Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Kapyong wrote:It's a test based on a comparison.

It is a test of the argument from silence. It is not an argument from a comparison to Paul. It is a test of the application of the argument from silence. Perhaps you could say that I was "comparing" the way the argument from silence was applied to texts, but a "comparison" was not the point, especially not a "comparison" of persons. It was another instance of the set of applications of the argument from silence, in which the conclusion was clearly false and unreliable. That casts doubt on the use of this argument generally. What evidence do we have that this argument from silence works?

(In the previous post, I explained a bit more about the nature of the criticism of the argument from silence and the need for those using it to justify their use of it ... and why there is no free pass, just for shooting down the attempt to put such arguments in context and illustrate their unreliability. They need to stand on their own, if they are sound, with proper justification.)

Kapyong wrote:Everyone used the words and concepts related to comparison, throughout the thread, including you Peter Kirby

Sorry, I didn't remember all the details of that thread. The structure of the argument was not a comparison of Rutherford to Paul. It was a test of the methods of applying an argument from silence.

Kapyong wrote:It clearly was a comparison argument.

The argument under consideration is the argument from silence. It is a criticism regarding the methodology used in that argument. (Do you seriously think I ever believed that the historical situations of Rutherford and Paul were similar -- that I was trying to make that kind of point? Do you think that the argument from silence being used is validated because you can lob some sophomoric criticism at a simple attempt to get people to think about how such arguments from silence can and do fail?)

Kapyong wrote:There is no evidence that any reader failed to understand your argument

Even if that were true (and it's daft), who cares? Deal with the truth of the matter, not the history of an internet squabble.

Kapyong wrote:The clear and significant differences between a first century founding Christian, and a 17th century believer, make this particular comparand worthless for your (quite good) over-all argument.

The argument from silence is the argument being criticized as methodologically unsound.

Perhaps the whole thing is overkill. The argument must sustain itself in the first place. I was attempting to get people to use their brain cells and understand that the argument from silence has serious problems. Apparently, that was futile. Perhaps it still is.

Kapyong wrote:Sorry Peter Kirby, but I think it's clear that you look down on mythicists (aka Jesus Myth proponents) as just ignorant morons spouting B.S.. Which probably explains why some others here have been so rude and personally abusive to me for being a mythicist.

A bit funny because one of my main interests in this forum is exploring what is commonly called mythicism. Also funny because this forum has a very large number of posters with similar interests.

I look down on stupidity for being stupid, though. I confess to that.

I also am allowed to criticize a particular argument, even if it's for my own position. That should be obvious.

Kapyong wrote:" We don't serve your kind in here, thank you very much ! "

Excuse me, but if you're not going to show respect, why should you expect it?

You quoted, as criticism, several dismissive summary statements from random idiots.

Kapyong wrote:Sadly, even our favourite BC&H forum has entered the Post-Truth Era
The truth and the facts are no match for the power of Right-Think.

Oh, please. Nonsense. Somebody criticizes one aspect of one mythicist argument and you're talking about a post-truth era and assuming that I am, in general, hostile to mythicism.

There are some posters on this board who are more dismissive regarding mythicism than I would like, but that's all part of the free exchange of ideas, is it not? This forum is not edited.

P.S. But maybe it's not really Peter Kirby at all ?

I have very little time and very little patience for going around in circles.

You've told me nothing that I don't know, and you haven't demonstrated that the argument from silence works. This is a waste of my time until something new is said, and time is something I have very little of. You've also wasted my time by refusing to accept my characterization of my own argument, insisting that it has the ridiculous structure of a comparison of Paul and Rutherford. You've focused on the details of an ancient internet conversation and have refused to make substantive criticism regarding the argument from silence itself.

There was some clarification regarding how the discussion could advance in my previous post. Unfortunately, none of that was picked up on, and the discussion has not advanced at all. Instead you're concerned that I'm too mean to mythicists.

PS -- If it were not obvious, I am currently very sympathetic to "mythicism."

Gday Peter Kirby and all

Kapyong wrote:It's a test based on a comparison.

Peter Kirby wrote:It is a test of the argument from silence. It is not an argument from a comparison to Paul.

That's exactly what it was, according to the very first sentence your own original OP - a test based on COMPARING Rutherford's writings with Paul's as a way of testing this particular argument from silence. But then you declared it was NOT a comparison, for some bizarre reason, even though the whole thread talked about how good the comparison was, or wasn't. Now you twist and turn, trying to wriggle out of your basic mistake. I doubt this is the real Peter Kirby.

