Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 12-15-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Detering writes in The Falsified Paul

. . .the Pauline letters in their entirety are inauthentic. . .

If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?

Detering continues to write primarily about the authenticity of the Pauline letters. He proposes an alternative thesis (or theory or hypothesis) to the mainstream interpretation that there are seven indisputably "authentic" letters of Paul, and that Paul can be identified as the author of those letters.

Pete continues to confuse an axiom or a postulate which is accepted at the beginning of an investigation and a hypothesis which is tested during the investigation. If he would just make this distinction, I think that most of the confusion in this thread would be cleared up.

The schematic distinguishes various sorts of hypotheses: those associated with evidence items and others I have labelled general hypotheses (which include statements such as Carrier's "Twelve Axioms". The diagram describes an INTERATIVE PROCESS where all forms hypotheses are tested and compared according to a theory that generates conclusions.

Quote:

There may in fact be scholars who also make this confusion, or who do not write clearly enough to be sure that no one else makes this confusion.

Besides confusion of the evidence with hypotheses about the evidence (which we appear to have fundamentally disagreed upon), I think that is another one of Carrier's points in using Bayes. The use of the Bayesian approach forces all parties to make the attempt at evaluating not just their own hypotheses and theoretical conclusions, but also those of other parties. This requirement forces everyone to become aware of how their own theories vary from others at the level of the hypotheses each party is using at the time.

Sooner or later this examination reveals the simplest forms and expressions of historical hypotheses as types of lowest common antithetical denominators that are effectively shared or excluded to some degree as shared or excluded hypotheses between different groups within all the parties.

SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used exlicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly. Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

You have said all this before.

This is false. There are a number of novel claims in my above response to Toto, including the summary claim, and including the schematic itself. Read the summary claim above again, and PROVISIONALLY set aside your problems with the expression the hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" on the basis that such expressions are used by scholars in this field, the articles and books of whom I am trying to discuss.

Toto has already warned you specifically to ...

Quote:

Please don't add to the length of this thread with posts consisting of one line comments.

This particularly applies to my responses to other posters.

Thankyou.

Doug Shaver · 12-15-2011, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Then Carrier could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

Carrier has no problem with clarity. Pete has a problem with comprehension.

mountainman · 12-15-2011, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

...

Carrier appears to see historicity (of Jesus) as an "assumption of historicity [of Jesus]...that remains only a hypothesis " - and not a conclusion. He appears to have considered both the hypothesis "Jesus existed" and "Jesus didn't exist" and arrived at the conclusion that it is "very probable Jesus never actually existed as a historical person".

Pete has mangled Carrier's words and thoughts.

I reject that assessment. The above citation is indirectly from Carrier. I have spent considerable time investigating precisely what it is that Carrier is setting out to do, and its ramifications to the field. My background was/is in mathematics and not the arts. We have had a number of disagreements in this thread about what it is that Carrier states, that are not yet resolved.

Part of the issue might be that you do not yet see that under the Bayesian analysis scenario all of the hypotheses must be layed out in the open - not just yours or mine or Carriers or Deterings or Earls or McGrath's, but everyone's. This is necessary in order to compare all hypotheses about everything, even those which are unlikely - since we do not know which theoretical conclusions or indeed which hypotheses in this field are necessarily the correct ones.

mountainman · 12-15-2011, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Then Carrier could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

Carrier has no problem with clarity. Pete has a problem with comprehension.

Please feel free to set forth to all readers the reasons by which you were convinced that I have a problem with the comprehension of Richard Carrier's statements.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Detering writes in The Falsified Paul

. . .the Pauline letters in their entirety are inauthentic. . .

If Paul was not the writer of the letters, then who was Paul, i.e., who was the person in whose name the letters were written? Was he a legend, a historical figure, or merely a phantom?

Detering continues to write primarily about the authenticity of the Pauline letters. He proposes an alternative thesis (or theory or hypothesis) to the mainstream interpretation that there are seven indisputably "authentic" letters of Paul, and that Paul can be identified as the author of those letters.

Pete continues to confuse an axiom or a postulate which is accepted at the beginning of an investigation and a hypothesis which is tested during the investigation. If he would just make this distinction, I think that most of the confusion in this thread would be cleared up.

The schematic distinguishes various sorts of hypotheses: those associated with evidence items and others I have labelled general hypotheses (which include statements such as Carrier's "Twelve Axioms". The diagram describes an INTERATIVE PROCESS where all forms hypotheses are tested and compared according to a theory that generates conclusions.

