"I dunno" - was Re: Quotation from the JS
achillesz@usa.net achillesz@usa.net
Mon, 14 Dec 1998 21:03:17 -0500 (00913708997, 02003924864392@unifour.com)
> >Ed
> >> The facts that a)such an expression would have been
> >> offensive to Jesus' followers,
> >
> >Achilles̃
> >A is a "fact" which assumes the hypothesis in question.
>
> ED
>
> Nope, it's a fact independent of the hypothesis.
Achilles
One more time, very slowly. "The fact that such an expression would have been
offensive to Jesus' followers," is a statement which assumes the existence of
the historical Jesus.. It is nonsensical without that assumption - utterly
meaningless.
How can there be a group of Jesus' followers if there is no Jesus?
<snip>
> Achilles
>
> >
> >C might be true, but only if the historical jesus hypothesis itself is
> true is
> >C necessarily true. This rules it out as evidence of that hypothesis
> itself, as
> >it begs the question.
>
> Ed
>
> Wrong again. The text strata of which I speak is there independent of the
> historicity of Jesus; it's evidence for the historicity because of its
> nature, but would be observable whether Jesus was a historical figure or
> not.
Achilles
Ok, it's getting snipped so I will paste the statement under discussion in here
- "the earliest identifiable stratas of text don't reveal Jesus making such
claims" - this was your statement C.
The "strata" you are referring to is Q1, correct?
The Q1 sayings exist, independent of any hypothesis, stipulated. And they do
not feature any such statements, also stipulated.
The problem is, the existence of the sayings and that they make a "group" in
the sense of genre is not enough to support your conclusion.
As you say, "they would be observable whether Jesus was a historical figure or
not" - the mere fact that they observable is therefore *not* evidence that
Jesus was or was not a historical figure.
I assume you essentially follow Kloppenborg on this?
<snip> >> >(continuing Ed)
>> >> Nevertheless, the essence of this saying must be considered
> authentic
>> >> to Jesus because a) it's utterly incoherent with the
> notion of Christ
>> >> as in incarnation of an omniscient diety, and b)
> it's perfectly
>> >> coherent with what we know of the historical Jesus'
> views on 1st C.
>> >> Jewish apocalypsism.
>> >Achilles
>> >You conclude from that fact that it fits so well for your theory, and you
>> >imagine it cannot fit the mythicist position (a position I disagree with
>> >as well) - that it is authentic?!?
>> >Is this your idea of a joke?
>> Ed
>> The theory fits the evidence, not vice versa. But perhaps I'm just dumb:
>> Show me how it CAN fit the mythicist position. Show me a better
>> alternative, and I'll buy it.
> Achilles
> But the "evidence" you want the theory to fit with is a statement ("the essence
> of this saying MUST be considered authentic" - emphasis mine) which you
> have been unable to support without resorting to question begging.
>
> Ed
>
> Incorrect again. The fact that the "I dunno" saying makes no sense in its
> context is yet again independent of the historical Jesus hypothesis. It'd
Achilles
I agree, within either theory it sticks out. Which shows only that it is not
going to prove either of them over the other. Both of us can easily dream up
possible scenarios for how that passage came to be there till time ends, and
neither of us would ever prove anything of relevance.
> Achilles
>
> >Therefore I have
> >no obligation whatsoever to demonstrate it's compatibility with anything,
> until
> >and unless you can support your contention without begging the question.
>
> Ed
>
> Now, THIS is question begging. The mythicist hypothesis doesn't have any
> privilege as the default position in anyone's mind but yours.
Achilles
Of course it doesn't, it doesn't need that. The "evidence" you demanded I
reconcile is not evidence at all, at least in the way that it needs to be to
justify your claims, as I have no doubt is clear to everyone but you by now.
If there is any structural advantage to the mythicist position here at all, it
is only that it has less to prove, since it makes fewer claims.
I have never represented that I thought I or anyone else could prove that a
given position here was definitely correct - YOU asserted that one was
definitely correct, and the other definitely wrong and "absurd." All I set out
to do was to show that your unconsidered dismissal of Dougherty and claim of
ultimate truth for the product of the Jesus Seminar was unjustified, and I
believe I have achieved this.
/Achilles achillesz@usa.net
Random thought for the moment:
Bloodshed is not a spectator sport.
-- Lazarus to Ira Weatheral in Time Enough For Love