Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-20-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... If I were to show the probability of ALL of my assumptions, even just the assumptions likely to be challenged by anyone in this forum, the length of my thread may grow many times over. How do you know that Paul actually wrote that? How do you know that Paul existed? How do you know it wasn't a forger of the 2nd century? How do you know that the gospels were written in the first century? How do you know they weren't written by the stooges of Constantine in the fourth century? How do you know that Matthew and Luke sourced from Mark and Q? How do you know that they are not a continuous multiple layering of edits over many centuries? How do you know that they weren't written as satirical fiction? How do you know that Marcion didn't write them? How do you know that they weren't interpolated here, here, here and there? How do you know what Paul actually means by that? How can you justify using one Christian writing to corroborate an interpretation for a different Christian writing? How do you justify conclusions that are much too uncertain for the evidence to justify? Shoot, I got carried away, sorry.

These are all important questions that you have mostly not answered.

In your quote fom G. R. Elton The Practice of History (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2nd Ed., 1967,

The point is that the historian comes to the stage of his work at the end of a process which has taken him through the much more independent standards of judgment produced by a rigorous study of the evidence; it is only in the end, when he considers the answers so obtained, that he is entitled to apply the last test ...

you have skipped over the "rigorous study of the evidence" and you have tried to substitute the consensus of so-called experts, without allowing for the biases and problems of those experts. In most scientific fields, you can rely on the community of scientists to have done basic research and reported it honestly; Biblical history is not there yet.

Toto · 07-20-2010, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Abe - this is an essay from R Joseph Hoffman that he has just republished. What part of this quote do you disagree with?

The importance of the historical Jesus

I disagree with him on the statement, "The standard of proof is fairly high..." I would love to know his source for that "standard of proof," or if any other historian agrees with him. I would like to know if he holds to that "standard of proof" when evaluating the existence of John the Baptist, who is historically attested only through the religious myths of JtB's own cult and Christians. Maybe Hoffman really is a John-the-Baptist-agnostic, I don't know.

So you agree that there is no "slam dunk" evidence that historical figures sometimes leave, that the gospels do not appear to be written as history, but are the product of religious communities? That historians have to grapple with the problem of extracting a historical Jesus from these documents?

ApostateAbe · 07-20-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... If I were to show the probability of ALL of my assumptions, even just the assumptions likely to be challenged by anyone in this forum, the length of my thread may grow many times over. How do you know that Paul actually wrote that? How do you know that Paul existed? How do you know it wasn't a forger of the 2nd century? How do you know that the gospels were written in the first century? How do you know they weren't written by the stooges of Constantine in the fourth century? How do you know that Matthew and Luke sourced from Mark and Q? How do you know that they are not a continuous multiple layering of edits over many centuries? How do you know that they weren't written as satirical fiction? How do you know that Marcion didn't write them? How do you know that they weren't interpolated here, here, here and there? How do you know what Paul actually means by that? How can you justify using one Christian writing to corroborate an interpretation for a different Christian writing? How do you justify conclusions that are much too uncertain for the evidence to justify? Shoot, I got carried away, sorry.

These are all important questions that you have mostly not answered.

In your quote fom G. R. Elton The Practice of History (or via: amazon.co.uk), 2nd Ed., 1967,

The point is that the historian comes to the stage of his work at the end of a process which has taken him through the much more independent standards of judgment produced by a rigorous study of the evidence; it is only in the end, when he considers the answers so obtained, that he is entitled to apply the last test ...

you have skipped over the "rigorous study of the evidence" and you have tried to substitute the consensus of so-called experts, without allowing for the biases and problems of those experts. In most scientific fields, you can rely on the community of scientists to have done basic research and reported it honestly; Biblical history is not there yet.

Yeah, because I don't have direct access to the evidence, nor am I well-trained in the assessment of the evidence. I don't know Koine Greek, nor have I taken the time to read all of the documents, nor do a detailed analysis. Therefore, I substitute the consensus of so-called experts. You say:

"In most scientific fields, you can rely on the community of scientists to have done basic research and reported it honestly; Biblical history is not there yet."

