Radorth

Ah no. Apparently you missed his Grant's point, which is the same as Durant's


I didn't realize we had everything he ever wrote.

Like three or four "contradictions"

Of course they have found no way of proving that, as evidenced by the glaring contraditory and subjective assertions of so many skeptics. If they had anything approaching proof I'm sure such "rational" people would have developed a consistent and time honored hypothesis.

Doherty doesn't. His hypothesis depends on them being accurate and genuine. Of course he can torture anything in them to suit his case, so what does he care?

You mean between 90 and 125? Isn't that about a generation? Did you forget how Doherty puts the sqeeze on the timeline by insinuating they made them up or added all kinds of stuff to Mark in a short time?

It's not the "ideas" Durant is talking about here, but the fact that there are four Gospels containing an extraordinary quantity of minute and negative details which story-tellers would have either hidden or could not have invented on their own. So they were either inspired fishermen, or the greatest geniuses of the age.

This "common currency" argument needs 50 examples to go with it and another similar story with four narrations to match.

And you have not explained why the writers included a long list of negative details.

Rad

Radorth

It's a great marvel how the Gospel writers are described one day as morons, the next as dumb shepherds, deluded lunatics, clever forgers....

Rad

Bede

“In any case, there is no link between JM and atheism, so what's your point?”

Well, speaking purely anecdotally, I have noticed that Jesus mythers tend to be the harder kind of atheist. Likewise, those who believe we know a lot about the Jesus of history tend to be more conservative Christians. If a conservative Christian came along and said that there is no historical evidence for Jesus (although she could continue to believe in him on faith) I’d sit up and take notice. All Rad is saying is that Grant and Durrant apparently lack the confessional preconceptions that are sometimes mentioned around here.

“Note how Grant elides these two radically different meanings of "historical material." So the issue is: what are the proper criteria to use?”

I don’t think he does. He simply points out that the Gospels are neither privileged nor useless sources. We must, as you say, use the tools of historical research to get at the history just as we need to do with other ancient sources. Those tools lead to difference conclusion in different cases. In Grants opinion, and mine, they lead us to accept certain facts about Jesus as historical.

“Conclusions about Jesus entail nothing about conclusions about every other figure.”

An argument from analogy is one you employ profitably quite often. Certainly, to employ our critical tools on Jesus in a way that we would not use them on other figures would be wrong.

“There are few, if any figures from antiquity who became the central figure of a militant and destructive faith that urgently required the historical existence of its mythic central figure, as Jesus did.”

I fear ‘militant and destructive’ suggests an objectivity injection is required. Still, Mohammed, Lysander of Sparta, Romulus and Remus, Julius Caesar and Zoroaster are all figures that have been revere or worshiped and were considered historical. The tools we use for Jesus must be applicable here too.

“Further, the gospels are widely considered a unique literary genre that the Christians invented sui generis.”

This is lit crit fantasy from NT scholars who have no exposure outside their field. The Gospels are not a unique new genre that just sprung into existence (and you say below Christians took what were common ideas). At least three are biographies with a polemical purpose attached. This is a common genre.

“So conclusions about them would hardly entail revising conclusions about Hannibal or Crassus.”

Well, it might. We would have to see how you propose using the tools and then try them out on some other people too.

“It is those critical tools, which, when turned on the NT canon and its accompanying documents, show them to be fictional theological constructions.”

Well, I disagree and have explained at length what the tools are and how to use them. I understand from Peter you are working on a rebuttal for the Did Jesus Exist site. When we see that, we may better understand how you think the tools should work.

“If such a going over exists, can you give me the reference. Kirby I know would like to know as well.”

RT France’s the evidence for Jesus is quite useful.
“Of course, Grant had to sell books, so it is not surprising he asks his readers to have faith in a position he cannot prove.”

Vork, this is an unnecessary and cheap shot at a scholar who does not deserve it. It would be nice if they were avoided. That Doherty receives similar abuse does not excuse you.

