mountainman

The methodology for "argument for best explanation" is outlined as follows:


I am prepared to argue that the hypothesis of the historical jesus leads to all sorts of very messy problems, not the least of which is manifest in the conspicuous absence of unambiguous evidence prior to the 4th century. Consequently, the argument to the best explanation of the evidence is one that does not involve the hypothesis of an HJ.

On the contrary I am also prepared to argue that the best explanation for all the evidence is one in which employs not the HJ hypothesis, but the hypothesis of a mythical and non historical Jesus, and moreover, that the evidence indicates that this type of literary Jesus appears no earlier that the 4th century, and is associated with a "Christian Revolution" spearheaded by the Roman Emperor and "Pontifex Maximus" Constantine, c.324/325 CE.

However I differ from most researchers in the fact that I am admitting and providing a profane political (Revisionist) history in respect of the epoch between the 1st and the 5th century, including the Arian controversy and Emperor Julian's invectives, a host of "Controversies involving heretics", the appearance and authorship of the Non Canonical texts, etc, etc , and the Thug Bishop Cyril's censorship and "refutation of Julian's LIES". Most other researchers focus only on a period in the 1st and 2nd centuries, rarely mentioning the 3rd century, and expecting the 4th century to be a consequence of events in earlier centuries as disclosed by Eusebius.. Other theories focus on the history of the books of the new testament canon, for example. The scope of what I am attempting to deal with is therefore larger, in that I attempt to provide explanatation for ALL the facets of "Early Christian Literature".

ApostateAbe

mountainman, that is wonderful. You have the same methodology as me. Maybe I should change my opinions!

Let's argue in terms of ABE. I claim that Christianity started in the first century, because it explains a broad scope of evidence with explanatory power--the large variety of early Christian writings and attestations that sensibly fit into a model of early Christian origins in the first and second centuries--for example, the synoptic gospels containing failed apocalyptic deadlines of Jesus (something we would most strongly expect for a first-century composition, but not by a writer of any later time). The documents seemingly represent an evolving and branching Christian perspective as the religion grows from the mid first-century to the theologically-developed 4th century. The theory has plausibility, since we have many other examples of religions being founded, growing, splitting, evolving and leaving behind textual evidence, but we (presumably) have no other close examples of a variety of convincing religious documents seemingly representing centuries of religious growth, evolution and inter-theological debate being entirely forged. My theory requires no new supposition of a complex conspiracy of extremely clever authors, nor any new supposition of a modern scientific/scholarly conspiracy of either deception or buffoonery of those who date the manuscripts.

I think it would be great if you argued in terms of your methodology much more often. This is the way debates should be done.

Vorkosigan

Methodology is the basis of fact construction.

Vorkosigan

This is just stupid. Of course the people who are Jesus Mythicists have a positive belief -- Jesus began as a mythic, cosmic savior and was historicized in the debates during the second century.

The debate is not a skeptics vs believers debate but a debate over interpretive frameworks and methodologies. A skeptic is a person whose determinations about what is real and what is not are based on sound methodologies.

The judgments you make are sociological, not methodological. It's no better than if I started labeling anyone who believes in the HJ the hyper-credulous. The Jesus Mythicists bring the same methodologies to the text that anyone who studies ancient texts uses. It's just that this makes Christians uncomfortable, so they whip out pejorative labels since they lack the sound methodological basis to stop the critiques.

Can you identify any methodology used by Mythicists that is methodologically unsound for the texts it is used on?

Vorkosigan

mountainman

Let's argue in terms of ABE. We have no solid substantial and unambiguous evidence to answer or explain before Eusebius and Nicaea, with the exception of palaeographically assigned papyri fragments, Yale's Dura-Europos "House-Church-Art-Exhibit" and the books of the New Testament Canon. What then if the Mythical Jesus is Constantine's Political Noble lie, the Arian Controversy the turbulence this Noble Lie caused, and the Gnostic Gospels and Acts (etc) a collection of countefeit Gnostic "Noble Lies" and desperate last ditch attempts to preserve 4th century Alexandrian Greek wisdom?

ApostateAbe

mountainman, arguing in terms of ABE means showing that your hypothesis (Noble lie of Constantine) has significantly more than the best competing hypothesis (religion that was founded by Jesus in the 1st century and evolved) in the criteria of explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, less ad hoc, and consistency with accepted beliefs. So, if ABE is your methodology, then that is how you play the game. Argue using those criteria. If not, then ABE is not your methodology.

ApostateAbe

Vorkosigan, I don't know any methodology used by hyper-skeptics that is either sound or unsound, except for the way of thinking that was proposed by Toto to be a sound "methodology"--skepticism. It is not a way of building beliefs, but of disbeliefs, and the practical limits to disbelief are arbitrary. If you actually have some other methodology, then I would love to learn of it. mountainman was telling me that he prefers Argument to the Best Explanation, but I am not so sure he was telling the truth.

Steven Carr

'If you actually have some other methodology, then I would love to learn of it.'

Neil Godfrey has a recent post on that very thing.

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/06/...-a-case-study/

Apparently, some historians look at primary sources.

'There is not a single line in this history book that concludes an event is historical on the basis that it passes the criterion of embarrassment or multiple attestation or double dissimilarity! Facts are established quite independently from primary sources — sources contemporary to the bandits — such as newspaper stories and police records.'

Vorkosigan

AA, I'm afraid you are a hopelessly incompetent victim of your own ludicrous misinterpretations of what and how skeptics think. Until you stop whining and come up with something concrete, there's no point in me wasting my time with you. Good bye.

ApostateAbe

What is the methodology exactly? I don't suppose you mean either argument from analogy or argument from authority. It has something to do with looking at primary sources, but the question concerns how come to conclusions after looking at primary sources.