicists assume that the authors started with stuff they knew or thought they knew about Jesus and then went to the scriptures for proof texts showing that he fulfilled prophecy, whereas mythicists think the mapping went in the other direction: The writers mined the scriptures for anything that could be construed as messianic prophecy and then created a story about a man who fulfilled what they found. And, as I hear it, even some historicists are coming around to that understanding, albeit without denying Jesus' actual existence. What these historicists are saying is that although we shouldn't doubt his existence, we cannot actually know anything about him because nothing in the gospels is historically reliable. (I suppose they would add: "Except for the crucifixion.")

I see nothing in the passage you quoted that undermines my point. Carrier seems to have accepted, at the time he wrote that piece, something like the conventional dating for the canonical writings. I'm pretty sure he no longer does. In any case, he makes no observations that are inconsistent with second-century authorship. He says, "Clement never refers to any Gospel." On the assumption that they existed in his day, then maybe we should infer that he did not consider them authoritative, but I see no grounds for that assumption. It looks more parsimonious to me to suggest that he didn't refer to any written gospel because there were no written gospels for him to refer to. On Ignatius's failure to cite any NT writings, Carrier says, "This suggests that none of the NT was regarded even then as an authority." Maybe that's because none of the NT as we now know it existed in his time. Early versions of the Pauline corpus were probably around, but it would be no surprise if Ignatius regarded them as worthless, assuming he even knew about them. Then Carrier gets to Polycarp, who "cites 'Jesus' for certain sayings a hundred times" without referring to any source, and he remarks, "We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written." Maybe. Or maybe there was no written tradition even in Polycarp's time.

I won't claim to have a killer argument against the hypothesis that early Christians were almost universally contemptuous of written sources. It does strike me as improbable, but my incredulity obviously doesn't prove anything. However, until someone comes up with a non-question-begging case for that hypothesis, I will insist that it is reasonable to doubt that hypothesis. We who suspect that the best explanation for the absence of any explicit gospel references prior to the mid-second century is the nonexistence of any gospels to refer to cannot be fairly characterized as simply pigheaded.

blastula

I suspect we'll never know how Juststeve knows. Likewise, I supsect Jussteve would object to his absence of evidence as a good argument from silence against him knowing it.

aa5874

Having no external evidence for HJ in the 1st century does NOT hurt the MJ argument at all. We have WRITTEN evidence from antiquity that there was NOISE about Jesus in the 2nd century.

The NOISE about Jesus in the 2nd century suggests that the Jesus story was INITIATED in the very century.

Vorkosigan

Unfortunately that is not how the date of 70 for Mark was constructed. Rather, the 70-75 date that is often mentioned is driven by two simple considerations:

(1) GMark must be later than the fall of Jerusalem in 70 since it mentions it.

(2) GMark must be early enough for credible transmission of an oral tradition, since the oral tradition is the basis for inclusion of any historical nuggets in the gospels. Hence HJ scholars are always trying to erode or avoid evidence for a later date, since they feel the pressure of the need for an oral tradition.

An actual argument for the date of Mark would take into account the following:

-- the use of terms that belong to the second century.
-- the apparent reference to the situation of the Bar Kochba revolt; especially the Abomination in the Temple.
-- the existence of persecution which everyone was aware of, in the writer's time (no persecution until late in the first century)
-- the use of Josephus' Wars in the construction of the Pilate trial scene, as demonstrated by Ted Weeden, which puts Mark after 75 for certain.

-- perhaps: the writer of Mark knows at least 1 Cor, Galatians, and other Pauline epistles (highly controversial).

All of this would indicate a date later than the generally accepted one.

Vorkosigan

EarlDoherty

“Ignorance Alert!” (I’ll have more to say about this thread and its OP below.)

This Discussion Board (or at least, this Forum, I don’t know about others), is in danger of being hijacked by a number of smug, self-righteous ignoramuses, who as a matter of principle refuse to educate themselves on the topic they are here to condemn and pontificate on. When that ignorance is pointed out and they are urged to rectify it, when they continue to spout the same uninformed declarations over and over (often drawing criticism for it from the mods), what do they do? They complain to management. Then there are other pontificators here who, despite being more informed, continue to declare their same positions and criticisms over and over while ignoring or oblivious to objections and opposing arguments (they, too, drawing objections from the mods). And what do they do? They complain to management.

