freigeister

In practical scientific work, the hypothesis is assumed to be true. For example, when attempting to synthesize a compound, a chemist assumes that his procedure will work.


All alternatives are presumed false only for the duration of the testing of the hypothesis. There is nothing to stop a researcher from testing mutually conflicting hypotheses in sequence.

Diogenes the Cynic

There still has to be a way to test the hypothesis. In the case of the HJ question, there isn't one. It makes no testable predictions.

mata leao

well, seems to me, that there are clearly enough 1st century and later Christian martyrs to clearly establish their sincerity of belief, I am a fundamentalist, inerrantist myself.....i may be a self-deluded nut, but I am sincere. And. as an academic, i recall many an embarased marxist colleague from the stalinist era!

Vorkosigan

You mean they neither believe in nor affirm the Nicene Creed? At no time in their lives? Or what? AFAIK all the major protestant denominations affirm the Nicene Creed.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Sorry. Must be the lapsed Catholic in me...... And do anti-trinitarians have creedal statements?

Probably because there isn't one -- and note that my claim consists of two parts, that there is no generally agreed-upon methodology, and that there is no reliable methodology. If there is a generally agreed upon methodology, no one can identify it. Just name it and describe it here.

Actually, if we're going to discuss this seriously, and not just abuse DonG for comically saying that people who point out that Christians scholars are, well, Christian, are paranoid, then my observation resolves into several observations:

1. All proposed historical methodologies used by NT are incomplete in 2 ways

a. they do not use a broad enough set of criteria
b. they frequently make use of criteria which they do not formally identify.

2. NT historical methodologies are unreliable. They cannot sort fact from fiction.

3. There is no agreed-upon methodology. Conservatives and mainstream scholars differ sharply on things such as midrash, miracles, and so on.

4. all NT methodologies in use currently are incoherent, for although all scholars implicitly use negative criteria, none define them (ex: Ludemann) and none offer any way to resolve clashes between positive and negative criteria. What's worse is that none seem aware of this problem. AFAIK I am the first person to have seen this problem.

5. NT methodologies assume what they are trying to prove; namely, that Jesus was a historical figure.

There are several others, you get the drift. That is why when I built my own site on Mark I threw out the "positive" criteria ("Jesus is.....") used by NT scholars; they are nigh-on worthless for historical research into the gospels.

Also, my point was not about the methodology of Mormon scholars, but the fact that it is permissable to point out that they have a vested interest in the outcome of the scholarship. At the moment it is not permissable to say that about Christian scholars. The seriousness of this problem is nicely illustrated by a passage in In the Footsteps of Eve on human origins that I read today, quite by accident.

• Take Makapansgat, for instance, which, along with Sterkfontein, represents the oldest hominid site in South Africa. Tim White argues that the dates of Makapansgat are probably just shy of 3 million years old; whereas Tim Partidge of Wits, using paleomagnetic dating to examine evidence for periodic reversals of the Earth's magnetic poles, and Kay Reed of the Institute of Human Origins, using comparative faunal dates, would argue that they are closer to 3.4 million years. One has to accept that White may have a vested interested in his dating, but so might Tim and Kay.(p202)

In other words, in all other discourse, popular and scientific, it is accepted, even routine, to point out when the data and conclusions of individuals dovetail with their vested interests. Note that in this case the "vested interest" is just a pet theory, not a religious identity. Yet Don G can suggest that mythicists are paranoid that when they suggest that Christian NT scholarly conclusions may be shaped by vested interests. NT studies is an interesting field. Not only do people take you seriously as a scholar when you argue for miracles (*sound of gut-busting laughter*) but you can also term people "paranoid" when they note things that are routine to note in other fields.

Fundamental error. You don't assume it is truth. Rather, you construct it so that it can be falsified, and then you use methodologies that are capable of falsifying it to conduct research into it. Another way of doing research is to construct a prediction based on the hypothesis and then set about confirming the prediction. Real-life scientific research is a good deal more complicated than you believe.

In any case, HJ studies satisfies neither of the conditions above. "Rather, you construct it so that it can be falsified, and then you use methodologies that are capable of falsifying it to conduct research into it." The HJ is not permitted to be falsifiable, and the criteria that HJ scholars use are not capable of doing anything but confirming his historicity, as they have it built into them.

This is an error. Usually hypotheses are more robust than that, and thus, when disconfirmed the next step is not to reject the hypothesis, but explain why we found disconfirming evidence while retaining the hypothesis. Note that the word "insuperable" is a value and thus, what looks insuperable to one is minor to another.

In any case, as I note below, the MJ/HJ clash is not a clash of competing hypotheses.....

