Professional history, biology, physics, chemistry, psychology, and other disciplines each works with different data, and each has its own tools and methodologies. At the professional level each uses some form of the scientific method, implicitly or explicitly, to define and answer questions, and each uses peer review and consensus to establish what is true currently witin the discipline. The source of each discipline's authority is its appeal to its methodology and to the consensus of those practitioners within the discipline who follow it.

I am reminded of one day when I was talking to my scientist son, Will (Ph.D. candidate in Chemistry). I made a comment to him about "hard" and "soft" sciences and he looked at me in that mildly impatient way he does and said, "Dad, science is science. If you follow the scientific method it is science. Some fields use differ data and tools and are capable of more or less certainty. But it is all science."

So I wanted to pass that comment along with my view that science is science and consensus is part of it, regardless of the field, including, yes, New Testament studies. And in my field (counseling psychology), guess what? They made me do coursework in research methodology and the scientific method. I bet they do that in History, too.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 09:58PM by robertb.

Consensus is part of any discipline.

... to determine that most scholars and historians agree on the existence of an hysterical JuHEEsus?

If such is the case, then why are all of you so reluctant to share the compiled data? Did the dog eat it or something?

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, eh?

Timothy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 09:12AM by Timothy.

I didn't make that claim at all for myself, Timothy, which I suspect you well know. Bona Dea can speak for herself, as history is her profession. Ehrman uses methodologies widely accepted in his field and his work is subject to peer review. I, on the other hand, am dependent on the consensus and opinions of professionals as are most people here on the subjects at hand.

The point of my post is simply that scientists and other professionals follow accepted methodologies, their results are reviewed by other professionals in their field, and they form a consensus on which the current truth is established. This forms a basis for authority in the field and it is legitimate to appeal to it.

By the way, in rebutting Ehrman's book, Earl Doherty acknowledges the majority of the field accepts Jesus as a historical person. That, of course, does not make it true, but it does show that Doherty recognizes this and so does not require proof that the majority of scholars have this opinion. Were it not true that the majority of scholars believe this, it would be one the mythicists strongest arguments, but they don't use it because it is not true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 09:15AM by robertb.

Just because she is a "professional" does not make her right. Indeed TRUE professioals know one thing for certain: If you make a claim, you need to have evidence to back up that claim. Bona has never supplied anything more than internet "echo chamber" repeating of yet another unsuported claim by somebody else.

So, where is the real evidence I can observe for myself? Providing the evidence for peer review is indeed part of science, pofessionals SHOULD know that.

Being a professional does not make Bona automatically right, MJ, but it does give her extra weight and I can trust her to know "the state of the field." If you want to undertake the process of vetting the couple of hundred scholars I provided on the other thread, feel free. You can do this yourself with anyone else who is interested because you don't accept anything you are provided--at the same time you keep asking for proof.

If she were a CREDIBLE professional, she would know the importance, the value, the reason she would need to back up her claims. If she were a CREDIBLE professional, she would back up here claims like CREDIBLE scientists do the world over.

It is the fact that she does not follow the model that CREDIBLE scientists and historians ALWAYS follow that make her NOT CREDIBLE.

Get it? Legitimate, creditable scientists EARN creditability and legitimacy for their ideas by showing evidence that supports their ideas, not by claiming they know better because they are a historian. Bona does not earn credibility for her ideas by showing evidence to support them, that is why here ideas don't carry the same weight as the actual EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE SEEN.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 10:04AM by MJ.

Have you asked yourself if you are CREDIBLE audience?

Just how creidble is tbat? Seriously, you attacked ME personally without addressing what it is that would make you think I am not a "credible audiance" (what ever the fuck THAT means) and you think you have made a valid poit?

Seriously, where is the scientific method does it say "If the audiance brings up legitmate objections to your claim claim that they are not a credible audiance"?

Just how petty are you?

"Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority."

It seems to be well established that the majority of scholars believe a person (not divine) Jesus existed.

I am perfectly fine with you not believing Jesus existed, but ignoring facts such as this is something I often associated with Mormons.