“The main point is the authenticity of the "authentic" Pauline epistles, which have been questioned, and quite vigorously, and certainly before Durant had written this.”

The seven undisputed letters (although occasionally disputed) do form a core that is authentic. Just because something has been questioned does not mean we cannot decide the questions are answered, as in this case, almost everyone does.

“As we can see, Paul nowhere refers to the Crucifixion as a real event that took place on Earth.”

Yes, he does. The explanations from mythicists here are pretty poor (see Ed’s hounding of Doherty over his Greek that led to Ed’s dismissal from the JM group). We have no reason at all to doubt that Paul meant Jesus was killed on earth, no clue where the idea of a the cosmic crucifixion came from and no evidence to support the mythicist case beyond their own reconstructions.

“The issue is not whether Paul refers to a crucifixion, but how it relates to the one in the Gospels. Durant here merely assumes what he is trying to prove, a minor-league error.”

Actually, as the Gospels so no knowledge of Paul’s letters they can be treated as independent sources for the same events and used to confirm each other. No problem with Durant here – standard historical methodology.

“their flight after Jesus' arrest, taken from the OT, of course.”

Nope. A simple statement of a simple, believable and embarrassing episode. To use the bludgeon of everything that can be coaxed out the enormous body of Jewish sacred literature as not a fact is bad methodology.

“Peter's denial, -a bit of theological construction, occuring in a Markan intercalation.”

Nope. A simple statement of a simple, believable and embarrassing episode. To use the bludgeon of everything having used theologically having to be invented is bad methodology. So is claiming something is an intercalation without clear evidence. As John includes the denial too, and shows no evidence of knowing Mark, this requires a bit more than mere assertion.

“Therefore, for whatever reason, Jesus was not famous in his home grounds. The explanation is provided by this throwaway passage that mentions poor Jesus couldn't do miracles at home. Problem disappears.”

So you accept that Jesus came from Galilee is a historical fact. Otherwise, the problem needs no solving.

“And for the same reason: to heighten the drama of his triumph the end. Another way to read it is that at the symbolic level, the "family" of Jesus stands for Judaism against Christianity.”

Argument from analogy? Well as we are allowed to use it, can we claim that Churchill did not oppose appeasement against the establishment in the 1930s and we made it up to heighten his later triumph.

“taken from a Psalm! Didn't Durant do any reading at all?”

Exactly what you would expect from a Rabbi under that sort of pressure.

“The writers did not invent anything "in one generation," they merely added sayings and ideas that were common currency at the time.”

There is nothing new under the sun. Well, at least not if you have enough imagination.

“The first section has been shown to have collapsed as research reveals a dozen different HJs,”

Actually the consensus is better that you give it credit for. The different HJs are questions of motivation and mental outlook which are a closed door for almost any historical figure (was Richard III good or bad?). The different HJ’s are due to most NT scholars not being trained historians but hardly effect the basic facts at all.

I think what we need from Vork is a proper paper describing the problems with methodology rather than rebutting individuals (though I understand Rad brought them up). Also, we need to know exactly what an outside vector is. It sounds like an almost de facto definition. Is Josephus an outside vector or can we just claim he was interpolated? Is Tacitus or can we just claim he was reporting what Christians said? Is Paul and outside vector of the Gospels or do Christians just not count even if independent? If Vork is asking for those mythical ‘objective witnesses’ then he really should start disbelieving in Crassus and Hannibal too.

Yours

Bede

Bede’s Library – faith and reason

Vorkosigan

'dorth, you're the one who has described them as dumb shepards, simple fishermen, and so on. Those of us on the other side have never wavered in our description of them as fully human beings who used a combination of sources and literary creativity to craft theological fictions about the central figure of their myth system. All the variation is entirely on the historicist side, big guy.

Ah no. Apparently you missed his Grant's point, which is the same as Durant's

No, I got it completely. You missed mine -- that the critical tools exist to label some documents forgeries, and that these same critical tools, when aimed at the gospels, also show this. Neither Grant nor Durant gives us a single example of this abuse of critical scholarship, just a blanket assurance. So bring on the examples.

