Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-08-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Well, if we think of all the ancient Christian writings, then we have a lot of facts. But when we go to specific events, like the supposed baptism of Jesus, we have very few facts, in fact, then the only important fact seem to me be the story in Mark.

And in that case, even if you think that your explanation of that fact is better than other explanations, it really doesn't amount to that much in my opinion, and we can in no way say that we actually know what happened. At most you would be able to say that it's the best guess we can make. I think it's worth finding out what the best guess is, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me that you often try to insist that the best guess is something that should compell us to actually be confident that it happened.

The general consensus here seems to be that we actually don't have enough solid data to reconstruct events in early Christian history. Pretty much all we have are religious texts, which are secondary, undatable and biased.

There is a temptation for skeptics to build an alternate history of the first few centuries, but afaik this is mostly unsupportable conjecture (it is fun though)

Fun Yeah:devil3:

ApostateAbe · 06-08-2011, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

That's correct. When you don't have a lot of facts, then you may not be able to make a conclusive case of any sort. In this topic, there really are a lot of facts--especially the manuscripts of the early Christian writings. Not that we trust the claims of those writings, mind you. The facts are the letters and words on the pages, independent of our judgments of their historical reliability, and they are a set of facts the same as any other ancient manuscripts of extraordinary religious myths are a set of facts. We have a lot of material to be able to explain with historical models of the early Christian religion, be it with a model of fictional beginnings, a model of mythical beginnings, a model of historical+mythical beginnings, a model of purely historical beginnings, and so on. Some models are more likely than others, and we have a large set of facts that help us to judge between the models. I am drilling that point in because I think a lot of us are oriented toward thinking that, if we have a historical claim that isn't true, then it isn't fact, and so if we don't have facts then we don't have explanations. But, any historical writing, be it a reflection of truth, lie, mistaken belief or myth--they are all facts, and we can explain those things historically. For example, the fact is not that there was an empty tomb. The fact is that the author of the gospel of Mark claimed there was an empty tomb. We have an exceptional amount of facts concerning the beginnings of Christianity--all of the claims are untrustworthy, but we can explain them and make sense of them all of the same.

Well, if we think of all the ancient Christian writings, then we have a lot of facts. But when we go to specific events, like the supposed baptism of Jesus, we have very few facts, in fact, then the only important fact seem to me be the story in Mark.

And in that case, even if you think that your explanation of that fact is better than other explanations, it really doesn't amount to that much in my opinion, and we can in no way say that we actually know what happened. At most you would be able to say that it's the best guess we can make. I think it's worth finding out what the best guess is, don't get me wrong, but it seems to me that you often try to insist that the best guess is something that should compell us to actually be confident that it happened.

We have three sets of facts directly related to the baptism of Jesus--the accounts contained in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew and Luke sourced their baptism accounts from Mark, so you may think that really counts as only one "fact," but each account offers insights into the Christian myths of the time, since Matthew and Luke each put their own set of spin on it. We also have a larger set of facts that are not directly reflective of the baptism of Jesus, but they are relevant all of the same--the account in the gospel of John containing the omission, the gospel references to John the Baptist that are not part of the accounts of the baptism of Jesus (including Q), the description given by Josephus, and the references in Acts and Paul to the Christian ritual of baptism.

Especially in the context of ancient history, this is a large set of facts. All of these facts help us to build a plausible explanation. If there is another explanation out there that fits these sets of facts almost as elegantly, with explanatory power, scope, plausibility, and simplicity, then maybe we can accept that the established explanation is not all that certain. Until then, we should settle on the conclusion that Jesus really was baptized, and I think that is the way historical conclusions work.

Toto · 06-08-2011, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... If there is another explanation out there that fits these sets of facts almost as elegantly, with explanatory power, scope, plausibility, and simplicity, then maybe we can accept that the established explanation is not all that certain. Until then, we should settle on the conclusion that Jesus really was baptized, and I think that is the way historical conclusions work.

The theory that Mark was an adoptionist and created the Baptismal scene, but successive Christians became embarrassed by the implication that Jesus needed to be cleansed of sin, is quite elegant, and has explanatory power, scope, plausibility, and simplicity. Compared to the historicist-embarrassing scenario, it is superior since it explains why Paul knows nothing about a baptism or John.