Sorry the above quotation is from wikipedia! My bad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#20th_century

Someone attending BYU with a major in religion could be considered a "scholar" that does not mean he has a legitimate view of TSCC.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 12:16PM by MJ.

One of the most avid authors condemning the historicity of Jesus would be lying?

Nevermind. Let's all put our fingers in our ears and repeat with me.

"na-na-na I can't hear you. la-la-la I'm not listening.

Or have a bad defintion of what "scholars" means. The idea that he may just be wrong is why many people like to see the evidence on which a claim is based before jumping to conclusions based on what ONE person says.

Now explain why you would fly off the handle making invalid assumptions about what is said?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 12:20PM by MJ.

Are you suggesting Mr. Price isn't intelligent enough to crack open a dictionary.

Don't be so quick to through those on your side under the bus my friend.

Is not a scholar? BULL @#$%&. Every scholar in the world gets some things wrong and that does niot exclude them from being scholars.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 12:25PM by MJ.

a feminist not knowing what sexism is. It's patently absurd.

Then what's this?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,471979,472131#msg-472131

And this?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,471979,472143#msg-472143

Are you in the camp or do you just contract out?

And how lame is this?

"Were it not true that the majority of scholars believe this, it would be one the mythicists strongest arguments, but they don't use it because it is not true."

Sorry, robertb, but mythicists don't use it because there is no way to make a determination either way UNLESS scientific methodology in the form of survey, poll etc., is employed. That hasn't happened. As a result, the argument must be dismissed as its veracity has not been established. Any information to the contrary is, as always, more than welcome.

That leaves us with the facts which are few (if any) and questionable at best.

Timothy

Me and my friends agree that we can't reach a consensus...

and all disciplines rely on certain aspects of that particular methodology. Consensus is also very important.
n
What is the scientific methodology for interpreting subjectively written texts? This isn't simple word for word translation we are looking at here, is it? There's an entire, subjective hermeneutic at play here. But even then, its interpretation is significantly more subjective than placing a new fossil within the framework of evolutionary theory.

In other words, it's far more consensus driven in this very specific case than it is scientific data. And consensus is far more likely to be overturned by new discovery than, say, a newly discovered fossil is to overturn evolutionary theory.

It is art. It is different. I would also suggest that your specific discipline is also quite different than textual criticism.

I'm making a hash of this because I haven't had enough coffee, but I hope you see where I'm coming from here.

I'm just getting coffee into me, too. I see your point. Different areas work with different data, have different methods, have different degrees of accuracy, and have different abilities to make predictions. I agree there is a lot of "art" to different fields. My point is simply that all professional fields work by an accepted methodology and establish authority through consensus. It certainly doesn't mean a field isn't subject to uncertainty or revision and some more than others.

What hasn't been pointed out is that those on the other side of our historical Jesus argument also appeal to authority. They cite authorities and all of us who are not professionals or highly trained in the field are in that position. I think much of the objection to appealing to authority when we clearly need to is a manifestation of our mistrust for authority, especially any authority attached to religion, or a debating trick.

I've never appealed to authority concerning this matter because I don't recognize any so-called authority on the matter in either direction.

There simply isn't any information or evidence that supports the notion of a hysterical JuHEEsus.

Again, any information or evidence to the contrary is more than welcome.

Timothy

Timothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've never appealed to authority concerning this
> matter because I don't recognize any so-called
> authority on the matter in either direction.
>
> There simply isn't any information or evidence
> that supports the notion of a hysterical JuHEEsus.

You are claiming knowledge and at the same time saying you don't recognize "any so-called authority." So what is the basis for your claim "There simply isn't any information of evidence"? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Or is it you mean you don't recognize any authority except Timothy? And if that is so, why should I believe *you*?
>
> Again, any information or evidence to the contrary
> is more than welcome.

It doesn't seem you would welcome it, since it would constitute relying on some kind of "authority." I don't see how you can claim to know anything or evaluate anything.

>
> Timothy

He now seems to be resorting to nothing more than saying "I'm right and if you do not agree there is something wrong with you"

Examples "It doesn't seem you would welcome it" and "Have you asked yourself if you are CREDIBLE audience?"

