Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 03-05-2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Thanks, Toto, for the new link. Looks as though this debate is not over yet....
I've just noticed the debate has got a mention in the comments on Hoffman's blog (albeit giving a misrepresentation re Neil - but another poster there quickly set the matter straight.....)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...pect/#comments

Some interesting comments on the exact meaning of "evidence" from a non-English speaker. We could all probably benefit from distinguishing 'evidence" from "indicia."

neilgodfrey · 03-05-2010, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Thanks, Toto, for the new link. Looks as though this debate is not over yet....
I've just noticed the debate has got a mention in the comments on Hoffman's blog (albeit giving a misrepresentation re Neil - but another poster there quickly set the matter straight.....)

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...pect/#comments

Some interesting comments on the exact meaning of "evidence" from a non-English speaker. We could all probably benefit from distinguishing 'evidence" from "indicia."

So many types of evidence - primary and secondary (and opposing definitions of each) and hearsay and circumstantial -- Anyway, I've since attempted to clarify on Hoffmann's blog the nature of the evidence for Q that is based on inference, circumstance.

But it's all a bit of a game. Someone who demands manuscript evidence for Q is quite happy to rely on the "evidence" of nothing more substantial than the exegesis of a narrative for the existence of Jesus.

Neil

neilgodfrey · 03-05-2010, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

My own exposure to these kinds of "rationalizations ... tortured exegesis ... side-stepping" in academia happened when I was studying for a Seminar with John Dominic Crossan on his then recent book Birth of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1998). Now I'm a fairly "liberal" person myself, and have some familiarity with sociology (Crossan calls it by the alternate name "cross-cultural anthropology"), so I was interested in his "Lenski-Kautsky" model. I read the books by those author's which had been cited by Crossan (G. Lenski, K. Kautky and G. E. M. de ste Croix), plus a couple by these same authors that were not cited, and realized that Crossan had cobbled his model together from ideas presented by those authors that had been taken completely out of context, and quite selectively to exclude their conclusions that contradict conclusions reached by Crossan. As a result, I ended up having no confidence in Crossan's Lenski-Kautsky Model. The Seminar link above will bring up a summary of the the seminar exchanges compiled by Crossan himself (my question was #18).

DCH

Ditto Richard Bauckham's use of Paul Ricoeur's "Memory, History, Forgetting" in twisted support for his eyewitness theory.

Bauckham cites Ricoeur

Quote:

First, trust the word of others, then doubt if there are good reasons for doing so. (from p.165, Memory)

and then comments:

Quote:

This general rule for everyday life applies also to the historian in relation to her sources. (p.487, Eyewitnesses)

I have heard a few barmy things about French philosophers but I thought this is surely a bit over the top, yet here was Bauckham using Ricoeur repeatedly to substantiate a most gossamer hypothesis. Finally got a copy of Ricoeur for myself and discovered Ricoeur is talking about (pages 161-166) the testimony of one who is available to repeat his testimony, and who demonstrates his steadfastness with his testimony over time. It is the testimony of one who is prepared to answer doubts and scepticism and can point to others who experienced or witnessed the same things.

Yet here is Bauckham seriously applying Ricoeur's work to those he claims are "eyewitness sources" of the gospels, dressing up the most fatuous speculation with the heavy garments of a prominent philosopher.

Neil
Bauckham's use of Paul Ricoeur

maryhelena · 03-05-2010, 09:37 PM

Neil's comments have now appeared on Hoffmann's blog.

Quote:

R. Joseph Hoffmann.

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...pect/#comments

There is nothing ontological about the standing of the myth theory, and my sense is that people who hold it tend to think that all other opinions are mystical or faith-driven.

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 10:18 PM

rjosephhoffmann on March 5, 2010

It’s a fair question, but I never said that such speculation should be discounted–-only that people interested in the question should not be peddling master-theories in the absence of a solid knowledge [of] the history of the problem. Frankly, I find that many of the modern myth theorists don’t start from scratch but from a rather narrow set of premises, most of them derived from ppp–-pretty pedestrian pyrrhonism–-about the gospels. It’s very hard to apply the values of a hard headed empirical historian to the gospels and come out with anything but flotsam (see Carrier’s essay in [Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry] when it appears–-a good essay, but one that bears out my assessment). Even outrageous opinions should be given the time of day, but no more standing than that. There is nothing ontological about the standing of the myth theory, and my sense is that people who hold it tend to think that all other opinions are mystical or faith-driven.

