Toto

I haven't used the term skeptic, I don't know where you got that.

There is in fact a large contingent of evangelicals in contemporary NT scholarship (e.g., Ben Witherington). This is one reason I hesitate about any consensus.

That's a rather dogmatic statement. I might not have enough interest in some era of history to learn the relevant languages and read primary sources, but if I know that the prevailing consensus was arrived at through ideology or self-interest rather than evidence or investigation, I see no reason to rely on that consensus.

See above. The why's do matter.

Rick Sumner

"Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist" aren't synonyms. And "skeptic" was the implied opponent. If you prefer a different term for it, then by all means let me know what it is, and I'll use that instead.

Could be. That still doesn't mean a conclusion you reach against that consensus is grounded in evidence.

Again, by definition, if you are not familiar with the evidence, you cannot be reaching a conclusion evidentially. It's defensible to rely on experts in those situations. If you are not relying on experts, for whatever reason, you have not reached your conclusion based on the evidence. You have reached it based on predilection. There is nothing else you can be basing it on.

That's because you keep trying to add things to it. They matter a lot in the imaginary position you have me taking. One where the consensus is automatically right, or where it's at all relevant to my point if they're right or not.

Tell you what, for our purposes here, the consensus is wrong. I'll take your side. Because it doesn't matter. My three point list above still stands just fine.

Scroll back up to the nice, neat 3 item list. 2 premises, one conclusion.

Barefoot Bree

Even if one WAS interested in learning the subject, one would be relying on the experts, especially in history, where, as Roger (I think) pointed out earlier, we don't have the whales before us to dissect. Even the data you keep pointing out is very dependent upon the work of those who came before.

One could, for instance, learn ancient Greek - but then, how does one do that? One learns the translations for each word into modern English - through goodness knows how many other intermediate languages - as established by countless linguists and speakers along the way. The only other way to be sure that any given translation is correct would be to jump into a time machine and spend several years immersed in the language and culture until you understand it intuitively.

As I pointed out above, even when one is familiar with the subject, one still relies on "consensus" for any given fact or data point. The question becomes: where does the "consensus" opinion on any matter, large or small, begin to go awry?

If everyone, even experts, relied solely upon consensus on every question, what's the point? What's the point of being a historian if you only regurgitate - excuse me, refine what has been agreed by the majority through time? Where would the new ideas come from? The fresh look at history? The greater understanding?

I'm unconvinced that the choice is so stark. It sounds as though you are saying that if one doesn't search out and then adopt the majority opinion, then one is simply believing on a whim. I, for one, am perfectly willing and able to be convinced by the best, most coherent argument put forth on any topic - that's why I read so much and so widely. I've had my thinking changed by new arguments countless times. I cannot agree that my predilection determined each one.

Are you intending to be so black and white?

Toto

You mean this?

This is getting pointless.

The poster read Earl Doherty's arguments. The poster did not claim to evaluate them based on independently derived evidence. The poster is not following the claimed "consensus." Have you actually said anything of interest? I don't think so.

Barefoot Bree

Your list is rather obviously loaded. Cut out the second and third phrase of 1).

1) A poster (me) has admitted to being convinced by Earl Doherty. (What I have not yet stated is how much OTHER material by OTHER experts I have also read and considered.)

2) That poster is admittedly not an expert in the discipline nor familiar directly with the evidence.

3) Therefore, that poster did not reach that conclusion based directly on the evidence and only on that evidence, but on various experts' diverse presentations of and theories based on that evidence.

Rick Sumner

Before everybody got worked up over the term "consensus" my initial point was that subjectivity permeates from the novice to the expert, and that it's the same subjectivity all the way up. The actual point was a criticism of the entire field, or at least a suggestion that we view it with a jaundiced eye.

Of course, if you actually read the thread before getting your dander up you'd have known that.

And here I've thought the same of you for years.

Rick Sumner

You are familiar with the discipline? Then perhaps you could clarify this comment, lifted from one of your earlier posts:

It's implied by your admitted lack of familiarity with the field.

What various experts do you have in mind?

