Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 06-12-2008, 02:42 PM

"Pliny the Elder once said that no book was so bad that no good could come out of it." - Pliny the Younger

I'll ask again - have you taken any broad surveys of historical figures to see what constitutes their evidence? What evidence would you expect and why would you expect that. You keep saying you need more evidence, and yet you never qualify why. Have you created any models for literary transmission of historical figures? Have you done anything at all?

spamandham · 06-12-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

A secular case for you means that you like the evidence, not anything to do with faith.

Huh? What does faith have to do with historical analysis?

It might be possible to put together scraps of scholarly work from here and there and arrive at the conclusion that Jesus probably existed based on the weight of the evidence, but if that exercise hasn't been done in a rigorous manner, then I don't see why questioning the conclusion is invalid.

In regards to Eddy and Boyd, having read only the summary of the book presented in the thread Toto linked, I can't really judge the quality it, but as a general rule, I'm going to sumarily dismiss the work of any scholar who starts with arguments from the supernatural. I do not need any training in historical analysis to know that's invalid.

aa5874 · 06-12-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

They'll handwave it away when in reality the same tools for discerning whether Jesus existed are used for all other ancient figures.

I'm not taking any position on the issue, but one could say the problem is actually with historical methodologies.

I see a parallel myself between creationists and MJ, however the evidence against creationism is much more stronger than the evidence against a MJ. But we're not talking at all about the same kind of evidence, or arguments.

There is no parallel between MJ and creationists.

Look at the real parallels:

Both Creationists and HJers NEED the Bible explain their creation.

Both Creationists and HJers must believe that there is TRUTH in the Bible.

Both Creatonist and HJers use the Bible as their models for re-consruction of events with respect to creation and their re-assembled Jesus.

Both Creationist and HJers NEED the Bible to get the name of their creator, God, or the name of the one they are fabricating, Jesus.

Both Creationists and HJers are Bible believers.

Toto · 06-12-2008, 03:22 PM

Any further comparisons to creationism will cause the thread to be locked and split. We had an entire thread on this comparison and why it is not valid, but some people can't let go.

Toto · 06-12-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

"Pliny the Elder once said that no book was so bad that no good could come out of it." - Pliny the Younger

I'll ask again - have you taken any broad surveys of historical figures to see what constitutes their evidence? What evidence would you expect and why would you expect that. You keep saying you need more evidence, and yet you never qualify why. Have you created any models for literary transmission of historical figures? Have you done anything at all?

Is this directed at me? I looked at the evidence for Alexander. Carrier compared the evidence for Caesar. The differences in the quantity and quality of evidence are stark - there's no need to formulate some sort of model of historical transmission, as if this were rocket science, or some sort of subtle theoretical problem.

Toto · 06-12-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedistillers

I'm not taking any position on the issue, but one could say the problem is actually with historical methodologies.

That's fine, but no one here has done any work on historical methodologies. Many here, like mrunicyclist and Toto have expressed disdain with actually doing comparisons with other figures/historical bits themselves. I mention Athronges and mruni shrugs his shoulder. I mention developing his own methodology and Toto complains about the lack of time. ..

Are you looking for some sort of Grand Unified Theory of History? It doesn't exist. People talk about methodologies to emphasize that NT studies doesn't have any particular methodology.

If I were a professional historian, I could take the time to develop something called a "methodology." But then I probably wouldn't be posting here. Richard Carrier has the professional tools and the time to do this.

Quote:

...reconstructing the HJ is like reconstructing an hypothetical ancestor using modern evolutionary principles. It's essentially the same - few fossil fragments, but they have to be explained away. Do we have any living dinosaurs? Of course not, but the literary record is like the fossil record in that respect.

This is a bit overstated, don't you think? Fossils can be dated more reliably than the copies of copies of literary work that we have. And you can be pretty sure that when you have a fossil, a living creature died. When you have a literary record about someone, you don't know of that person lived, or was a fictional character in someone's fantasy, or was derived at third hand from someone very unlike the literary record.

