Vivisector

You could ask the same questions of many other figures of antiquity. Iamblichus, for example, had this to say about Pythagoras:

According to credible historians, his words possessed an admonitory quality that prevailed even with animals, which confirms that, in intelligent men learning tames beasts even wild or irrational. The Daunian bear, who had severely injured the inhabitants, was by Pythagoras detained, long stroking it gently, feeding it on maize and acorns, and after compelling it by an oath to leave alone living beings, he sent it away. It hid itself in the mountains and forest, and was never since known to injure any irrational animal.

My own scissors might leave nothing more than the words "bear injured inhabitants," leaving one with very little on which to hang one's figurative hat. So the question remains: "If that much of just this small section is bogus, what are we supposed to do with the rest, from a literal and historical viewpoint?"

Cheers,

V.

Brother Daniel

Key questions for HJers: Who was Jesus, really? What did he really teach? How did this “Christianity” thing really get started?

There are many theories, but no consensus. It's not at all clear to me that the HJ theories are any less “convoluted and contrived fantasies” than the MJ answers to the “key questions” enumerated by Antipope.
True: “more plausible” is exactly the task at hand. In practice, that means that a thorough MJ case must not only “build up” an MJ theory (or MJ theories collectively, if that is possible); it must also point out that there are difficulties with an HJ.

The genesis of Christianity, no matter how you look at it, was an unlikely event. Something happened whose prior probability was very low. Every possible account of the origin of Christianity will, inevitably, be something that someone could reasonably describe as a convoluted and contrived fantasy. Yet Christianity exists, so we have to throw away all the logically possible “states of affairs” that don’t include the existence of Christianity. Following the principles of the Reverend Mr Bayes, the posterior probability of every remaining “state of affairs” must increase (in relation to the prior), each in equal proportion.

So the HJ/MJ dynamic goes like this: An MJ theory is seen (correctly) to be unlikely (i.e., a priori improbable). Therefore it is rejected by the HJer who has failed to notice that his own favourite Jesus theory is also unlikely. If the unlikelihood of the latter theory is pointed out, it is shrugged off as irrelevant, since we know (circularity alert!) that Jesus existed.

A probability exercise: Take a bag of a million stones, of which one is white, one is red, and the rest are black. Reach into the bag, take out a stone, and look at it. But oops! We’re viewing it through a red filter, and it’s very hard to distinguish red from white. By sheer luck, we get one of the non-black ones. If we conclude, “clearly it must almost certainly be white, because the red stone was one in a million,” we’re using HJ logic.

To take a single example: Doherty points out how bizarre it is, under HJ assumptions, that it didn’t occur to Christians to visit holy sites or collect (allegedly Jesus-related) souvenirs until the fourth century. It makes perfect sense under MJ assumptions. But HJers don’t recognize that there is any need to explain that observation. Paula Fredriksen shrugs and says: “But everyone knows that that’s a fourth-century phenomenon!”

It’s a Catch-22: In order to make an MJ case, you have to point out problems with HJ theories in general. But since MJ theories have no traction in academia, general difficulties with an HJ are not seen as having any relevance.

So there’s my theory. No conscious conspiracy against an MJ, yet the effects of a conspiracy are there.
[arrogant physicist] Because historians apparently haven’t studied probability enough. [/arrogant physicist]

dog-on

Is there any evidence that Pythagoras actually existed?

I assume you refer to the originator of the theorem that bears this name, so this story seems to refer to that individual which seems not to be the description of an actual historical event, (maybe a romanticized version, kind of a Grizzley Adams for the ancients or a fable like the George Washington/Cherry Tree story).

However, someone came up with the theorem. Whoever that person was would be, for all intensive purposes, Pythagoras.

What can you ascribe, specifically, to this "person" known as Jesus?

Vivisector

That's really the key question, isn't it? I suppose it all hinges on what one will accept as "evidence."

Yes.

I agree completely.

Again, I agree.

That's what we call it, to be sure, but how confident can we be that what we refer to as the Pythagorean Theorem was actually first conceived and articulated by the ancient Greek mathematician known as Pythagoras? For that matter, how can we be certain that a flesh-and-blood person named Pythagoras, who stands at the center of all the lore subsequently developed around him, actually existed?

To be perfectly honest, I don't feel there's much. On the other hand, if I apply the same criteria to Pythagoras, I'm not sure I could ascribe much - if any - more to him.

It's a problem that has surfaced repeatedly in the context of this type of discussion, namely, developing criteria that will reliably indicate the historicity of figures/events from antiquity.

Personally, I'm not emotionally invested in the idea of HJ. Intellectually, though, it seems that any method that leads to discarding HJ should also be tested against "control" data. Unfortunately, you can color me skeptical that we're going to get a well-reasoned method that leads to anything other than nihilistic conclusions.

Cheers,

V.

dog-on

I didn't say that the theorem was actually "first conceived and articulated by the ancient Greek mathematician known as Pythagoras".

I said that the individual that originally came up with the theorem would be, for all intensive purposes, Pythagoras.

I then asked for something similar that could be ascribed to the person we should describe, for all intensive purposes, as the historical JC.