Speaking of examples, you still owe me that list of fringe scholars Doherty cites.

I didn't realize we had everything he ever wrote.

We have the assurance of a Medieval writer who said he didn't mention Jesus, and the negative evidence that he is never cited by any of the Patristic fathers in their evidence for Jesus writings.

There is no abundance of evidence; indeed, the evidence raises all sorts of problems for the historicist position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like three or four "contradictions"

'dorth, it would be nice if you stopped this kind of nonsense. The mythicist case does not depend solely or even strongly on "contradictions" but on a rich set of arguments developed largely by historicist writers, and on evidence generally first noticed by them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, many scholars who remain convinced that Jesus existed as some sort of real person, like Bultman, are nevertheless sure that the gospels are largely or almost entirely fictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they have found no way of proving that, as evidenced by the glaring contraditory and subjective assertions of so many skeptics. If they had anything approaching proof I'm sure such "rational" people would have developed a consistent and time honored hypothesis.

Thanks, 'dorth, for completely undermining your own position. To cite you, I am sure that if historicist scholars had anything approaching proof, such "rational" people would have developed a consistent thesis. Meanwhile the number of HJs continues to mount. There is no consistency to the historicist position.

Durant reveals his ignorance here. No one may have questioned the existence of Paul; that is an issue of no great import. The main point is the authenticity of the "authentic" Pauline epistles, which have been questioned, and quite vigorously, and certainly before Durant had written this. See the Dutch Radicals, for example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doherty doesn't. His hypothesis depends on them being accurate and genuine. Of course he can torture anything in them to suit his case, so what does he care?

Who gives a shit what Doherty says here? This is just another one of your random spews. Doherty has nothing to do with this. Durant claims nobody ever doubted Pauls' existence, as if that were some major point, when the major point is the authenticity of the epistles attributed to him, which Durant doesn't realize. It is a problem in historical thinking that goes right by him.

You mean between 90 and 125? Isn't that about a generation? Did you forget how Doherty puts the sqeeze on the timeline by insinuating they made them up or added all kinds of stuff to Mark in a short time?

Again, another misdirecting spew. The issue is that Durant does not know that it didn't happen "in one generation," but over several. The Christian writings alone spread out over 125 or so years.....but then Durant seems unaware of this. Like he is about most of the NT scholarship of his day.

It's not the "ideas" Durant is talking about here, but the fact that there are four Gospels containing an extraordinary quantity of minute and negative details which story-tellers would have either hidden or could not have invented on their own.

Rad, this is just another variation on the "they were too dumb to write fiction" argument. Obviously they did invent details. All serious scholars believe that at least some of those extraordinarily detailed stories were fictional. So yes, 'dorth, everyone thinks that some of those stories are fiction, though you claim that is impossible.

Please make a serious argument showing that the apostles could not have invented details. Choose a particular passage and show that it could not be fiction. For once I'd like to see you make an actual argument. You know, with a relevant cite of serious literature, a premise or two, and an interesting and challenging conclusion. Reference the thread between Layman and Toto on the We Passages in Acts for an example.

So they were either inspired fishermen, or the greatest geniuses of the age.

Or they were ordinarily creative people, working with a complex oral tradition, some sources, and ordinary human creativity. Just like the inventors of the Robin Hood tradition, the King Arthur tales......you do realize that the false dichotomy is one of the most naive of logical fallacies?

This "common currency" argument needs 50 examples to go with it and another similar story with four narrations to match.

'dorth, what earth do you live on? Numerous scholars have identified sayings of Jesus that occur in other traditions and contexts, such as the Cynic or the Old Testament. Why bother with such weird requirements, when the actual texts exist?

And you have not explained why the writers included a long list of negative details.

Already provided many explanations. See Loisy -- if you dare. The "negative" details are entirely explicable within theological and symbolic framworks.

