Primacy of Marcion and implications for historicity

[mlinssen]

Here's another tidbit from Akenson's Appendix D and his discussion of historical methods related to the "historical Jesus":

Be clear here what I am not arguing. I am not suggesting that the various fragments, fugitive gospels, and extra-canonical epistles are of no historical value. They are of great utility in the understanding of the development of Christianity as a form of Judahism and, then, as an independent religion; they are of virtually no value as independent attestations of the various statements made concerning the historical Yeshua, for they are subordinate and dependent sets of the larger phenomenon to which they are said to be witnesses. Secondly, I am not laying down an apodictic argument that it is impossible for extra-canonical items to have force as independent witnesses to the historical Yeshua, but only that the presently-available items have none: because none of them has an assured provenance, much less a documentary independent provenance.

And that is exactly why I stick to strict textual criticism that primarily deals with content, in order to establish provenance of one text over the other by demonstrating direction of dependence

the development of Christianity as a form of Judahism and, then, as an independent religion

is a crazy assumption of course, based on nothing but bias. But I would expect nothing less of someone who busies the word Yeshua, and it is obvious why he rejects whatever is outside of the NT: it greatly lacks Jewishness

Well, surprise surprise - so does the NT. There's a Judaic background to the Stage but all that Jesus did is piss on the stage props

[neilgodfrey]

. . . . But I would expect nothing less of someone who busies the word Yeshua, . . . .

Akenson uses Yeshua when he means the figure who is deemed Jewish when discussed by scholars and changes to Jesus when he refers to the figure when he appears in a distinctively Christian context.

His usage is not some showy smartarsery.

and it is obvious why he rejects whatever is outside of the NT: it greatly lacks Jewishness

Sigh sigh sigh. GDon, andrewcriddle, and now mlinssen .... commenting about books and authors and writings without having actually read them, or having read only snippets of them and other blurbs.... Akenson does not "reject whatever is outside of the NT" at all.

[GakuseiDon]

Sigh sigh sigh. GDon, andrewcriddle, and now mlinssen

Welcome to the club, mlinssen! There are many of us here now. Unfortunately I forgot the chief advice of our club:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU

A good rule of thumb: you get about 3 good responses from Neil, and then he moves to personal attacks. I do love his blog, vridar, and recommend people interested in the topics that come up here to have a read.

[neilgodfrey]

Sigh sigh sigh. GDon, andrewcriddle, and now mlinssen

Welcome to the club, mlinssen! There are many of us here now. Unfortunately I forgot the chief advice of our club:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU

GDon, I thought you were busy preparing a response to how how historians really do ascertain "facts" as opposed to constructing hypotheses. Do you finally concede that you never read any of the posts I linked to before claiming to rebut them with points I never made?

Looks like the sole criterion for membership to your club is: pretend you have read what you haven't and spout off as if you know how to rebut a point being made while ignoring entirely the point being made. It takes some gall to be able to pull it off.

[neilgodfrey]

Sigh sigh sigh. GDon, andrewcriddle, and now mlinssen

Welcome to the club, mlinssen! There are many of us here now. Unfortunately I forgot the chief advice of our club:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU

A good rule of thumb: you get about 3 good responses from Neil, and then he moves to personal attacks. I do love his blog, vridar, and recommend people interested in the topics that come up here to have a read.

What personal attack, GDon? Do you mean pointing out that you did not read what you inferred you had read and were responding to? Having your very real pretence exposed is a "personal attack"?? Seriously.

[neilgodfrey]

GDon, instead of complaining that you are being "personally attacked" when I point out that you have clearly not read a single one of the posts you claimed to be addressing, and for misleadingly appearing to claim I said things I never said, simply move on, go back and read them, then respond to the arguments and points being made.

Please.

Just to be clear: here is what I wrote and that GDon construes as a "personal attack":

commenting about books and authors and writings without having actually read them, or having read only snippets of them and other blurbs

My god-- what an unreasonably high bar I expect of Don, Andrew, and mlinssen.

As someone warned me in a PM -- beware the gaslighting Gakusei.

[GakuseiDon]

GDon, instead of complaining that you are being "personally attacked" when I point out that you have clearly not read a single one of the posts you claimed to be addressing, and for misleadingly appearing to claim I said things I never said, simply move on, go back and read them, then respond to the arguments and points being made.

Neil, this is what I asked for, to which you gave me those links. I've highlighted the part that interested me:

Do you mean that historians have actually constructed cases to establish historicity, when there has been doubt in the historicity of that person? If there are such cases, do you have an example? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would be interesting to see an actual example (more than one if you have them!) of a case constructed by historians to establish historicity. A link to your excellent vridar website would be enough, if it outlines the steps actual historians have used to conclude historicity of an actual ancient person when there has been doubt.

It goes to the prior probability of a Bayesian analysis: what does experience tell us when historians have addressed questions similar to evaluating the existence of a figure in history where the data is as marginal as we have for Jesus? I'm still interested in this question!