And it saves you the embarrassment of seeming to believe in such an obviously legendary story full of supernatural elements.

ApostateAbe · 06-08-2011, 02:23 PM

hjalti, I am interested in Toto's topic, so let me know if you would like to explore that hypothesis.

hjalti · 06-08-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

hjalti, I am interested in Toto's topic, so let me know if you would like to explore that hypothesis.

If you are interested in what he says, then respond to him. Why ask me about it?

Quote:

We have three sets of facts directly related to the baptism of Jesus--the accounts contained in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew and Luke sourced their baptism accounts from Mark, so you may think that really counts as only one "fact," but each account offers insights into the Christian myths of the time, since Matthew and Luke each put their own set of spin on it. We also have a larger set of facts that are not directly reflective of the baptism of Jesus, but they are relevant all of the same--the account in the gospel of John containing the omission, the gospel references to John the Baptist that are not part of the accounts of the baptism of Jesus (including Q), the description given by Josephus, and the references in Acts and Paul to the Christian ritual of baptism.

I said that the story in Mark is the only important fact, sure we could maybe add Q, but that's not exactly a fact

Facts like what later authors did with the story don't really seem all that helpful.

Quote:

Especially in the context of ancient history, this is a large set of facts. All of these facts help us to build a plausible explanation. If there is another explanation out there that fits these sets of facts almost as elegantly, with explanatory power, scope, plausibility, and simplicity, then maybe we can accept that the established explanation is not all that certain. Until then, we should settle on the conclusion that Jesus really was baptized, and I think that is the way historical conclusions work.

This is where I have problem with how you talk about this issue: "that the established explanation is not all that certain." I might be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are "certain" that Jesus was actually baptized.

Even if we assume that your explanation is the best one according to your criteria, that still doesn't give us anything close to certainty.

ApostateAbe · 06-08-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

hjalti, I am interested in Toto's topic, so let me know if you would like to explore that hypothesis.

If you are interested in what he says, then respond to him. Why ask me about it?

It has to do with the issues between Toto and me. I prefer not to argue with Toto, but Toto may bring up issues that other members find relevant, and I would like to cover those issues. So, let me know if you think the adoptionist hypothesis is interesting or important.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

I said that the story in Mark is the only important fact, sure we could maybe add Q, but that's not exactly a fact

Facts like what later authors did with the story don't really seem all that helpful.

The composition of Q is dated about the same time as Mark. At the very least, it counts as an earlier source than Matthew or Luke, since they both sourced heavily from Q. The gospel of Q quotes and describes John the Baptist, though it doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus (as far as we know). If it were late or sourced from an existing fact, then it would still be a separate extra set of facts, and such extra set of facts are relevant for formulating good explanations, one way or the other. It is possible that I misunderstood your objection. If so, then please explain. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Especially in the context of ancient history, this is a large set of facts. All of these facts help us to build a plausible explanation. If there is another explanation out there that fits these sets of facts almost as elegantly, with explanatory power, scope, plausibility, and simplicity, then maybe we can accept that the established explanation is not all that certain. Until then, we should settle on the conclusion that Jesus really was baptized, and I think that is the way historical conclusions work.

This is where I have problem with how you talk about this issue: "that the established explanation is not all that certain." I might be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you are "certain" that Jesus was actually baptized.

I do think it is certain. I sometimes write long sentences that make it easy to misunderstand my meaning. I began my statement with, "If..." "If there is another explanation out there that [...], then maybe we can accept that the established explanation is not all that certain."

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Even if we assume that your explanation is the best one according to your criteria, that still doesn't give us anything close to certainty.

Right, no disagreement. A merely best explanation does not necessarily imply certainty. But, I do think that the acceptance of certainty is justified if the explanation is by far the best one available, and that is how I think of the explanation entailing a historical baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist.

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

06-08-2011, 02:23 PM	#44
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	hjalti, I am interested in Toto's topic, so let me know if you would like to explore that hypothesis.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.