Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-15-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate1970

So it seems that the ahistoricists have a central principle that they abide by, and that is:

P: "Unless there is a manuscript produced contemporaneously with an event or perhaps artifacts that support an oral tradition, then the event simply never happened and any theory which even tacitly assumes its truth is simply story-telling and not worth pursuing."

Is P something that any reasonable historian would accept? No. Is P how history is actually done? No. Is P consistently applied to all traditions and beliefs by the ahistoricists? Somehow I doubt it. Would history look remotely like it does now if we all adopted P. No, not at all, and furthermore, history would become so mutiliated that it would become almost totally impossible to do productive theorizing within it. And since it is theory that leads to discovery, then history, archaeology, historical anthropology, historiography, all of it ... all of it would dry up and blow away overnight. The disciplines would be shut down on campuses around the world, textbooks thrown into the trash, research funding would disappear.

Oh, the horror!

But seriously, professional historians are much more skeptical of their sources than you seem to want to give them credit for. Story telling is a recognized human activity. Keeping accurate historical records is not.

Quote:

There is also a possible supplementary principle which is:

S: "If we have good reason to doubt the truth of some claims of a tradition then we have good reason to doubt all of them."

Everything I asked about P above can be just as well applied to S.

On the contrary, we ALWAYs have good reason to doubt the truth of any traditional claims.

But somehow, life goes on, archeologists keep digging, historians keep writing and trying to understand what happened.

bacht · 10-15-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate1970

So it seems that the ahistoricists have a central principle that they abide by, and that is:

P: "Unless there is a manuscript produced contemporaneously with an event or perhaps artifacts that support an oral tradition, then the event simply never happened and any theory which even tacitly assumes its truth is simply story-telling and not worth pursuing."

Is P something that any reasonable historian would accept? No. Is P how history is actually done? No. Is P consistently applied to all traditions and beliefs by the ahistoricists? Somehow I doubt it. Would history look remotely like it does now if we all adopted P. No, not at all, and furthermore, history would become so mutiliated that it would become almost totally impossible to do productive theorizing within it. And since it is theory that leads to discovery, then history, archaeology, historical anthropology, historiography, all of it ... all of it would dry up and blow away overnight. The disciplines would be shut down on campuses around the world, textbooks thrown into the trash, research funding would disappear.

There is also a possible supplementary principle which is:

S: "If we have good reason to doubt the truth of some claims of a tradition then we have good reason to doubt all of them."

Everything I asked about P above can be just as well applied to S.

I'm not a professional historian or bible scholar, but I think you're oversimplifying the situation. I don't see where the "ahistorical" charge comes from. I don't think most posters here think that history is useless or meaningless or impossible.

This subject matter has been studied for centuries, possibly more than any other subject. It has special meaning for our culture and for world culture. It would be surprising if it wasn't controversial or prone to personal biases.

If you're referring specifically to Jesus, why shouldn't the bar be set higher? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", trite but true enough. This person is supposed to be what no human ever was, God in the flesh. As a corollary, any witnesses to this unique being must be tested for credibility.

hope I didn't miss your point, I do that a lot...

[sorry, cross-post with Toto]

No Robots · 10-15-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

This person is supposed to be what no human ever was, God in the flesh.

Not everyone who asserts that Christ lived makes this claim that he was a god. Many have said throughout history that this is an absurd assertion. And it is just as absurd coming from an atheist as it is coming from a religious believer. The believer has his faith to support his position. The atheist has only his grossly distorted pseudo-scholarship.

bacht · 10-15-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

This person is supposed to be what no human ever was, God in the flesh.

Not everyone who asserts that Christ lived makes this claim that he was a god. Many have said throughout history that this is an absurd assertion. And it is just as absurd coming from an atheist as it is coming from a religious believer. The believer has his faith to support his position. The atheist has only his grossly distorted pseudo-scholarship.

That's true, but this claim is what's special about Jesus. Most atheists I think would not accept any of the supernatural elements in the Bible at face value. We can still talk about how such beliefs motivated the behaviours of those people, eg. asceticism or martyrdom.

No Robots · 10-15-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

That's true, but this claim is what's special about Jesus.

Again, not according to some:

I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.--Thomas Jefferson.

bacht · 10-15-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

That's true, but this claim is what's special about Jesus.

Again, not according to some:

I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.--Thomas Jefferson.

I don't think it's quite the same as someone like Isaiah, who never claimed to be, nor was ever declared to be divine. The NT writers all portray Christ as part of or equal to God. This has to be a factor in how we read sayings attributed to him doesn't it? If he claimed to be divine and really wasn't, how much credibility (or sanity) can we ascribe to him?

show_no_mercy · 10-15-2008, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elena

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul never met a historical Jesus.

Where is evidence outside NT for historical Paul?
If no conclusive evidence for Jesus, how can someone say Paul existed?
No Marcion = no Paul. Possible: Marcion forged letters.

It's entirely possible that he did forge a lot of the contested Pauline epistles (except for 1 & 2 Timothy since they don't show up in his canon). But other Christians from the early 2nd century know of Pauline epistles as well without being Marcionites.

But does this mean that Marcion also wrote Acts? It's presumed that the author of Luke and Acts are the same person. I know some people think that he either wrote his version of Luke first, the "other" version was written first, or both authors got their inspiration from a common source.

show_no_mercy · 10-15-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Most scholars (even St. Jerome) consider the Testimonium Flavius a forgery.

Interesting statement about Jerome (I think you are mistaken about the *modern* consensus -- that sounds like the view of a century ago). Where does he say so? He does quote it in De viris illustribus.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Ya know... I can't remember where I read it at, so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong about Jerome. However, the version he quotes is slightly different than the one we have today (not by any significant degree though). The modern consensus is that it's unknown what was originally in Josephus' "testimony"; how much is original to Josephus and how much is later redaction and insertion by Christian apologists.

No Robots · 10-15-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I don't think it's quite the same as someone like Isaiah, who never claimed to be, nor was ever declared to be divine.

There was certainly a tendency to deify Moses:

There are numerous indications in divergent sources that in such Moses-centered piety there was a tendency towards deification of Moses. As this tendency has been observed by several scholars, there is no need to go into detail. It is clearly perceptible in Philo' s writings.--Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form / Maarten J. J. Menken. Peeters Publishers, 1996. p. 57.

Ben C Smith · 10-15-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Ya know... I can't remember where I read it at, so it's entirely possible that I'm wrong about Jerome. However, the version he quotes is slightly different than the one we have today (not by any significant degree though).

You can compare his version to most others using my Testimonium Flavianum interface.

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.