Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24401  Postby james1v » May 07, 2012 10:15 am

Blood wrote:
james1v wrote:Making a living, by poncing off the local population, has always been popular with a certain class. If you had a dim witted son in those and the middle ages, you sent him to a religious educational establishment, to be trained into making a living. Without tilling the fields, or risking life and limb in battle.

Much better to send the imbecile to study religion, the seasons. He could at least be a "Mystic Meg" who was paid to tell the ignorant when spring, or winter was approaching. Festivals! They need a holy see! Who must study! And reap the results of his (its always, his) master (a priest).
Its a fucking living, with a salesman's fucking guide book on how to con the local population, Nothing less.

The bible, is to all intents and purposes, a salesman's guide to making a living, by those more educated than their victims/clients.

Its a product. Many have lived well off of it, even when the locals have starved to death.


Houses of well known televangelists:

http://preesi.lefora.com/2010/10/25/the ... angelists/



Yup. Its certainly a lucrative business. I noticed that some of those people dont even pay tax on their homes like the rest of the population. Nice!
"When humans yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon". Thomas Paine.
User avatar
james1v
 
Name: James.
Posts: 8929
Age: 61
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can We Reasonably Infer An 'Historical Jesus'?

#24402  Postby proudfootz » May 07, 2012 12:23 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
archibald wrote:
Blood wrote:
T.S. Verenna is an amateur historian who has been researching the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods for seven years and the ancient Near East for five years. He is the author of the book Of Men and Muses: Essays on History, Literature, and Religion (2009) and his second book, 'Is This Not the Carpenter', co-edited with Th. L. Thompson, is in press and due out in 2011.


http://www.amazon.com/This-Carpenter-Co ... nskepti-20

Image

Thomas L Thompson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism


What is your point about Thompson? He is not anything of a relevant authority on the New Testament (nor on ancient Levantine archeology).


What's your point about Thompson?

No one is claiming anyone should take Thompson's word for anything simply because he's an 'authority'.

Thompson is a biblical scholar who's written a book relevant to the topic we're here to discuss. :coffee:
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10714

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24403  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 1:19 pm

angelo wrote:
Corky wrote:
dogsgod wrote:
The possibility that Jesus is mythical should not be ruled out by the likes of Ehrman and his followers, but they do rule it out. It's no surprise though, after all, we are discussing a religious figure from The Bible, and we know how passionate and superstitious people can be when it comes to The Bible, as if there is a rule that it must contain some truth about history and its characters that play a role in the stories.

Trying to explain how a mythical Jesus could arise while not being able to read the minds of the con-men preachers who invented him is the reason Jesus is historical - it's easier to explain that way.

Then there is the assumption that there are true facts to be found in the Bible, when there isn't. The only truth about it is that over a period of several centuries a bunch of religious con-men made that shit up out of thin air. There was no Genesis flood, there was no tower of Babel, no Exodus from Egypt, no conquest of Canaan and last but not least, there was no "revelations" of a Jewish god-man and the ones who claimed to have witnessed a resurrection were liars.

Knowing that these people were lying about seeing a resurrection - why would anyone in their right mind believe any damn thing else they said? But Ehrman does - Ehrman thinks Paul is an honest man.

Occam's Razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. MJ seems the simplest explanation when looking at the hard evidence or facts. There are no eyewitnesses, but the HJ supporters will say there are no eyewitnesses for most of the ancient mythical heroes. But this Jesus was no ordinary ancient world hero, he was said to have come back from the dead, walked on water, healed the sick and lame, turned water into wine, in short, the son of God. The most famous non entity ever. The disturbance he created in the Temple which got him arrested should have been noted by Philo of Alexandria who wrote extensively about Pilate, yet nothing about putting to death the king of the Jews.