Is there a reason why you think that? Have they been dishonest about the reporting? Have they not done the basic research?

ApostateAbe · 07-20-2010, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I disagree with him on the statement, "The standard of proof is fairly high..." I would love to know his source for that "standard of proof," or if any other historian agrees with him. I would like to know if he holds to that "standard of proof" when evaluating the existence of John the Baptist, who is historically attested only through the religious myths of JtB's own cult and Christians. Maybe Hoffman really is a John-the-Baptist-agnostic, I don't know.

So you agree that there is no "slam dunk" evidence that historical figures sometimes leave, that the gospels do not appear to be written as history, but are the product of religious communities? That historians have to grapple with the problem of extracting a historical Jesus from these documents?

My historical-Jesus explanation for the evidence--"slam dunk" is maybe too hyperbolic, but I am willing to settle on "confident"--is based almost exclusively on the religious myths of Christians, not by trusting them, but by finding the best explanation for them, myths that are far better explained with an actual human Jesus. Hoffman's "standard of proof" holds that such evidence simply doesn't count for the conclusion of the historical existence of such a person. You asked me if I agree with it. Now I would like to know if you agree with the "standard of proof." If so, why? Do you think it is commonly accepted in historical practice? If not, then maybe it can still be justified, but I will be holding my position that it is rare in any field of inquiry to refuse to form conclusions of probability based on an insufficient but non-zero amount of evidence.

Toto · 07-20-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, because I don't have direct access to the evidence, nor am I well-trained in the assessment of the evidence. I don't know Koine Greek, nor have I taken the time to read all of the documents, nor do a detailed analysis. Therefore, I substitute the consensus of so-called experts. You say:

"In most scientific fields, you can rely on the community of scientists to have done basic research and reported it honestly; Biblical history is not there yet."

Is there a reason why you think that? Have they been dishonest about the reporting? Have they not done the basic research?

Do you know the term apologetics? From this forum, you might think that it is an insult, but there are Christian scholars who are proud apologists - they are defenders of the faith. They are such a significant part of the scholarly community that they tend to skew the results, and lead even secular scholars to soften their conclusions and go along with the consensus that dates the gospels to the first century and tries to find some history in the gospels. Have you actually considered the arguments for the dating of the gospels? For interpolations in Paul's letters? You don't need to know Koine Greek to read the commentaries. Just a little bit of review should let you know that there is no real consensus based on scholary debate and a rigorous review of the evidence.

Toto · 07-20-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So you agree that there is no "slam dunk" evidence that historical figures sometimes leave, that the gospels do not appear to be written as history, but are the product of religious communities? That historians have to grapple with the problem of extracting a historical Jesus from these documents?

My historical-Jesus explanation for the evidence--"slam dunk" is maybe too hyperbolic, but I am willing to settle on "confident"--is based almost exclusively on the religious myths of Christians, not by trusting them, but by finding the best explanation for them, myths that are far better explained with an actual human Jesus.

You only have one data point that you claim is better explained by an actual human Jesus - the failed prophecy. But you don't know who made that prophecy, or when. If a mythical figure makes a prophecy, that prophecy might be a later embarrassment, but that doesn't require that the mythical figure was real.

Quote:

... Now I would like to know if you agree with the "standard of proof." If so, why? Do you think it is commonly accepted in historical practice? If not, then maybe it can still be justified, but I will be holding my position that it is rare in any field of inquiry to refuse to form conclusions of probability based on an insufficient but non-zero amount of evidence.

I don't know why Hoffman used the term "fairly high" and he qualifies it as "making allowance for the age" etc. I think it would be better to describe the standard as a preponderance of the evidence. But you seem to admit that the evidence is "insufficient." If the evidence is insufficient, the conclusion should be correspondingly tentative. And in this case, you don't have any direct evidence - only inferences from insufficient evidence.

ApostateAbe · 07-20-2010, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My historical-Jesus explanation for the evidence--"slam dunk" is maybe too hyperbolic, but I am willing to settle on "confident"--is based almost exclusively on the religious myths of Christians, not by trusting them, but by finding the best explanation for them, myths that are far better explained with an actual human Jesus.