But basically, since you are simply too lazy and cowardly to read something serious, I don't expect you to read Loisy, or say anything intelligent about him. I expect will get the usual spew, a misdirected comment about Doherty, whom you seem to resent very m\uch (but can find no serious argument to make) and a very naive reading of the NT documents that any serious apologist would be ashamed to put forward.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Oh boy. I'm sorry but this is 99 and 44/100 % pure hyperbole, again from the "other side".

I didn't say he cited them, I said he depends on them, for such nonsense as John copying the resurrections story. Doherty seems to think the Gospel stories are too similar to be believed. But I swear a lot of atheists have said they are too variant. Which is it this month?

An omniscient medieval writer I take it.

That's right. The mythicist takes a completely different tact. I forget.

Huh? Really? Even when his method contradicts your example?

Oh I already admitted some details are fictional. Which "stories" do "all serious scholars" think are fictional? And who is included as a serious scholar. Is Bede?

Another very poor (and telling) analogy, especially when the writers of Hood and Arthur give us no reason to believe they were writing anything but fiction. Why do you suppose Grant, Klausner, Wells, and Durant, and a zillion other intelligent people never believed them or defended them as "genuine history." But I suppose they are just naive.

Nice insult there at the end. It fits well with your other patronizing comments.

Rad

Radorth

The simple fact is that Doherty does not address the objections of serious conservative scholars and he makes assertions about what liberal scholars say without citing them, as Carrier himself points out.

Here is Carrier on another point:

Ironically, this is what Layman once argued, if for the reason that an earlier Acts screws up Doherty's hypothesis.

Doherty does have reason to date Acts as late as possible. Otherwise the inventors have no time at all to put their great myth together, Durant's "one generation" assumption stands, and his conclusion that such an invention in so short a time would indeed be a miracle more incredible than anything recorded in the Gospels.

I can't believe how naive skeptics are sometimes.

Rad

Toto

Rad - can you even understand what you read? Carrier said that Doherty doesn't need to depend on a dating of Acts to 150 CE, and recommends avoiding the issue because it is controversial and not necessary for this thesis. So where do you get the idea that it is necessary? Some offhand comment from Layman? Is he feeding you your lines?

A dating of Acts to even as early as 90 CE leaves several generations after the presumed death of Jesus, adequate for legendary development.

Radorth

No, but I wouldn't mind if Layman chipped in either, particularly his argument for an earlier Acts which I have chosen not to use without his permission. (Not sure how that works) I don't claim to have his expertise anyway.

I know exactly what I read. I'm saying Doherty likely has a reason for dating Acts later, probably that he realizes there is a time squeeze, and/or he knows that and early Acts pretty much wrecks his theory all by itself. It doesn't take much. A rational interpretation of "James the Lord's brother" pretty much wipes out his theory all by itself. I don't suppose any "serious" scholars think Paul meant what he said.

Not if Mark is dated in 60. Then we're back to Durant's "one generation" is much too short argument. And I don't suppose any "serious" scholars date Acts before 70. I suspect that would wipe out several other avante gard scholars' theories. Right?

Rad

Vorkosigan

Here's the kind of post we need from you, 'dorth.

I know exactly what I read. I'm saying Doherty likely has a reason for dating Acts later, probably that he realizes there is a time squeeze, and/or he knows that and early Acts pretty much wrecks his theory all by itself.

Not in the slightest. The "impossible in one generation" argument evinces an appalling ignorance of history. I suggest you check out the Lubavitchers and the interesting history of Rebbe Schneerson, who was identified as messiah while still alive, and even after he stroked out, and is now credited with miracles within a few years of his quite recent death. Then there is Hong Xiu-chuan, who claimed to be the Brother of Jesus -- ring any bells -- and was similarly credited with miracles, while still alive. Time is not a factor in the development of fairy tales -- that's the issue here, before you make any dumb comments about them being "real people" and Doherty.

But I digress. Why don't you explain how an early Acts wrecks his idea of a spiritual Christ. Your problem is that you don't really understand Doherty's idea. But here's a clue -- according to Doherty, when did the Crucifixion of Jesus take place?