If I missed where you have outlined the steps historians have used to conclude historicity (or otherwise) of an actual ancient person when there has been doubt that person existed in those links you gave, then I sincerely apologise! But I read through those links, and you haven't given me what I asked for. That's not a criticism of you by the way, it's just how things go when moving through discussions. I'm after details of the actual evaluation done for an actual case of investigation of historicity.

So, let's get the discussion back on track! What is the closest case we have to the marginal data that we have for Jesus whereby historians have asked the question "did this figure exist", and have come away with the conclusion of "exists", "don't exists" or "can't know either way". If it is in the links, I'll have to ask you to quote from them, I'm afraid, as I didn't find it myself. Thanks!

[GakuseiDon]

Actually, I'll start a separate thread on what I'm asking. It is part of the implications of the primacy of Marcion's Gospel, but the concepts deserve their own consideration. Neil is most welcome to join in! It least for his first three responses!

[neilgodfrey]

GDon, instead of complaining that you are being "personally attacked" when I point out that you have clearly not read a single one of the posts you claimed to be addressing, and for misleadingly appearing to claim I said things I never said, simply move on, go back and read them, then respond to the arguments and points being made.

Neil, this is what I asked for, to which you gave me those links. I've highlighted the part that interested me:

Do you mean that historians have actually constructed cases to establish historicity, when there has been doubt in the historicity of that person? If there are such cases, do you have an example? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm not saying you're wrong, but it would be interesting to see an actual example (more than one if you have them!) of a case constructed by historians to establish historicity. A link to your excellent vridar website would be enough, if it outlines the steps actual historians have used to conclude historicity of an actual ancient person when there has been doubt.

It goes to the prior probability of a Bayesian analysis: what does experience tell us when historians have addressed questions similar to evaluating the existence of a figure in history where the data is as marginal as we have for Jesus? I'm still interested in this question!

If I missed where you have outlined the steps historians have used to conclude historicity (or otherwise) of an actual ancient person when there has been doubt that person existed in those links you gave, then I sincerely apologise! But I read through those links, and you haven't given me what I asked for. That's not a criticism of you by the way, it's just how things go when moving through discussions. I'm after details of the actual evaluation done for an actual case of investigation of historicity.

So, let's get the discussion back on track! What is the closest case we have to the marginal data that we have for Jesus whereby historians have asked the question "did this figure exist", and have come away with the conclusion of "exists", "don't exists" or "can't know either way". If it is in the links, I'll have to ask you to quote from them, I'm afraid, as I didn't find it myself. Thanks!

Baloney, GDon. I pointed out to you that Bayesian analysis is not how it works. Bayes is used for assessing hypotheses. And you complained that I only compared Jesus with figures for whom we have coins etc -- which was outright false.

You are looking for something that doesn't exist and I told you what does exist and what historians work with. They don't work with cases like Jesus because Jesus is not a fact, but a hypothesis.

There is no "marginal data" for "marginally historical figures". Historians do not work with "marginally historical persons" or "marginally historical events". They simply don't.

Historians are interested in what they can see happened -- actually happened -- in the past and they seek to explain it.

Andrew suggested Pythagoras was a figure who met your "marginality" conclusion but I pointed out that the evidence for existence, like existence itself, is not marginal. It is there.

You are asking me to give you a figure with comparable grounds for probability of existence as biblical scholars assign for Jesus -- thus trying to demonstrate Jesus is not unique among persons studied by historians. But that is wrong. Evidence for Jesus' historicity is indeed taken by biblical scholars as a class - and methodology - of its own.

But I read through those links, and you haven't given me what I asked for. . . .

Nonsense. Your responses clearly demonstrated you had no idea what was in those posts.

If it is in the links, I'll have to ask you to quote from them, I'm afraid, as I didn't find it myself.

You should have read them.

[GakuseiDon]

You are looking for something that doesn't exist and I told you what does exist and what historians work with.

So there are no comparable cases to Jesus that non-biblical historians have examined. Got you.

In your opinion, is there enough information for historians to evaluate Paul's letters, for example? To come to some conclusions about them? Or would they just say "nope! not touching those"?

You are looking for something that doesn't exist and I told you what does exist and what historians work with.

They don't work with cases like Jesus because Jesus is not a fact, but a hypothesis.[/quote]
Historians don't create hypotheses about ancient people and ancient events? I genuinely thought that they did. Can I ask you to clarify what you mean? It seems a statement that is evidently incorrect.

There is no "marginal data" for "marginally historical figures". Historians do not work with "marginally historical persons" or "marginally historical events". They simply don't.

Again, that seems to be a statement that is incorrect, based on what I've read.

These are important questions! I'll grant that I have the role of professional historian incorrect, and how studies of history are performed. But as far as I've seen, the study of ancient history is full of speculation and hypotheses. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But what you are saying seems incorrect.

I'd love to continue the conversation with you, Neil! Getting to the philosophy of how we should approach ancient Christian literature is an important one, and I think we'd all be interested in it on this board.