This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years ago either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.
Last edited by IgnorantiaNescia on May 07, 2012 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24404  Postby Stein » May 07, 2012 1:35 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
angelo wrote:
Corky wrote:
dogsgod wrote:
The possibility that Jesus is mythical should not be ruled out by the likes of Ehrman and his followers, but they do rule it out. It's no surprise though, after all, we are discussing a religious figure from The Bible, and we know how passionate and superstitious people can be when it comes to The Bible, as if there is a rule that it must contain some truth about history and its characters that play a role in the stories.

Trying to explain how a mythical Jesus could arise while not being able to read the minds of the con-men preachers who invented him is the reason Jesus is historical - it's easier to explain that way.

Then there is the assumption that there are true facts to be found in the Bible, when there isn't. The only truth about it is that over a period of several centuries a bunch of religious con-men made that shit up out of thin air. There was no Genesis flood, there was no tower of Babel, no Exodus from Egypt, no conquest of Canaan and last but not least, there was no "revelations" of a Jewish god-man and the ones who claimed to have witnessed a resurrection were liars.

Knowing that these people were lying about seeing a resurrection - why would anyone in their right mind believe any damn thing else they said? But Ehrman does - Ehrman thinks Paul is an honest man.

Occam's Razor would suggest that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. MJ seems the simplest explanation when looking at the hard evidence or facts. There are no eyewitnesses, but the HJ supporters will say there are no eyewitnesses for most of the ancient mythical heroes. But this Jesus was no ordinary ancient world hero, he was said to have come back from the dead, walked on water, healed the sick and lame, turned water into wine, in short, the son of God. The most famous non entity ever. The disturbance he created in the Temple which got him arrested should have been noted by Philo of Alexandria who wrote extensively about Pilate, yet nothing about putting to death the king of the Jews.


This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.


Finally. The voice of reason.

Thank you, IN! :thumbup:

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2408

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Can We Reasonably Infer An 'Historical Jesus'?

#24405  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 1:50 pm

proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
archibald wrote:
Blood wrote:
T.S. Verenna is an amateur historian who has been researching the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods for seven years and the ancient Near East for five years. He is the author of the book Of Men and Muses: Essays on History, Literature, and Religion (2009) and his second book, 'Is This Not the Carpenter', co-edited with Th. L. Thompson, is in press and due out in 2011.


http://www.amazon.com/This-Carpenter-Co ... nskepti-20

Image

Thomas L Thompson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Thompson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_minimalism


What is your point about Thompson? He is not anything of a relevant authority on the New Testament (nor on ancient Levantine archeology).


What's your point about Thompson?

No one is claiming anyone should take Thompson's word for anything simply because he's an 'authority'.

Thompson is a biblical scholar who's written a book relevant to the topic we're here to discuss. :coffee:


Good. My point about him is that he is as an amateur on the life of Jesus - and as a result not much of an 'authority' on it at all.

Though I readily admit he is much more relevant than Tom Verenna.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Can We Reasonably Infer An 'Historical Jesus'?

#24406  Postby Stein » May 07, 2012 2:39 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:


What is your point about Thompson? He is not anything of a relevant authority on the New Testament (nor on ancient Levantine archeology).


What's your point about Thompson?

No one is claiming anyone should take Thompson's word for anything simply because he's an 'authority'.

Thompson is a biblical scholar who's written a book relevant to the topic we're here to discuss. :coffee:


Good. My point about him is that he is as an amateur on the life of Jesus - and as a result not much of an 'authority' on it at all.

Though I readily admit he is much more relevant than Tom Verenna.


Not much of a reference: Anyone would be more relevant than Tom Verenna/Rook Hawkins! :roll:

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2408

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24407  Postby Evan Allen » May 07, 2012 3:06 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years ago either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.


I think this is wrong. Occam's razor clearly states that one should not needlessly multiply entities. In Latin -- Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.

I am going to list the HJ hypothesis and the MJ hypothesis and we will count the entities involved.

HJ -- Historical Jesus, followers of Jesus in Palestine, Oral story tellers throughout the Roman Empire, collectors of oral stories from throughout the empire, gospel authors.

MJ -- Gospel authors.

