Jimmy Higgins

What? Mageth has a responsibilty to back up the claims, however, that does not void you of your responsibility to back up the gospels as proof. In a trial, there is never just a prosecution. There is a defense as well.

*or*

We could do it your way. Mageth is right. You know why? Because I said so. And that is all the proof that Mageth needs. So now you need to show why my word doesn't prove the Gospels are a myth.

chapka

I can see it now:

DEFENSE: Your Honor, my client has committed no crime. He is innocent!

PROSECUTION: Ah-ha! Now you have to prove that affirmative statement!

Here's the problem with your reasoning above:

Mageth has made it quite clear that the reason he considers the Gospels "myth" is because there is no independent corroborating historical evidence for them. Regardless of who claims what, it's just silly to expect someone to prove a negative. He's already addressed the one piece of evidence you put forward, the Gospel accounts:

You now have three choices:

1. Present additional evidence of historicity, which I'm sure he'll address, or
2. propose an alternate methodology for examining the gospels as historical documents which addresses his substantive points quoted above.

To summarize: Mageth has made it clear that his position is that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Gospels, and that he would reconsider his position if evidence appeared. This is a NEGATIVE PROPOSITION, analogous to "My client is innocent." You've made it clear that you feel that there is evidence. This is a POSITIVE PROPOSITION. Asking him to provide evidence for the fact that there is no evidence, and therefore asking him to prove a negative, is at best disingenuous.

Mageth

Another myth going on here, asserted by BGiC, is that I have not "backed up" my claims. I have (which should be obvious to anyone reading this thread), but BGiC's preferred tactic is to attack my method as not being the "typical" method used by "classical respected historians", rather than actually addressing my arguments and conclusions.

This attack on my method was principally on my assertion that the Gospels cannot be historically verified (later clarified with at present), which he seems to disagree with, but has posted no real explanation on why he thinks this statement is actually wrong (rather, attacking my "method) or justification for why he thinks the Gospels can be historically verified. He claimed that I was asserting with that statement that the Gospels were not historically accurate, so I had to point out that I had clearly not made that charge with that statement.

Since he continued criticizing my method rather than making any argument himself, I then further explained my "method" for him by listing reasons (justifications) for my assertion that the Gospels are not historically verifiable. He seems to have ignored these, and continued to attack my "method".

BGiC is basically asserting that my conclusion (that the gospels are properly classified as myth) is unfounded, or "not acceptabe", because my "method" is not acceptable (to him). This is a form of an argumentum ad logicam fallacy, BTW.

I have asked him to tell me what those "typical" methods are, and he has not responded.

I have asked him to address a Native American tale (properly classified as myth) and answer some questions about it. He has not responded.

I posted a simpler argument than my earlier argument by posting a widely accepted definition of "myth" (as MrHat did above) and pointing out how the Gospels are myths according to the definition. He has not responded.

I have asked him to give some reason as to why he thinks the gospels are not properly classified as myth, and he has not responded.

I have also made it clear to him that I am not implying that the Gospels are "untrue" by classifying them as myth, and that I am not classifying the Gospels as myth to disparage them. I am simply pointing out the fact that it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth.

If BGiC is willing and able, I would like to see him actually address my arguments and conclusions, giving some counterarguments, rather than continuing to attack my position with logical fallacies.

Cross Examiner

Jimmy Higgins,
First things first, Jimmy, first things first. Mageth has voluntary made the following claims:
'it [the Gospel Crucifixion accounts] is properly a myth and not an historical account'
and
'I do claim to know that the events are not historically verifiable'
and
'the entire canonical Gospels are quite correctly referred to as myth'
and
'The events [Crucifixion details in the Gospels] are the accounts of a religion (or mythology, properly) recorded in a religous text and are not historically verifiable'
and
'So there's simply insufficient external sources to verify the Gospels. They thus remain myths.'
And so on and so forth. There's more but I think you gather. Since Mageth voluntarily brings the allegations, he is the plaintiff. Since Mageth posits the truth-value of a number of assertions, he garners burden of proof for any and all of the above.

chapka,
You've got it backwards. The prosecution brings charges against the defendant.

