Rick Sumner

Amusingly enough, I stated much the same thing about Meier a scant few posts later, though I find Crossan even more irksome.

The more methodical the approach, the more likely I think it is that method is being used to legitimize an already existent construct, rather than to create one.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Yet people continue to expect otherwise. Demands for empirical evidence of arguments designed on explanatory power and the like.

Does it? How many historical debates have been conclusively settled without an external source of evidence?

Do they? Then why do we still have such radical differences as Christian Fundamentalism, and Jesus Mythicism? These are two extremes that didn't exist scant centuries ago. It's not averaging out in the long run, it's diverging with increasing polarity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

What judgement? Judgement about what constitutes explanatory power?

Magdlyn

Please define explanatory power. Does Doherty have it? Is it a bad thing? If bad, what is better? Just more (vague) evidence? As opposed to a sound theory?

Because, IMHO, the poor fundies are scared of the emerging evidence and have constructed a fortress of falsehood to batten against the fear. Don't think, believe. Ignorance is bliss. Trust your leaders, GWB included.

Rick Sumner

The ability to explain that which can be confirmed.

I'm not persuaded so.

A sound theory, in the absence of secure external evidence, is one with explanatory power.

I'm not a fundie, I've invested considerable energy "thinking," if "thinking" is consideration and review of the Jesus-Myth, and I remain unpersuaded by it.

So much for that. And thus, you see, your suggested cause does not possess explanatory power.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Oh, I enjoy the crap out of the debate. The only thing I really find frustrating is the nature of the evidence (ie it becomes increasingly messy the closer one examines it) and the related ever-decreasing likelihood of reaching a definitive conclusion. But, as I've said before, I obtain a rather perverse enjoyment from the ultimate insolubility of the puzzle. A personal zen koan as it were.

Amaleq13

I was referring to the judgment involved in determining which theory has "the most" explanatory power. You find Doherty's thesis to have significant explanatory power while Rick does not. This difference in opinion results from the subjective nature of the judgment. I tend to agree that the Doherty's thesis, in general, has considerable explanatory power for the evidence but I also find Maccoby's argument (which involves a HJ) to have considerable explanatory power as well. Both, however, seem to me to have problems that prevent me from considering either to be definitive. Carrier has described very well the weaknesses I perceive in Doherty while Maccoby's assumption that Acts is historically reliable seems to me to be problematic.

What this mess really needs is the discovery of a new cache of ancient scrolls. Where is a convenient wandering goatherd when you need one?

Addendum:

Just to clarify, what I'm saying about judgments regarding "the most explanatory power" is that I don't think it is realistic to expect to present an argument that is sufficient to convince the majority of rationally thinking individuals. I'm not suggesting that attempts to argue that a given theory has greater explanatory power be abandoned. I just question the notion that determining "the most explanatory power" could be considered as a definitive criterion. It seemed to me that this was what was being suggested.

Rick Sumner

Right. Chasing the goat. Threw a rock. "Ohmygod! Look at these scrolls!"

*goes out on a limb and calls Adh-dhib a looter. Expresses astonishment that it's not done more often.

Addendum:

What was being suggested was quite the contrary. There is no definitive criteria, and what we walk away with is invariably subjective to a large degree.

The problem is that there's no tenable alternative.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Magdlyn

Oh. Confirmed by what? Messy mythological 2000 yr old shredded and scattered evidence? When do you expect then to ever find "the power?"

Oh yeah. The goatherd.

??? Explanatory power, then, does not need evidence? Just to sound good?

Confused again. It was you who suggested the Jesus history milieu was too polarized. If you are not, that has no bearing on what I said. In fact, you weakened your own claim by then claiming not to be a part of the problem you brought up. ie:

Rick Sumner

You're missing the point. What we have is a sect that originated in the first century. Explanatory power refers to the ability to explain the development of that sect.

It needs to account for evidence. It does not necessarily have evidence itself.

I suggested that in response to the claim that subjective biases balance themselves out over time. The existence of polarities indicates that it does not. I made no claim as to whether it was "too polarized."

I didn't say it was a problem, I said it indicated that subjectivity does not balance itself out over time.

My point was that subjective biases do not seem to balance themselves out over time. The existence of increasing polarity is the evidence in support of that claim.

If you'd care to begin a new thread, addressing your new concerns over issues of method I haven't raised, feel free. Maybe someone else will partake, I'm not terribly keen on defending statements I haven't endorsed, however.

Regards,
Rick Sumner