He is going on about us relying on an "authority" when we are asking for DATA, evidence and the like. Seriously, not knowing the difference between taking the word of an "authority" and examining data? seriously?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 10:39AM by MJ.

What did you expect?

Timothy

Actually, Timothy, your and MJ's cynicism prompted my comment.

Cynicism: "An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others."

You both freely question the integrity of others but don't like it when you are questioned. You, Timothy, said you do not accept *any* authority, meaning, it seems, you don't trust anyone but yourself. That is cynicism. Neither of you seem accept the possibility of those who disagree with you have integrity or good will.

So, yes, how does that make you credible--at least in area of discussion?

My guess is "not"

You wrote:

"You both freely question the integrity of others but don't like it when you are questioned."

Whatever gave you that idea? You're more than welcome to question me on anything, robertb. But when you claim that I've appealed to authority as a member of the "I Don't Buy It" camp that's not a question, that's a lie, and you will be called on the carpet.

"You, Timothy, said you do not accept *any* authority, meaning, it seems, you don't trust anyone but yourself."

What I said, robertb, is that I do not recognize any so-called authority on the matter which means I don't recognize the popes, prophets, priests or pastors who claim to speak with authority in relation to fairy tales. You're putting words in my mouth and, again, making false accusations.

"That is cynicism. Neither of you seem accept the possibility of those who disagree with you have integrity or good will."

No, robertb, that is what's called experience. I'm sure the missionaries thought they were doing the right thing when they converted my parents back in 1966. I'm likewise certain that they would disagree with my stance in relation to the cult. Its not an issue of integrity or good will. Just show me the proof. Are you saying that's too much to ask?

"So, yes, how does that make you credible--at least in area of discussion?"

Might ask yourself that question.

Timothy



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 12:09PM by Timothy.

Can you make a valid point about what was being discussed, or is trying to discredit the messanger all you can do???

Of course I do like how you cherry pick the evidence to pick only that which supports your pre-concived ideas. Notice how you cherry pick the definition of "criticism" You claim the definition is "An attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others." but show no evidence of where that definition is found.

I am betting that whereever you found it, you would also find stuff like:

"the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything."

Shame on you for trying to make legitimate criticism a bad thing.

Not criticism, MJ, "cynicism." I wrote "cynicism." And yes, in this area, you are a cynic. You may have good reason to be, but I am not a cynic. Cynics don't make a good audience for what they are cynical about.

Criticism is another matter. In other areas, you are, in my opinion, a very good critic.

Asking for data that backs up your claim does not fit your definition of cynicism, it does fit with science however.

Again, can you actually discuss the POINT of the discussion with out attacking the people that are asking you to prove your claims? After all that is what scientist do, they work to prove their claims, you know, with evidence. They do not do as you and bona do, and expect people to accept claims without evidence.

... nonsense can think of to justify his or her inability to mount a reasonable argument.

Disagree with robertb = cynicism? .,.. That's rich!

Timothy

You have something to offer then?

Timothy

I am asking for evidence to view for myself.

On the claim "there is consenses that there was a historical Jesus" I say, ok, that is a claim, it may or may not have come from a credible source, but it would not matter if you showed me the DATA that supports that claim.

Asking for the evidence then not believing a claim when no empirical evidence is suppled is not using an apeal to authority. So, no, sorry robertb, not everyone is using the appeal to authority logical falacy.

I think if one tries to compare science and history you are bound to go astray. They are very different projects.

Science tries to predict the future. History tries to understand the present in terms of the past. (I'll come back to those 2 terms "history" and "past" in a moment.)

If I mix picric acid and sodium hydroxide I predict that there will be an explosion. The proof of science is not in the consencous in professional literature, its in the observable result. This often expresses itself in technology. Will splitting an atom result in a chain reaction that splits all atoms? Will the capsule on top of the rock hit the moon? Will the N. Korean missle fail? The purpose of conscensous in science is not proof, its what lines of thought are worth pursuing.

As I, and some other historians, use the terms, history is not the past, it is representations of the past. Those representations are endlessly redone, kinda like the historical Jesus threads here. Hegel did not agree with this. He thought that history was the past, that it could be scientifically determined and, as a science, it could predict the future. Specifically, as this part of Hegelianism was used, one could predict when and how the proletariat would revolt and what the result would be. Nobody thinks that anymore (how's that for an appeal to authority?)