Solitary Man · 06-12-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

That's fine, but no one here has done any work on historical methodologies. Many here, like mrunicyclist and Toto have expressed disdain with actually doing comparisons with other figures/historical bits themselves. I mention Athronges and mruni shrugs his shoulder. I mention developing his own methodology and Toto complains about the lack of time. ..

Are you looking for some sort of Grand Unified Theory of History? It doesn't exist. People talk about methodologies to emphasize that NT studies doesn't have any particular methodology.

If I were a professional historian, I could take the time to develop something called a "methodology." But then I probably wouldn't be posting here. Richard Carrier has the professional tools and the time to do this.

Quote:

...reconstructing the HJ is like reconstructing an hypothetical ancestor using modern evolutionary principles. It's essentially the same - few fossil fragments, but they have to be explained away. Do we have any living dinosaurs? Of course not, but the literary record is like the fossil record in that respect.

This is a bit overstated, don't you think? Fossils can be dated more reliably than the copies of copies of literary work that we have. And you can be pretty sure that when you have a fossil, a living creature died. When you have a literary record about someone, you don't know of that person lived, or was a fictional character in someone's fantasy, or was derived at third hand from someone very unlike the literary record.

A fossil is an imprint. We can be reasonably certain only based on certain, in my opinion very rational and right, assumptions. We've gotten very good at discerning a fossil from an abnormal formation. Regardless, it does take some training to recognize bacterial fossils, and merely not knowing off-hand (see, that's how it's used) what the literary record of someone means doesn't mean that we can't know or that if its Christianity its somehow magically less reliable, no reason needed.

Solitary Man · 06-12-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

In regards to Eddy and Boyd, having read only the summary of the book presented in the thread Toto linked, I can't really judge the quality it, but as a general rule, I'm going to sumarily dismiss the work of any scholar who starts with arguments from the supernatural. I do not need any training in historical analysis to know that's invalid.

Great! You fit in with all the other closed minded here. Congratulations.

Solitary Man · 06-12-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

"Pliny the Elder once said that no book was so bad that no good could come out of it." - Pliny the Younger

I'll ask again - have you taken any broad surveys of historical figures to see what constitutes their evidence? What evidence would you expect and why would you expect that. You keep saying you need more evidence, and yet you never qualify why. Have you created any models for literary transmission of historical figures? Have you done anything at all?

Is this directed at me? I looked at the evidence for Alexander. Carrier compared the evidence for Caesar. The differences in the quantity and quality of evidence are stark - there's no need to formulate some sort of model of historical transmission, as if this were rocket science, or some sort of subtle theoretical problem.

Serious? A broad survey only included two people, and two people who are well-known to have existed outside the literary record? Who else do you look at? Anyone who only lives inside the literary record, who left no coins? Even modern?

Toto · 06-12-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

.... Regardless, it does take some training to recognize bacterial fossils, and merely not knowing off-hand (see, that's how it's used) what the literary record of someone means doesn't mean that we can't know or that if its Christianity its somehow magically less reliable, no reason needed.

As I try to parse through this sentence it appears that you are claiming that some specialist can know that a literary record reflects history? Do you have some support for this? I think the trend in modern literary studies runs in the opposite direction, towards just accepting that the text is all that survives and we can't get behind it.

And religious documents are not "magically" less reliable. They are demonstrably subject to challenge on the basis of bias, but then so are all historical documents.

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

06-12-2008, 02:42 PM	#111
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	"Pliny the Elder once said that no book was so bad that no good could come out of it." - Pliny the Younger I'll ask again - have you taken any broad surveys of historical figures to see what constitutes their evidence? What evidence would you expect and why would you expect that. You keep saying you need more evidence, and yet you never qualify why. Have you created any models for literary transmission of historical figures? Have you done anything at all?

06-12-2008, 03:22 PM	#114
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Any further comparisons to creationism will cause the thread to be locked and split. We had an entire thread on this comparison and why it is not valid, but some people can't let go.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.