GakuseiDon

Interesting blog post by James McGrath, where he touches on "Ned Ludding", though not by name (my bolding):
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c....html#comments

That what we call history is our reconstruction of the past, and not the past as it "really was," is in fact mainstream scholarship and not a fringe viewpoint. It is the use of this to justify rejecting mainstream scholarship that shifts one from the scholarly realm to the fringe - as though because there is room for uncertainty, it is as likely that bloggers who don't do scientific research will figure out the truth about evolution as the vast majority of scientists, or that self-published authors with no credentials in history are as likely to correctly reconstruct the past as those whose professional lives are spent studying the evidence we have from a given period in the past.

That's what "Ned Ludding" is: saying "You must 'KNOW' or you must 'PROVE'; and if you can't, then my low probability option negates or even trumps your higher probability option".

Interestingly, McGrath says in the link above that he has Doherty's new book, so we can start seeing his review on that in due time, which will be interesting.

No Robots

What we need is a thread to discuss all the different mythicist Christologies. Check out this one.

spin

As most people here will see you have no criteria with which to ascribe probabilities, which entails that, when you do proffer said probabilities, you are making noise without saying anything of meaning. You are simply relying on the weight of tradition embodied in the seminary doctors who you would appeal to.

In this you could be like those people who trustingly supported the Vatican doctors in their rejection of Galileo and Giordano Bruno before him. It's not that they were able to judge the value of their victims meaningfully. It's that their faith would not allow them to perceive a sufficient range of reality.

Ned Ludd et al. are a means of helping you and others in your predicament out of tunnel vision. It doesn't mean that one position or another is right or wrong, but that you're operating without being able to consider the full range of possibilities. You cannot properly play the game without the full deck.

Steven Carr

McGrath used the 'e-word' - evidence.

What evidence does he have that Bartimaeus, Thomas, Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathea, Barabbas, Mary Magdalene, Judas etc etc existed?

As Professor Larry Hurtado points out, mainstream scholarship demands provenance http://cscoedinburgh.wordpress.com/2...ts-news-story/

Of course, mainstream historical scholarship uses standards that are not applied to the New Testament scholar's analysis of the Gospel stories of Jesus of Nazareth, where mainstream scholars claim things happened if later sources do not mention them.....

GakuseiDon

Doherty is "Ned Ludding" you when he says that when Paul writes "man" he could mean "Heavenly Man". Isn't that possible? Aren't you simply relying on the weight of tradition? Can you prove that Paul doesn't mean "Heavenly Man"?

You are also, when you refuse to allow Paul meaning "Heavenly Man" instead of "man". Easy!

mountainman

Momigliano use of the 'e-word' - evidence OTOH is highly regarded.

These biblical scholars are, as Momigliano identified a long while ago, the insiders.

"Principles of Historical research need not be different from criteria of common sense.
And common sense teaches us that outsiders must not tell insiders what they should do.
I shall therefore not discuss directly what biblical scholars are doing. They are the insiders.

Perhaps Momigliano meant "tenured insiders"?

The historical jesus has been a thriving scholarship business and a glorious tax shelter since Nicaea.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

Good point about people connecting Reagan and the Gipper, and Jesus with the Christ.

Actually, I just saw the movie "Knute Rockne: All American" where Ronald Reagan plays George Gipp.
The character appears in the movie only after 34 minutes and is only in the movie for 14 minutes. Reagan is actually on screen for only eight minutes in four short scenes:
1. Gipp gets recruited to play football. He appears cocky, sarcastic and egotistical
2. Gipp plays football. Most of this is file footage intercut with about some isolated shots of Reagan running, kicking, and catching a football.
3. Reagan visits Coach Rockne's home, where he talks to Rockne's child and wife, and then to Rockne. His personality has changed and he is now sweet, self-assured and humble. We are meant to understand that four years of playing football for Rockne has had a personality and life transforming effect. Rockne hears him coughing and insists he sees a doctor.
4. Reagan is in the hospital and is aware he is dying. He tells the Coach Rockne that it doesn't matter, but if the coach needs to motivate his team when they are losing one day, he should tell them to "win one for the Gipper" and he will know about it and be happy, no matter where he is. This simply amounts to a deathbed confession of Christian religious faith. Apparently, besides teaching him football, giving him a sweeter personality, Knute has also taught him religious faith.
It is not explained why he refers to himself as "the Gipper." We assume it is some kind of jocular nickname.

The movie as a whole acts as a hagiography for Rockne. He achieves the best coaching record in football history. We are meant to believe at the end that his humble devotion to his boys, Catholicism and God has brought him success in football. He dies tragically in a plane crash at the age of 43. He was so good that God apparently wanted him to coach his heavenly football team.

The movie barely dealt with the 1929 Carnegie Commission Report that college football had become commercialized during the 1920's to the detriment of college education and the athletes themselves. Rockne was not attacked by name, but most people saw him as the main villain responsible for schools putting the profits they could make at football ahead of higher academic quality for students.

In the 1930's and 1940's, conservative Catholicism controlled Hollywood through the Hays Moral Code and suppressed the liberal and socialist tendencies of the workers in the industry at every turn. Conservative Catholics also produced a number of movies that was thinly disguised Catholic propaganda. "Knute Rockne:All American" was perhaps the most successful of the Catholic propaganda movies before "Going My Way" with Bing Crosby.

Obviously, Catholicism and Notre Dame made a lot of money from Knute Rockne and football. In this sense, turning Rockne into a secular Saint of football certainly paid off.
Reagan seemingly also cashed in by associating himself with the character he played for eight minutes, in a movie where he gave another in a long line of flat, dull and simple-minded performances.

What counts however is the chain of semiotic association that Reagan evoked with the use of the name: Gipper = Mortal Sacrifice= Self Dying for others = Jesus Christ = Others Living = Winning Football = Knute Rockne = All American = Notre Dame = Catholicism = God.

This subtle way of invoking himself as Jesus Christ was perhaps Reagan's meal ticket to political power.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

But both pieces of "evidence" appear to go back to Christians. The Antiq 20 reference was probably a marginal note by a Christian scribe inserted into the text. The Tacitus reference was either hearsay from Christians or inserted by a later Christian editor.

What is a professional to do with such flimsy evidence?

judge

What is the evidence that ties the Tacitus quote to being hearsay from christians?

aa5874

You are MAKING stuff up. Tell no man that Christ was a nickname of Jesus.

There is NO story that CHRIST was a NICKNAME of Jesus.

Mt 16:20 - Mr 8:30 - Lu 9:21 -
You are MAKING stuff up.

The disciples of Jesus were COMMANDED in the NT not to REPEAT the words of PETER.

"Tell no man that THING".

Tell NO MAN that Christ was the NICKNAME of Jesus.