Itinerant preacher, or whatever just kinda comes up a little short, (why not wandering sheep dropping sweeper or any other generality you could possibly think of), on the EUREKA!! meter...

dug_down_deep

There is such a thing as an inflammatory analogy. Think of Godwin's Rule. Having myself been the victim of this you think like a creationist nonsense, I can tell you that it is an insult, and will not lead to productive discussion.

Vivisector

You're exactly right, of course; my intent was not to put words on your computer monitor, but to increase the precision of the issue.

This is where I'd need clarification on what you mean by "all intensive purposes" before I could answer satisfactorily, if at all. If you mean it in the sense of, for example, "Pythagoras is the presumably historical figure to whom the Pythagorean Theorem is attributed," then I might say that "Jesus is the presumably historical figure whose alleged crucifixion led ultimately to Christianity." Or something like that. I'd have a problem with a more precise answer, but then again, you might have a similar problem with Pythagoras.

Same here, but that's just me - looking backward 2,000 years into an environment I'm fundamentally prohibited from understanding fully.

Cheers,

V.

GakuseiDon

Don't some mythicists claim that Mithras and Dionysus was crucified, etc? How many push the Jesus "copycat" idea, using Kersey Graves and other disreputable sources? How about Doherty with his "non-earthly fleshly realm", or Tatian as someone who didn't believe in a historical Jesus? Or his comments of "born of a woman" as an indication of mythicist thinking AND an interpolated phrase to counter gnostics?

Note that Creationists don't think that they are going against science. They believe that science actually supports them. It is evolution that doesn't have a leg to evolve on, at least in their opinion. Here are some comments on the Creation Museum that was recently opened in the US, both for and against. It wouldn't take much to rewrite them as mythicist statements, IMO:
http://frontier.cincinnati.com/comme...5&threadid=250

I visited the museum on June 30. As a scientist myself, I have studied both sides of the evolution/creation issue for about 16 years. Though I believed in evolution when I began that study, I came to see the validity of scientific creation and the fallacy of evolution, along with the problems inherent in dating methods which supposedly "prove" an old earth. Answers in Genesis has my full support.

--Linda Edwards, Honea Path, SC, Tuesday, July 03, 2007 - 11:56:00 PM

Yes, it think the museum will provoke much-needed discussion on evolution. It is not good for science when a theory is raised to the level of orthodoxy and people fear to question it. I hope that the museum provokes informed discussion and debate about evolution, a theory that has a lot of problems and which is burdened by its status as an "orthodox" belief in much of the scientific community. This anti-intellectual strain in science has now moved into the science of climate change, with similar negative implications for our understanding of the world. People's careers should not be threatened because they advance "unorthodox" positions, such as a disbelief in evolution or CO2 as the driver of global warming.

--Thomas Hagedorn, Anderson Township, Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 8:04:00 AM

AIG's "scientists" rely on the fact that you must take their word that what they say is true. Problem is, they are lying to you. They very willfully misrepresent the work of legit scientists and essentially make up their own "science". If you think that it's no big deal that these guys aren't experts in the fields they hold forth in, think about this, if you had a heart attack, would you rather be treated by a cardiologist or an astrophysicist?

--Peter, Butler County, Thursday, June 28, 2007 - 10:22:00 AM

I attended public schools, so I was indoctrinated in the evolutionary belief system, not to mention in college as well. I understand the evolutionary fairy tale alright, and unfortunately believed it for a good share of my life until my eyes were opened and I saw the truth. Anyone who approaches this subject with an OPEN mind, and examines the evidence purely objectively, and is a rational person with at least average intelligence cannot come away with any other conclusion than there had to be an intelligence behind the world we see.

--Al, Iowa, Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - 8:05:00 AM

dog-on

...nice chat


Here is where HJ runs smack into the proverbial wall. The HJer must circle back to the myth in order to make any type of relevant claim regarding the historical person. There is nothing we have, like the theorem, to actually tie back to this individual.

I guess, at best, one could say that the writer of the epistles, if indeed these are the earliest Christian writings mentioning JC, would actually be the closest historical person, (as someone had to have actually written them) and maybe therefore could be considered, for all intensive purposes, Jesus.

So "Paul" is the historical Jesus Christ. :angel:

Brother Daniel

The problems with creationism go far beyond merely getting the facts wrong. There's a difference between (merely) "bad science" and "non-science that is dressed up as science". Creationism, on a good day, has a lot of work to do, to rise to the level of (merely) bad science.

MJ-ism, at worst, is merely bad history. It does not involve pissing all over historical methodology.

Another breakdown in the analogy: I can go into the E/C forum and ask the experts there why they are so sure that evolution is a fact. (Note that this is not the same as asking them what the creationists do wrong.) And they'll tell me. In gory detail.

But in the present forum, if I ask the experts here why they are so sure of the historical existence of a "Jesus" or "Yeshua" who can properly be identified with the central character of the canonical gospels, the best answer I get is a few suggestive hints -- peppered with a lot of stuff about the errors committed by (some) MJ proponents (e.g. the crucifixion of Mithras).

You pointed out earlier (correctly) that analogies always have limitations. So my identification of limitations in the analogy does not demonstrate that the analogy is "wrong". However, I can't see what value the MJ/creationism analogy has other than well-poisoning.

Like dug_down_deep, I was tempted to bring up Godwin's Law. You can make comparisons between me and you-know-who, on the basis of the fact that I have facial hair, but there's no good reason to do so.