Quote:

There may in fact be scholars who also make this confusion, or who do not write clearly enough to be sure that no one else makes this confusion.

Besides confusion of the evidence with hypotheses about the evidence (which we appear to have fundamentally disagreed upon), I think that is another one of Carrier's points in using Bayes. The use of the Bayesian approach forces all parties to make the attempt at evaluating not just their own hypotheses and theoretical conclusions, but also those of other parties. This requirement forces everyone to become aware of how their own theories vary from others at the level of the hypotheses each party is using at the time.

Sooner or later this examination reveals the simplest forms and expressions of historical hypotheses as types of lowest common antithetical denominators that are effectively shared or excluded to some degree as shared or excluded hypotheses between different groups within all the parties.

SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used exlicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly. Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

You have said all this before.

This is false. There are a number of novel claims in my above response to Toto, including the summary claim, and including the schematic itself. Read the summary claim above again, and PROVISIONALLY set aside your problems with the expression the hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" on the basis that such expressions are used by scholars in this field, the articles and books of whom I am trying to discuss.

The history of religion is studded with instances of people advancing and debating what appear to be competing claims which are, nevertheless, no sufficiently clearly expressed for useful discussion.

You make claims in metaphysical language while oblivious to the metaphysical intricacies involved. If other people, even many other people, do the same, that doesn't change the fact that the intricacies are there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Toto has already warned you

Indeed. That makes it supererogatory for you to follow suit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

specifically to ...

Quote:

Please don't add to the length of this thread with posts consisting of one line comments.

This particularly applies to my responses to other posters.

Toto does not appear to find your responses any more satisfactory than I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thankyou.

J-D · 12-16-2011, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Then Carrier could and should have expressed himself more clearly.

Carrier has no problem with clarity. Pete has a problem with comprehension.

We all sometimes have problems with clarity--not even aa5874 denies that. Some of what Carrier writes is clear enough, some less so.

Toto · 12-16-2011, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used explicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly. Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

How about R. Joseph Hoffman The Jesus Project: a Discourse on Method

Quote:

I was not the inventor of the preposterous slogan “What if the Most Influential Man in Human History Never Lived?” but I should have been its destroyer. I was however the “creator” of the suggestion that the non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis and can no longer be ignored and I still believe it. The second group also included, along with people who wanted to ventilate their “myth theories” in a serious forum, many who were interested in the formative power of myth in the creation of social groups and religious movements. The third group, mainly post-Christian and post religious skeptics wondered why in the twenty-first century anyone would worry about such an issue: whatever motives underlay the founding of TJP they were not (surely) as important as such pressing matters as getting God out of the Pledge and getting evolution back into the schools. For two years seriously concerned people wrote, emailed and phoned asking whether I had nothing better to do with my time.

I don't see how you can say that Hoffman bases his work on one of your "hypotheses."

mountainman · 12-16-2011, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...
SUMMARY

"Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus didn't exist in history" represent two fundamental historical hypotheses. One or the other of these hypotheses is used by all theories in the field of history. (Ditto for Paul). If the one or the other hypothesis is not used explicitly, then it will be shown to have been used implicitly.

Some treatments and theories do examine both sides (both hypotheses) and compare the evidence and conclusions.

The above statement can be shown false if it can be shown that any specific theory in history manages to avoid using one of these hypotheses. If so, I'd like an example. In all example hypotheses about Jesus (and Paul) that I have seen to date, one or other of these two antithetical hypotheses are either explicit or implied by the formulation of the hypothesis as furnished.

How about R. Joseph Hoffman The Jesus Project: a Discourse on Method

Quote:

I was not the inventor of the preposterous slogan “What if the Most Influential Man in Human History Never Lived?” but I should have been its destroyer.

I was however the “creator” of the suggestion that the non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis and can no longer be ignored and I still believe it.

The second group also included, along with people who wanted to ventilate their “myth theories” in a serious forum, many who were interested in the formative power of myth in the creation of social groups and religious movements. The third group, mainly post-Christian and post religious skeptics wondered why in the twenty-first century anyone would worry about such an issue: whatever motives underlay the founding of TJP they were not (surely) as important as such pressing matters as getting God out of the Pledge and getting evolution back into the schools. For two years seriously concerned people wrote, emailed and phoned asking whether I had nothing better to do with my time.

I don't see how you can say that Hoffman bases his work on one of your "hypotheses."

