Freethought & Rationalism Archive

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

To the average believer, the idea just looks nutty... and seems to confirm to them what their preachers say: that atheists hate Jesus so much that they just want him to go away.

What does that have to do with anything? Is the point to convert Christians to atheism or to get at the truth of what happened in those ancient times?

Sure, getting at the truth is the point. I was just stating an opinion.

I try to get believers to think, whether they actually "convert" is up to them. If atheists stick to this fringe mythicist stuff, it makes them look much less rational in the discussion.
t

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

It's disingenuous to pretend that this subject is the same as other secular studies. OTOH we have the freedom and resources to deconstruct our own roots, a luxury apparently not available to many Muslims.

I never said the subject was the same; this branch of history is certainly way different, because religion is based on supposed historical events.
t

Toto · 10-24-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The legal standard does not say that admissions against interest are more likely to be true. It simply allows evidence that would not otherwise be admissible to be considered by the jury. But the jury is not instructed that the admission is more likely to be true.

The fact that it's admissable inherently means that it's more likely to be true. It's why it's allowed but hearsay isn't. They don't need to be instructed, they get to hear it--it's already granted special favour, because it is considered more reliable.

That you think a greater degree of reliability isn't implicit in its admissibility boggles my mind. . .it's the entire point of the law. It's so much the case that it can even be admitted if the declarant is unavailable. So says Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3)

OK, I see we need to back up and clarify a few things.

You can argue that an admission against interest is more likely to be true. If I say that I owe you $100, that is more likely to be the truth than if I say that you owe me $100. (But note that I really might owe you $10,000, so the first statement might be self-serving.)

But the criterion of embarrassment is not used for determining truth in this sense. The NT scholars attempt (gingerly, it is true) to use this to determine that parts of an obviously legendary story are actually recording history.

Quote:

And none of that matters. You said that such a criteria wasn't used outside of the study of the NT. That is false. It's doubly false, because it's also used, extensively, in the study of the OT.

I maintain that the criterion of embarrassment is not used in an academic discipline outside NT studies to determine the historical value of an ancient manuscript.

I have not heard of this criterion used in studies of the Hebrew Scriptures, and I'm not sure how it could be. Does the story of the Garden of Eden become historical because Eve was sinful and Adam allowed himself to be led by a woman?

Quote:

It's ultimately a question of bias--considering the biases of a source when evaluating it's reliability. That you would need to bear that in mind in historical-criticism of any kind seems so obvious to me that the fact that you need to see an example to conclude that it happens boggles my mind. But sure. I'll dig out the Meier reference in the morning. I actually already gave you the substance, I'll just need to track down the specific citation.

Meier is quoted extensively in the link to Doughty's course notes that I gave you. But I'm still waiting for some actual use of the criteria of embarrassment.

The criterion of embarrassment seems to simplistic to be of much aid in general historical studies.

Quote:

If you think that there are no agendas in historical research, I doubt that you have read a lot of history.

What? The agenda I'm speaking of belongs to the ancient authors, not the historian. That should have been clear from the context. Given that you repeat the same thing below, I can only scratch my head at how you get this.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

I was of course speaking of the agendas of ancient authors. All historical source material has to be treated as agenda-driven.

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus merely as an apocalyptic preacher is not supported internally by either the NT or Church writers.

To propose that Jesus was only an apocalyptic preacher, a person would have to reject the information in the NT and the Church writings and fabricate from imagination their own character.

Not at all. We just have to look at what's leftover after the miraculous and fantastical claims are stipped away. A clear figure emerges. Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the first to recognize this.
t

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Apologists always go for the earliest possible dates in order to include the possibility of apostolic authorship.

Exactly. The arguments used for those early dates are pathetic.

I tend to think Mark was probably early 2nd century, because it looks to leverage off the writings of Josephus, and I think about a generation is needed from the time of the destruction of the temple for such a story to be acceptable. That tends to limit the early side. On the late side, we have the various acts style documents appearing in the late 2nd century, which argues the story had been around quite a while.

So, these factors to me, push Mark toward the early 2nd century.

Seems to me dating Mark to the 2nd century would require that Mark placed Jesus in the late 1st century, if he thought some of Jesus' followers were still alive at the time of writing. That wouldn't make sense, as there wouldn't be any temple for Jesus to visit.
t

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Good example. The Book of Mormon is obviousy the fantasy of Joseph Smith based on no historical events at all.

For reasons I don't understand, there is a very strong bias even among secular historians against the argument that the Gospel story was also concocted from whole cloth, though based on common theological themes and drawing from previous religious texts, just like the Book of Mormon.

Bad example. The Book of Mormon purports to describe ancient history. There was clear evidence that Joseph Smth enjoyed fabricating such history. Also, he was the only source.

The gospel stories purport to describe relatively recent events. Historians do not think it was a whole cloth fabrication simply because there is no good evidence for such a conspiracy by multiple sources.
t

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

While I'm not going to lend much credibility to aa's. . .interesting ideas, there is something to be said for embarrassment being used as a ruse. The centurion of Mark 15:39 may serve such a purpose (and, incidentally, may be an example of embarassment being used in such a fashion even 2000 years ago).

Hmm, how is the centurion an embarrassment? He seems part of the pattern of Mark's whitewashing the Romans of blame. Having a gentile as the first to recognize Jesus seems a way to pull Gentiles into the fold. I wouldn't call it a ruse, but rather a mini-legend. Or perhaps some Romans soldier actually was sympathetic, and the supernatural curtain tearing added in.
t

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[ Examine these scenarios:

If I were to personally ask a person if they were ever imprisonned for a crime and the person positively affirms, then I may regard the affirmation as true.

Now, if I told some-one else of that interview, or published the information in writing, then only if the interview is first believed to have occurred and that information is true and correct, can the admittance of being imprissoned be properly assessed.

You are acknowledging the criterion of embarrassment to be of value in your first scenario.

If the person you interviewed was someone you intended to glorify or promote in some way (as Mark with Jesus), then someone would be justified in giving weight to your testimony that the person was a jailbird.

On the other hand, if you were putting down this person as a no-good bum, we might want more verification.

t

Toto · 10-24-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

...
The gospel stories purport to describe relatively recent events.

They do? The earliest date for Mark is 70 CE, about 40 years and one destructive invasion after the events. But we have no evidence for the existence of Mark's gospel before the second century.

Quote:

Historians do not think it was a whole cloth fabrication simply because there is no good evidence for such a conspiracy by multiple sources.
t

Please name the historians you rely on. Please also name the multiple sources - are there any sources for the details of Jesus' life that do not rely on Mark?

Explain why a conspiracy would be necessary.

Rick Sumner · 10-24-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Hmm, how is the centurion an embarrassment?

"Even the centurion who was helping execute Jesus realized he was the son of God."

Gentiles could have been brought into the fold without so dramatic a conversion. I suspect Mark is up to more here.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.