This is wonderful. If you want to know what is wrong with mythicism on the superficial level of picking apart the arguments, then you can pay attention to McGrath. To get an idea of what is wrong with mythicism on the most fundamental level, it seems best to listen to this guy--R. Joseph Hoffman.

maryhelena · 03-05-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

rjosephhoffmann on March 5, 2010

It’s a fair question, but I never said that such speculation should be discounted–-only that people interested in the question should not be peddling master--theories in the absence of a solid knowledge [of] the history of the problem. Frankly, I find that many of the modern myth theorists don’t start from scratch but from a rather narrow set of premises, most of them derived from ppp–-pretty pedestrian pyrrhonism–-about the gospels. It’s very hard to apply the values of a hard headed empirical historian to the gospels and come out with anything but flotsam (see Carrier’s essay in Sources of J-Trad. when it appears–-a good essay, but one that bears out my assessment). Even outrageous opinions should be given the time of day, but no more standing than that. There is nothing ontological about the standing of the myth theory, and my sense is that people who hold it tend to think that all other opinions are mystical or faith-driven.

This is wonderful. If you want to know what is wrong with mythicism on the superficial level of picking apart the arguments, then you can pay attention to McGrath. To get an idea of what is wrong with mythicism on the most fundamental level, it seems best to listen to this guy--R. Joseph Hoffman.

What Hoffmann is saying is something that applies just as well to the historicists as to the mythicists - there is no black and white issue here - both sides have concerns that cannot be wished away with a wave of some academic hand.....

Perhaps its about time both sides, the mythicists and the historicists, take the best out of both positions, take the implications that both sides see in their positions - and begin to see what a joint endeavor might come up with....

ApostateAbe · 03-05-2010, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

rjosephhoffmann on March 5, 2010

It’s a fair question, but I never said that such speculation should be discounted–-only that people interested in the question should not be peddling master-theories in the absence of a solid knowledge [of] the history of the problem. Frankly, I find that many of the modern myth theorists don’t start from scratch but from a rather narrow set of premises, most of them derived from ppp–-pretty pedestrian pyrrhonism–-about the gospels. It’s very hard to apply the values of a hard headed empirical historian to the gospels and come out with anything but flotsam (see Carrier’s essay in Sources of J-Trad. when it appears–-a good essay, but one that bears out my assessment). Even outrageous opinions should be given the time of day, but no more standing than that. There is nothing ontological about the standing of the myth theory, and my sense is that people who hold it tend to think that all other opinions are mystical or faith-driven.

This is wonderful. If you want to know what is wrong with mythicism on the superficial level of picking apart the arguments, then you can pay attention to McGrath. To get an idea of what is wrong with mythicism on the most fundamental level, it seems best to listen to this guy--R. Joseph Hoffman.

What Hoffmann is saying is something that applies just as well to the historicists as to the mythicists - there is no black and white issue here - both sides have concerns that cannot be wished away with a wave of some academic hand.....

Perhaps its about time both sides, the mythicists and the historicists, take the best out of both positions, take the implications that both sides see in their positions - and begin to see what a joint endeavor might come up with....

That sounds fair.

aa5874 · 03-05-2010, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

rjosephhoffmann on March 5, 2010

It’s a fair question, but I never said that such speculation should be discounted–-only that people interested in the question should not be peddling master-theories in the absence of a solid knowledge [of] the history of the problem. Frankly, I find that many of the modern myth theorists don’t start from scratch but from a rather narrow set of premises, most of them derived from ppp–-pretty pedestrian pyrrhonism–-about the gospels. It’s very hard to apply the values of a hard headed empirical historian to the gospels and come out with anything but flotsam (see Carrier’s essay in [Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry] when it appears–-a good essay, but one that bears out my assessment). Even outrageous opinions should be given the time of day, but no more standing than that. There is nothing ontological about the standing of the myth theory, and my sense is that people who hold it tend to think that all other opinions are mystical or faith-driven.

This is wonderful. If you want to know what is wrong with mythicism on the superficial level of picking apart the arguments, then you can pay attention to McGrath. To get an idea of what is wrong with mythicism on the most fundamental level, it seems best to listen to this guy--R. Joseph Hoffman.