By my count, HJ has at least five entities, MJ has one. Seems simple to me.
Evan Allen
 
Name: Evan Allen
Posts: 446

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24408  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 3:08 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc.


Well, you know how it is. Occam's Razor only applies to those who are willing to say what distinguishes evidence from non-evidence, other than weeping bitterly, "It's all we have!" The problem with using the phrase "unusual readings", is that it assumes the conclusion of following a consensus. It's all right. We're used to HJ believers making rhetorical gaffes.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24409  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 3:51 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc.


Well, you know how it is. Occam's Razor only applies to those who are willing to say what distinguishes evidence from non-evidence, other than weeping bitterly, "It's all we have!" The problem with using the phrase "unusual readings", is that it assumes the conclusion of following a consensus. It's all right. We're used to HJ believers making rhetorical gaffes.


Dead wrong. "Unusual readings" refers to meanings projected on words that are often not based on any serious research. The various attestations of a word must be considered in context before daring, revisionist hypotheses are promulgated. Carrier himself has admitted he did not do this research before he suggested his reading of "brother(s) of the Lord". Don't you consider that odd?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24410  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 4:03 pm

Evan Allen wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years ago either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.


I think this is wrong. Occam's razor clearly states that one should not needlessly multiply entities. In Latin -- Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.

I am going to list the HJ hypothesis and the MJ hypothesis and we will count the entities involved.

HJ -- Historical Jesus, followers of Jesus in Palestine, Oral story tellers throughout the Roman Empire, collectors of oral stories from throughout the empire, gospel authors.

MJ -- Gospel authors.

By my count, HJ has at least five entities, MJ has one. Seems simple to me.


Mythicism also requires hundreds of NT scholars and classic historians who have been either been hoodwinked into ignoring Mythicism or deliberately suppressing Mythicism since it waned in academia. But abstractions are entities as well and those are generally the kind of entity Mythicism indulges in. You could think of the supposed sub-lunar fleshly realm in Doherty's version or the expectation of a crucified Messiah (based on mishandling of evidence) in Carrier's version. Not to mention the Mythicist-posited interpolations and the suggested readings of passages based on slim lexicographical evidence.

So, colour me unconvinced that Mythicism is the more parsimonious theory.
Last edited by IgnorantiaNescia on May 07, 2012 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24411  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 4:05 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc.


Well, you know how it is. Occam's Razor only applies to those who are willing to say what distinguishes evidence from non-evidence, other than weeping bitterly, "It's all we have!" The problem with using the phrase "unusual readings", is that it assumes the conclusion of following a consensus. It's all right. We're used to HJ believers making rhetorical gaffes.


Dead wrong. "Unusual readings" refers to meanings projected on words that are often not based on any serious research. The various attestations of a word must be considered in context before daring, revisionist hypotheses are promulgated. Carrier himself has admitted he did not do this research before he suggested his reading of "brother(s) of the Lord". Don't you consider that odd?


Yes, of course. Serious meanings come from serious research.

Image
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24412  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 4:13 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc.


Well, you know how it is. Occam's Razor only applies to those who are willing to say what distinguishes evidence from non-evidence, other than weeping bitterly, "It's all we have!" The problem with using the phrase "unusual readings", is that it assumes the conclusion of following a consensus. It's all right. We're used to HJ believers making rhetorical gaffes.


Dead wrong. "Unusual readings" refers to meanings projected on words that are often not based on any serious research. The various attestations of a word must be considered in context before daring, revisionist hypotheses are promulgated. Carrier himself has admitted he did not do this research before he suggested his reading of "brother(s) of the Lord". Don't you consider that odd?


Yes, of course. Serious meanings come from serious research.

Image


So, do you think evidence from word research for newly suggested meanings would be relevant, especially before suggesting the conclusion? Or would you rather spend your day posting imagery of cats (if so, then I can recommend Jerry Coyne's blog to you)?

Stein wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:

What is your point about Thompson? He is not anything of a relevant authority on the New Testament (nor on ancient Levantine archeology).


What's your point about Thompson?

