Toto

Why would this matter? I one explanation has a probability of 1% and another of 2%, the second is more probable - but still not probable enough to be signficant.

If you are asking if I think there is any way to extract some history from the New Testament - I havent' seen it yet.

ApostateAbe

It is that line of thought that led me to think that maybe you didn't accept ABE. Do you think maybe all explanations about the New Testament are improbable as far as we know?

arnoldo

Richard Pervo has the following comments regarding to history and Acts.

Toto

It is questions like this that indicate you don't understand ABE.

ApostateAbe

Possibly. I certainly have a different understanding of the principle than you do. You are the senior on this matter, and I would be happy to be corrected.

Toto

Reading through the thread, I think the basic problem is that you consider the gospels inherently based on history, so they become "evidence" to be explained.

You don't seem to realize the problems with this assumption.

ApostateAbe

OK, I'm listening.

Toto

I don't know how to get through to you. It should be enough to just point out the absurdity of the idea that any ancient document is entitled to be treated as history. This is not done with any ancient document. It is not a standard historical method. We have scads of ancient and modern documents that could be historically true but are not. We have historical novels that contain valid historical characters, but are not history. What more do you want?

I spent years here arguing with Christian apologists who build up a case for a historical Jesus based on bad logic like this - they claimed that any ancient document was entitled to deference and should be assumed true unless it could be shown to be false or falsified. Then they would claim that Jesus mythicism was like creationism. Why are you mirroring their arguments?

ApostateAbe

...the absurdity of the idea that any ancient document is entitled to be treated as history.

Yeah, I don't think of that idea as so absurd at all. I believe that pretty much all writing reflects the personality of the author and the circumstances of the society that it was written in. Religious myth is even more likely to reflect significantly on those who passed on the myths. Therefore, we can make sound judgments of history based on such documents. It doesn't matter if we are talking about fiction or business invoices or historical accounts. We can know the history based on the documents. What is wrong with that? I am happy to continue listening to your reasoning, because my working explanation for why you believe as you do seems to be best reflected in the philosopher that you recommended to me in order to understand Robert Price--Jacques Derrida--who would encourage all possible conflicting interpretations for a text at the same time, discouraging belief in any single "most probable" interpretation. If that is not actually the way you think, then please correct me. I would hate to believe the wrong thing about you.

I do not presume a priori that the Christian myths are partly historical, not do I presume a priori that the Christian myths are mostly non-historical. I simply accept what strikes me as the most probable explanations for the evidence at hand, and it turns out that the best explanation, given the evidence, seems to be that the Christian gospels are mostly mythical gibberish with nuggets of history retained from its historical core. It also follows from seemingly the best explanations for the evidence that there was a historical human Jesus. I do not ask that you believe me on any of those assertions. I simply ask that you understand my own perception of my own self, just so you can make the best sense of the way I think. It is unfortunate that my arguments smack of the Christian apologists. It is not my intention to repeat their arguments. My intention is to express my arguments independent of whoever else may agree. I don't care if Hitler used the same arguments.

If it helps clarify my position, I certainly do NOT think that any document should be "assumed true." Conclusions about accuracy ought to be inferred only if it passes the tests of ABE or other acceptable criteria.

Toto

"Sound" overstates the degree of certainty that you can have. And you don't know when the gospels were written, or who wrote them, so it's not clear what you can really conclude.

What if the documents are forged or fictional?

Your working explanation is wrong. I have just examined the evidence and found it wanting. I have read or listened to the justifications for inferring a historical Jesus, and they seem obviously flimsy rationalizations not worth taking seriously, even if the people who write them have PhD's.

Funny, it also just happens to be the conventional wisdom. How did you evaluate the probability? Why is this the best explanation? Why do the gospels count as evidence?

No, it doesn't follow. It is the underlying assumption.

But the gospels do not pass any test of accuracy. And your criterion of dissimilarity is not a valid test for separating truth from fiction.

The only sense I can make of your arguments is that you have made some basic errors and are unwilling to let go of them, because you started off with the idea that mythicists used bad logic or scholarship and must be opposed. You have too much ego invested in your ideas, and not enough research.