You only have one data point that you claim is better explained by an actual human Jesus - the failed prophecy. But you don't know who made that prophecy, or when. If a mythical figure makes a prophecy, that prophecy might be a later embarrassment, but that doesn't require that the mythical figure was real.

Only one data point? A data point is where you have a single item of fact. Every time I quote a passage, those are each data points. On top of that, they cover more than just the failed apocalypticism of Jesus. They cover John the Baptist, James, Paul, Peter and Josephus. On top of that, I explained at length why it is far more probable to expect an allegedly-historical apocalyptic prophet such as Jesus to be an actual-historical apocalyptic prophet, not a mythical one. "...but that doesn't require..." Yeah, nothing is required, but I would discourage thinking in those terms. Think in terms of the relative probability of at least two competing explanations. Or don't, I obviously can't make you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

... Now I would like to know if you agree with the "standard of proof." If so, why? Do you think it is commonly accepted in historical practice? If not, then maybe it can still be justified, but I will be holding my position that it is rare in any field of inquiry to refuse to form conclusions of probability based on an insufficient but non-zero amount of evidence.

I don't know why Hoffman used the term "fairly high" and he qualifies it as "making allowance for the age" etc. I think it would be better to describe the standard as a preponderance of the evidence.

Great, that seems more reasonable to me. "Preponderance of the evidence" is a term used in civil court to decide who wins. In criminal court, they use the phrase, "beyond a reasonable doubt," which I think hangs up many skeptics who can always find reasonable doubt in the best historical explanations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But you seem to admit that the evidence is "insufficient." If the evidence is insufficient, the conclusion should be correspondingly tentative. And in this case, you don't have any direct evidence - only inferences from insufficient evidence.

I am sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the evidence is insufficient, at least it isn't insufficient from my perspective. From my perspective, any evidence that is effectively non-zero is sufficient for a best explanation, which to me is another phrase for a conclusion. I was speaking about the perspective of a professional inquirer, who may think, if he or she thinks like you, that the evidence is insufficient for any conclusion. I am claiming that that is not the way it is done in any field of inquiry.

ApostateAbe · 07-20-2010, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, because I don't have direct access to the evidence, nor am I well-trained in the assessment of the evidence. I don't know Koine Greek, nor have I taken the time to read all of the documents, nor do a detailed analysis. Therefore, I substitute the consensus of so-called experts. You say:

"In most scientific fields, you can rely on the community of scientists to have done basic research and reported it honestly; Biblical history is not there yet."

Is there a reason why you think that? Have they been dishonest about the reporting? Have they not done the basic research?

Do you know the term apologetics? From this forum, you might think that it is an insult, but there are Christian scholars who are proud apologists - they are defenders of the faith. They are such a significant part of the scholarly community that they tend to skew the results, and lead even secular scholars to soften their conclusions and go along with the consensus that dates the gospels to the first century and tries to find some history in the gospels. Have you actually considered the arguments for the dating of the gospels? For interpolations in Paul's letters? You don't need to know Koine Greek to read the commentaries. Just a little bit of review should let you know that there is no real consensus based on scholary debate and a rigorous review of the evidence.

Great, Toto. Having conversation like this with you benefits me, though it is considerably more difficult when you start out with the question, "Do you know the term apologetics?" Can you please not do that? Thanks.

I have sorta been under the impression, maybe a mistaken impression, that the Christian Biblicist scholars and the critical scholars belong in two somewhat-mutually-exclusive camps, that critical scholars do not take Biblicist reasoning so seriously and vice-versa. But, you may be better informed on this matter than me, and maybe you can lead me to evidence of this sort of behavior. Do you know where I can find the detailed arguments for the dating of the gospels, for example? I would love to have that knowledge. Thanks.

spamandham · 07-20-2010, 10:32 PM

I'm still waiting for the slam dunk. All I see is the same exegesis over and over.