It appears to me that he is openly examining both of them. (See bolding above). He says that the "non-historicity of Jesus is a testable hypothesis "

Towards the end he states this, in relation to TJP and Descartes:

Quote:

2. “Divide every question into manageable parts.” This seems self-evident, but it has not been the pattern of previous investigations. Neither the question “Did Jesus exist?” nor “What did he ‘really’ say?” was manageable. Formulating the sub-questions and prior questions is likely to be a painstaking business. If it is not done systematically and in a free and open debate, the Project may as well disband now.

This is what I have been trying to debate here. This statement appears to be in regard to TJP. When he says ...... the question “Did Jesus exist?” was not manageable what does he mean? I might assume he is saying that the Jesus Project could not "manage" the question - i.e. there may have been some people in TJP would could not manage the question in a collaborative sense (Some people do have resistance to it).

Outside of The Jesus Project in open debate the question "Did Jesus exist?" - moderated or unmoderated - generates a range of answers. I have elsewhere claimed that there are two possible simplest fundamental answers and these are represented by two hypotheses:

H1: "Jesus existed in history"
H2: "Jesus didn't exist in history"

It seems a simple enough way of managing the fundamental question. I have not read a great deal of Hoffman's work in recent times, and it may be that I am not reading him appropriately here, but it seems to me from reading that article that although Hoffman can handle the question "Did Jesus exist" (and thus the hypotheses "Jesus existed in history" and "Jesus did not exist in history", the organisation known as "The Jesus Project" could not arrive at any consensus on this question, and thus these two hypotheses.

mountainman · 12-16-2011, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

In general, figuring out what is meant by a sentence like 'Paul did not exist'--that is, any sentence of the form 'X did not exist'--is a difficult and complex question, as even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses. That is why it is so often clearer and better to use a different form of expression.

Your post is BS.

The claim or sentence 'Paul did NOT exist" is NOT complex at all and is no different to a sentence or claim that 'Romulus did NOT exist', 'Robin Hood did NOT exist' and 'King Arthur did NOT exist'.

To be specific it is BS with respect to the field of history explicit in the OP, and since I have already cited a number of contemporary scholars in this field who use precisely the same form of expression.

Possibly they share your ignorance of the complexities they are glossing over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Even a brief examination of the extensive scholarly literature on the subject discloses that analysing the meaning of any sentence of that form is a difficult and complex question

I have produced at least three citations from the relevant field. Please provide one or two citations from the literature in the field of history to substantiate your claim.

I am discussing the meaning of words, a topic relevant to any discussion using words. I can see that you are not interested in learning to understand more about the meaning of words.

I can see that you are not interested in the provision of citations from the extensive scholarly literature in the field of history to substantiate your claim. I am interested in learning to understand more about the meaning of words within the context of such citations.

aa5874 · 12-16-2011, 07:07 AM

It is a fact that there are people who claim to be historians or Scholars, like Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders, that put forward an Alternative HYPOTHESIS that Jesus was an Ordinary human being that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified.

The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven it cannot be PRESUMED and ASSUMED to be true.

The NULL hypothesis is the Jesus of the NT born of the Holy Ghost, God and Creator of heaven and earth as stated in the Canon.

There is NO requirement to prove the NULL hypothesis.

Those who ARGUE against the NULL hypothesis MUST present evidence or witnesses for the Alternative Hypothesis.

There is ZERO credible evidence and NO witnesses of a human Jesus who lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified.

The Alternative hypothesis is an UTTER FAILURE.

The NULL hypothesis, that Jesus of the NT was Fathered by a Ghost, God and Creator, essentially Mythology, is Acceptable and Reasonable.

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

12-16-2011, 07:07 AM	#450
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is a fact that there are people who claim to be historians or Scholars, like Bart Ehrman and E P Sanders, that put forward an Alternative HYPOTHESIS that Jesus was an Ordinary human being that lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified. The Alternative Hypothesis MUST be proven it cannot be PRESUMED and ASSUMED to be true. The NULL hypothesis is the Jesus of the NT born of the Holy Ghost, God and Creator of heaven and earth as stated in the Canon. There is NO requirement to prove the NULL hypothesis. Those who ARGUE against the NULL hypothesis MUST present evidence or witnesses for the Alternative Hypothesis. There is ZERO credible evidence and NO witnesses of a human Jesus who lived in Nazareth, was Baptized by John and was Crucified. The Alternative hypothesis is an UTTER FAILURE. The NULL hypothesis, that Jesus of the NT was Fathered by a Ghost, God and Creator, essentially Mythology, is Acceptable and Reasonable.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.