No one is claiming anyone should take Thompson's word for anything simply because he's an 'authority'.

Thompson is a biblical scholar who's written a book relevant to the topic we're here to discuss. :coffee:


Good. My point about him is that he is as an amateur on the life of Jesus - and as a result not much of an 'authority' on it at all.

Though I readily admit he is much more relevant than Tom Verenna.


Not much of a reference: Anyone would be more relevant than Tom Verenna/Rook Hawkins! :roll:

Stein


Good call! Maybe this is more generous:

Though I readily admit he is much more relevant than Frank Zindler.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24413  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 4:32 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:evidence from word research


And the methodology for 'word research' is 'reading words'. But to read the words, um, seriously, you have to have done some prior word research. If you read enough, you're a word researcher. Yeah, I get it. That means I'm a word researcher, too, because, let me tell you, I've just read a fuck of a lot. Of words. I understand the meaning of 'meaning'.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on May 07, 2012 4:36 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24414  Postby Evan Allen » May 07, 2012 4:32 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Evan Allen wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:This is incorrect, Occam's Razor clearly argues against Mythicism, which requires either very unusual readings of several texts or establishing interpolations ad hoc. We have some biographical details about Jesus in Pauline epistles and in non-Christian accounts that are simply dismissed by these methods with insufficient evidence, sometimes no evidence at all. Material in the gospels that is poorly explained by an invented figure is nevertheless explained away. Aside that, it would require that around one hundred years ago either the overwhelming majority of relevantly trained scholars suddenly stopped asking a question that was posed before that time or developed a very strong bias against Mythicism. What we have there is not the simpler hypothesis, but an unsound hypothesis that is laden with extensive and dubious claims.


I think this is wrong. Occam's razor clearly states that one should not needlessly multiply entities. In Latin -- Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora.

I am going to list the HJ hypothesis and the MJ hypothesis and we will count the entities involved.

HJ -- Historical Jesus, followers of Jesus in Palestine, Oral story tellers throughout the Roman Empire, collectors of oral stories from throughout the empire, gospel authors.

MJ -- Gospel authors.

By my count, HJ has at least five entities, MJ has one. Seems simple to me.


Mythicism also requires hundreds of NT scholars and classic historians who have been either been hoodwinked into ignoring Mythicism or deliberately suppressing Mythicism since it waned in academia. But abstractions are entities as well and those are generally the kind of entity Mythicism indulges in. You could think of the supposed sub-lunar fleshly realm in Doherty's version or the expectation of a crucified Messiah (based on mishandling of evidence) in Carrier's version. Not to mention the Mythicist-posited interpolations and the suggested readings of passages based on slim lexicographical evidence.

So, colour me unconvinced that Mythicism is the more parsimonious theory.


Would you please list the number of entities needed to create a fictional account.

Then compare that number to the list above as described by HJ scholar extraordinaire, Bart Ehrman.

It's a math problem.

It shouldn't be hard.

The idea that Jesus is fictional doesn't need hoodwinked scholars for it to be true, that is simply a red herring. Whether the scholars are hoodwinked in the case of Jesus or not hoodwinked in the case of William Tell has nothing to do with the historicity of the figures.
Evan Allen
 
Name: Evan Allen
Posts: 446

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24415  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 4:40 pm

You are correct to say that massive scholarly imcompetence or a massive scholarly conspiracy is entirely irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, but this is about the parsimony of Mythicism. Like other pseudo-academic* theories, it needs to address why the experts are so wrong.
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24416  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 4:48 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:You are correct to say that massive scholarly imcompetence or a massive scholarly conspiracy is entirely irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, but this is about the parsimony of Mythicism. Like other pseudo-academic* theories, it needs to address why the experts are so wrong.