It doesn't take much. A rational interpretation of "James the Lord's brother" pretty much wipes out his theory all by itself.

Which rational theory? that it is an interpolation? that the phrase is titular? That he was the "brother of the lord" in the way the Nxele or Hong Xiu-chuan were? That he was the older brother of god?

There are many completely rational alternatives.

I don't suppose any "serious" scholars think Paul meant what he said.

Everyone is sure Paul meant what he said. The issue is what he meant by it.....if he said it, of course. The famous passage looks a lot like a interpolation. Did you read Price's article in the Infidels Library yet?

Dumb question that. You haven't even read Doherty.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Oh boy. I'm sorry but this is 99 and 44/100 % pure hyperbole, again from the "other side".

<shrug> Dorth, you're the one that maintains they were too dumb to make it up...

I didn't say he cited them, I said he depends on them, for such nonsense as John copying the resurrections story. Doherty seems to think the Gospel stories are too similar to be believed. But I swear a lot of atheists have said they are too variant. Which is it this month?

This childish outburst, which you have made before, has been discussed and refuted . Am not going to repeat myself and six dozen others.

Huh? Really? Even when his method contradicts your example?

Show how Doherty's method contradicts my example.

Oh I already admitted some details are fictional. Which "stories" do "all serious scholars" think are fictional?

Offhand, the birth narratives, and the story of child Jesus confounding scholars in the temple are widely held to be fanciful. Why is it important to find stories that all scholars see as fictional?

And who is included as a serious scholar. Is Bede?

Bede the medieval writer, or Bede the poster here? Both are serious, although the latter is still under development as a scholar. I shall be very excited to see his work in his relevant field.

You know, it's bad form to solicit praise....

Another very poor (and telling) analogy, especially when the writers of Hood and Arthur give us no reason to believe they were writing anything but fiction.

Ditto for the gospels. There is no reason to believe they were writing anything but fiction, except 2000 years of indoctrination and inertia. Further, I am sure you know that it is widely believed that the Robin Hood and Arthur legends are based on real individuals.

Why do you suppose Grant, Klausner, Wells, and Durant, and a zillion other intelligent people never believed them or defended them as "genuine history." But I suppose they are just naive.

Robin Hood and King Arthur are not widely worshipped as religious figures indoctrinated from birth by a militant and suppressive religion. Indoctrination from a young age helps a lot; research shows that people who are not indoctrinated by early adolesscence are much less likely to believe in fictional sky deities.

Nice insult there at the end. It fits well with your other patronizing comments.

They reflect the ones you've flung in the direction of mythicists like myself. If you'd get out and read something, people would stop laughing at your astoundingly naive errors, and might engage you in a more serious manner.

People might also have more respect for you if you would read things when they are pointed out to you. For example, you put up a list of stuff from the gospels, and asked why the writers constructed stories you view as negative about them. So I pointed you in the direction of Loisy, who has responses to all your concerns. But you didn't even do me the courtesy of glancing through Loisy to check out his arguments -- he is right there at Peter's site where I courteously handed you a link! -- and respond. Instead, you simply spewed more nonsense. Ditto for Durant. I gave you a long response, and got misdirected spew about Doherty and no serious comment about Durant.

Well, after the ignorance and abuse and insults you fling around, sooner or later everyone is either going to stop responding, as they almost all have, or lose their patience and start patronizing your staggering ignorance. Look at your posts, Rad, rarely do any of the really serious heavyweights around here even bother with what you say. You only get a lightweight like me. In the private forum there have only been two threads about you -- really interesting theists get more -- and one was just to post a satirical song about how silly you are. No one could post a song about Layman or Bede or Polycarp or Nomad, they are tough, smart and well-read and must be taken seriously as posters. Even more telling, none of the numerous theists here dive in on your behalf. What does that say to you?

I'll tell you what it tells me: you're not worth my time anymore. Get back to me when you've read Loisy against that list you gave us, and I'll be happy to respond. Until then, enjoy your posting privileges.

Vorkosigan