Kapyong wrote:Everyone used the words and concepts related to comparison, throughout the thread, including you Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby wrote:Sorry, I didn't remember all the details of that thread. The structure of the argument was not a comparison of Rutherford to Paul. It was a test of the methods of applying an argument from silence.

No, you didn't. But I read it thoroughly and carefully. Your test was based specifically on :

Peter Kirby wrote:comparing the Pauline epistles to the letters of some divine of later date, about whom there can be no doubt that he accepted Jesus to have been a person of flesh.

Then you decided to disagree about the word 'comparison' - for no clear reason. But now you cannot admit your error, and instead attempt to obfuscate and distract.

Kapyong wrote:There is no evidence that any reader failed to understand your argument

Peter Kirby wrote:Even if that were true (and it's daft), who cares? Deal with the truth of the matter, not the history of an internet squabble.

YOU cared, Peter Kirby - YOU brought it up :

Peter Kirby wrote:Why is that so hard to understand?

When everyone already understood. Of course we all know it's really a rhetorical question that means 'you're too stupid to understand'. My claim is true, and is not daft.

YOU brought up this 13 year old internet squabble, not realising that your own argument was refuted in it.

On the truth of the matter - why do you keep ignoring the matter of positive evidence for a spiritual/heavenly Jesus Christ ?

Kapyong wrote:The clear and significant differences between a first century founding Christian, and a 17th century believer, make this particular comparand worthless for your (quite good) over-all argument.

Peter Kirby wrote:The argument from silence is the argument being criticized as methodologically unsound.

Your argument failed because of your bad choice of comparand. Now you insist the bad comparison doesn't matter, that it was never a 'comparison' at all, but that your argument is somehow still sound.

Peter Kirby wrote:I was attempting to get people to use their brain cells and understand that the argument from silence has serious problems. Apparently, that was futile. Perhaps it still is.

Oh no, not futile at all Peter Kirby, rest assured
I can genuinely confirm that I certainly DO understand that the argument from silence has serious problems. Furthermore, I am quite confident that all members here have similar understanding. Indeed, you yourself, Peter Kirby, played a large part in our understanding with your thorough explanations and many arguments and repeated criticisms and multiple repetitions and repeated thorough criticisms with your multiple critical arguments against the argument from silence and many repeated reminders and multiple thorough criticisms repeating the arguments of your many repeated thorough critical lengthy arguments - that it has serious problems.

You have succeeded Peter Kirby
We are fully informed that the argument from silence has serious problems. That it requires supporting conditions to be a good argument :

• The author must have knowledge of the information, and
• the author must have motive to mention the information.

Which clearly DO apply to Paul.
But NOT Rutherford.

Peter Kirby wrote:A bit funny because one of my main interests in this forum is exploring what is commonly called mythicism. Also funny because this forum has a very large number of posters with similar interests. I look down on stupidity for being stupid, though. I confess to that.

I do not think it is funny at all
You have ridiculed your opponents as variously 'morons' or 'idiots' or 'stupid' etc. That is the epitome of a personal attack - ad hominem abuse. It's not how scholars and reasonable adults behave.

Peter Kirby wrote:I also am allowed to criticize a particular argument, even if it's for my own position. That should be obvious.

You certainly are allowed to criticize a particular argument. NOT to abuse your opponents personally. You must know that.

Kapyong wrote:" We don't serve your kind in here, thank you very much ! "

Peter Kirby wrote:Excuse me, but if you're not going to show respect, why should you expect it?

You're kidding ?
My rhetorical statement is entirely representative of your behaviour, it is not dis-respectful to point that out. But ridiculing members as idiots and morons and stupid IS.

Peter Kirby wrote:You quoted, as criticism, several dismissive summary statements from random idiots.

I beg your pardon ?
Those 'random idiots' are actually forum members engaging you in discussion.

Peter Kirby wrote:Oh, please. Nonsense. Somebody criticizes one aspect of one mythicist argument and you're talking about a post-truth era and assuming that I am, in general, hostile to mythicism.

'Criticizes one aspect of one mythicist argument ' ?
Actually you rudely dismissed us all personally as morons and idiots etc., but rejected all criticism, and also stead-fastly ignored the issue of positive evidence for a spiritual or heavenly Jesus Christ.