Philology invites questions about the very concept of expertise in philology, doesn't it? It could very well be that there is no absolute anchor for the interpretation of texts, which would mean that you have to put up with varying interpretations of the bible. Surely, this would be nothing new to you. There is nothing so obvious about historicism as its focus on generating an unambiguous interpretation of the NT. The only thing about mythicism that bothers you is its ambiguity.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on May 07, 2012 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24417  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 5:01 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:You are correct to say that massive scholarly imcompetence or a massive scholarly conspiracy is entirely irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, but this is about the parsimony of Mythicism. Like other pseudo-academic* theories, it needs to address why the experts are so wrong.


Philology invites questions about the very concept of expertise in philology, doesn't it?


Maybe it does, but taking this conversation a few posts back, I still have some questions that you haven't addressed: Do you think lexicographical research is relevant when suggesting novel readings for words? If so, do you think it is odd that Richard Carrier neglected to do such research?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24418  Postby Evan Allen » May 07, 2012 5:02 pm

If you are going to bring up Occam's razor, IgnorantiaNescia, you are going to have to do the math for us. So please, show us your math that postulates fewer entities in the case of the HJ than in the case of the MJ.
Evan Allen
 
Name: Evan Allen
Posts: 446

Country: USA
Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24419  Postby Cito di Pense » May 07, 2012 5:06 pm

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:You are correct to say that massive scholarly imcompetence or a massive scholarly conspiracy is entirely irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, but this is about the parsimony of Mythicism. Like other pseudo-academic* theories, it needs to address why the experts are so wrong.


Philology invites questions about the very concept of expertise in philology, doesn't it?


Maybe it does, but taking this conversation a few posts back, I still have some questions that you haven't addressed: Do you think lexicographical research is relevant when suggesting novel readings for words? If so, do you think it is odd that Richard Carrier neglected to do such research?


Philology surely invites questions about the concept of expertise in philology, and you just experienced what you thought was the rug coming out from under what you thought were your feet.

I have asked you to ponder the foundations of lexicographical research, which involves reading other words. You can easily see how circular is the definition of expertise in philology, or you can deny it incuriously. If you wish only to defend tradition in the reading of texts, do so openly.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28477
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus?

#24420  Postby IgnorantiaNescia » May 07, 2012 5:17 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:You are correct to say that massive scholarly imcompetence or a massive scholarly conspiracy is entirely irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus, but this is about the parsimony of Mythicism. Like other pseudo-academic* theories, it needs to address why the experts are so wrong.


Philology invites questions about the very concept of expertise in philology, doesn't it?


Maybe it does, but taking this conversation a few posts back, I still have some questions that you haven't addressed: Do you think lexicographical research is relevant when suggesting novel readings for words? If so, do you think it is odd that Richard Carrier neglected to do such research?


Philology surely invites questions about the concept of expertise in philology, and you just experienced what you thought was the rug coming out from under what you thought were your feet.

I have asked you to ponder the foundations of lexicographical research, which involves reading other words. You can easily see how circular is the definition of expertise in philology, or you can deny it incuriously. If you wish only to defend tradition in the reading of texts, do so openly.


I've just seen that post, this is my reply to it:

Cito di Pense wrote:
IgnorantiaNescia wrote:evidence from word research


And the methodology for 'word research' is 'reading words'. But to read the words, um, seriously, you have to have done some prior word research. If you read enough, you're a word researcher. Yeah, I get it. That means I'm a word researcher, too, because, let me tell you, I've just read a fuck of a lot. Of words. I understand the meaning of 'meaning'.


I don't consider this an answer to my questions, but anyway: claiming the methodology of lexicographical research is "reading words" is fairly ludicrous. It requires the comparison of the usage of words in different contexts, different cases or conjugations, different regions and different times.


What is exactly circular about noting where and how words are written? As for "defending tradition", I've no interest in doing that. But to ignore all evidence is to open the door wide for inane speculation. Now your reply could imply you think research is irrelevant, but you haven't replied directly so far. So, I ask again:

Do you think lexicographical research is relevant when suggesting novel readings for words? If so, do you think it is odd that Richard Carrier neglected to do such research?
IgnorantiaNescia
 
Posts: 169

Country: The Netherlands
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 6 guests