Rick Sumner

Bearing in mind that Riddick is addressing the article, and not your later arguments, a substantiative response would have nothing to do with historicity. Troughton does not argue that the Temple incident is not historical, he is quite emphatically posed in the opposite direction.

An example of a substantiative response to the issues raised by Troughton would be a demonstration that there are a priori grounds to dismiss the notion that Jesus was influenced by Nehemiah.

Thus while you're correct in noting that "gullibility has nothing to do with it," your opening post did not accurately reflect the nature of the source you've cited, and your requested response to Troughton--to "show that there is some underlying history to the Temple Ruckus"--is a non sequitor.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

You've got it backwards. For Grant to have drunk at time X, Grant needs to have existed. Thus we go 1) There was an historical Grant, who did frequent Shiloh--an historical framework to the story. 2) Nobody had any motivation to make the story up. 3) Thus the story is likely true. Both of the initial premises are necessary. The positive evidence is prima facie. There is an unstated premise that the story was told--the existence of the story itself is positive evidence (a point frequently overlooked).

I am not saying you need the mythical Jesus for your position, I am saying that I need the historical Jesus for mine, and that premise needs to be granted, because it will not be argued anymore--I've done my time, so to speak.

As am I.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

No problem.

Amaleq13

If you reread my posts more carefully, I think you will find that I have never claimed you weren't "allowed" to assume there was some historical basis to the Gospels. Instead, Vorkosigan and I repeatedly asked why you assume there is some historical basis for this particular story. I think it is mind-numbingly obvious that any argument for a historical kernel to the story presupposes a historical figure as well as the possibility that the Gospels contain history. How else could the story have any historical basis?

I'm not ignoring the broad premise, I was trying to move you along to something specifically relevant to the story in question. Clearly, your broad premise cannot be "ignored" if the story is to be considered as potentially having some historical kernel. It has to be a fundamental presupposition. Just as clearly, such a fundamental presupposition is insufficient to establish that such a kernel exists for any specific instance.

Absent such a specific argument you appear to be generalizing from "the gospels hold an historical core" to "this particular story has a historical core" without any justification. As you clarified your position, the only specific claim you made was in regard to questioning the motivation of the author to fabricate. However, when you were directly asked (after many repetitions) if the sole basis for this generalization was your perception that there was no motive to fabricate, you responded by 1) identifying an ad hominem which Vorkosigan subsequently denied, 2) repeating your broad premise, and 3) indicating you might change your mind if Brodie was compelling because it isn't as though you were certain to begin with. To save you some time backtracking, you can find the post to which I am referring here.

Do you see that none of those constitutes a response to the question?

Your mistaken perception of an ad hominem does not answer the question.

Your broad premise that the Gospels contain a historical core does not answer the question.

Your willingness to change your mind and indicating a less-than-certain current position do not answer the question.

Even if you come back from reading Brodie and decide the damn thing is entirely fiction, I would still be interested in knowing what, specifically, resulted in your previous conclusion or vague suspicion or whatever that the story contained a historical kernel. I would assume, given the number of times Vorkosigan has asked this same question, that he would be interested as well.

If it helps, I promise not to ask any follow up questions if you will only answer the question:

Is (or "was" if you change your mind) the basis for your belief/suspicion that the story contained some kernel of history solely your perception of an absence of any motive to fabricate?

No, I'm clear on the meaning of the term. I'm even more clear on my own intentions when I write and I'm pretty confident that Vorkosigan is equally clear about his intentions when he writes. Please be so kind as to apply the following to others as you wish it to be applied to yourself:

LP675

It seemed that way to me too.

You saidThe insinuation seemed to be that “yes, I agree with article, (in that) the episode in the temple never happened�. Unless one read the entire article they would never know that the author never even hints this episode never happened, and as far as I can tell (from the language the author uses to talk about Jesus as an actual person and his actions as actual actions) the author seems to believe it did. For example:

Vinnie

Nothing definitive, but you, likewise have nothing definitive in telling us that there wasn't anything underlying it. Just deem it non liquet.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

Where are you getting confused? I accepted there was history behind the story following *exactly* the reasoning I've already oultined. I couldn't have been clearer explaining that. Premise 1 and Premise 2, remember? You acknowledged that the argument was about as close to valid as we're going to get--given true premises, it will churn out the right answer.

I am no longer persuaded that premise 2 is true, I will need to investigate further. Why are you getting so mixed up in all that?

In the post prior to the one you just cited, Vorkosigan asked my reasoning--that is what I was responding to.

Then I explained my reasoning, noted that I was no longer as secure in my conclusion, and stated I would peruse it further.

What in this confuses you? I *explained my reasoning* I did not maintain a position, which is where you got confused first. Are you going to keep contending otherwise until I argue positions I've explicitly stated I do not hold?

One more time: I was explaining the reasoning previously being employed, in the post you just referenced.

Premise 2 has been challenged. I can no longer maintain that reasoning, until I've investigated it further.

That's it. Why is this so troubling for you? Why are you running around in circles, rephrasing arguments, ascribing arbitrary positions to me, and the like.