But, there is really nothing of substance there.

It is an obvious fallacy and more pure propaganda peddling --ppp--from HJers when they try to downplay the case for the MJ when it is already admitted by HJers that the Jesus of the NT is submerged in mythology.

HJers are attempting to remove the myth and are trying to find a supposed historical core. But it is like a mirage.

The case for MJ , a Divine entity, is directly based on information provided by the NT. This cannot be denied.

The case for HJ , a human only Jesus, is directly based on the HJer's imagination. This cannot be denied.

The Jesus of the Canon is directly based on a Divine/human character with no known earthly father. See Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.34-35, Mark 9.2, John 1, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1 and others.

The Jesus of the HJ cannot be found anywhere in the Canon or the Church writings.

The HJ is dead.It has no historical support. It is based purely on imagination.

It cannot be shown that a Jew or a Jesus believer would have worshiped HJ as a God while telling others not to worship a man as a God.

It is all over for HJ.

Toto · 03-06-2010, 03:10 PM

The latest example of McGrath's cluelessness

He quotes Neil Godfrey:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vridar

"Exegesis of a narrative cannot magically conjure up evidence for the historical reality of the narrative...Sanders is merely attempting to calculate what narrative details are more or less likely to make sense of the larger plot, given the assumption that the narrative originated largely from “traditions” going back to an historical Jesus. Historicity itself is an assumption."

and seems to think there is something here that is worng.

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrath

I was tempted to not cite the source and ask readers connected with academia what grade they would give to a student who wrote this, in terms of the understanding of how historians use texts when no other sources are available, and in terms of E. P. Sanders' use of the "criteria of authenticity."

Why does he think that real historians come to conclusions when there are texts with no other sources available? He's admitted he needs to learn the basics of historiography.

And Rick Summers replies to the post. (If even Rick can defend Doherty in the face of McGrath's superficial potshots, what next?)

Steven Carr · 03-06-2010, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The latest example of McGrath's cluelessness

He quotes Neil Godfrey:

Quote:

Originally Posted by vridar

"Exegesis of a narrative cannot magically conjure up evidence for the historical reality of the narrative...Sanders is merely attempting to calculate what narrative details are more or less likely to make sense of the larger plot, given the assumption that the narrative originated largely from “traditions” going back to an historical Jesus. Historicity itself is an assumption."

and seems to think there is something here that is worng.

Quote:

Originally Posted by McGrath

I was tempted to not cite the source and ask readers connected with academia what grade they would give to a student who wrote this, in terms of the understanding of how historians use texts when no other sources are available, and in terms of E. P. Sanders' use of the "criteria of authenticity."

Why does he think that real historians come to conclusions when there are texts with no other sources available? He's admitted he needs to learn the basics of historiography.

And Rick Summers replies to the post. (If even Rick can defend Doherty in the face of McGrath's superficial potshots, what next?)

But there are other sources available in the case of the Gospels.

There are the letters of Paul, 1 Peter, James, Jude etc.

It's just that none of the other sources seem to have heard of the main character of the Gospels saying and doing anything of any note before he died.

Other than telling people how to conjure up his body and blood in a ritual meal....

03-05-2010, 10:18 PM	#475
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	rjosephhoffmann on March 5, 2010 It’s a fair question, but I never said that such speculation should be discounted–-only that people interested in the question should not be peddling master-theories in the absence of a solid knowledge [of] the history of the problem. Frankly, I find that many of the modern myth theorists don’t start from scratch but from a rather narrow set of premises, most of them derived from ppp–-pretty pedestrian pyrrhonism–-about the gospels. It’s very hard to apply the values of a hard headed empirical historian to the gospels and come out with anything but flotsam (see Carrier’s essay in [Sources of the Jesus Tradition: An Inquiry] when it appears–-a good essay, but one that bears out my assessment). Even outrageous opinions should be given the time of day, but no more standing than that. There is nothing ontological about the standing of the myth theory, and my sense is that people who hold it tend to think that all other opinions are mystical or faith-driven. This is wonderful. If you want to know what is wrong with mythicism on the superficial level of picking apart the arguments, then you can pay attention to McGrath. To get an idea of what is wrong with mythicism on the most fundamental level, it seems best to listen to this guy--R. Joseph Hoffman.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.