Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 11-07-2009, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roberto Perez-Franco

Yet the demographic that should run to read Doherty’s argument is current (or past) Christians with an inquisitive mind and an unsatisfied curiosity about the inconsistencies between the Gospels’ Jesus and the Epistles’ Christ.

I would just add: ". . . or who never noticed the inconsistencies" -- as I had not before I first read Doherty's Web site 10 years ago.

EarlDoherty · 11-07-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

I think there have been sufficient problems found with Doherty's theory to show that it cannot stand, the main one being that there is no evidence that people back then thought the way that Doherty proposes they thought. (Google Bernard Muller's review of Doherty's theory for a good look at the problems. I've ordered Doherty's new book, and I plan to have my own review of it out by early next year.)

Well, Don, your copy of the book, as you know, is on its way. Perhaps you had best wait and see if "there is no evidence" for the way people thought. You sound as though you already have your mind set about what you are going to say in your review! As for Muller, surely you know that my three-part rebuttal to Muller, now a few years old on my website, deals with all the so-called "problems" he has pointed out in my theory.

Anyway, I look forward to your review.

Incidentally, I was going to send Jeffrey Gibson a free copy (as per my old pledge), but I find that the address he pointed out was included in his e-mail to me about The Jesus Project lacks a zipcode. (Now, who the heck quotes his own postal address without including a zipcode?) I can't mail it without a zipcode. Is this typical Jeffrey, or what?

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-07-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

I think there have been sufficient problems found with Doherty's theory to show that it cannot stand, the main one being that there is no evidence that people back then thought the way that Doherty proposes they thought. (Google Bernard Muller's review of Doherty's theory for a good look at the problems. I've ordered Doherty's new book, and I plan to have my own review of it out by early next year.)

Well, Don, your copy of the book, as you know, is on its way. Perhaps you had best wait and see if "there is no evidence" for the way people thought. You sound as though you already have your mind set about what you are going to say in your review! As for Muller, surely you know that my three-part rebuttal to Muller, now a few years old on my website, deals with all the so-called "problems" he has pointed out in my theory.

Anyway, I look forward to your review.

Incidentally, I was going to send Jeffrey Gibson a free copy (as per my old pledge), but I find that the address he pointed out was included in his e-mail to me about The Jesus Project lacks a zipcode. (Now, who the heck quotes his own postal address without including a zipcode?)

Quite a few people, I believe.

Quote:

I can't mail it without a zipcode. Is this typical Jeffrey, or what?

I think it's "or what", even overlooking the fact that your remark is wholly gratuitous.

As most people know, zip codes are really easy to find, especially if one has, as you most certainly do, a person's street address. One click on Google does it.

But in case time etc. prevents you from doing that, it's 60626.

Jeffrey

GakuseiDon · 11-07-2009, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don

I think there have been sufficient problems found with Doherty's theory to show that it cannot stand, the main one being that there is no evidence that people back then thought the way that Doherty proposes they thought. (Google Bernard Muller's review of Doherty's theory for a good look at the problems. I've ordered Doherty's new book, and I plan to have my own review of it out by early next year.)

Well, Don, your copy of the book, as you know, is on its way. Perhaps you had best wait and see if "there is no evidence" for the way people thought. You sound as though you already have your mind set about what you are going to say in your review!

To be honest, IMHO if you did have clear and unambiguous evidence for your position you would have presented it by now. Obviously I need to go through your book first, but at this time I don't expect to find any surprises, based on what you wrote here. But who knows? Maybe I will be surprised (Thanks for sending the book off so promptly, btw!)

As for my review: Since I don't have any relevant language skills and have no formal training there may be a lot in your book that I can't comment on personally. The focus of my review will be a comprehensive review of all your primary sources, to see if they say what you claim they say. As a parallel though independent piece of work, I plan to write a "Metaphysics 101" for how they thought back then, which I will use to contrast with the ideas promoted in your book.

So yes, I have an idea of how my review will run, though be assured it won't be started until I've digested your book. I'll shoot you an email when I have it up on my website, and I'll probably post a summary on this website.

Roger Pearse · 11-07-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Incidentally, I was going to send Jeffrey Gibson a free copy (as per my old pledge), but I find that the address he pointed out was included in his e-mail to me about The Jesus Project lacks a zipcode. I can't mail it without a zipcode. Is this typical Jeffrey, or what?