You're taking this way too personally. My point about the subjectivity of the field holds whether you get your dander up or not. If it makes you feel better, we'll drop you as a specific example. We can even drop the field, if you'd like. The point of the example had nothing to do with you in particular, but historical reconstruction in general. We can replace "a poster" with "person X." We all do it, all the time. We don't always buck consensus in doing so, but most conclusions we reach are inherently owed to predilection.

The point, if you'd like to scroll back to before you got unjustifiably offended, was that historical is an inherently subjective field, and the difference between those who engage the field and those who don't is what they are subjective about. They're still looking for the subjectively most plausible explanation, they're just doing it less obviously.

Which was, if you'll scroll back even farther than that, a response to your question about Richard Carrier's essay.

Solo

It has been my experience, Roger, that people with tendencies to believe nonsense generally, will fall for a particlar instance of it without much prodding. It's usually love at first sight.

Untrue. It is a theory that needs to be addressed and refuted on specific issues - as a theory. Too bad you can't see how your peremptory dismissal advertizes for Doherty as a rejected prophet and builds up his mystique as a martyr of a just cause, crucified by bigots.

Besides, it's a sign of weakness and inferiority to try to preempt an opponent.

I am much in favour of Jeffrey's trying to get Earl attend, and/or present before, a scholarly forum. That is a far better way to getting at the bottom of the of MJ, or at least, Earl's version of it. After his recent complaint here that he could not send Jeffrey his new book because he did not have his zipcode, his theory just may be something of the peculiar critter that Christian Morgenstern wrote about:

a rabbit sits upon the green,
believing it can't be seen.
A man though with a telescope
and watching keenly from the slope,
has his fun with the little troll.

Regards,
Jiri

Roger Pearse

I'm not actually aware of what the question here before us is -- I came in late. So bear in mind that I am talking generally.

But I don't find that on questions of politics and religion that we can trust the scholars. This isn't because they are Bad People; it's because the disciplines in the humanities don't have the structural features to exclude personal biases. Obviously someone writing about the dialogues of Lucian is unlikely to introduce too many biases, and it hardly matters if they do. But anyone writing about Christian origins is going to have an opinion. Nothing in his training will prevent it colouring everything he writes.

The other issue is that, frankly, it's far easier and quicker as a rule to read the ancient sources. They tend to be much, much shorter. I have before me a 150 page book on Mithras. The totality of the ancient literary evidence on Mithras can be put on a webpage without difficulty.

So I do.

But as I said, I don't know the context of all this; what is it that you're being invited to do here? There are people who demand we look at stuff, merely to run us around. I take against that, myself.

Indeed so; which cuts out the crap and reduces the volume of chatter down to something meaningful. Just my perspective, of course.

Nor should you. Who says something that daft? Nobody reads Coptic, not really; they sit there with dictionaries and work out translations from them. Sure, it helps to be able to check what people do; but at our level, we should all be able to work from a good English translation.

Any argument that turns on a single word is probably a bit dodgy. Words form part of clauses, clauses sentences, and sentences part of trains of thought. Tertullian's Ad Nationes book 2 in the Latin contains lots of dots, because the sole manuscript known to us rotted sometime in the dark ages and the margins had to be cut off, losing text. But the English translation does not have these dots. Why? Because the missing words can nearly always be inferred from those still present.

I don't like the idea of people playing the game of "only those who know Ge`ez" are allowed to discuss 1 Enoch. We're not academics. We don't have to engage at that level.

In fact, for more obscure languages, even academics tend to rely on "friends" to translate stuff for them. Franz Cumont published some stuff from a Garshuni manuscript (Arabic language written in the Syriac alphabet), which had been read by an Italian friend and translated into Italian, and then he translated the Italian into French for publication. That's what we have to do.

Does anyone in this forum even know Coptic? (Because if so, I have some Coptic fragments of Eusebius I want translated, right here. There will be a test).

I get the impression I don't understand the arguments being made; but I am averse strongly to attempts at intellectual bullying. The ancient world is for us all, even if we speak no language but American English. If we can puzzle out some Latin, great; if not, it doesn't matter.

IMHO, anyway.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

In fact, does anyone fancy the idea of having a go at a bit of Coptic? In a separate thread, perhaps?