Peter Kirby wrote:There was some clarification regarding how the discussion could advance in my previous post. Unfortunately, none of that was picked up on, and the discussion has not advanced at all. Instead you're concerned that I'm too mean to mythicists. PS -- If it were not obvious, I am currently very sympathetic to "mythicism."

There was some discussion about the example of Mother Teresa - both in the original thread, and more recently, but unfortunately you didn't pick up on that. Like the positive evidence for a spiritual/heavenly Jesus Christ.

You think my argument is that your 'too mean' ?


Frankly sir,
your behaviour here has been childish, irrational, emotional and bigoted.

If this really IS Peter Kirby, then my respect for you has fallen some.


Kapyong

Kapyong wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:It is a test of the argument from silence. It is not an argument from a comparison to Paul.

That's exactly what it was, according to the very first sentence your own original OP - a test based on COMPARING Rutherford's writings with Paul's as a way of testing this particular argument from silence. But then you declared it was NOT a comparison, for some bizarre reason, even though the whole thread talked about how good the comparison was, or wasn't.

Still operating at the wrong level. This isn't about Paul of Rutherford or whoever. It's about the fact that an argument from silence is a logical fallacy. As a methodology it doesn't work. That was the point of Peter's effort. I'm sure you've heard the fact that lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lack. See the Rutherford stuff as an effort to show you that fact. You have no evidence for your c.150 claim. You just have a lack of evidence. You've made a long list of lack of evidence and yet you have got no further with your 150 CE claim. You can't. You've got nothing to use to support your claim. (And nothing comes of nothing.)

I've avoided this whole thread up to now as it is pointless and I think Peter should have for the same reason. If you insist on pushing the logical fallacy, no argument will dissuade you. And adding ad hominem to argument from silence doesn't raise your credibility.

---

So Peter, puh-lease give this a miss. I'm back to avoiding the thread. I just wanted to see what bad deeds you were up to!

.
Argument from silence can be a valid or cogent argument if there are good premises for it. And if it is supported by other argumentation.

See

• 1. Argument from silence -

• "To make an argument from silence is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than on presence.[2][3] In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the assertion that an author is ignorant of a subject, based on the lack of references to it in the author's available writings.
  
  "Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event [or document] not mentioned."

and

• 2. https://scienceandotherdrugs.wordpress. ... m-silence/ -

• Officially, the argument from silence is a fallacy. But, surprisingly, it doesn’t have to be.
  An argument from silence can be entirely valid, provided it is presented in the right way ....
  
  
  Instead of saying:
  
  • If the Romans mentioned Jesus, he existed.
    The Romans didn’t mention Jesus.
    Therefore, Jesus didn’t exist.
  we reverse the order of the major premise:
  
  • If Jesus existed, the Romans should have [reasonably] mentioned him.
    The Romans didn’t [reasonably] mention Jesus.
    Therefore, Jesus didn’t exist.
  And, before your very eyes, we now have a valid syllogism! Just like magic.
  
  This actually is a valid syllogism:
  
  • If S, P
    Not-P
    ∴ Not-S
  But our work isn’t done. Not yet. Making an argument from silence valid produces a new premise that has to be evaluated. In this case: “If Jesus really existed (as the gospels depict), should we expect the Romans to have mentioned him?” And that question can actually be studied and discussed; it’s an opportunity for further inquiry instead of just an unquestionable endpoint. That’s another good way to tell fundamentalism and bad logic apart from good reasoning. Good arguments invite examination; bad arguments silence it.

Gday GakuseiDon and all

Kapyong wrote:That's exactly what the evidence shows - no Christian writer on record had Gospels before Justin.

GakuseiDon wrote:What about Aristides? I might have missed you referencing him earlier in this thread, but Aristides wrote around 120-130 CE.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-kay.html

• The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it...

Yes, I responded about Aristides up-thread -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2696&p=60095&hilit=Aristides#p60095

We also discussed him recently -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2337&p=52022&hilit=Aristides#p52022

I've brought up Aristides before that -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2174&p=50256&hilit=Aristides#p50256

Because Aristides has long been a part of my theory :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2133&p=47628&hilit=Aristides#p47628

I mentioned him back in 2014 e.g. -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=752&p=16625&hilit=Aristides#p16625
and here again -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=752&p=16525&hilit=Aristides#p16525

I made specific mention of him in a post here -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=752&p=16385&hilit=Aristides#p16385
and here :
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=752&p=16350&hilit=Aristides#p16350
Another previous whole post about Aristides -
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=752&p=15902&hilit=Aristides#p15902

I've been posting about him for years in various places :
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=281684
http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control= ... &mbrid=927

I think he is important because he gives the one and only clue I have ever seen on the dating of the spread of the Gospels. No-one else shares my excitement


Anyway, a lot has happened, here is my current over-view of the dating, which got lost in the kerfuffle, if anyone would like to discuss it -

Summation :

• Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 knows of a single un-named Gospel, mentioning a virgin, which can be read somewhere.
• Justin Martyr c.150 - has several books 'called Gospels', the memoirs of the Apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter.
• Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian inherits the books
• Tatian c.172 - produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, still no names.
• Irenaeus 180-190 - first to name all four Gospels.