Mageth,
My bone of contention is that you claim that the Gospels are properly categorized as 'myth' based upon your pet belief that they lack sufficient external corroboration and that events therein are not beyond reasonable doubt. Your conclusion is fine and dandy if it were represented as opinion but you insist it is objective fact that we all recognize. So, regarding the method that you posit for qualifying the Gospels as 'myth', I simply want to know why we should accept it. To that end, I've asked if any actual historians use this method. You've not responded. I've asked if you can list any historians that classify the Gospels as 'myth'. You've not responded. I would also like you to define your terms before going forward. What do you mean when you say the Gospels lack sufficient external corroboration and what do you mean by the phrase beyond reasonable doubt in this context. These are reasonable requests. All the other tangential things you've brought up are red herrings until the above is addressed first. I'm a stickler for process. Read what you want into this but there's nothing more to it than that. First things first.

Regards,
BGic

chapka

Yes, that's the point. In a criminal trial, the prosecution is the one trying to prove a specific positive proposition: that a particular person commited a particular crime. Who makes a particular semantically positive statement (i.e., "I am innocent") is not relevant to the burden of proof.

Here, Mageth's case is quite clear. He's of the opinion that there is no evidence for the historicity of the Gospels. He's not making a positive statement that they didn't happen, he's making the negative statement that there's no evidence they happened. How on earth do you expect him to prove that negative proposition?

If I come up to you and say "The moon landing was faked!" you'd be quite right to expect me to present evidence. If I say, "Can you believe some people think the moon landing was faked? I don't think there's a shred of evidence for that!" would you reply, "Really? Prove to me that there's not a shred of evidence, then I'll discuss whether it happened or not." No. You'd say, "Yes, there is evidence, here it is." Or "The reason there is no evidence is because of the conspiracy." Or you'd just admit that you didn't know of any evidence either.

This is the claim Mageth has made. It's analogous to "I am innocent of any crime;" a semantically positive statement that states a logically negative proposition. Mageth has posited an absence of evidence for historicity of a particular text, just as a defendant would for a particular crime. If you disagree, it's your job to present evidence of historicity.

Cross Examiner

chapka,
I'm glad you are able to recognize this. As mentioned numerous times previously, my beef is when someone (e.g. Mageth) presents his subjective opinion as objective fact. If you review this thread, you'll note that Mageth asserts that the Gospels are rightly categorized as 'myth', as a matter of fact, not opinion, and does so on the basis of his own pet method, a method not recognized by scholarship. You can see the problem I'd have with that.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

First things first, BGiC:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
First things first, Jimmy, first things first. Mageth has voluntary made the following claims:
'it [the Gospel Crucifixion accounts] is properly a myth and not an historical account'

Here is the entire quote, so that people can get a truer sense of what was meant by that:
NOTE: in so saying, I am not charging that the crucifixion account is untrue, or contains no truth. This is a definition of "myth" (something untrue) that I am not using here. The crucifixioin account may or may not be true (or more or less true); however, it is properly a myth and not an historical account.

'I do claim to know that the events are not historically verifiable'

'the entire canonical Gospels are quite correctly referred to as myth'

Again, in context:

Once again, you express your misunderstanding. I do not claim to know that the events are not historically accurate. I do claim to know that the events are not historically verifiable, so they cannot be honestly claimed as "historically accurate". The events in question are only recorded in obviously religious texts. Therefore, it is absolutely correct to refer to the events in question as myth; indeed, the entire canonical Gospels are quite correctly referred to as myth, as are the Genesis creation accounts and flood account, among many other Biblical stories.

As I said, when I use "myth" in this sense, I do not mean "untrue". They may be true in total, true in part (which is what I suspect), or totally untrue (which I have not claimed). We do not, and cannot, know one way or another, so therefore they remain properly classified as "myth".

I have asserted that the events depicted in the Gospels are not historically verifiable, and provided evidence that supports that assertion. You have offered no evidence to counter that assertion, nor have you countered any of the evidence I've presented.

