Inconsistency in reasoning used by John T when assessing ancient texts.
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2022 4:08 pm
I hope that this thread is not inappropriate - if if it, then feel free to delete it.
I have noticed that John T, within this forum, employs two standards when evaluating texts. Each standard, on its own, is a legitimate, and perhaps useful, way to assess texts - but they are in stark contradiction to each other and, if applied consistently, would lead to conclusions opposite to what John T espouses.
When assessing Buddhist texts, John T emphasizes how they are written descriptions of events from hundreds of years before the Buddhist texts were written down and include features similar to those found in Greek myths. From these facts, John T concludes that Buddhist texts record myths influenced by Greek myths rather than true events.
If John T were to apply this reasoning consistently, then he would dismiss the Jews' scriptures as similarly containing myths (even if not perhaps to the degree that Gmirkin does). After all, the Jews' scriptures are written descriptions of events from hundreds of years before the Jewish texts were written down and include features similar to those found in Greek myths and other myths from the ancient near and middle east.
But when analyzing Jewish texts, John T takes their claims as true even when the texts describe Abraham as consulting the Book of Enoch, a text which only the Ethiopian Christians (and maybe Ethiopian Jews?) regard as authentic.
If John T were to apply this reasoning consistently, then he would accept Buddhist texts as being fundamentally reliable insofar as they describe actual events.
I can provide citations for John T's opinions about this if asked.
Some may say, given my user name and skepticism about non-Buddhists' scriptures' claims, that I am only following to opposite inconsistency to that from John T. But I say that the earliest Buddhist texts - by which is meant the earliest stratum from the Pali Canon - are undeniably recordings of oral traditions of the sort which could have been memorized over hundreds of years. This is not so with the Jewish texts which John T cites.
I have noticed that John T, within this forum, employs two standards when evaluating texts. Each standard, on its own, is a legitimate, and perhaps useful, way to assess texts - but they are in stark contradiction to each other and, if applied consistently, would lead to conclusions opposite to what John T espouses.
When assessing Buddhist texts, John T emphasizes how they are written descriptions of events from hundreds of years before the Buddhist texts were written down and include features similar to those found in Greek myths. From these facts, John T concludes that Buddhist texts record myths influenced by Greek myths rather than true events.
If John T were to apply this reasoning consistently, then he would dismiss the Jews' scriptures as similarly containing myths (even if not perhaps to the degree that Gmirkin does). After all, the Jews' scriptures are written descriptions of events from hundreds of years before the Jewish texts were written down and include features similar to those found in Greek myths and other myths from the ancient near and middle east.
But when analyzing Jewish texts, John T takes their claims as true even when the texts describe Abraham as consulting the Book of Enoch, a text which only the Ethiopian Christians (and maybe Ethiopian Jews?) regard as authentic.
If John T were to apply this reasoning consistently, then he would accept Buddhist texts as being fundamentally reliable insofar as they describe actual events.
I can provide citations for John T's opinions about this if asked.
Some may say, given my user name and skepticism about non-Buddhists' scriptures' claims, that I am only following to opposite inconsistency to that from John T. But I say that the earliest Buddhist texts - by which is meant the earliest stratum from the Pali Canon - are undeniably recordings of oral traditions of the sort which could have been memorized over hundreds of years. This is not so with the Jewish texts which John T cites.