Is this the new strategy here? Is the FRDB going to the dogs—or rather, to the dog-matics? When their antics are objected to, their wasting of time and bandwidth in parroting their same old lines ad nauseum—they sue? (I’m reminded of certain religious groups who adopt the practice, when receiving criticism in the press or on the internet, of taking the criticizers to court, not because they necessarily expect to win a case of defamation or whatever, but to discourage such public criticism from being made.)

Is all this raising the level of informed discussion on FRDB? Is it helping attract reasonable and open-minded participants to this forum? Hardly. The FRDB has gone steadily down hill over the last few years. We’ve lost intelligent debaters from both sides of key questions. I myself come here far less frequently, simply because the forum has been to a great extent taken over, or at least compromised, by the ignorant, the dogmatic, the apologist (whether believers or not). If everyone is content to let things go to seed this way, fine, there are other boards. Those, too, may have their complement of the closed-minded and ignorant, but usually they are much more tolerant of allowing hard-hitting criticism of such people. Here, it seems, if we even raise our voices against them, or if a mod splits off a new thread to strip off the same old parroting of some tediously repetitious spouting, if someone like me urges that certain dissenters actually educate themselves with some of my writings so they can argue intelligently and from a position of actual knowledge (after all, they are essentially here to put down writers like me), they run to mommy: “Boo hoo, I’m being unfairly treated!” “Doherty is trying to sell books!” And we are the ones who get chided and even slapped with infractions.

The suggested option to “ignore” such people isn’t going to solve the basic problem. It just gives them free rein to continue their ignorant pontificating, and an opportunity to claim that their simplistic and uninformed views have no answer. This Forum of the FRDB is in danger of turning from a discussion board into a soapbox.

The present thread in which I am posting this is a prime example of ApostateAbe’s woeful ignorance on the mythicist position, including concerning the documents that he appeals to in his OP as providing “strong evidence” (his words, even though in his introduction he thought it best to tiptoe in by styling such things as “ambiguous”). Every piece of his “strong evidence” in this OP has been dealt with and neutralized in my writings. When I suggest this sort of thing to him, when I suggest that he might want to inform himself as to what mythicism actually has to say about evidence he appeals to or dogmatic statements he makes, he steadfastly refuses and makes official complaints that he is being put upon, poor fellow. ‘Don’t suggest that I should actually go out of my way to find out and better understand what it is I am here to dump on.’ This does not mean that if he did, there would be no further scope for discussion; but at least he would be arguing from a position of knowing to a much fuller extent than he does now the actual case he seeks to destroy. And those countering him would not feel that they have to educate him from square one.

In the case of this OP (and other points along the way), for me to make extended and proper rebuttal to everything Abe claims, or to offer quotations from my book, would involve reams of writing or quotation. Shouldn’t there be some expectation that someone who comes to this forum, who inserts himself into so many threads to plug his own dogmatic position, creates several threads of his own like this one which he expects everyone to read and deal with, ought for the sake of honesty and efficiency and productive, non-wasteful discussion to read primary material on the subject that he is here to condemn (and there is no doubt that I am a prime target of his pontificating)? I don’t care if he begs, borrows or steals a copy of my book, I’m not interested in his money (though I won’t go to the trouble and expense of sending him and everyone like him a free copy). But in what other field or discipline would such a deliberate policy of ignorance be adopted by someone (and Abe isn’t the only one) who would come onto a DB and expect, who demands, a voice for his pontificating? Or be tolerated by those running a board in such a field?

Ignorance may not be ‘against the law’ here, but let’s not encourage it, or invite it in with open arms.

Earl Doherty

Toto

Earl - I share your frustration.

Please note that most of the people who run to management are not successful in getting any real changes.

I think a big part of what is going on is that the action has moved to blogs. Certain posters who in 2002 would start a thread here now can start a blog and manage the conversation themselves and enforce their own rules (or lack of rules.) So if you are interested in controversies on the historical Jesus, you can go to Neil Godfrey's blog Vridar, then read the response on McGrath's blog, then search around for other comments. And you might come back here to comment on a thread.

EarlDoherty

Thanks, Toto. As for Vridar and McGrath blogs, I am currently heavily involved in both of them, since James McGrath is reviewing Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (if "review" is the correct word, though at least he is reading it), and Neil Godfrey is reviewing that review.

Earl Doherty