You keep asking "What convinces you in this *paritcular story*. . ." I'll make this as clear as I possibly can: At the moment, nothing. I will need to investigate it further. I'm not saying that again, if you can't follow it, it's not my problem--I've been explicit for numerous posts. You're simply being polemical, at this point, not stopping and reading what I'm saying.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Probably where you repeatedly describe your reasoning rather than answer the direct question put to you.

That confusion is/was apparently shared by Vorkosigan because he asked the question more times that I did. To date, you have still not provided a simple and direct answer.

And you were clearly asked if the notion expressed in premise 2 was the sole reason for the conclusion of your reasoning. Restating your reasoning does not answer this direct question.

In the post I linked, he asks the exact same question and you do not provide a direct reply.

In his post to you just prior to that post, the only question he asks is the familiar one:

"Can you tell us why we should regard this as covering a historical kernel?"

In fact, if you check through all of his posts to you, I believe you will find this question repeated in many of them. You will even find this question repeated after you explained your reasoning. No matter how clear one thinks one has been, if one is repeatedly asked the same question, it should be apparent that more clarity is required. In this case, a simple "yes" or "no" would probably be all that is necessary. But, since I have little confidence that you ever intend to provide a direct answer, I'm going to assume the answer is "yes" and that you know of no other evidence or argument that suggests this story has a kernel of history.

And, as I pretty clearly indicated in my previous post, the question is still applicable to your previous state of "security" with regard to the conclusion of your reasoning. As was previously fairly clearly explained, there does not appear to be anything else justifying the generalization from broad Premise 1 to the conclusion but we wanted to be sure we understood you correctly.

I suspect this is as close as you are likely to come to answering the question and it would appear that the answer is "yes".

I wouldn't have to run around in circles if I wasn't following you as you avoid providing a direct answer.

I'm clearly not trying to avoid ascribing an "arbitrary" position to you. I'm trying to obtain clarity on your "actual" reasoning prior to your recent reconsideration. It would appear, from the various descriptions of your reasoning, that an apparent absence of motivation is the sole basis for the conclusion (ie "yes").

Rick Sumner

He hasn't asked it since I answered him, however. It flows--as I noted with the example with Grant--from premise 1), through premise 2), and to conclusion 3). You agreed that this argument was valid. The end.

I clearly stated that no, it wasn't. See the example with Grant drinking in Shiloh.

I have provided a direct reply. Repeatedly. You agreed that the reasoning was fine. You have since inquired repeatedly as to what other reasoning I have. Why you keep asking is beyond me. You already agreed that the reasoning is fine, what's the problem?

And I explained why I regard it as such. You agreed that, if all of my premises are true, regarding it as such is perfectly justifiable. Premise 1 is not a topic for debate. Period. Take it up with someone else. I'll need to investigate premise 2 further.

You agreed that this was fine reasoning. If you have since changed your mind, you will need to explain where you think the reasoning is flawed.

This grows tiresome, so let's clarify you're apparent waffling.

Is the reasoning flawed or not? If it is, where? Bear in mind that we are discussing the *reasoning* not the premises.

You have to run around in circles because you can't seem to make up your mind what you are trying to say. If the reasoning is fine, then the discussion is over, and this has been nothing but polemic. You first stated it was valid, and then moved on to a litany of posts questioning positions that have varied from imaginary, to contradicting your earlier position. Make up your mind, I'm not psychic.

And you might want to reflect a moment on what claim of mine it was that you were initially beginning your ranting about showing an historical kernel behind. It was the claim of an historical basis for the gospels themselves, once it was noted that this wouldn't be discussed, you changed your mind. Once you realized that you were waffling, you waffled some more. Then you changed my argument, Vorkosigan's argument, your own argument god knows how many times.

I'm having a hard time kicking a field goal when the goalposts keep moving.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

I'd intended to peruse Brodie's argument during a trip to the library today, but rather foul weather leaves me far more inclined to sit at home and laze about, being my day off and all.

I only recently unloaded a small fortune on [shameless plug] books for a study on the Mystery Schools[/shameless plug], which should arrive today, so I can't be sure when I'll get to review Brodie's argument--besides which, if the title is any indication, I'm not likely to be able to tender a solid opinion on it without reviewing the entire book, as it would all appear to be relevant.

The position itself--that Mark was influenced by Elijah--isn't going to draw much contention, and certainly isn't going ot draw any from me. The extension to the temple incident had previously escaped my notice, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

I can't think of a solid rebuttal to it, allowing, as I already have, that Mark wa surely influenced by the Elijah narratives (though if anyone wants to take the converse on that I'd be delighted ). One could suggest that Jesus himself consciously shaped his ministry after Elijah/Elisha--and he may well have--but that seems an ad hoc to me. While it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus modelled his career on earlier prophets, it is not reasonable to presume that Jesus would engage in an activity that would almost surely result in his arrest simply to model himself after Elijah/Elisha.

I'd color it gray. I've contacted Paula Fredriksen, who has been quite helpful in previous correspondence, to inquire as to whether she can see any difficulties in the merging of Brodie's argument with her own. As near as I can tell, it's the nail in the coffin, though again I haven't fully reviewed Brodie's book yet.

Regards,
Rick Sumner