NT Reliability

[PaulS]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

 

Ehrman makes no claim that there is absolute certainty - and, yet, he actually states there is no absolute certainty - and I provided the quote. I didn't make this up, I quoted an expert.

If Ehrman makes no claim that we can affirm beyond a reasonable doubt, does he then (like above) actually state, somewhere, that the gist is not beyond a reasonable doubt?  Does he even use this language, this phrase?  You now say you can't provide a quote, so you were not quoting an expert, it's simply your interpretation, your opinion of Ehrman - not his actual words? 

It was (or now only seemed) apparent, given that you have been evoking Ehrman on this topic, that you had read something that I had not or that I missed or even forgotten - I was interested in comparing and contrasting his 'certainty' quote with the his 'reasonable doubt' quote and the context for both. And, it's not even there?

Does Ehrman ever, regarding the gist, use the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt?" I remain interested in knowing if he did or did not. If Ehrman doesn't use this language, doesn't make this claim, is there a reason - especially in light of the fact that he does use the language of and did make the 'no certainty' claim? If he did use it, does the context indicate an equivalency with the certainty quote or does it indicate a different evaluation (to be clear I am not asking for your opinion or your interpretation). And don't try to obfuscate by saying it should be obvious. It is obvious that there is no absolute certainty in this venture and Ehrman took the time to state the obvious! Why would he not do it again (again I am not asking for your opinion)?

 

Come on Paul. 

It is clear to me that Erhman is not believing that the gist is beyond reasonable doubt as no doubt it is clear to you that Erhman does not claim the the 'gist' of Jesus is historically verifiable.  A question you continue to refuse to answer.  I understand the dodge on your behalf but hoped you would be able to overcome it.  It seems you can't.  I will offer you one last chance - do you think the gist of Jesus you have mentioned, is historically verifiable?

[thormas]

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

It is clear to me that Erhman is not believing that the gist is beyond reasonable doubt as no doubt it is clear to you that Erhman does not claim the the 'gist' of Jesus is historically verifiable.  A question you continue to refuse to answer.  I understand the dodge on your behalf but hoped you would be able to overcome it.  It seems you can't.  I will offer you one last chance - do you think the gist of Jesus you have mentioned, is historically verifiable?

Still nothing from you Paul? ...................Nothing! 

 

My issues were: the 'actual words of the NT writers,' no absolute certainty, and the historical reliability of the gist material. (I delivered actual references).

Your issues were verifiability and NRD; I asked for and trusted that you would provide the Ehrman quotes so that I would not merely be offering an opinion but I could read what he wrote first. You didn't deliver. 

 

I have had a position on NRD and verifiability for a while (actually a 'non-position' position presented around a series of questions) but after seeing your last response about avoiding, I waited on it.  I was curious if you would go there again even when being called on not delivering on Ehrman. Rather than own up to it -  you doubled down, diverted and went to avoidance again.  As predicted :+{

 

What does seem clear, given that you have provided no references to support it and apparently there are none (?), is that Ehrman says nothing about 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'  Likewise, it seems that Ehrman does not claim that the gist is or is not historically verifiable. You have not delivered and I have and continue to look  - but have found nothing to date. Interestingly he does confirm historical reliability and 'complete plausibility' (see above) :+}   :+}   :+} 

 

 

[thormas]

On 11/2/2019 at 7:48 PM, PaulS said:

......why you are avoiding it - either you think the gist is historically verifiable, or you don't.  

My non-position position written yesterday (and tweaked today):

No avoidance, I was waiting, still waiting on your references (and reply).

 

My position is that there is no scholarly position on verifiability:  it does not, apparently, rise to a sufficient level of interest or importance for scholars to comment on. Perhaps, given the nature of ancient history and biblical scholarship, it is irrelevant. What does rise to sufficient levels of interest and great importance for scholars is the historical reliability, plausibility, historical accuracy and (one of my favorites) "points of genuine convergence at the level of historical fact" of the gist material about Jesus (BTW, these are words scholars actually use :+}  

The bottom line is that apparently scholars don't use the terms that Paul has introduced. If they do, Paul has not referenced them when asked. He offers no scholarly references that support his use or application of them to the material. Regardless, he wants others to tell him what they think of something that is not even on scholars' radar: not an issue, nor a concern??

The standard, the real issue, that the actual scholars use is 'reliability' - that position works for them so it works for me.

 It doesn't work for Paul and to that end he brings us 'historical verification' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - terms apparently not used, positions not taken, by scholars.

If Ehrman doesn't use this language, doesn't make this claim, is there a reason - especially in light of the fact that he does use the terms and claims historically reliable and completely plausible? I don't know, I have not been able to find any references for verification and BRD - neither has Paul but he states it is clear to him what Ehrman believes. Apparently, although Ehrman doesn't even use this terminology or discuss these issues - what he really means when he doesn't talk about them - is clear to Paul :+}

Unlike Paul, Ehrman doesn't go with, "it should be obvious." Ehrman states and explains everything that is important and pertinent in his field of study. He is after all a teacher and teachers don't rely on what is or assumed to be obvious. As I have shown, earlier in this thread, Ehrman takes great pains to be understood, stating exactly what he means and clarifying when another scholar totally screws up what he meant. What appears to be obvious it that Ehrman doesn't use these terms!

Consideration of 'gist' material is thoroughly researched and reasonable. Scholarly doubts have been satisfied, they have considered everything, applied rigorous criteria and have made a reasonable conclusion or verdict. Their verification seems to be 'beyond reasonable doubts:' If they had reasonable doubts as they do concerning other material that is not considered gist - they would have made a different decision, come to a different verdict. Their scholarly position is about 'historical reliability.'  

 

Note the use of words like apparently and seems to, etc.: still waiting on (and researching myself) possible scholarly sightings from Paul :+}

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

Around and around - again, this is going nowhere.  You won't answer my question because apparently I won't answer your question.  You seem to need a word for word quote that scholars actually use some word or another.  I can't explain it any better to you than I already have.

You won't answer about the gist being historically verifiable.  I'm not interested in this debate any more Thormas.  It is boring me.  Answer or don't answer.  It is now of minor significance to me (I've been away a couple of days and thoroughly enjoyed not feeling any desire to get back to this thread).  I know you will want the last word on this, so please, go ahead.  I won't be posting further in this thread because frankly, it is going nowhere.

[Burl]

Paul quits.  Thormas wins.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

Around and around - again......  You won't answer my question...............  You seem to need a word for word quote rather than a convincing argument.  Perhaps that is what secures a point for you.  I don't know and don't particularly care for it.  You won't answer about the gist being historically verifiable (which we both know it is not) but will continue to double-down on it's historical reliability (even though of course no scholar can stipulate to what degree it is reliable - obviously not beyond a reasonable doubt though).  

Not interested in the games ................ I won't be posting further in this thread.

It came to a screeching halt with your non-issue question, so I answered it in the only appropriate way. I guess you simply don't like the answer. This is, after all, just your issue and it seems that you want others to comment on what is not said by scholars about what is not a question for them and not relevant to the actual subject. You're on a merry-go-round of your own.

A quote is actually 'word for word' what a scholar has said in his/her book. But you don't particularly care for them when trying to make a convincing argument about subjects that are the speciality of those experts? An interesting admission.

No doubling down - merely a statement of fact - backed by 'word for word' quotes from the experts - about the 'historical reliability' of the gist material.  You can check their quotes about the 'degree of reliability.' What you won't be able to check (at least so far) are the quotes and positions for your BRD and verifiability issue. 

 

There were never any games on my part as evidenced by the actual work throughout this thread only an expectation that others would do the same.