[/list]


Kapyong

to Kapyong,

Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.

How do you know Papias knew only about rumours?
Papias said he was not much interested about books: "For I did not imagine that things out of books would help me as much as the utterances of a living and abiding voice."
But that does not mean he was not aware of gMark, more so because that gospel had been known before by "Luke", "Matthew" & "John", who were working on more than just rumours about it.

Cordially, Bernard

Gday TedM and all

Kapyong wrote:But what is really meaningful is that not one Christian writer on record before Justin Martyr had his hands on any Gospels.
So no-one could have challenged the newly published Gospels as not historical.
Kapyong

TedM wrote:This is a logical error Kapyong. It's so obvious to me. I can't understand why you simply can't see it. Even if you are right about a lack of evidence, you are certainly wrong to conclude that it means there was no oral tradition regarding the material.

I AM right about the historical evidence :

• not one Christian writer on record before Justin Martyr had his hands on any Gospels

From which it directly follows :

• no-one could have challenged the newly published Gospels as not historical

It is NOT a logical error, it's a simple fact.
I said nothing about an alleged oral tradition at all.

TedM wrote:How can you not see that basic possibility?

Hmmm, I CAN see that possibility TedM, why are you claiming otherwise ?
Meanwhile - I'm sure that you can also see the possibility that there was NO oral tradition.

So, let's all be clear shall we :

• it is possible there was an oral tradition,
• it is possible there was NO oral tradition.

If YOU claim there was an oral tradition, then I expect you to produce actual evidence FOR it. Not just an argument from silence, OK ? Nor any assumptions that it must have existed, because Jesus Christ existed - that's plain circular reasoning.

TedM wrote:And why are you ignoring my comments about Papias?

Why are you ignoring my comments about Papias?

TedM wrote:And why have you also not responded to my question about oral discussions?

How can you possibly base an argument on speculated discussions from two millenia ago between unknown persons ?

What about all those verbal discussions between Paul and his followers about how Jesus Christ was just a spiritual being who never came to earth ? How do you respond to those discussions ?

TedM wrote:You seem to be one of those persons who will only accept what the evidence shows,

Did you really say that ?

TedM wrote:and is unwilling to think about what are logical possibilities based on what evidence shows.

On the contrary, I think about possibilities all the time - like all those speeches about Jesus Christ being a heavenly being who never visited earth, e.g. What do YOU think of THAT possibility, TedM ?

Look -
It seems your entire argument is based on speculation then - on possibilities without evidence.

You are so convinced that Jesus Christ existed that you believe there MUST have been that oral tradition, even without evidence, even contrary to some evidence.

TedM wrote:The evidence shows that the authors of GLuke and GMatthew (and probably GJohn) knew about GMark.

So you really cite other Gospel writers as examples of sceptics who could have challenged that G.Mark as non-historical ?
Well, here's a sceptic who challenges whether that view is non-hysterical.

TedM wrote:That Papias knew about gospels by Mark and Matthew.

Nope.
Christian Papias (says Eusebius) knew RUMOURS of writings NOT called Gospels, and not much like our Gospels.
Are you claiming Christian Papias could and would have challenged those rumours somehow ?

TedM wrote:That Aristides knew about written gospels.

New believer Aristides knew of a SINGLE UN-NAMED Gospel probably 120-130 (or possibly 140.)
Are you claiming this excited new convert would have rejected the Gospel as non-historical because he remembered all events in Jerusalem from a CENTURY before his time ?

TedM wrote:They were all before Justin. People certainly could have challenged the Gospels as not historical prior to Justin. I just named 5 different people that could have done so,

NONE who actually could and would do so.

TedM wrote:So now you have changed your position. There is one! Hallelujah! But also you are now using new language saying 'knew any names of authors'. Is that really what you meant to say in the beginning, or have you modified your position?