"James, the Lord's brother" seems to be a trump card to you. Without the assumptions that this single passage is early, and refers to biological kinship, your entire argument amounts to throwing chicken bones over texts and extracting what the bones tell you is there.

Gal 3:1!? Are you serious? “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Are you claiming that the Galatians - a church founded by Paul (and presumably not in Jerusalem) - were nonetheless eyewitnesses to the crucifixion in Jerusalem and need to be reminded of it by Paul!? This is absurdly anachronistic. Yet without that egregious lapse of reasoning, Gal 3:1 actually becomes an argument for some kind of theatrical or exegetical depiction of the crucifixion - which is unkind to your HJ speculation.

Paul never mentions John the Baptist. That's a gospel concept, and we've discussed ad nauseum why there is no support for an early dating of the gospels. That's another bit of wishful thinking necessary to prop up your particular Jesus invention.

Abe, why do you simply refuse to examine these texts objectively? They're just fuckin' stories for Christ's sake.

ApostateAbe · 07-21-2010, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I'm still waiting for the slam dunk. All I see is the same exegesis over and over.

"James, the Lord's brother" seems to be a trump card to you. Without the assumptions that this single passage is early, and refers to biological kinship, your entire argument amounts to throwing chicken bones over texts and extracting what the bones tell you is there.

Gal 3:1!? Are you serious? “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Are you claiming that the Galatians - a church founded by Paul (and presumably not in Jerusalem) - were nonetheless eyewitnesses to the crucifixion in Jerusalem and need to be reminded of it by Paul!? This is absurdly anachronistic. Yet without that egregious lapse of reasoning, Gal 3:1 actually becomes an argument for some kind of theatrical or exegetical depiction of the crucifixion - which is unkind to your HJ speculation.

Paul never mentions John the Baptist. That's a gospel concept, and we've discussed ad nauseum why there is no support for an early dating of the gospels. That's another bit of wishful thinking necessary to prop up your particular Jesus invention.

Abe, why do you simply refuse to examine these texts objectively? They're just fuckin' stories for Christ's sake.

Thank you, spamandham. I still encourage you, though you may not think the evidence is ready, to make your own case for your own model much like I have done, citing and quoting NT passages and other historical texts all along the way. If you think John the Baptist is merely a gospel concept, then that is an objective claim that belongs in a general model along with other objective claims, so state your tentative opinion using the gospel texts and the passage about JtB found in Josephus (maybe you explained your opinion on JtB and Josephus already, but I think I may have missed or forgotten it). To me, evidences concerning James are conclusive and an easy argument, but the primary line of attack for me is the pair of apocalyptic deadlines of Jesus. The entire NT and all the documents of early Christianity seem explainable in terms of having their origin in Jesus the doomsday cult leader. It is always easy to be a critic. You can find alternative explanations, even plausible explanations, for absolutely anything, especially in history, but I wrote this thread so that my own case can challenge any other case that thinks it can compete. I take it to be unified, elegantly explanatory, highly plausible, and the least ad hoc. Prove me wrong.

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

07-20-2010, 10:32 PM	#39
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	I'm still waiting for the slam dunk. All I see is the same exegesis over and over. "James, the Lord's brother" seems to be a trump card to you. Without the assumptions that this single passage is early, and refers to biological kinship, your entire argument amounts to throwing chicken bones over texts and extracting what the bones tell you is there. Gal 3:1!? Are you serious? “You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” Are you claiming that the Galatians - a church founded by Paul (and presumably not in Jerusalem) - were nonetheless eyewitnesses to the crucifixion in Jerusalem and need to be reminded of it by Paul!? This is absurdly anachronistic. Yet without that egregious lapse of reasoning, Gal 3:1 actually becomes an argument for some kind of theatrical or exegetical depiction of the crucifixion - which is unkind to your HJ speculation. Paul never mentions John the Baptist. That's a gospel concept, and we've discussed ad nauseum why there is no support for an early dating of the gospels. That's another bit of wishful thinking necessary to prop up your particular Jesus invention. Abe, why do you simply refuse to examine these texts objectively? They're just fuckin' stories for Christ's sake.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.