Rick Sumner

I'll check it out. Thanks for the reference.

No I haven't, firstly, the discussion is more about characters than events (the same can, of course, be said for your comments on Daniel). Secondly, the Song of Deborah is recognized as very antiquitous (quite possibly the oldest passage in the Bible), but not necessarily historical.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

mens_sana

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Sumner
... Distant events (Moses, the Patriarchs, Joshua, the Judges) tend to be outright fabrications. ... This isn't to say that this trend is universal. Daniel, for example, is decidedly more recent than the patriarchs, but no more historical, but that doesn't change the fact that the trend in general exists--this isn't science, and anyone who says it is has been reading too much Crossan.


Ummm, looks to me as if you were speaking of "distant events." If you do look at the Halpern, you'll find that he treats the Song of Deborah as an historical account. And, of course, the citations in Daniel were to a series of events—although the prophecy in ch. 11 of Antiochus' death was a non-event in those described circumstances.

Rick Sumner

I phrased it badly, it would appear. All the examples I provided were characters, however, so perhaps we can agree that, while I may have chosen my words poorly, my stated intent is borne out by the argument presented.

I'll do so, though I can't be sure when.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jjramsey

Why? If anything, this seems to be reading back the fourth-century interest in relics to the first century. This may have looked convincing because of how the movie The God Who Wasn't There presented it, but it's a bad argument.

I agree. That's why I said that they nominally base their arguments on evidence. Obviously, creationists hold their views in spite of their evidence, but their arguments try to convey a semblance of doing otherwise. Trouble is, I don't see the mythicists acting much differently on this point. There are a couple exceptions to this. There are those who have read mythicist arguments and found them convincing, who are roughly analogous to those who are creationists because they find creationist writings convincing. There are also those who based their conclusion that Jesus is (or may be) mythical on a superficial judgment of the NT.

Toto

Why is it a bad argument? Why were 4th century Christians interested in relics and locations, while 3rd century Christians were not?

Please avoid insulting us. People with scientific knowledge do not find creationist arguments at all convincing. People with historical knowledge like Richard Carrier have read Doherty and found his ideas worth considering, and at times have been convinced. You were not on these boards in 2001 - Carrier announced that he would be reviewing Doherty's book, and asked for questions. He spend a lot of time, and produced this essay, and later announced that he was convinced that the mythicist case provided the best explanation of the data. If you are going to argue from expertise, I think that Carrier is the only disinterested person with scholarly credentials who has evaluated the mythicist case at that level of detail.

In what way does a superficial judgment of the NT lead to mythicism?

Ben C Smith

This is a definition of historical evidence with which I am not familiar. Maybe I am just old-school, and maybe what you have described is how the cutting edge of historiography is now describing its own methods; I do not know. But in my experience the term historical evidence is about synonymous with historical sources, of which there can of course be many different kinds. Thus there can be primary historical evidence (such as an artifact used or a text written by the historical figure in question) and secondary historical evidence (such as an artifact portraying or a text describing the historical figure in question). There can also be eyewitness evidence (often highly regarded) or hearsay evidence (not so highly regarded).

Relevantly, if someone were to ask me for historical evidence that Jesus and James were brothers, I would point to the reference in Josephus (among other things), because that is one of the historical sources for the information.

All this business of data not being evidence until it is a methodological part of a model and such seems very different from the usages of that term with which I am accustomed. Do you recall where you came across this distinction?

Ben.

Roger Pearse

Are we sure that this distinction is absolute?

If it is so, one reason that comes to mind might be the legalisation of the church in the early 4th century. After this, there seems to be a vast ingress of people into it immediately after that point (as evidenced by the difficulties of Julian in reversing the process). The character of the organisation changes perceptibly; it is hard to imagine someone like Theophilus of Alexandria being a bishop in 300.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

GakuseiDon

Toto, the parallels are definitely there. It's a bit of a hobby for me. Look at some comments on this pro ID site (my emphasis):

5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?

Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs?

Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics.

The following comment would be familiar to anyone who has read mythicist writings:

7. What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design?

In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation. After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group's policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory.

I'm not saying that "mythicists" are the same as "creationists", but you have to admit that parallels to criticism are there. Now, to my mind the case for mythicism (Doherty style) has probably more credibility than creationism, but jjramsey's comments are right on the money AFAICS. Carrier becoming a mythicist is interesting, and I have hopes that Carrier (as the scholar he is) will produce the first peer-reviewed article of note on the topic, but from what I've seen on his comments of Muller's criticism of Doherty, on Plutarch and Inanna, he is still formulating his views. In fact, I'd almost bet money that in a year or two you will find him rejecting mythicism as the better explanation.

Toto

At one time, the best scientific minds believed that phlogiston was necessary for fire, that demons cause mental illness, that and surgeons did not need to wash their hands before they moved from the autopsy room to deliver babies. We now know that these scientific minds were dead wrong, and sometimes the establishment resisted absorbing new information or theories. We know that science is a social process, and scientists are human and at times resist change for unscientific reasons.

Unfortunately for the state of the discource, every fringe theorist who is trying to buck the establishment knows that science has been wrong before, and tries to make the case that it is also wrong now, as it rejects new diets, new surgeries, cold fusion, creationism, etc.

So anyone pushing a new theory can be compared to creationists. But that does not make the comparison meaningful. Some of these new theories are going to be established, once they overcome the hurdle of proving their case. Creationism will not be one of those theories. It is just dead wrong. Intelligent Design just died as a potentially viable theory in Dover.

Then why this tiresome post repeating these canards?

The real parallel is between creationism and historicism. Both start with the Bible as a source and twist the usual scholarly methods to reach a result that Christians can feel comfortable with, that will not cause them to lose their faith.

I'll keep track of this prediction.

Chris Weimer

*sigh*

Creationism is totally unlike either historicism or mythicism. Unlike creationism, both theories have evidence for them, and only the fringe of each group can seriously be labelled crackpots. Though I may disagree with the way mythicists interpret certain evidence, let's refrain from ad hominem attacks, shall we?