FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-21-2009, 11:00 AM   #171
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
But obviously, the gospels fail all of those "tests" miserably.


I agree that most parts of the gospels fail most of these tests; this is why I remain a minimalist (if that is a good word for it). But not all parts of the gospels fail them.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:09 AM   #172
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 5,679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Only NT scholars feel a need to force a decision on whether there is a real person behind the myths.
I thought that the complaint coming from mythicists was that NT scholars don't seem to give a rat's ass about inquiring into the question of historicity? Isn't it just the mythicist's that feel a need to force a decision on this? Aren't most scholars willing to go on with their work by assuming the historicity of Christ as at least a plausible working hypothesis?
No Robots is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:12 AM   #173
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
No, that is not the logic of my statement. The criteria of embarrassment is invalid based on its own internal problems.
I see. I guess I thought that when you pointed out that ""No other discipline has used anything similar, beyond a vague indication that self-serving statement are less likley to be true than statements against interest, and certainly no other discipline has elevated that vague indication to a major tool in the search for historical truth", you were saying something else.
I said exactly what I said (or typed). I did not say that merely because this critierion is not used by other disciplines, that therefore it is worthless.

Quote:
Assuming that you are correct, are you claiming that the reason they have not done so is because they have come to the same conclusion about this criterion that you have?
I suspect that all great minds think alike, yes.

Quote:
Quote:
You do like to refer to scholarly consensus, don't you?
Whether I do or don't, it's certain that you are doing so here -- and (apparently) as something that proves your claim.

Jeffrey
Not as proof, but as extra confirmation.
Toto is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:14 AM   #174
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by No Robots View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Only NT scholars feel a need to force a decision on whether there is a real person behind the myths.
I thought that the complaint coming from mythicists was that NT scholars don't seem to give a rat's ass about inquiring into the question of historicity?
No, the complaint is that they assume that the problem was solved and they don't have to think any more about it.

Quote:
Isn't it just the mythicists that feel a need to force a decision on this? Aren't most scholars willing to go on with their work by assuming the historicity of Christ as at least a plausible working hypothesis?
That is what they do. But should they? Is it in fact a plausible hypothesis?
Toto is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:15 AM   #175
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
But obviously, the gospels fail all of those "tests" miserably.


I agree that most parts of the gospels fail most of these tests; this is why I remain a minimalist (if that is a good word for it). But not all parts of the gospels fail them.

Ben.
Okay, I'll bite - what part passes those tests?
Toto is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:17 AM   #176
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
But obviously, the gospels fail all of those "tests" miserably.


I agree that most parts of the gospels fail most of these tests; this is why I remain a minimalist (if that is a good word for it). But not all parts of the gospels fail them.

Ben.
What parts of the gospels do not fail them?

The conception of Jesus, the birth, the baptism, the temptation, the miracles, the transfiguration, the crucifixion, the resurrection or the ascension?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:46 AM   #177
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post



I agree that most parts of the gospels fail most of these tests; this is why I remain a minimalist (if that is a good word for it). But not all parts of the gospels fail them.

Ben.
Okay, I'll bite - what part passes those tests?
I am very slowly putting together arguments that, from the gospel of Mark, (A) the crucifixion, (B) the baptism by John, and (C) the saying on divorce do not fail those tests. (I suspect that other parts of Mark are also historical, but I doubt I can demonstrate it... at least not at this point.)

I do not wish to argue these points here and now. They are a work in progress. But you have seen glimpses of them from me in this forum in the past.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 12:31 PM   #178
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post

Okay, I'll bite - what part passes those tests?
I am very slowly putting together arguments that, from the gospel of Mark, (A) the crucifixion, (B) the baptism by John, and (C) the saying on divorce do not fail those tests. (I suspect that other parts of Mark are also historical, but I doubt I can demonstrate it... at least not at this point.)

I do not wish to argue these points here and now. They are a work in progress. But you have seen glimpses of them from me in this forum in the past.
Actually, let me qualify this a bit. I am not certain that the baptism by John necessarily passes all the proposed tests.