No, because the HJ/MJ divide is a split on what the facts are and how to go about constructing them. It is a problem of competing interpretive frameworks that determine the nature of the facts, not a disagreement about the facts themselves, as well as a disagreement over what tools should be used to explore those facts. It is much more fundamental than what you think.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Well, this is what I posted:

RPS, the attitude of "you can't trust Christian scholars" and "it is all mere apologetics" exists on all atheist boards that I've found, though it tends to be less vocalized on this board. It is a bias with a touch of paranoia. (I'm not saying that everyone here is like that, and similar attitudes are adopted by posters on Christian websites).

As I wrote, these attitudes can be found in both atheists and Christians.

It is important to recognise the possibility of bias. I point out my possible bias in one of my earlier rebuttals to Doherty on my website:

"Doherty refers to me several times as an "apologist". Since I am a Christian writing in defense of a historical Jesus, I suppose that I am at least a "would-be" apologist, so the question of bias that Doherty is implying may exist; thus the readers need to keep this mind. For that reason, I try to use secular sources wherever possible..."

No, I suggest it begins to sounds like paranoia when motives are impugned. This is what Doherty says about the reason for the refusal in the OP:

I am sure the apologists on this Board will come up with all sorts of rationalizations for the refusal, all ultimately based on the same appeal to authority and smug reliability to be placed in the majority attitude, but to me it smacks of nothing so much as fear and hesitation over opening a Pandora’s Box of disturbing ideas which might further undermine the foundations of their own world.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no evidence for any 1st century Christian martyrs except (possibly) Josephus' reference to the execution of James, but that passage does not say why James was executed and the authenticity of the passage is disputed anyway.

Also, sincerity of belief proves nothing.

Vorkosigan

So to return to the section from In the Footsteps of Eve

• Take Makapansgat, for instance, which, along with Sterkfontein, represents the oldest hominid site in South Africa. Tim White argues that the dates of Makapansgat are probably just shy of 3 million years old; whereas Tim Partidge of Wits, using paleomagnetic dating to examine evidence for periodic reversals of the Earth's magnetic poles, and Kay Reed of the Institute of Human Origins, using comparative faunal dates, would argue that they are closer to 3.4 million years. One has to accept that White may have a vested interested in his dating, but so might Tim and Kay.(p202)

Do you think that author's recognition of a vested interest was impugning their motives and thus paranoid, or what? I'm curious where I get to draw the line and still be considered rational. What's the DonG rule?

Really, I think you don't interact enough with scholars who hold non-mainstream views, and experience the steady drumbeat of hatemail and abuse that they do. You should see the stuff I get offlist whenever I post on the Jesus Myth on a non-JM list -- I don't anymore, who needs the attacks and the earnest attempts to deconvert, etc? Just today someone posted a series of points by Gerd Ludemann, the well-known scholar, on the historicity of the Birth Narrative to the Bib Studies List and the very next post accused him of hating Christianity. Today on that same list minimalist Philip Davies posted a tale of how a prominent Assyriologist accused him of hating the Bible. Because of this drumbeat of hate, my book on Mark is entirely purged of any reference to a mythical Jesus, because I'd like to get it published (that, DonG, is how shaping effects take place. It is not a simple question of bias vs integrity, but the way the very conversation itself is skewed). You know, I think you'd be surprised to find out that a historicist scholar who is very widely known once put on a fake ID and attempted to disrupt and destroy one of the Jesus Myth discussion lists (I'm not revealing any names, but Clarice C can confirm in general that the event occurred). Shit like that happens all the time (remember the coordinated effort on the Ossuary?). Were you on XTALK when the Ossuary was found and there were a series of nasty remarks about mythicists from many posters? Yet in the end, not a single mythicist was fooled by that. Many historicist scholars were (did you see any soul-searching about their gullibility in the field, either? Cuz I didn't. They just buried it.)

Many of us, like Earl, know from bitter experience the depths to which people, including scholars, will sink to defend their irrational beliefs. Just read about the experience of the Minimalists in attempting to get their ideas across. Now contrast that steady drumbeat of hate with the warm reception accorded that obvious fake the James Ossuary (which amateurs here spotted immediately). See the shaping effect of that Christian commitment? In NT studies NT Wright is taken seriously as a scholar even though he argues that the Resurrection occurred. Can you think of any other field where that is possible? It's that skewed, shaping effect that we see in operation all across the field, DonG, not some simpleminded bias vs integrity problem.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle

I presume by 'no evidence for any 1st century Christian martyrs' you mean no evidence from non-Christian sources, eg there are several martyrdoms described in Acts.

Even from non-Christian sources we have Tacitus on Nero's persecution in Rome.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

IIUC our first sources for the story of William Tell date from around 1470, over a hundred and fifty years after the alleged events in 1307.

His importance as a central Swiss National Hero is somewhat later.

I have doubts whether it is a good parallel

(I'm sometimes uneasy about quoting Wikipedia but this article seems rather good.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell

Andrew Criddle