jgibson000

Will you please go back and look at what I actually wrote. All I said was that anyone who thought that LOGOS in Jn. 1:1 was equivalent in the mind of John to, and could legitimately be translated as, "Christ" was doing the same sort of eisegesis that, as you yourself have proved, Talor was engaged in when he put forward what he thought/claimed John was saying in Jn 1:1.

JG

krosero

The fallacy that is well-known, when people refer to what large groups of people (scholars/amateurs) believe, is argumentum ad numerum. That's a specific kind of appeal to people's beliefs: you say that other people believe what you're trying to argue, therefore you are correct.

That is not what Ted is doing, but I can't help wonder what he is doing when he makes these dramatic blanket descriptions of what large numbers of people think and feel. Perhaps there should be a logical fallacy for arguments in which you point out that large numbers of people are afraid of your argument, rather than supportive of your argument. It is kind of an argumentum ad numerum in reverse.

The main difference with a conventional argumentum ad numerum, IMO, is that you're not just citing intellectual backing or support for a position: you're talking about people's emotions. And that is where it becomes an argumentum ad hominum.

As everyone knows, that class of arguments is meant to destroy an opponent's confidence. Descriptions of this fallacy that I have found, however, seem to work implicitly with the model of one opponent against another; maybe three, sometimes a small group, but not more. It describes, for instance, what Ted does when he names challengers to Doherty by name and concludes that they have a certain kind of motivation (making a name for themselves) and decides to insult them by sharing his thoughts about their stamina. It does not necessarily describe Ted's argument quoted above, in which large groups of people are being attacked.

The link I gave to Internet Infidel's definition of the argumentum ad hominem includes a sub-type of that fallacy which fits the bill:

This fits the argument we're having here. We historicists hear what sounds, to us, like a constant barrage that HJ scholars and amateurs, if Christian or supposedly conformist or unquestioning, of course are going to believe in a historical Jesus. This poisons the well from the start, because no one is going to take kindly to being called, before our arguments are even addressed (and frequently afterwards), biased, unquestioning, ignorant or afraid, especially on account of our social circumstances: like being a mere amateur; or being a scholar with, the argument goes, hugely compromising interests; or merely being Christian.

The definition quoted above ends correctly, in my opinion, allowing that it's legitimate to refer to the circumstances of those people making a claim. That's absolutely true (if it cuts both ways). But I don't think it's legitimate to aggressively proclaim, as Ted does, that your theory is strong and that everyone is afraid of it. That's just trash-talk and a fallacy, an argumentum ad hominem writ large.

Kevin

jgibson000

Would you please tell us how you know thiis? Have you taken a survey? Done field work?

Let me note that I for one am not terrified of this. So there is at least some evidence that your explanation is all wet. And of all the other scholars I know who are aware of E.D.'s work, none of them are either. In fact, they keep wondering why Earl has not attempted to publish his material in the standard venues. In fact, many of us have actually been urging him to do so.

This doesn't sound like fear to me.

.

Can you please tell us which scolars in the NT guild have PhDs in Star Treck?

Wow. The same argument that cranks like Gardner used to use to explain why no one from academia engaged his theories.

Zeichman

I have read neither at length, so I'm not going to comment. Destroying my career is no the question, but about perception. I recall an NPR program interviewing one scientist, who was told that he would lose friends for engaging in a public debate with creationists, acting as if the position is worthy of response. I'm not suggesting that this would extend exactly (or even closely) to NT scholarship, but caution and reservation are good things.
And here, I thought you were above conspiracy theories. How many scholars are familiar with Doherty's work? Price too is working on the fringe, and has declared himself radical. If there's any marginalization, it's only self-induced. Being self-published, preaching via the internet, or publishing in journals that declare themselves to be "radical" lends justification to the bulk of scholarship ignoring them. What mainstream politician would care about the opinions of anarchists or fascists? Self-identity is to blame for a good degree of this, not some conspiracy.

Ted Hoffman

Yep. Quaking in their pants is more like it.
I will give you an example. Crossan has a doctorate of divinity from Maynooth College. Divinity is Star Trek because it entails studying aliens doing scientifically impossible things.
You can search for more if you want. Your friend, Jim West also has a similar cornflake certificate - an MDiv. It goes on and on accross the entire NT field, like a contagion.
More importantly, a Philosophy Doctor noted here recently:
Why do you believe he was crucified?
GDon and myself agreed to disagree.

krosero

It's on you to back up your claim that Tatian's God was not crucified. Please direct your answers, when you make them, to the questions I posed to you about Tatian.

Solo

Let BC&H be the scholarly equivalent of G.K. Chesterton's Catholic Church whose faith is superior, because it admits all believers, even the respectable ones .

Jiri

No Robots

Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean.

Toto

Certain posts that were heading off topic were split off here

Ted Hoffman

1. Tatian's conception of salvation (Eternal life) is that it comes through knowledge of God (Address to the Greeks 13:1), not by any atonement through Christ's salvific death.
2. All knowledge (about God) comes from God - not from Jesus, or his ministry on earth. Tatian said he was God taught in 29:2.

These two are not consistent with a Christianity underpinned by Christ's ministry on earth and his crucifixion. Any Christian who doesnt base resurrection of the dead on Christ's resurrection, and who presents a theocentric Christianity and never uses the name "Jesus" or "Christ" like Tatian, is likely not aware of the Gospel conception of Jesus.

That is the argument, dear kevin.