No, I haven't changed my position.
You just aren't really paying attention

Here is my summary of the key evidence :

• Papias 100-130 knows rumours of two Gospel-like writings - by Mark (from Peter), and Matthew.
• Aristides 120-130 knows of a single un-named Gospel, mentioning a virgin, which can be read somewhere.
• Justin Martyr c.150 - has several books 'called Gospels', the memoirs of the Apostles, and the memoir(s) of Peter.
• Justin Martyr dies c.163 - his pupil Tatian inherits the books
• Tatian c.172 - produces the 'FromFour' Gospel harmony, still no names.
• Irenaeus 180-190 - first to name all four Gospels.

Do you you agree or not ?

Have you noted my preference for polite friendly discussion among equals ?

I look forward to hearing your considered views on the topic


Kapyong

spin wrote: It's about the fact that an argument from silence is a logical fallacy. As a methodology it doesn't work.

Is your position that the argument from silence NEVER should be used to get at the most likely truth? That would be an extreme position I simply can't agree with, but if that's your position I'd like to hear your rationalle for it.

I think spin's point is the same as my general observation about many of these 'new atheist' positions. The fact that we can't prove that Jesus existed doesn't mean that Jesus didn't exist. The fact that there it isn't clear when the gospel narrative was originally set (= ie. what year the gospel understood the events took place) doesn't mean it was originally set as a fable in no historical time frame. The fact that our earliest evidence for texts of the gospel comes from the middle of the second century doesn't mean that this is when they were first published.

It's the same thing with kabbalah and other mystical traditions. Surely Jewish mysticism, gematria and the like dates back to the period when Samaritans and Jews shared a tradition with one another because Jews and Samaritans have very similar mystical interests in the period where they didn't speak to one another (in any 'official' sense). The same thing can be garnered from rabbinic reports about the 'two powers' tradition. There seems to be two 'two powers' tradition - i.e. an early second commonwealth interpretation of the Pentateuch where 'two powers' were present and Moses was given the Torah (ten utterances) from the second power and a heretical group likely properly defined as 'Christian' according to our academic parlance which developed a strange mystical doctrine from these pre-existent beliefs and proof texts.

We can't allow ourselves to confuse 'can't prove definitively what something was' or 'how exactly it was defined' (= in the manner that a Big Mac is two all beef patties, special sauce, cheese, sesame seed bun) with that something should only be defined by evidence which is firmly defined and available for us.

Kapyong wrote:
I AM right about the historical evidence :

• not one Christian writer on record before Justin Martyr had his hands on any Gospels

From which it directly follows :

• no-one could have challenged the newly published Gospels as not historical

WRONG. It does NOT follow directly. All that follows is that no one who was aware of ONLY 'on record' writings could have challenged it. But EVERYONE who was aware of it through any other means could have challenged them. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Hmmm, I CAN see that possibility TedM, why are you claiming otherwise ?

Because you keep making completely illogical statements like the one above.

You are so convinced that Jesus Christ existed

I've said nothing to this effect. This is an assumption you have made without evidence in this thread. Shame shame.

TedM wrote:The evidence shows that the authors of GLuke and GMatthew (and probably GJohn) knew about GMark.

So you really cite other Gospel writers as examples of sceptics who could have challenged that G.Mark as non-historical ?
Well, here's a sceptic who challenges whether that view is non-hysterical.

SKEPTICS? What are you NOW talking about? Non-historical? Again, what are you talking about? You keep moving the poles. You have now added in "Skeptics", and "who challenge the view that G.Mark is non-historical". If you had said in the very beginning: I have a pet theory that involves the historicity of Jesus, and skeptics who challenge it, and the lack of mention of Gospels by name prior to Justin, and I find silence re all three of these issues as significant to it, then I probably wouldn't be here pointing out your numerous logical fallacies. But you didn't do that. Now I feel as though I have wasted a lot of time because you spent so much effort talking about them not being published without making it clear that you equate publishing with the naming of an author - which is a logical fallacy too. Works get 'published' anonymously. Maybe you just had this stuff in your head and thought it was obvious, but it wasn't. I'm done. You seem like a nice guy but I can't reason with you due to this kind of approach to a subject.

It does appear that Papias is the only one who mentioned a gospel by Mark and Matthew prior to Justin. But again I think it is unlikely that Justin didn't know WHICH apostles were thought to have written the memoirs. Do you think they all just appeared out of the blue and everyone said that they were written by the Apostles, without anyone actually naming which ones? Come on.