Johann_Kaspar

The main problem is not the burden, it is the proof itself. There is no proof.

Johann_Kaspar

Yep, Caius was god.

Johann_Kaspar

There is no super natural act in the gospels. There are only misrepresentations by the xians (and obviously by some more people who can't escape the xian mentality). It is called brainwashing.

rlogan

Hi Peter.


In the science of hypothesis testing, the ideal conditions are that after formulating a rigorous hypothesis, a controlled experiment is conducted that produces data upon which the test is performed.

There are two manners in which this HJ/MJ debate departs from that science.

First, "hypotheses" are endogenous, and formed to fit the data. The most important failure of this approach is that one can assume some kind of "historical jesus" existed, and construct that "Jesus" in a way that fits the data best.

In doing so, you have not found the historical Jesus. You have merely found a hypothesis (model Jesus) that cannot be rejected by pre-existing data.

You may remember that cosmologists, believing the earth to be the center of the universe, developed surprisingly accurate orbital paths for planets and the sun - all of it completely false.

Likewise, it is well known that a polynomial of sufficient order can be constructed so as to model precisely every data point in a historical time series. 100% "explanation". And such models are also well known to be completely useless.

What we do in such cases is perform tests outside the data set used in formulating the hypothesis. Galileo used the invention of the telescope to discover new data - moons on other planets - and this is what ultimately destroyed the "earth is center of everything" assumption. Statesticians have used forecasts on future data to demonstrate how appallingly bad these complex polynomials are despite fitting perfectly an initial data set.

The analogy here is that we should be looking outside the data we have used to construct our models. Archaeological implications, for example.

At the same time the data has not only been corrupted, but it is quantified in a way that simultaneously engineers the "data" closer to the hypothesis where the "fit" isn't so good otherwise.

Consider the Testimonium Flavianum and the James Passage, for example. For the most part, people agree that Christian scribes tampered with either one or perhaps both.

The ardent historicist claims that the "data" is an "authentic core" TF and James passage. The ardent mythicist claims the "data" is a Josephus devoid of Christian or Jesus references.

The historicists wants to interpret "kata sarka" by the pen of Paul as "data" supporting a human Jesus whereas the mythicist presents the very same thing as "data" supporting myth.

In this way, both the quantification of data and the formulation of the model Jesus are simultansously endogenous processes designed for mutual reinforcement of an assumption. Nothing is being tested.


The first of these problems (designing the model to best fit the "facts") is somewhat alleviated by forcing models to compete with one another as opposed to competing with nothing, as I have described before. The argument from best explanation. This is actually a test.

I am not familiar with a work that sets forth all evidenciary matters and goes down the list, side by side, to see how any particular JM or HJ model does across all the data.

But even so, more decisive tests await us outside the confines of the data we usually argue about so strenuously if we can actually start looking for those possibilities - just as with the examples I gave above.

EarlDoherty

1. The most popular type of argument one encounters in defense of the Historical Jesus is that the vast majority of scholars have always maintained his existence, an argument from authority that is given legitimacy on the grounds that scholarship has again and again demolished the mythicist theory.

2. Earl Doherty several months ago posted on his website a lengthy and comprehensive article demolishing the case for demolition, addressing every major, and many minor, writings over the last century purporting to do the latter. (Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism)

3. Considering that so much emphasis is placed upon traditional scholarship’s superior command of the issue and its dismissal of the mythicist theory, one must expect that those truly interested in becoming knowledgeable on this question did in fact investigate Doherty’s article, if only to be sure that the argument from authority had a leg to stand on.

4. Given that expectation, and given the fact that no one to date has offered any critique of the arguments and rebuttals contained in Doherty’s article (have I missed it?), one must presume that no critique was possible, and that scholarship’s stance in defense of an historical Jesus and against the mythicist theory is insupportable.

5. Therefore, Jesus did not exist.

I noticed that another thread was started by someone who asked for a piece of writing that would present the case for an historical Jesus. Why was he not pointed to my article, which not only presents all the essential elements of that case as put forward in a century of defense against mythicism, but also contains a response to all the elements of that case? Two for the price of one. Then he could evaluate the issue based on the debating points of both sides. I note that this person said he had read S. J. Case, who convinced him that there was indeed an historical Jesus. Case wrote in 1912! (More or less the Iron Age of New Testament research.) But then, maybe Case isn’t all that obsolete, because defenders since then, including the most recent, have not come up with much that is more original or up to date than him.

P.S. I usually check in once or twice a week to see what’s going on, and I think this thread is quite an original approach to dealing with the debate. I congratulate Peter on it, but one would almost think that he has become a closet mythicist!

(And while I've got Peter's attention, I would like to urge him to put a link to my said "Refutations" article on his website, as prominently as he has featured articles on the other side, including that lamentable defense of said century of scholars by Christopher Price--which I also address in my article. Not even Price has undertaken a rebuttal to that article.)

All the best,
Earl Doherty

John Kesler

Here is Robert Turkel's "reply."

krosero

Hello, Earl. I would advise you not to read anything into silence with regard to your article. You don't know what the silence means.