That does not mean that it is nonhistorical, or even that it remains in historical limbo, as it were. It means that this set of tests cannot demonstrate historicity. But historians also use other arguments which are not based on tests. For example, Gilbert J. Garraghan writes on page 305 of A Guide to Historical Method:
Cumulative or converging evidence is virtually circumstantial. It is "a heaping up" (L. cumulus) of bits of evidence, individually never more than probable, and often only slightly so, until they form a mass of evidence, the net result of which is certainty. But, as already noted, the resulting certainty does not issue directly from the mass or cumulus of probabilities, since no number of mere probabilities added together can logically produce certainty. To produce such effect, one must invoke the "principle of sufficient reason," by arguing that the only possible explanation why so many bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact, is that the fact is objectively true.
This cumulative method does use tests or conditions, per se. It is more a function of logic.

So... what I should have written is that I think those three data can be demonstrated historically, but not necessarily using the historical tests that I gave from Gottschalk. Rather, there are also other means that can be employed.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 02:27 PM   #179
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post

I am very slowly putting together arguments that, from the gospel of Mark, (A) the crucifixion, (B) the baptism by John, and (C) the saying on divorce do not fail those tests. (I suspect that other parts of Mark are also historical, but I doubt I can demonstrate it... at least not at this point.)

I do not wish to argue these points here and now. They are a work in progress. But you have seen glimpses of them from me in this forum in the past.
Actually, let me qualify this a bit. I am not certain that the baptism by John necessarily passes all the proposed tests.

That does not mean that it is nonhistorical, or even that it remains in historical limbo, as it were. It means that this set of tests cannot demonstrate historicity. But historians also use other arguments which are not based on tests. For example, Gilbert J. Garraghan writes on page 305 of A Guide to Historical Method:
Cumulative or converging evidence is virtually circumstantial. It is "a heaping up" (L. cumulus) of bits of evidence, individually never more than probable, and often only slightly so, until they form a mass of evidence, the net result of which is certainty. But, as already noted, the resulting certainty does not issue directly from the mass or cumulus of probabilities, since no number of mere probabilities added together can logically produce certainty. To produce such effect, one must invoke the "principle of sufficient reason," by arguing that the only possible explanation why so many bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact, is that the fact is objectively true.
This cumulative method does use tests or conditions, per se. It is more a function of logic.

So... what I should have written is that I think those three data can be demonstrated historically, but not necessarily using the historical tests that I gave from Gottschalk. Rather, there are also other means that can be employed.

Ben.
What other source, for the baptism of Jesus, besides Mark, that doesn't, in fact, rely on Mark, can you point to?

I mean, I suppose you would want at least a few "bits of evidence point to the same alleged fact".
dog-on is offline  
Old 01-21-2009, 09:14 PM   #180
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bismark, ND
Posts: 325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticdude View Post

The criterion of embarrassment is implied when historians express reserve for self-serving statements, as do most of us in real life. If you have a buddy that is always talking about how he gets laid by hot women conveniently when nobody is around to verify the story, and never talks about his limitations, we take his failure to mention embarrassing things as a sign that he isn't being wholly truthful, don't we?
I don't think this is the same as the NT criterion of embarrassment.

The criterion of embarrassment is in fact used to argue that the crucifixion must have been historical because no one would invent such an embarrassing way of dying.
I find that bizarre, since the crucifixion is central to the purpose of the gospel authors, therefore it's embarrassment contributes to the apologetic purpose of the author, and isn't a genuinely embarrassing detail which speaks for the author's objectivity.

Quote:
It is also used to argue that the Baptism of Jesus by John must have been historical because no Christian would have subordinated Jesus to John.
That's also perplexing, since the ignorance of the Baptist allows the author to put a fortune-cookie answer in the mouth of Jesus, so this contributes to the author's purpose.

Quote:
In both of these cases, one can argue against the use of the criterion on the basis that the events were not embarrassing to the first people to write about them.
Yes indeed.

Quote:
After participating in this debate for more years than I care to think about, I have never seen this criterion used to establish anything historical about Jesus, and I have never seen it used outside of NT studies. While you can argue that it theoretically might be useful if properly applied, it appears to be useless.
it boils down to a simple rule of people being more likely to lie in ways that make them look good, not bad, therefore their bad admissions, as long as they don't contribute too much to their apologetic purpose in telling the story, are more likely to be true than the admissions that make them look like rock stars.
skepticdude is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:30 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.