Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocky
mountainman, thanks. I have come across them but it's such a niche compared to all the other categories that I thought best to leave it out. By comparison, the writers noted in the other categories are a small samping.
|
Let me get this straight Chocky. You are establishing a scale of DOUBT about the HJ and you include the apologists who have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT about the positive historicity of the HJ, yet exclude the opinion of extreme doubt, that Canonical Jesus was in fact a pious forgery. I'd call what you are doing is trying very hard to ignore evidence that some people doubt the HJ more than you are prepared to admit is possible, according to your own conceptual framework. We are supposed to be trying to think outside the square - outside our own conceptual framework. We are supposed to be, at least according to Socrates, engaged in critical thinking, especially if we are discussing scales of critical thinking. Sweep stuff under carpet by all means, but label the habit of such sweeping as a purposeful and conscious decision and action, appropriately denigrating such critical thinking.
By all means leave out of your scale of doubt those doubts you have doubts about, but please do it explicity, with a brief mention. A scale is supposed to be representative of all positions - a map of some form. It appears to me you would like to see everything but the extreme doubt of pious forgery on your scale. Why is this? Do you know something everyone else does not know? Are you superstitious - are you dealing with some sort of faith or some sort of reason - I am curious? This is after all almost 2012. Someone has published a book called
Jesus Potter Harry Christ (or via:
amazon.co.uk) - The Fascinating Parallels Between Two of the World's Most Popular Literary Characters.
Quote:
|
R.G. Price's table is useful for making distinctions, but - correct me if I'm wrong - it seems that Atwill and Carotta don't really represent the position, they pretty much are the position, including a couple of others like yourself.
|
I have listed other authors who deal with (or mention) FICTION besides these two at this
page and my list includes Emperor Julian, The Heretic Arch-Bishop Nestorius, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson's "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins" (1890), Joseph Whelas's "Forgery in Christianity (1930), Dr. R. W. Bernard's Apollonius of Tyana the Nazarene (1964), PRF. Fernando Conde Torrens' "Simon Opera Magna" (2005) [nb: SPANISH]. We might also include the work of Arthur Drews
The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus (1912) by Arthur Drews, translated by Joseph McCabe. This work seriously questions the accepted prevailing paradigm that we are dealing with positive historicity of any form with the HJ. It has assisted in opening the door to question this prevailing paradigm, and to treat it as no more than an assumption or an hypothesis. The HJ scale of doubt must therefore include all classes of theories that are essentially based on the antithetical hypothesis that the HJ was not historical. Be systematic for Christ's sake.
Here is why I include Edwin Johnson ....
Quote:
Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) was a recognised English historian, who is best known for his radical criticisms of Christian historiography. His above work was published anonymously in 1887, and a second work “The Pauline Epistles: Re-studied and Explained" was published in 1894. Both are available in full on the net. The following quote is from Antiqua Mater, where Johnson is referring to the author of the original "Ecclesiastical History" (period to 325 CE), Eusebius Pamphilus of Caesarea:
"This unknown monk pretends to be a man of research
into very scanty records of the past
... [...] ...
He is not a man of research at all,
except in the sense in which many novelists and romancers
are men of research for the purposes of their construction.
This writer is, in fact, simply a theological romancer,
and only in that sense can he be called an historian at all".
|
Other authors have expressed severe criticism of Eusebius. The existence of pious forgery related to "Early Christian documents" is known to the investigative field as
negative evidence. How do we deal with negative evidence in regard to the HJ scale of doubt? The answer is obvious - the negative evidence is largely being IGNORED. Your scale of doubt reflects this situation - there is no place in your scale for seriously negative evidence, such as the "TF" and the "Jesus-Agbar correspondence" and the "Paul-Seneca" correspondence, and much other "shadowy evidence".
In a very unpopular thread entitled
positive and negative historicity of the HJ etc in BC&H I made note of the following HJ Scale of doubt:
Quote:
Positive and Negative Historicity Spectrum of Jesus
+100 = Jesus was historical and God of the Universe inside Hubble linmit
+50 = Jesus was an important historical religious leader
+25 = Jesus was an oscure historical itinerant guru
+5 = Jesus cannot be reconstructed but he existed in history.
+++++ Above this line Jesus appeared "in the flesh" (Positive evidence)
================================================== ===
ZERO = The fence upon which to balance ..... we dont know or care or
we purposefully choose to say nothing about the issue at hand.
================================================== ===
------ Below this line Jesus did not appear "in the flesh" (Negative evidence)
-5 = Jesus cannot be reconstructed but he did not exist in history.
-25 = Jesus was not historical but a vision of "Paul" embellished by scribes
-50 = Jesus was not historical but was formed by the misappropriation of various extant legends, astrotheology and people.
-100 = Jesus was not historical, but was piously forged for political purposes
|
NEGATIVE EVIDENCE:
An ADDENDUM
Negative Evidence Richard Levin
Studies in Philology, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Autumn, 1995) (pp. 383-410)
Page Count: 28
Quote:
p.383
"The first point is that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it, and the second point is that many of us ignore the first point, because of the tendancy of our minds (not, of course, of "human nature") to look only for positive evidence that confirms a proposition we want to prove. This tendancy explains the remarkable tenacity of superstitions ... and of prejudices ....
p.389
The third basic point ... We must recognise, not only that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless we look for negative evidence that might contradict it and that we have a tendency to look only for positive evidence, but also that we cannot hope to prove any proposition unless this negative evidence could exist. The principle is well known to scientists and philosophers of science, who call it disconfirmability. They insist that if a proposition does not invite disconfirmation, if there is no conceivable evidence the existence of which would contradict it, then it cannot be tested and so cannot be taken seriously. If it is not disprovable, it is not provable.
p.409
When combatants encounter an argument, they do not ask about the evidence for or against it; they just ask if the argument is for or against their side, since they believe ... that "the only real question ... is: Which side are you on".
... we not only tend to overlook or forget negative evidence that contradicts our beliefs, but when others point such evidence out to us, instead of thanking them for this chance to correct our beliefs, we tend to get angry with them, and this anger increases in direct proportion to our commitment to the beliefs.
|
The HJ scale of doubt must include provision for negative evidence
12-05-2011, 06:57 PM
The HJ scale of doubt must include provision for negative evidence