I know, by the way, that this is just an extension of your formal thinking about Jesus mythicism.

1. Those who point to scholarly consensus must be interested in investigating a rebuttal.

1. Paul must have been interested in investigating the personal details of Jesus' life, had a life occurred.


2. But we see those scholars silent. Therefore, "no critique was possible." There can be no other reasonable explanation for their silence.

2. But we see Paul silent about a life. Therefore, no life occurred. There can be no other reasonable explanation for his silence.


Yet Earl, are you privy to the lives and work of all those who might have a response for you?

If you really want peer review, Earl, try submitting your article to the Journal of Biblical Literature, or any other prestigious journal. Maybe you can link them to your thoughts above, as a way to express to them what you think a refusal to engage your essay would mean. Maybe that will successfully manipulate them into tackling your essay.

Regardless, it is the best route to go. Your essay is about what scholars have made of mythicism, so debating amateurs about your essay, while perfectly legitimate, is not enough. What you need is to show that scholars, once again, have failed to refute mythicism -- that is the whole conclusion that your article is pointing to.

Kevin Rosero

Peter Kirby

Hi Earl,

Nice to see you here. :grin:

What are the chance of seeing you at the 2007 SBL meeting?

I would be especially pleased if you were to do something like present an interpretation of Paul in the 'Pauline Epistles' section...but just getting to see you there in San Diego would certainly be nice.

--
Peter Kirby

EarlDoherty

Apparently, Kevin failed to detect the somewhat tongue-in-cheek quality of my "Jesus did not exist" posting. And I was referring entirely to the scholars on this board, not anyone else. On this, I think my point is well taken. There are endless debates going on here over Jesus mythicism, with many pronouncing their views and often taking the trouble to track down the most remote questions on obscure websites around the world to throw light on that debate. The issue over mainstream NT scholarship's attitude toward mythicism and the reputed case they have made against it is often brought up. And yet no one here takes the trouble to have a look at the most definitive response ever made to a century of scholarly rebuttal to mythicism, not even by someone who is regularly referred to as a leading voice in the mythicist camp? Then, when I have the temerity to call attention to that fact, I'm told (essentially) to keep quiet, we're all too busy. Too busy, it seems, arguing minutiae and misunderstandings (especially of my position), playing the games we prefer to play among ourselves. Or else I get what amounts to: don't bother us about your arguments, you need to vet them before the professionals in the professionals' own circle. What are you saying? That you're too uninformed, too amateur (Kevin actually used that term), too unsophisticated to deal with anything I have to say? That's hardly the impression I get from the discussions going on here, either to do with your level of competence (often very high and in some areas higher than my own), nor is it the impression I get of your own self-image.

So no, I do not accept Kevin's "blow-off" of my lament that no one on the IIDB has bothered to read that article. Some of the posters here seem to live on line, spending half their life's energy engaging in debate on issues like Jesus mythicism, so no, neither do I feel there is a legitimate excuse for those who are so engaged not to investigate a major writing in that debate.

As to Kevin's offering, perhaps his tongue-in-cheek is even more subtle than mine, but I would agree wholeheartedly with his parallel:

"2. But we see Paul silent about a life. Therefore, no life occurred. There can be no other reasonable explanation for his silence."

Considering that no other reasonable explanation has been offered (and if you had read my article, you would see that in fact that is the case, over a full century of alleged refutation of mythicism), Kevin's conclusion is inescapable.

Now, perhaps it would be advisable for me to take my case to the "professionals." (Not that that hasn't been done in a general way already.) Although the refusal to accept a $5000 donation by the most liberal clique in that discipline to feature a side-by-side case for and against does not hold out much hope, or encourage me to put that kind of time and effort into such a venture. However, that has got nothing to do with the situation on IIDB. As I said above, in the context here of endless debate on the mythicist theory, you can't sidestep addressing my work simply because I haven't taken the steps toward those in the professional discipline that some here seem to demand. That's no excuse for something like Kevin's post. Ben a few months ago politely declined my offer to review 10 passages in the epistles that point to Pauline mythicism (while declaring that any number of them wouldn't disturb him in the least). Jeffrey used to regularly throw smokescreens over anything I raised to avoid directly addressing and debating the arguments. Peter still (I note) fails to commit himself to giving equal time on his "christianorigins" site to any of my material, or even links to that material, unless he is really pressured to.

Something seems to be amiss here.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Peter Kirby

This is not fair. My "Christian Origins" website is for original online publications and republications of print material. So far I have not had to turn down anyone who submitted an original online publication for the website, including you Earl. Furthermore, there has always been a Links page, and the first entry on the Links page--below links to my other sites--is Earl Doherty's "the Jesus Puzzle," billed as "Without a doubt the best web site arguing for the Jesus Myth thesis." What more do you want? You got this plug without any pressuring; don't think that pressuring is what gets you the exposure that you do! You get that from the high quality of your material, which you have in spades.

If you lost my email address it is peterkirby@gmail.com and I always enjoy talking with you.

--
Peter Kirby