'The events [Crucifixion details in the Gospels] are the accounts of a religion (or mythology, properly) recorded in a religous text and are not historically verifiable'

And again, in context:
False, and you still express gross misunderstanding, as illustrated by your comment "myth and not history". "Myth" does not mean "untrue" or "not historical" as I use it; it means it is a (typically religious) tale (often containing fantastic or miraculous events) that is not historically verifiable, and is therefore correctly classified as a myth.

And I gave the "cause" and premises as to why the scriptures in question are correctly classified as "myth" in my first post, and have repeated it here. The events are the accounts of a religion (or mythology, properly) recorded in a religous text and are not historically verifiable. Therefore, they are correctly classified as "myth" and not "historically accurate" descriptions of the events. To remove them from this classification, you must provide independent historical verification of the events. In other words, it is your job to provide evidence to remove the accounts from the classification of myth, not my job to provide evidence as to why they are properly classified as myth.

'So there's simply insufficient external sources to verify the Gospels. They thus remain myths.'

In context:

Because they are not. There are few if any external sources to verify them from, and there are serious questions about the few that do exist. So there's simply insufficient external sources to verify the Gospels. They thus remain myths.

If you disagree with the claim that "there are few (if any) external sources to verify them from, and there are serious questions about the few that do exist", please provide some kind of argument.

And so on and so forth. There's more but I think you gather. Since Mageth voluntarily brings the allegations, he is the plaintiff. Since Mageth posits the truth-value of a number of assertions, he garners burden of proof for any and all of the above.

I've presented evidence in support of my assertions, in several posts and in a couple of different ways. I've done my part as the "plaintiff". It's now up to the defendant to counter my assertions. Failure to do so will result in a default judgment for the plaintiff. And merely attacking my method does not constitute an argument against my assertions - that is a logical fallacy as pointed out to you above.

Mageth,
My bone of contention is that you claim that the Gospels are properly categorized as 'myth' based upon your pet belief that they lack sufficient external corroboration and that events therein are not beyond reasonable doubt. Your conclusion is fine and dandy if it were represented as opinion but you insist it is objective fact that we all recognize.

I have not insisted that it is "objective fact that we all recognize". This whole thing boils down to my assertion that "it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth". I have backed that assertion - explained to you why it is correct. If you don't want to classify the Gospels as myth, that's fine with me. I have no problem with that. But if you disagree with my assertion that it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth, and want to discuss that with me, then it will be necessary for you to make some sort of valid argument for "your side" that it is incorrect to do so. Simply attacking my method is not a valid argument.

So, regarding the method that you posit for qualifying the Gospels as 'myth', I simply want to know why we should accept it.

Accept it or not, I don't care. I have used this "method" to reach a conclusion - that it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth. In addition, I used another "method" by matching the Gospels to a common and sufficient definition of "myth". They match splendidly.

If you want to disprove my conclusion, then you must present some argument against my conclusion. To continue to attack my "method" is a logical fallacy and non-argumentative.

To that end, I've asked if any actual historians use this method. You've not responded. I've asked if you can list any historians that classify the Gospels as 'myth'. You've not responded.

I've not responded (well, actually, I have responded, but you ad-hommed my response) because I don't see why I should have to respond to a fallacious argument - beyond pointing out that it is fallacious.

I would also like you to define your terms before going forward. What do you mean when you say the Gospels lack sufficient external corroboration

That the Gospels lack sufficient external corroboration. I.e., there are no accounts outside the Bible that sufficiently corroborate
much of what is told in the Gospels. Actually, much of what is told in the Gospels is only told in the Gospels.

and what do you mean by the phrase beyond reasonable doubt in this context.

Here's where I said that:

the crucifixion account is properly classified as a myth and is not properly classifiable as an historical account. It could only be classified as an historical account if we knew it to be historical beyond a reasonable doubt, which we don't, and so therefore it remains a myth.

Beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if there was sufficient external corroboration to classify the Gospels as historical accounts. There is not. Further, the Gospels include a lot of supernatural claims that it is impossible for us to verify as historically accurate claims. And there are "historical" elements in the Gospels that are implausible based on what we do know of history - e.g. Herod slaughtering the babies, Pilate giving in to the mob, and releasing a criminal at passover.

These are reasonable requests. All the other tangential things you've brought up are red herrings until the above is addressed first.

The "reasonable" part is questionable. Perhaps you should state that as your opinion?

And all have been met and answered sufficiently, most several times. Meanwhile, not one of my reasonable requests has been answered - most have been ignored, and apparently will continue to be ignored while you continue with fallacious arguments.

I'm a stickler for process. Read what you want into this but there's nothing more to it than that. First things first.

And if your "process" includes that I must prove all my assertions before you will answer them, refuse to respond to the support I post for my assertions, while in the meantime you are fallaciously submarining my "method" because it is not the "typical method" used by "classical historians" (the particular method I use or do not use is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my conclusion), insisting I list "classical historians" who agree with my conclusion or use my method (though I've never claimed any did, and my conclusion stands whether any do or not, as whether historians agree with me or use my method is irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my conclusion), not to mention the occasional ad hom insertion, your "process" is flawed.

The Gospels are properly classified as myth, both by comparison to the common definition of "myth" and for the other reasons stated herein. Now, present some form of argument against that or it stands as unchallenged. That's where we stand.

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
I'm glad you are able to recognize this. As mentioned numerous times previously, my beef is when someone (e.g. Mageth) presents his subjective opinion as objective fact. If you review this thread, you'll note that Mageth asserts that the Gospels are rightly categorized as 'myth', as a matter of fact, not opinion,

Let's get this straight. I've asserted that it is correct to categorize the Gospels as myth. You changed that to say that I'm claiming the Gospels are "rightly" classified as myth. A subtle difference, perhaps, but significant. Let's get our facts straight. Process, you know.

I have supported why it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth. I have not once claimed as an "objective fact" that the Gospels are myth (as in untrue) or are myth in any sort of derogatory sense. I do not require you or anyone else to classify the Gospels as myth, or to believe that it is correct to do so. If someone classifies the Gospels as myth, I think they are correct in doing so. If someone claims the Gospels are not myth, I think they are incorrect, for the reasons stated herein. If someone doesn't believe it is correct for me to classify the Gospels as myth, I would like to hear why. Any takers?

and does so on the basis of his own pet method,

Ad hom/poisoning the well, and irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my assertion.

a method not recognized by scholarship.

Fallacious and irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of my assertion.

You can see the problem I'd have with that.

No comment.

Cross Examiner

Mageth,
This quote by James D. G. Dunn in his work Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, sums it up: 'Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels…The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars' [Bultmann, Strauss]

Expert testimony: used in courtrooms around the world. I have loads more where this came from, if need be.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth

Otherwise known as...drumroll please...an appeal to authority. Present all of them you want, but they won't count for much unless you can back them up. And this ain't no courtroom; this is an online debate. It's good "process" to make your own arguments.

And here's a link to some online Bultmann resources:

http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/bultmann.html

There, there's my appeal to authority for today.

And I guess I can add Bultmann and Strauss to my list that includes Campbell, Spong, and Pagels. I'll have to read some of Bultmann's stuff...sounds interesting. IIRC, Spong mentions him.

But I haven't quoted any of them. I've used my own reasoning, partly derived from theirs, to reach my conclusion.

Now, I could employ the ad hom tactic (as you've used against me and the Jesus Seminar) to discredit Dunn and "poison the well" (e.g. that I'm looking for "more honest/academic options" from which to select my reading, or claim this is nothing "more than another random theist opinion"), or I could call to question his methods, and therefore try to discount his conclusion, but I won't.

But, since by quoting Dunn so: "'Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels", note that you have now undeniably made a positive assertion in regards to the question of whether the Gospels can be correctly classified as myth. But that's all you've done.

Care to back it up in any way other than serving it up as an argument from authority? Why do you think "myth" is not applicable to the Gospels? Got any arguments?