Rick Sumner

Well, this isn't quite how the AfS works. There are also the sources that do say he tap-danced, but they're just writing allegories. And, of course, the ones that seem to say Elvis tap danced, but are in fact saying that he metaphorically tap-danced in a different plane. And let us, of course, not forget the sources that say he tapped danced but use the term "tap dance" in a euphemistic sense exclusive to Elvis Tap-Dance recorders, which is actually a hitherto unknown term for "curled his lip that way he did."

If we're going to use a reductio ad absurdum we should try and make sure our own sympathies don't get caught up in the absurdities.

Rick Sumner

Scrolling back I see you actually provide an excellent example of precisely the subjectivity I allude to at work, though perhaps more actively than someone more versed in the field.

By your own admission, you aren't working with subject matter you're familiar with. So it is unlikely that you know if Doherty is depicting middle-Platonism accurately. You probably don't know the details of the arguments for any dating he gives. You probably don't know if his proposed translations have any validity. It's unlikely that you've read most of the apologists he cites. We could go on, but it's not necessary.

Despite the fact that you are operating outside your area of familiarity, and are, again by your own admission, ill-equipped to assess Doherty's argument, you still find him persuasive.

If we're operating outside of our familiarity, and side with the "consensus," in so far as one exists, we're on very firm ground indeed. As an example I gave recently in another thread, I know very little about biology, but have absolutely no reservations about accepting the overwhelming consensus in suggesting that evolution is factual.

But when you're bucking the consensus in a field you aren't familiar with, you don't reason yourself into that. The only possible source for your conclusion is predilection.

The difference between you and someone more versed in the field is that they're predisposed in how they address the ancient source. You're only predisposed in how you address the contemporary author.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

aa5874

There tends to come a time when "consensus" in any field may be of no real significance.

New ideas or theories in any field are generally not accepted when first introduced.

And where evidence is the primary factor for the development of a theory, "consensus" is actually irrelevant.

spamandham

...and if there is no real consensus then what? Side with whichever position gets the most scholarly votes?

Steven Carr

We should ,shouldn't we? And not make ridiculous analogies with Paul claiming Jesus preached, worked miracles, commissioned disciples, but Doherty claiming these are all 'allegorical'.

When Paul did no such thing and Doherty makes no such claims.

Steven Carr

The scholarly 'consensus' is that people can now make money writing books documenting the repeated failures of various quests to find the Historical Jesus.

Apart from that, there is very little consensus.

gurugeorge

If you accept the theory of evolution based on the fact that there's a consensus about it amongst biologists, then that's the wrong reason to believe it.

The right reason to believe it is to read pro- and con- arguments framed for the layman, and come to your own conclusions.

Similarly, the best the layman can do here is look at what both sides say, and see which is more coherent.

Other than that, if you're just saying nobody should say anything about anything until they're a fully-informed expert - well, such intellectual cleanliness might be admirable in the abstract, but it would make life (and discussions on this board) very dull

spamandham

...there is no scholarly consensus in this case as far as I can tell. If you took a vote, you'd probably end up with a majority (70 or 80% ?) of scholars saying that there was a historical Jesus, but that's about where the agreement ends.

If there is not consensus on the details of this historical person, then agreement on the fact of historicity, to the extent it exists, seems to me pretty worthless. Worse yet, there is a significant camp of scholars (the 'radicals') who are equally qualified to the others, who say Jesus is an invented character. There is no significant such group of biologists who flat out contradict evolutionary theory with a consistent alternative.

Even worse, it seems clear that the field has historically been dominated by Christians. It seems fair to me to be skeptical of their objectivity, particular when we see so many absurd "explanations" obviously contrived for the purpose of pretending that the Gospels are historical records, such as the various swoon theories.

Rick Sumner

That might be the "best" reason, but it's not necessarily the right one.

Do you read a word of Coptic? How familiar are you with translational issues surrounding the NHL? Did you analyze all arguments for or against a given translation before you utilize it?

I'd be willing to be that you not only didn't, you wouldn't understand the arguments even if you had, because you don't have the philological background to grasp what's a stake.

It's a reality of life that we can't be experts on everything. We can't even be knowledgeable about everything. Or even most things. And when we're not knowledgeable about a subject the appropriate course of action is to rely on those who are.

Indeed. But coherence is subjective, and the less familiarity one has with source material, the more subjective it becomes.

That conclusions drawn by people not familiar with the evidence are not formed evidentially is a tautology. It's a little mystifying that anyone could deny it--it's true by definition.

You're putting words in my mouth.

What I actually said is that when we formulate conclusions on subjects with which we are not familiar, we form those conclusions based on predilection. And that we do so even moreso when we go against the grain of the academy.

I also thought it was quite clear, at least by implication, that being an expert had nothing to do with being able to engage the subject. The distinction I was drawing was between the informed dilettante, such as a regular poster on this sub-forum (or, indeed, Earl Doherty himself), and someone who does not engage the material routinely, like Bree.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

This is disingenuous, and you know it. So I won't bother engaging it beyond that.