There's a great Star Trek, The Next Generation, episode that I could never get my hands on to show to my class. In it, everyone passes out and has their memories wiped out. I don't remember all of the details, but when they regain consiousness, Worf naturly walks over to the captains chair, sits down and starts giving orders. Picard deals with food and wine. The other crew members automatically take positions quite different from what viewers know they had in prior episodes.

Another appeal to authority, I don't know of any historians who think that we have complete objective access to the totality of what happened before now. We could go with "did anything happen" before just now but that would make for a really, really long post.

As I said, the purpose of history, as opposed to the past, is to understand the present. I'm going to guess that robertb spends his days doing exactly that.

I think that understanding is shaped by good old Derridian Foucaultian power. No suprise to anyone here, I grew up an uberMormon, in my late 20's I figured out I am Gay. Guess what? I needed a different way to understand the present.

One example, I went looking for evidence (not facts) in the past. I found that for thousands and thousands of years, no one got married they just "shacked up." When agriculture created issues of property, those most with most property got married to preserve their property. Everybody else didn't get married, they just "shacked up" because they had no property to speak of. I found out that when property was important, sometimes men married men. Todays conscensous is that marriage has always existed between men and women. I even know of one formerly polygamous church that says marriage has always been between ONE mand and ONE woman.

When try to make sense of the present through approaching the past I first look for powerful interests that have created the present, what are they, how do they get put together, how do they change (Foucault: the points of power are multiple and mobile). The conscenus is the result of those points of power. Part of my historical job is to take them down. What points of power have produced the idea that there was a historical Jesus?

I look, as well as I can, for my own biases (another process robertb might be familiar with) and disclose them (see uber-Mormon coming out story above for an example, but only an example). A certain oppression by the current majority strain of Christianity?

I look at the available evidence and break it down, break it down, break it down and break it down again. Then I go looking for more evidence. If I find myself relying on someone else's argument I go back to the evidence and break it down again.

Then I see what argument makes sense to me and I put it out there, article, conference paper, book, lecture, internet post and invite people to go after it. Sometimes, always? this is painful :).

I take what I learned an redo the argument, this can be done multiple times. About then I'm approaching what I would call a "usable history."

The end result of science is "did the missle fail or succeed?" The result of history is more argument in search of a useable history that creates a more just present. Kind of like the result of therapy is a more balanced present.

At this point in the course intro lecture, I insist the students tell me what's wrong with the forgoing. They have to bring forward their evidence and argument. If someone says the "historical conscenous is" I ask them how was that conscenous arrived at. When they have an answer, I think they have learned something.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 11:52AM by lulu.

I appreciate your thoughtful post. I do spend a lot of time trying to make sense of the present. Sometimes that involves trying to get a historical perspective but often it means just trying to figure out what is going on right now. I am also familiar with postmodern constructionist thought, which you allude to.

I also want to comment that not every scientific endevor results in prediction and there is a lot of uncertainty on the edges of sciences that are considered established. Sometimes there isn't a way of getting the data that's needed or sometimes even knowing it exists or there isn't a way of testing the data and making predictions.

My main point of starting this thread in my opinion there is not as sharp a division between what are sometimes called "hard" sciences, "soft" sciences, and other professions as we make. There are commonalities. Done professionally they all follow agreed-up methods that are open to inspection and revision, they are reviewed by knowledgeable peers, and the body of knowledge is established by consensus.

Professionals in the field know what that consensus is even when they disagree with it, which they often do. No problem with me about disagreement, but I want to know the basis of disagreement is grounded in an evaluation of the methods and a reasoned interpretation of the data.

I don't deeply care about whether Jesus was a historical person or not, although I think he was. I could be wrong and tomorrow or next year in ten years I might be shown to be wrong in my opinion. I'm an agnostic. I *am* interested in the discussion of the subject, however.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 11:59AM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> just trying to
> figure out what is going on right now.

That, in my opinion, is the beginning of the historical enterprise.