Why not just email him and ask?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Barefoot Bree · 11-07-2009, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Historians can rarely talk about proving or disproving a theory, especially in ancient history. Historians cannot run experiments, and generally do not have the sort of hard data that scientists have. Often the only material they have are documents that are about as honest and reliable as campaign literature in the US.

Instead, modern historians talk about the "best explanation" of the data. The standard reference is Inference to the Best Explanation (or via: amazon.co.uk) By Peter Lipton.

"Best explanation" implies that you are going to be comparing different possible theories or explanations of the data that you have. But there will be cases where no theory is a very good explanation of the data, and you have to remain agnostic.

I don't know how else to explain it. I am not sure how the discussions in EC are different.

OK, so you are saying that historians deal more with competing theories, to see which is the best explanation, and don't so much deal with each theory on its own. Perhaps it's my own lack of expertise, but I do seem to see things being handled a bit differently in - can we call them "harder sciences" without getting into another debate? - that is, someone could take on a particular theory in physics or chemistry and concentrate on its own details, without having to propose an alternate theory that explains the data better. At least that's the way it appears to me.

I can live with that difference in the various disciplines (one of hundreds of differences). I'll shut up about Carrier's quip.

aa5874 · 11-07-2009, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

IIRC, the ancient Library of Alexandria had anywhere from 500,000 to a million scrolls. What percentage of those do we have left?

I understand that the Romans kept records of government proceedings. How many of those do we have left?

Records of anything from 1st Century Judea? Civil records of Jerusalem? Civil records of any major Roman City? The contents of a single ancient library? Written records are fragile and need copying to be maintained. What we have left are what the monks thought worthy of maintaining and that was almost destroyed by the vikings and religious wars.

Be it 1% or 3% or 5%, we have very little left of ancient records. This is why the Historical Jesus and the Mythical Jesus will remain informed speculations by some very smart people. There simply is not enough evidence to connect the dots.

Hundreds of ancient writings have survived about Jesus by his supposed contemporaries. There is ample information from the authors of the NT, especially the Gospel and Pauline writers, about the divine nature of Jesus.

Virtually every single author of the NT was either a disciple, a believer, or a relative of the supposed Jesus according to the Church.

There is also in effect approximately 100 years of information of the entire 1st century available through Philo and Josephus.

It took far less information to consider Achilles a myth, and with Jesus, it is recorded that his contemporaries did not even consider him a man.

Enough information has survived to reasonably claim Jesus was a MYTH or just a BELIEF.

Rick Sumner · 11-07-2009, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

OK, so you are saying that historians deal more with competing theories, to see which is the best explanation, and don't so much deal with each theory on its own. Perhaps it's my own lack of expertise, but I do seem to see things being handled a bit differently in - can we call them "harder sciences" without getting into another debate?

You can do the same thing here, there's just less inclination to, and ultimately little gained by doing so. It's a field of not even probabilities so much as plausibilities, Consequently the hunt is far more for the best explanation rather than falsification, which is largely impossible. One can show where a given criteria might get a wrong answer, one can't show that a given criteria is entirely invalid, and ultimately its worth is a subjective appraisal of verisimilitude.

Ancient history is all Freud and no Popper, though there are those (and by "those" I mean a "great many") who like to pretend otherwise.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Barefoot Bree · 11-07-2009, 07:35 PM

OK, I can wrap my poor head around that. Thanks for the education, Toto and Rick.

aa5874 · 11-07-2009, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefoot Bree

OK, so you are saying that historians deal more with competing theories, to see which is the best explanation, and don't so much deal with each theory on its own. Perhaps it's my own lack of expertise, but I do seem to see things being handled a bit differently in - can we call them "harder sciences" without getting into another debate?

You can do the same thing here, there's just less inclination to, and ultimately little gained by doing so. It's a field of not even probabilities so much as plausibilities, Consequently the hunt is far more for the best explanation rather than falsification, which is largely impossible. One can show where a given criteria might get a wrong answer, one can't show that a given criteria is entirely invalid, and ultimately its worth is a subjective appraisal of verisimilitude.

Ancient history is all Freud and no Popper, though there are those (and by "those" I mean a "great many") who like to pretend otherwise.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

So, are you admitting that you are engaged in futility?

And ancient history is NOT all Freud. There are other sources than the NT and the Church writings that have survived.

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

11-07-2009, 07:35 PM	#229
Barefoot Bree Contributor Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: East of ginger trees Posts: 12,637	OK, I can wrap my poor head around that. Thanks for the education, Toto and Rick.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.