> they are reviewed by
> knowledgeable peers, and the body of knowledge is
> established by consensus. Professionals in the field know > what that
> consensus is

The existence of which is seldom a mystery in terms of "history." It is the current present and sometimes a millstone on our necks. This present is where the historical discussion begins but not where it ends. There's no need to rotely repeat it. Enough of "reputable scholars agree" already Erhman.


>
even when they disagree with it,
> which they often do. No problem with me about
> disagreement, but I want to know the basis of
> disagreement is grounded in an evaluation of the
> methods and a reasoned interpretation of the data.
>
>
> I don't deeply care about whether Jesus was a
> historical person or not, although I think he was.
> I could be wrong and tomorrow or next year in ten
> years I might be shown to be wrong in my opinion.
> I'm an agnostic. I *am* interested in the
> discussion of the subject, however.

Consensus, though important, should still, and continuously, be challenged. It's a double-edged sword.

For example, I doubt there's anyone on this thread, including Ehrman himself, who accepts the miraculous and supernatural aspects of the NT. We dismiss it out of hand. Ehrman himself changed his mind on this topic during his adult lifetime. Contrary to 2000 years of consensus. The problem with the consensus in this instance is that it is predicated on the notion that the NT is factual. That premise tainted the consensus for centuries.

For how many centuries did scholars believe the actual disciples of Christ authored the synoptic gospels?

And of course there are the Gnostic Gospels discovered at Nag Hammadi in the 1940s. Prior to that, all we knew of the various gnostic "heresies" was what patristic writers discussed in their polemical works. Victors write histories. And they have agendas. But with the discovery at Nag Hammadi, the entire discipline changed. We now have an entirely new set of documents which date approximately to the same time as the oldest of the synoptic gospels. And this had an impact on historical consensus not just about the gnostics, but also about Christianity.

I like the point you brought up about Foucault's points of power, but it's been a very long time since I read Foucault that I only have a vague recollection. Guess it's time for me to go back and re-read that some more.

Just some random thoughts. Thanks again for the threads on the Ehrmann book. Very interesting.

Erin

lulu you claim "Science tries to predict the future"? Is that what the science of paleontology does, pridict the future?
How about archeology? Geology? Do those sciences only try to predict the future?

Sorry, your claim about science is just plain false.

Yeah, actually in some disciplines it does. The strength of a hypothesis is its ability to predict outcomes. This is particularly true of the physical sciences.

The statement "Science tries to predict the future" is a global statment about all sciences. You misunderstand science. It is not to pridict outcomes. It is to test to see if the expected outcomes are correct. A hypothesis is "a proposed explanation for a phenomenon" not a prediction. One then tests to see if that proposed explanation is true or not. Again, not a prediction. It test so see if the proposal matches reality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 12:21PM by MJ.

One of the reasons I believe the theory of evolution is because a number of different branches of science have independently come to the same conclusion regarding the theory of evolution. Often they bring two or more scientific disciplines together. The evidence is then published for all to read and decide for themselves. I do not have a poll, but the biological scientists that I know that do research into HIV say they could get nowhere without understanding evolution. But that is not enough for me. I have also examined evidence from geologists and archaeologists for myself.

Now, as far as the claim that there is consensus among scientists that there was a historical Jesus, I have seen no evidence to back up that claim. I have only seen that someone made that claim. The claim that there WAS (a statement of FACT) really has only come from a few "biblical scholars" (what ever that means), and not from from a broader scientific base. What I have seen a lot of is statements like "Finding this town mentioned in the bible during the time Jesus was said to have existed..." Then I see a bunch of people claiming this is proof of Jesus. BS. When I examine the evidence for an actual Jesus, for myself, I find it lacking, very lacking.

One would expect people to remember the past and to imagine the future. But in fact, when discoursing or writing about history, they imagine it in terms of their own experience, and when trying to gauge the future they cite supposed analogies from the past: till, by a double process of repetition, they imagine the past and remember the future.

--Sir Lewis Namier--
--"Symmetry and Repetition"--


Historians do better to forget the present entirely when thinking and writing about the past.

Human, very much appreciating your writing of late. Thank you.